|
|
 |
Question I
Why has Christianity rejected many expressions of sexuality as antithetical to spirituality while various
Eastern traditions — Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism — have been more accepting of sexuality, have
even embraced sex as a vehicle for spiritual transcendence? What do you think about the connection, if any,
between sexuality and spirituality? In the Christian view, is Shakespeare's mortal coil, Milton's perfidious
bark, just a weight holding us down, preventing us from achieving greater divinity, or is the body, as Blake
explains, a portion of the soul discerned by the five senses?
|
|
Christianity,
with its sky-identified father god, views nature as a fallen realm that we must transcend and
conquer. Thus sexuality, as intrinsic to our naturalness or carnality, is forever tainted. Advanced adepts of
most Asian sects also believe in rigorous control of fleshly urges, although the poetic language of harmony
with nature (as in Hinduism) can conceal it.
The point is: which culture is more progressive? As I argued in Sexual Personae, the
West, with its long struggle against nature, has produced the doctrines of democracy, civil liberties and
feminism. Our problem with sexuality has also inspired our enormous body of rich, complex art. For us,
neurosis and creativity are intertwined.
Francoeur and
Moore respond
|
|
|
|
|
|
