Sex and sexuality in Satyism

Satyism has a longstanding tradition of discourse and analysis on the matters of sex and sexuality, and excerpts from the life of Adripathi Adhikari address the topic in some detail. His immediate successors, some of whom feature in these excerpts, both solidified and expanded the official stance of Satyism towards these topics, and helped to mend perceived doctrinal inconsistencies in a series of rulings and dialogues resulting from an early form of the Phuli Tea Ceremony. Modern critics have considered Satyism a sex-positive religion, and progressive in its official stances towards sexual and gender expression.

In the Jivani, Adripathi Adhikari writes at several points about the nature of love and sex, as well as its positive and negative expressions. An advocate of monogamy, against the polygamy and polyandry of his time, he wrote that to have multiple partners or loose relations was a sign of a weak spirit, and labeled lust, or desire for flesh, one of the Four Great Temptations. By contrast, he states that monogamous love is a sign of control and pure intention. He compares polygamy to addiction, and denounces the practice in public debates.

On the topic of gender expression, Adripathi took a notably favorable stance toward the Four Genders, conventionally translated as Male, Female, Intersex, and Eunuch. This translation has been debated by scholars of the First Phuli Empire and prehistoric Phula, and is often considered to require more context in explanation or otherwise improved terminology. Details on the Four Genders will be provided in this article.

The topic of sexuality in the Jivani is intimate to Adripathi Adhikari himself, whose eldest child was homosexual. His response is said to be a critical moment in the formation of Satyist ideology, and laid the foundation from which Satyist ideals of love, romance, respect, and familial piety. The resulting events would also help to define the rules of the Adhikari Succession and the barriers which it may transgress physically without losing validity. Adripathi Adhikari is said to have initially rejected his daughter, but after a debate, changed his mind and began to accept her unconditionally.

In the Jivani

Adripathi Adhikari was forced to confront several issues of sex and sexuality within his own life. Within his biography, he addresses both his view of sex and sexuality in a physical and earthly sense, as well as their relation to spiritual awakening and spiritual wellness.

On sex

In the Jivani, sex is portrayed as a largely positive interaction. Adripathi Adhikari considers it a means to bliss and clarity, and an acceptable form of recreation even when without procreative intent. The Jivani claims that the 'joyous union of souls' that occurs during sexual intercourse is a path toward spiritual fulfillment under the proper circumstances of a single, consensual, and long-term partner. The climax of such a union is described as a 'weightlessness' acting as a microcosm of enlightenment. The point that both partners must equally enjoy the experience to achieve true fulfillment and enlightenment is emphasized heavily, although there is also discussion about more one-sided enjoyment elsewhere.

One-sided enjoyment is defined in two categories, surrounding consent. Sexual assault is strictly forbidden under Satyism. Adripathi Adhikari wrote several chapters discussing his experience as part of Avanidhara raiding parties during his teenage years. He observed that the conduct of the raiders was fueled by excess, that its enjoyment was merely temporary, and that it left the soul of the raiders yearning for more and trapped in a cycle. On the part of the victims, he wrote that the acts of raiding and assault exchanged feeble and fleeting pleasure for lasting trauma and violence against fellow humans. The exchange, he said, was imbalanced, unfair, and unethical.

In the case that consent is provided, Adripathi calls this Intercourse of Compassion. He states that it is an act of compassion for one partner to willingly sacrifice their enjoyment for the sake of their partner, and considers it a type of charity. The consequence of this classification is that such acts are considered inherently non-reciprocal, only done out of compassion or love rather than in exchange for something else. Various sexual acts are listed among the types of Intercourse of Passion, such as oral sex and manual sex. If these are done mutually, they are not considered Intercourse of Compassion.

Bearing some similarity to other traditional South Coian philosophies, Adripathi Adhikari considers intercourse to be a form of bonding, sharing, or exchanging soul or life energy. The Jivani considers regular intercourse to be healthy between dedicated partners, and states that the level of intimacy experienced and the exchange of life energies is only suitable for partners in a dedicated and long-term relationship. To be too loose with one's intimacy is to partake in unhealthy excess and addiction of the flesh, and is considered to be lacking in respect and love for the self. Moreover, the philosophy that free love participants exchange energies with many short-term partners is considered by Adripathi Adhikari to be a form of vampirism, as well as spreading one's vitality too thin to be healthy. He compares the process to adding honey to tea, stating that tea is appreciable, and honey is appreciable, but together in balance and moderation they are better together - but if one adds too much of any ingredient, even if they like that ingredient, the mixture is ruined. Many scholars believe Adripathi Adhikari may have been referring to Phuli Red Honey, which is lethal in high doses, and which Jyoho practitioners of his day would consume in unhealthy doses to weaken the veil between the spiritual and physical worlds.

