Bhramcharya

[Bentinho Massaro]

I am sure that you will still be able to have sexual intercourse. The question will be if you still want to though. But then again if your lust has been completely eradicated, you won't hold on to your idea of no-sex either. So you will do what's best in that situation. No for or against. If one who claims to be in such a state says that he cannot have sex anymore because it is not holy, than such a person has still a lust for his ideas about this world and thus is not completely free from lust but is only pretending to himself to be so. Which he might actually succeed in after years of suppressing his sexual lust. It might seem very real because the desire for sex has become totally numb. But free one is not.

Please note that what you call eradication is not the same as, or is not reached through, mental suppression. What you call eradication and what I prefer to call freedom in and from desire, is a natural happening when you are completely fed up with the cycle of:
Dissatisfaction >>Desire>>Achievement >> Dissatisfaction>>Desire>>Achievement, etc. When this drops naturally on its own, through understanding and directly seeing the futility of this cycle as it is active in your own life day after day, the clinging to that cycle will stop naturally, without effort or suppression.

Then you are still able to have sexual intercourse if you choose to have so, but the desire or craving for it won't have any grip on your well-being and presence of awareness.

Goodluck
Bentinho

[ujay]

Namaste,
According to the Divine Life society.
Brahmacharya means freedom from lust in thought, word and deed.

Namaskar

[Pandara]

Originally Posted by dergham

hi
they say" he who has completely eradicated lust and is established in mental Brahmacharya is Brahman or God himself "
at that level will he be still able to do sexual intercourse or not ?
please answer me if u really know or tell me where I can find the answer
thanks

Well question is, if you are Brahman or God himself is sexual intercourse so important to worry about it?

More importantly, tell us more about yourself, why is this so important to you, are you about to become a monk or do you grab onto brahmacharya as a last hope of freeing yourself of your bondage to sexual guilt?

[Katrina]

Another perspective: bramacharya is living with the highest integrity. It is the practice of conducting oneself like god. Living in remembrance that all things are divine.

Sexuality, like any experience, can be a path to the source of self. This is true whether you partake in sexual intercourse or not. Treating sexuality as sacred can heal many things.

The key here is the integrity of intention. If you conduct yourself with the purest of intentions you will make choices that are life affirming and appropriate for you in each moment.

In true and established union, oneness, enlightenment - however you'd like to phrase it - I would think you could do anything you'd like as you would see all aspects of life as different expressions of the one essence. It would be a choice as to how to creatively express divinity as the individual you are. Oh wait - that's what it's about anyway.

[Hubert]

Originally Posted by Asuri

Swami Hariharananda Aranya had this to say:
Mahatma Ghandi was also known to practice brahmacharya, even though he was married at the age of fourteen. His wife said they had sex only once.

I read somewhere that he actually was fond of lovemaking, and once when he was with her wife, he was called out, but he could not leave her. Than it turned out that his father died, and he could not be there for him. This left so great an impact on his soul, that he took the vow of celibacy.

Myth or true ... ?

[Hubert]

Originally Posted by ujay

Namaste,
According to the Divine Life society.
Brahmacharya means freedom from lust in thought, word and deed.

Namaskar

I studied Sivananada. Indeed, he esteems greatly chastity, and his work is inspiring.

My teacher said, if one needs to make an effort to be chaste, that one is not chaste yet. Supression is not advised. The way to go for perfect chastity is to nurture and follow high ideals to the level where lustful thoughts no longer arise.

The problem is not if making love, having sex or mere masturbation is good or bad, or suitable for a yogi. Before we are yogis, we are human beings, and sexuality is part of human life. We must not reject anything human, but we have to try to ennoble it. And again, it cannot be done by force. You can't make a flower grow faster, you can't force yourself to sainthood. Both are processes of growth. Sexuality has it's place in one's life, and when you outgrow it, it is gone. Why try to leave it before it's time ? Patience is the key. Humility in admitting our attachments, accepting our human peculiarities is better than forced ascetism.

