I agree with what you say, (or as i read what you say) in your, this last post. But the scholors seem (again as I read it) to be agreeing with your first post.
The idea one has to raise this force control this force or correctly apprehend this force.... is what I firmly agree with. The actual means, with consort I would expect would be most effective and utilizable but I would simply not outrule other means. As Tummo to my understanding may be sucessfully accomplished without the sexual componant of consort though the energies employeed may be as hand to fist.
But the scholors seem to be saying that sexual tantric practice can be equally obtained for effect with no consort..which I personally do not see how. Not that one could not engage to some beneficial effect but a lesser effect. Basically a consort would allow a degree of nonceptuality which with no concort is much more difficulate
The functionality of it seems beyond me. To excite the sex one must without consort have object of some sort to focus upon.Without object is the intention of tantric practice of sex to my understanding. Object I would expect could solely be pathways and things of that sort..... but that would make it seem then that the higher practice is without consort and the lesser being with consort...that seems not to be the case in my experience.
REason of vow is why a monastic may not engage with consort(as vow has karmic implication) not for reason of lesser practice.
But being not necessarily even buddhist find discussing this not all that important. I would not expect to engage either tantric practice completely successfully but do not think this is the only means to highest spiritual attainment in this human life. I suspect fear and pain may be utilized and the death process itself to great result...but who knows.The scholors say it I guess it is true for humans. I see no distinction in energy, just differing distinction in pathway. How can one say this or that thing inciting this or that pathway is more than the other?
I being not close to that thing of greatest enlightenment for human can not speak. What little I know speaks against that...so I don't care.
I then say....I am not buddhist nor I'd guess human
So what does it matter to me?
Mostly I's guess humans being as humans are...beating off or having joyfull orgasm with partner is what they call tantra.
I may beat off on occasion...I call it beating off
. I do try to dedicate it in a sort of way and pay attention to it and the things that elicit it, and the mind result of it(why do all sicknesses stop for that minute or so, why is conscious thought not possible in it? ) even the pathway of it as my entire practice is watching mind, and this is what I am instructed to do by spiritual friend ....but I know I am still just beating off.
But not a tantric practitioner am I...only a mind watcher. Not even mahamudra, that being to profound.
So take what I say with a grain of salt.......the scholors seem to agree with your, first statement.
So I stand corrected.
Your second statement I seem to agree with it totally in what I read it to be. As i read it.... it extends or amplifies the first to different meaning.
So I agree. But them maybe they would not agree..I won't spaek for them
AS to retention as opposed to expulsion...I would personally say I find differing effects of both. I expect both could be utilized as means. I would suppose the retention means has longer more profound effect, and would be preferable in most contexts. Then a monastic could participate and be still monastic....Yes I agree 100%. Then one could have their cake and eat it to. But of course I am but a layperson of little understanding of the profound. Monks however at times have said they did not participate in sex with female(or male) if no orifice was entered.(I forget the exact wording)...so I'd guess there are differing interpretations of this sex thing. Expulsion I would say would be normal sex most commonly not tantra. Occasionally tantra.... but as tantra without consort is a much more difficult practice, with potential of the same effect..... but as it is suchly much more difficult a lesser practice.
But this lowly layperson is uneducated and does not call himself buddhist...so consider source. I shouid never have entered into this discussion I'd guess.
Something drew me in..perhaps I was thinking of beating off or some other thing like that. The more i have watched that thing...the more I think it has little to no reality... in that what we have sex with is always concept. Not real, not a tiny bit. Not hair not color not skin not touch not feel...they all but remind us of concept we have developed that drives this thing of energy. And energy it is only it seems.
YOur comments tenzin, are well thought.
I could say what little I have learned in this life I have learned the most It seems from sex. But then..... would I not be very biased to continue that as practice...I would. I find no such implication in going to places of fear or impending death.....so I suspect I may say the same thing.....but am inclined to not say so publically as much. I would have to do such as much and that is very uncomfortable and uneasy. AS those places are not so easy and pleasant, and thusly unless very motivated to the spiritual I don't go to those places..... I don't say that so often.
So if I said to exculusion one or the other I would look very closely as to why I am saying that thing...but that's just me.
But I suspect I have learned equally from both. So a layperson of little education and small practice finds all equally beneficial...this and that
More profound peoples, and practices and schools of learning can qualify those things...I find all equal in that. I am simple.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.