On sexuality

Adripathi Adhikari was initially hesitant, or intolerant, towards homosexuality and atypical forms of sexual and gender expression. In his hostility towards the institutions that raised him, and the perceived excesses of both his native Avanidhara culture and the Jyoho cultures he was familiar with, he considered two of the four identified genders to be forms of excess, greed, lust, or temptation. His initial argument stated that the Intersex gender was covetous and envious of the sex they were not born as, and acted out of greed. He also claimed that the Eunuch gender was selfish and greedy, unwilling to share their energies and either too proud or too hateful to engage in sexual activity.

Adripathi Adhikari is said to have changed his mind when, during a debate over sacred tea, his daughter, Dzyoti Adhikari, bested him. Dzyoti Adhikari was a homosexual and engaged in a secret relationship with her girlfriend, and when Adripathi Adhikari discovered the relationship, she pleaded with him for a reasoned debate instead of a condemnation. He granted her a single opportunity for debate the next day at evening. If she could convince him of her virtue by nightfall, then she would be permitted to continue her relationship. Under the filial piety laws of the time, Adripathi Adhikari was granted significant liberty over the affairs of his children, although not absolute control.

Dzyoti Adhikari met Adripathi Adhikari in the evening of the following day, as promised, and he poured her a cup of tea. They exchanged their arguments. Adripathi Adhikari argued that she was committing herself to seeking pleasure instead of seeking love, and was becoming addicted to flesh and petty desires. Dzyoti Adripathi replied that he loved her girlfriend as much as her father loved his wife. Adripathi Adhikari asked if she was of the Intersex gender, who he accused of greed and claimed was a symptom of the old orders of excess; he followed by sorrowfully asking if she had learned nothing from him. She replied that she was not, and cited his own philosophies about the benefits of sexual intercourse as recreation and even when lacking procreation to explain herself. Adripathi Adhikari is said to have finished half of his cup in silence after this, before replying if she would be happy with a man. She replied that she would not, and that she would be unwilling to even perform Intercourse of Compassion for one. Adripathi Adhikari accused her of selfishness, but she instead cited his treatise on raiders. He asked if she liked her tea with honey, and she replied that many people drink their tea with milk or butter instead of honey, but it does not spoil the drink.

Dzyoti Adhikari accused her father of being trapped by his hatred for old ways instead of freed by his love for his daughter. Adripathi Adhikari is said to have remained silent after this. She asked if he loved her, and he replied that he did. She asked if he thought her girlfriend was impure, and he said that he did not. She asked if he would have rejected the relationship if she or her girlfriend were born male, if all other circumstances were the same. He said he would not. She asked if he only loved her if she were to be of the Eunuch gender and were to be celibate, to which he replied that the Eunuch gender was selfish because it did not share its energy. She asked if sex was the most important part of a relationship, and he said no. She stated that a relationship can exist without sex, and souls can bond in different ways. She asked if he considered his wife to be his best friend, and he replied that he did. She asked if his wife, her mother, would still be his best friend if they did not have sex, and he replied that she would.

By the time that night fell, Adripathi Adhikari and Dzyoti Adhikari had reached a consensus. He admitted that his love for her was unconditional, and that this was the purest form of love, and should be striven for. He admitted that same-sex relationships were as valid as different-sex ones, and that this was a separate phenomenon from the Intersex gender. He acknowledged that love could exist without sexual intercourse, just as intercourse could exist without love, and stated that he would prefer the former and now considered it acceptable. He admitted that if non-procreative sex could be legitimate between a man and woman, it could be legitimate between a man and a man, and a woman and a woman, as well as with members of the Intersex or Eunuch genders, and that love could be expressed nonsexually in these cases as well. In reconciliation with his revelation and meditation on his daughter's question of the limits of gender and biological sex in a relationship, he stated that human nature is universal and not subject to the whims of castes, gender, or physical form. He expressed that when he drank Red Honey Tea with his wife, he saw a full-bodied person in her spiritual form despite her missing an arm physically.