For those well rooted in spirit, sensual pleasures are nothin more than passing triviality. Eating or not eating, making love or not making love ... what is the difference ? The outer actions can be decieving. A saint is a saint in the whorehouse, and the lustful is still lustful in church.

You know the story of the buddhist monks. A young and an old monk travel by foot, and they arrive to a river. There they find a young woman, who is afraid to cross the water. The young monk takes her in his arms, and crosses the river with her. Than the two continue their way. After a time, the old monk errupts: how could you do that, to touch a woman ? It is againts our regulations. And the young one answers: I have left that woman on the riverside. Obviously, you did not.

Make love, have children, live a life. Enjoy the passing pleasures but do not cling to them, do not expect them, do not think of them. Life is good, but if you think of it, it is not a big deal.

[Katrina]

Before we are yogis, we are human beings, and sexuality is part of human life. We must not reject anything human, but we have to try to ennoble it.

Beautifully said.

[Asuri]

Originally Posted by dergham

hi
they say" he who has completely eradicated lust and is established in mental Brahmacharya is Brahman or God himself "
at that level will he be still able to do sexual intercourse or not ?
please answer me if u really know or tell me where I can find the answer
thanks

I agree that to completely eradicate sexual desire, one would have to be Brahman or God himself. For us mere mortals, the fire still burns.

[kattiecolt]

If brahmacharya are against marraige and advicing people not to get marriage, then can any one tell me why has god created 2sexes on earh, if he wanted that people should do brahmacharya. And if the person himself dosnt want to they why to force him to follow such rules. If the person is not willing to do so then what is the use of forcing towards that path.Why many the gods has married if that is the main reason of not getting married to become brahmacharya? Are the tales of gods wrong? And marriage is not done for only one purpose,that they are against marriage.Can anyone give answer to my question.

[charliedharma]

Ive never heard or read that brahmacharya is against marriage or advising people not to get married,it is true different people give slight variations or explanations . in my understanding bramacharya is an advanced path,because it is so difficult to practice and failiure can lead to dejection.there is no reason that one may not get married lead a famiy life and become brahmacharya in ones third stage of life.Brahmacharya could be practiced in a marriage, ie sex is only for procreation, i have a feeling K.Patthabi jois described it thus.If ones nature is to marry then this is fine ,hence some highly realised Tibetan llamas get married (Dilgo khyentse Rimpoche) While others, most ,do not and practice bramacharya using the sexual desire or energy for some "higher purpose."
Just as Ive not heard of bramacharyas being against marriage I would of thought that certainly in my country, and yours, there is a social pressure to get married and have children ,people used to think you were a litle odd if you were not married,this is now changing , but still society is set up to have marriage and children as the ideal,when we seem to have lots of dissaffected children with parents who dont know how to parent.
i have never heard of people being forced into bramacharya this clearly would be violence to oneself and unethical,I have heard of people being advised against it because they were not suited ,or it would be too challenging.I believe bramacharya is in thought as well as deed eg if you found yourself fantasising about a hottie ,stop wasting energy and bring awareness to higher thoughts.In the myths of gods some are married,some are not as you say,and with one of the gods there is an immaculate conception! Anyway I cant speak with any authority on god or gods ,I have no direct line.
Just to add Im sure I read that paschimottonasana is also called Bramacharyasana as it Quells the sexual appetite,Backbends on the other hand!
Lastly the historical Buddha said that if there was another energy as strong as the sexual pull we would find it to much of a hindrance to attain enlightenment,Ramakrisna continually counselled against women and gold,he could of said men and gold he wasnt against women,I believe he was saying that we spend alot of energy in pursuit of sex and money which takes us away from somthing more real,more fulfilling,a look at our popular culture would seem to show that nothing has changed.

yours in yoga

[Hubert]

Originally Posted by kattiecolt

If brahmacharya are against marraige and advicing people not to get marriage, then can any one tell me why has god created 2sexes on earh, if he wanted that people should do brahmacharya. And if the person himself dosnt want to they why to force him to follow such rules. If the person is not willing to do so then what is the use of forcing towards that path.Why many the gods has married if that is the main reason of not getting married to become brahmacharya? Are the tales of gods wrong? And marriage is not done for only one purpose,that they are against marriage.Can anyone give answer to my question.

