Wednesday, November 11, 2015


I find Wedemeyer's claim that tantric ritual cannot be interpreted through the notion of “transgressive sacrality” --“the ritual inversion of social taboos, as a way of laying claim to psychological and physical powers repressed by social convention”-- very interesting. That to do so would be to read “the semiology of contemporary “spirituality” into late-millennium Indian religion, making sense of it through psychologization” (131). Rituals instead are specifically grounded in the cultural context in which they were formed, and are a medium for thinking about nondual gnosis, ritual purity, and freedom. (Connotative semiotics plays into this, the idea of intentional speech, that is ultimately ambiguous mythical speech and that makes signification appear as a “notification as like a statement of fact” 116). A question of interpretation in general: when discussing non dual actions or the idea of nondualism as a path to enlightenment, how does distinguishing between modes of interpretation, in terms of language, further this nondualist thought? To interpret something erroneously is a prominent theme throughout Buddhist text, as well as in tantric tradition (to use contemporary spirituality to make sense of it, or to distinguish between that which is purification and that which is defilement), however, if the world exists as non dual, how does non dualist thought manifest in the distinction between the correct logic and incorrect logic of interpretation? Is interpretation itself dualistic?

No comments:

Post a Comment