The Four Genders

Satyism identifies four genders, which Adripathi Adhikari considers to be largely physical and social categories that have no bearing on spirituality and the nature of the soul. These are traditionally translated as Male, Female, Intersex, and Eunuch, although this translation scheme was come under scrutiny from scholars of Satyism as well as of Ancient Phula. They are said to need further clarification, or better phrasing. An outline of the four genders will be given below.

Male and female

The first of the four genders identified is that of masculinity. The masculine gender is defined as being often taller, deeper-voiced, and with more body hair. The most distinguishing mark of the masculine gender is considered to be the proud or accepted ownership of the male genitals, which can act as a signal even when other typically masculine features are lacking. The second of the four genders, the female, is considered to be tied to the proud ownership of female genitals, a higher-pitched voice, most typically shorter, with larger breasts, and less body hair. Adripathi Adhikari's definitions of masculinity and femininity tend to be in-line with traditional Euclean ideas for these groups, and he elaborates that men and women tend to have different behaviors and social conditions, but clarifies that these are surface-level and are social instead of necessarily tied to their gender, noting that men growing up among women will act in a feminine way, and women growing up among men will act in a masculine way.

Intersex

The Intersex gender was, before Adripathi Adhikari, considered a broad umbrella. Adripathi Adhikari's statements about the pride or acceptance of one's genitals plays a key role in his definition of this gender. The word used by Adripathi is मेटी meti, which lacks a precise translation in Euclean languages. Another term used, but not by Adripathi himself, is फुलुमुलु fulumulu. In Jyoho practice, the Intersex gender, a type of Third Gender, was considered to be defined largely by behavior. Men who had feminine mannerisms and women who had masculine mannerisms, or who respectively acted in the opposite gender's sexual role, were considered to fall into this gender. An example of this gender in classical Jyoho practice would be a 'tomboy', or a homosexual, neither of which are considered such in Satyism.

Because Adripathi Adhikari preached a universalist spirituality, that biological sex had no impact on an individual's spiritual state, he narrowed the definition considerably. Adripathi Adhikari lists the features of this gender as those who are 'habitual crossdressers', who express themselves opposite to their biological sex, as well as individuals who had mutilated their genitals to live as the opposite sex. Adripathi Adhikari makes particular note of a particular faction of the Jyoho clergy, who lived and expressed themselves as the opposite sex of their biology, fulfilled the social roles of their adopted sex, adopted new names, and in some cases had declared themselves to be possessed by a spirit of the opposite sex. Observed more strongly in his native Avanidhara tradition, Adripathi Adhikari also noted individuals who claimed to be the opposite sex in their past incarnation, essentially a female soul in a male body or vice versa. Also noted as being of this gender are individuals who are ambiguous and actively display features of both sexes simultaneously, rather than simply lacking features of their native sex.

Eunuch

This gender category consists of those who are unable to reproduce either mentally or physically. While it does include most eunuchs, it also extends to individuals who would otherwise be male or female but who experience difficulty in bonding their soul to others. This, like the Intersex gender, is considered to be something that is likely to be revealed during puberty or later, rather than known at birth - only particular deformities could qualify an individual for either at birth. The Eunuch gender functionally covers asexuality, celibacy, impotence, being barren, and those who have undergone castration. Monastic vows of celibacy emulate this condition but monks who undertake such vows are not considered to fall under this category. The Eunuch gender ultimately covers those who cannot be satisfied with sexual activity or those who cannot reach climax, rather than those who choose not to. It is for this reason that the translation as "Eunuch" has been contested by scholars, as it includes a variety of non-sexual or non-performing individuals who have intact genitals.

Adripathi Adhikari initially took an antagonistic stance to the Eunuch gender, and labeled them रिक्तीकृतहृदय riktiktardaya, meaning "empty of heart". This is because he believed those who abstained from love were driven by their pride of themselves, or their hate of others, and jealously guarded their life energy instead of sharing and receiving with and from others. After the discourse with his daughter, Adripathi Adhikari changed his mind, and renamed this gender अरोचकिन् arochakin, meaning "empty of appetite", reflecting his new belief that these people were not guarding their own energy, but were only deficient in the specifically sexual type of love, while able to share and experience other forms of love adequately.