Brahmacharya as has been pointed out means more like following our highest ideal, rather than celibacy.
The separation of sexes is indeed a huge subject, and one basically related to human existence, so I'll pass.

Yoga does not force anyone to give up something one is not ready to give up. It is like forbidding a child to play, because adults do not play silly games. No. Play !

If you enjoy sexuality, that's allright. It is your "play" as a human being. But the fact that you have this right to play this game - what is not at all a game but hard stuff, cutting to the bone sometimes (same is true for children, because only shortsighted adults say "they are only playing", for children playing is the most serious business), does not mean it is the game of everyone. So do your business, but do not question that states and levels of consciousness are there where the whole sexuality thing appears as mere child's play. There are, and tolerance requires us to accept that we do not know everything. Let everyone have their games, this is the principle of ahimsa/non violence in action.

The right thing to do, rather than to judge and contempt the idea of virginity, celibacy, chastity, to accept that these are ideals what are only in the grasp of few, and most of us are still playing our human games. And these games for us are very important, a serious business. Just that they are not so serious and important for everyone. We need to be careful to not generalize our self imposed limits, and use them as constrictive powers for those who might exceed them.

[Hubert]

Again I thought about this, and I think I might have find a way to bridge the gap between a patristic, dogmatic teaching of chastity and it's actual practice.

Think of this: I chose to observe brahmacharya as celibacy/chastity. But regardless if it is good or bad to do this in itself, I also need to ask myself: why do I chose to do this ? Because there might be many answers. Perhaps I believe that sexuality is a sin, and I am afraid I will not go to heaven if I indulge myself in it. But what does this say about me ? That I am, first, a coward, second that I am selfish. I want to go to heaven and I try to achieve it by such practices, to my own benefit. So, it is clear, that the motive for chastity does make a big difference, because if the motives are selfishness and cowardrice, how can I honestly expect to still go to heaven ?

So what other possible reason could I find for this renunciation ?

Hear what I have come up with.

I am in love. I am in love with the Eternal Feminine. Now, I really love Her, but because I am a blind human being, I only experience Her in Her many instances, aka, women. I for long have arrived to the conclusion that a Real Man is in love with All and Any Woman. Now, I cannot help loving them. Not for sexual pleasures, no, but indeed as you love someone when you fall in love. Indeed, my ability to Love is my greatest weakness and greatest power in the same time. If in my fear of pain, I give up on this Love, I become extinct, my very existence becomes empty and grey. I do not give up. But I cannot commit to a single woman, either. How could I do that ? It is like eating always the same food. Or having a single species of flowers in my garden. So what can I do, in trying to be faithful to my true Love, but not hurt anyone ? Well, there are many possibilities. Like still chosing one woman, as a partner in the physical life. You do not cheat on your True Love, this way, especially if you are able to see her as Her, an instance of he Eternal Feminine. Does this mean you cannot love Her other instances ? No. But as a human being, under the human condition, you do what you can do. You refrain from seeking Her in other instances. You keep those platonic. But there are so many traps here ... like the lure of the unknown, and the freshness of novelty. An unknown woman will always express the Eternal Feminine better. Why ? Because once you get to know a woman, you will realize that she is a human being. Human beings have faults, have karmas, weights to bear, things to adress. To live with a human being is hard. To long for an ideal, the Eternal Feminine, is easy. At this point, I question: do I sacrifice my happiness/longing for an ideal on the altar of humanity ? Is my honesty stronger than my selfish desire for happiness ? Who is the saint ? That who gives up earthly relationships for the Eternal Feminine, an aspect of God, becoming a brahmachari not through renunciation, but through inability to give up this Absolute Love, or that who gives up him/herself for the sake of the fellow man/woman ? Only God could judge that, I guess.