Later traditions

The immediate lineage of the Adhikari were left to fill the gap that Adripathi Adhikari left, and to answer the questions he did not. Satyism had a small initial following, but during the time of the second and third Adhikari, started to gain a significant traction in Avanidhara society. It was, in its initial stages, largely confined to the lower classes of society, and the immediate relatives of Adripathi Adhikari, who reformed his clan with his princely status and was the first Avanidhara clan to break old traditions. The members of his wife's clan also began to convert, with her acting as a bridge between Satyist and Jyoho philosophies and making the former far more accessible.

Following the adoption of Satyism by the First Phuli Empire, certain elements of Jyoho became incorporated which did not exist prior, and which have become widely associated with Satyism on an organizational level. The most important innovation of the First Phuli Empire is the introduction of Satyist monasticism. Largely pulling from the warrior-monk tradition of Jyoho, the injected Satyist philosophy humbled the warriors and began a tradition of deep contemplation and self-reflection. Satyism also revitalized the ascetic lifestyle of the monks, whose fasts and prayers found new meaning in humility and submission. This was a significant divergence, where previously the Jyoho monks practiced asceticism to build endurance, bring themselves closer to spirits, and focus intensely on prayer and rituals.

Following the collapse of the First Phuli Empire, the hierarchical structure of Satyism collapsed with it. As the imperial seat was the head of the monastic structure, its absence left monasteries to autonomy and eventual autocephaly. Various forms of post-imperial organization developed independently to succeed the imperial system, and from these new organizations came the prototypical sectarian schisms within Satyism that are still reflected today. The three main Satyist sects are the Orthoprax, Antargat, and Amadawi schools. These are, functionally, Tinzetic and Great Steppe Moieties. The development of thought regarding sex, sexuality, and gender has been deeply influenced by the societies these sects formed from.

Orthoprax

Orthoprax Satyism has been deeply influenced by not just the Tinzetic cultures of Phula's south, but the persistent Avanidhara plurality of the north. It has also been influenced by the continued substratum influences of Phuli culture that often unite the two larger linguistic groups culturally. The formation of the College of Saints has also helped to guide Satyism, keeping monastic practices and ideals at a forefront ideologically. This unique combination of culture and history has guided Orthoprax Satyism in its unique approach, and the continuing presence of the Adhikari has allowed firmer absolutes than in more decentralized systems.

The societal roles of the genders were set in place by Abhaya Adhikari, who declared that since time immemorial the societal roles of men and women had remained relatively stagnant, that society asked of them to fulfill such roles sexually as well. For a heteronormative couple, Abhaya Adhikari recommends that the man be the leader of the sexual effort, while for a homosexual, that the more masculine should. Abhaya Adhikari advocated that femininity in leadership should be tender and responsive, while men in leadership should be strong and dynamic. Abhaya Adhikari claimed that it was the union of these two types of leadership that made families stable, and why homosexual relations tended to skew towards dominant and submissive partners. Abhaya Adhikari presented the necessity of a dominant and submissive in any relationship, stating these are most typically masculine and feminine but can be reversed by preference of those involved. Abaya Adhikari's philosophy is believed to have been influenced by Xiaodongese philosophy, especially the necessity of balancing what he termed "Action and Reaction".

Basanta Adhikari rescinded Abaya Adhikari's linking of Masculine and Feminine to Action and Reaction in a sexual context, and expanded upon the natures of the Actionary and the Reactionary natures. This was allegedly done to bring the idea more in-line with the description of the Third and Fourth genders in the Jivani. He also defined the Reactionary element as the Passive element, stating that these are different terms for the same idea. He also takes away the mention of dominance or submission, stating that Satyism often strives for submission against dominance, and that the terminology confuses the nature. These mistakes, Basanta Adhikari attributes to Abaya Adhikari being blessed in thought but not in language. He assigns them instead as Active and Passive, Actionary and Reactionary, or Light and Dark - borrowing the Xiaodongese terminology in translation. Basanta Adhikari dictates that the balance of Active and Passive principles is necessary for sexual energy to be its most fulfilling for both parties. Furthermore, he states that sexual release relates to the opening of chakra pathways up the spine, starting in erogenous zones and slowly working upwards until all are opened. As erogenous zones are the first and most primordial chakra, Basanta Adhikari considers periodic release with one's partner to be essential to maintaining a healthy flow of energy through the body. The adoption of Light and Dark terminology and the relation to Xiaodongese schools of thought may have been a reaction to the rise of Irfan and its sharp dualistic philosophy which Satyism stood heavily against.