Casanova can be seen as a brahmacahri in progress, and monks might not be free from erotic impulses in their pursuit. Eros is neither good nor bad. It is in the motives, the honesty, the compromise or longing for truth, peace or passion, silence or burning. Tamas is good in it's place, rajas is good in it's place, sattwa is good in it's place. Who are we to judge ?

[yoginini]

Originally Posted by InnerAthlete

Gary Kraftsow of the Desikachar lineage (viniyoga) said:

'when you are having sex, have it. When you are not, don't.'

This is a nice one - have not heard it before!

[Seeker33]

Originally Posted by dergham

hi
" he who has completely eradicated lust and is established in mental Brahmacharya is Brahman or God himself "

This is correct. Mental balance is important.

[TonyTamer]

It's a parody and comes from a Taoist book " The Way of Life " by Lao Tzu. The original says something like ' When walking, just walk. When sitting , just sit. Above all, don't wobble.' Personally, I feel that sex does not equal love but Love can equal sex +. i.e. to say that Jesus could have sexual intercourse and be free from lust, a satisfaction of personal desires. Some keys were meant for some locks and some doors were meant to be opened. Namaste

[Seeker33]

Originally Posted by TonyTamer

It's a parody and comes from a Taoist book " The Way of Life " by Lao Tzu. The original says something like ' When walking, just walk. When sitting , just sit.

This means to be in the Present.

[TonyTamer]

Entirely correct. Truly being in the Present converges everything- including sex/love. Namaste

[TonyTamer]

The simple beauty of the epigram brings many words down to essences, Like Love and do what thou will, or Love is all there is or just Love. Love thy Neighbor as thy self, Love God. It is enough for some to operate from the heart Chakra . Namaste

[Asuri]

Originally Posted by dergham

hi
they say" he who has completely eradicated lust and is established in mental Brahmacharya is Brahman or God himself "
at that level will he be still able to do sexual intercourse or not ?
please answer me if u really know or tell me where I can find the answer
thanks

I believe the answer may be found in sutra 1.16

The highest form of dispassion is freedom from desire for material nature resulting from knowledge of the self.

guṇa-vaitṛṣṇyam - freedom from desire for material nature. According to the Samkhya philosophy, all of material nature is ultimately composed of the three gunas, sattva, rajas, and tamas in various combinations. Here the word guna is used in the sense of referring to material nature in general.

puruṣa-khyāter - resulting from knowledge of the self. Samkhya teaches that when the self has direct experience of its own true nature, it has achieved the ultimate purpose of life. Desire for material existence fades away and the soul is liberated from the cycle of birth and death in the material world.

Referring to the previous sutra, puruṣa-khyāter can be interpreted as the method of achieving Vaśīkāra dispassion. Or it can be interpreted as an alternative to the method used in sutra I.15, which involves effort aimed at controlling and eliminating the passions. Puruṣa-khyāter can be seen as a method of extinguishing passions through knowledge of higher things. The stages may be seen as:

• The tamasic nature is overcome by rajas.
• The rajasic nature is overcome by sattva.
• The sattvic nature is overcome by knowledge of the self.

read more

[Asuri]

Originally Posted by Aries

If you practice the 13 poses too much, can it make you so bored it drives you up the wall. Aka - wall yoga?

Ah yes, the 13 poses. We generally try to stick to the topic of discussion in each thread here, but the answer is fourfold:

1. It is not possible to practice the thirteen poses too much.
2. There generally is a cause and effect relation between boredom and the climbing of walls, but since the thirteen poses require utmost concentration, it is unlikely that one could complete them in a state of boredom.
3. Since a state of boredom is not conducive to brahmacharya, one should practice the thirteen until the climbing of walls becomes like sport.
4. The practice of wall yoga can be harmful if not performed properly and should only be attempted under the guidance of an experienced guru.