Masturbation is heavily discouraged in Orthoprax Satyism, with various Adhikari ruling similarly that it is a form of incest. As Phuli culture commonly relates chakras to lakes and streams, many comparisons have thus been drawn. The emphasis of a dedicated partner is demonstrated by analogy to lakes, where if a lake has nowhere to flow, it becomes stagnant, the water becomes undrinkable, and disease appears in nearby communities. This is what happens with no release. If the lake does flow, but is self-contained without an entry or exit of external sources, then the water is likewise undrinkable, it is salty and cannot be used to fuel life of animals or crops. To drink from it may seem a relief, but is more dangerous than not drinking at all. Only when there is a clear flow in and out is the water maintained as drinkable, usable, and free of disease, health, or cleanliness risks. It has been similarly argued that too much outflow with no inflow can dry up a pond, while too much inflow with low outflow will cause floods, as a pond can only hold so much water in either case and cannot compensate too many channels in or out. This has been used to justify the strict monogamy preached by Adripathi Adhikari.

Monks have traditionally been considered exempt from these rules, for a variety of reasons. During the First Phuli Empire, it was argued that since the monks were the primary peacekeepers and military of the Phuli government, they should retain their vows of celibacy that their Jyoho predecessors had undertaken in order to not violate Adripathi Adhikari's rules regarding the conduct of warriors. This did not prevent the monks from sexual activity with other monastic adherents, however, and so another reason to excuse their celibacy was that their monastic behavior was an alternative path to opening and maintaining chakra pathways and the flow of life energy through the body.

Modern Interpretations

Satyism has been viewed divisively by modern social movements, and especially among progressive commentators. Adripathi Adhikari himself has been praised in many regards as ahead of his time, although many of his teachings about gender and sex are derived from the Avanidhara and Tinzetic cultures of his day. Adripathi Adhikari's narrowed definition of the Third Gender is widely seen as applying to the phenomenon of transgenderism, a term that did not exist during his lifetime. His teaching about the universal nature of humanity, transcending race, sex, and caste, has been viewed as one of the earliest known examples of the notion of gender as a social construct. Modern translations of the Jivani tend to use the term "Transgender" to refer to the Third Gender, and this has not been opposed by Satyist scholarship.

Although Adripathi Adhikari's beliefs on gender appeal to modern progressive streams of thought in some regards, he notoriously was silent on the roles of different genders in day-to-day life. Although he seemed to believe that all four genders were roughly equal in capacity, and extended this to other social categories such as caste, tribe, and race, he did not clarify nor reject the notion that different genders held different roles in society. His teachings allow individuals to assume the social roles of a sex opposite that of their birth, but this still bears the connotation of innate social and sexual roles that different sexes or genders perform. Although he believes all people are equally capable of performing various functions, critics have noted that this is stating that they could without taking a stance on whether or not they shoulddefy their social roles.

Although many have praised Adripathi Adhikari for his tolerance towards LGBT people, he has also come under criticism for putting strict restraints on love. Adripathi Adhikari shows a clear bias towards monogamy, which is against the concubinage system of his native Avanidhara culture, and against the polyandry practiced among pre-Satyist Tinzetic cultures as well, and stands at odds with cultures that still practice forms of polygamy as well as modern free-love philosophy. In this regard, Adripathi Adhikari has been accused by modern philosophers of slut-shaming and enforcing strict rules on sexual expression, even if he does allow sexuality itself to manifest in a relatively broad spectrum.

Adripathi Adhikari has also been accused of opportunism, or otherwise abusing the political systems of his day, rather than holding true to his own creed. While the first Adhikari writes in his own hand that he came to his conclusions through revelations and debates, such as with his daughter, and that his tolerance of the Third and Fourth genders was an extension of his daughter's arguments, some modern scholars have criticized this reading. Certain historians emphasize that the Jyoho establishment of the day provided special privileges to Third Gender persons, and accuse Adripathi Adhikari of attempting to broaden his appeal, rather than holding to his beliefs. This is not in line with traditional Satyist scholarship, which takes Adripathi Adhikari at face value, and states that he has no reason to lie and that lying would violate his own moral code.