Guest guest Posted October 17, 2000 Report Share Posted October 17, 2000 Today I gave a talk to some students at Imperial College London. The topic was Raja yoga.... Let me share my experience with you. The show stopper turned out to be the concept of 'Celibacy'. I insisted that in order to make any serious progress in raja-yoga 'total' celibacy is absolutely essential. No compromises.... You can imagine what happened next : ) Absolute uproar... ( I would not budge an inch) I thoroughly enjoyed the bantering that followed. They are now ready for the next talk: "Life and teachings of Swami Vivekananda" By the grace of Sri Ramakrishna these talks are going down a treat. jay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2000 Report Share Posted October 18, 2000 advaitin , "Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda@b...> wrote: > Today I gave a talk to some students at Imperial College London. > The topic was Raja yoga.... > > Let me share my experience with you. > > The show stopper turned out to be the concept of 'Celibacy'. > I insisted that in order to make any serious progress in > raja-yoga 'total' celibacy is absolutely essential. > No compromises.... You are throughly incorrect in that assertion Jay, and there is no way you can prove it correct. There are many examples of individuals, both living and dead, who have come to be blessed with Self realization, or Moksha as it is referred to in Patanjali, while having what one may consider a normal sex life. Your assertion denies the validity of the left-handed tantric paths. Ramakrishna himself was a tantric, although it can be argued that he didn't engage in any sexual practices involving women. While it is customary for the devotees of Ramakrishna to regard celebacy as the highest ideal, most don't actually reach the ideal, and those that do often take excessive pride in the fact, which completely eliminates any positive benefit the practice may engender. > You can imagine what happened next : ) > Absolute uproar... ( I would not budge an inch) > I thoroughly enjoyed the bantering that followed. Your not budging only indicates your lack of experiential knowledge on the subject. > They are now ready for the next talk: > "Life and teachings of Swami Vivekananda" > > By the grace of Sri Ramakrishna these talks are going down a treat. I bet he's getting a real laugh out of the whole thing as well. > jay --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2000 Report Share Posted October 18, 2000 Namaste, The word celibacy is a poor term to convey the concept of brahmacharya. For a thorough discussion of the subject, the book [downloadable] by Sw. Sivananda, can be accessed at URL: http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/teachings/brahmacharya.htm It would appear to be a logical and spiritual fallacy to argue that a person living in the Self [the true definition of brahmacharya] can continue a life of pleasures on par with the rest of humanity. The Self is genderless & without a sense of body- awareness. If humanity can look up to Buddha, Jesus, Ramakrishna, Ramana, and a galaxy of other enlightened beings as true brahmachari-s, there must be more than a grain of truth to their definition of brahmacharya. Nobody has controverted them, nor has anyone equalled their work for the uplift of humanity. Regards, s. advaitin , "jody " <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > advaitin , "Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda@b...> > wrote: > You are throughly incorrect in that assertion Jay, and there > is no way you can prove it correct. > > There are many examples of individuals, both living and dead, > who have come to be blessed with Self realization, or Moksha > as it is referred to in Patanjali, while having what one may > consider a normal sex life. > > Your assertion denies the validity of the left-handed > tantric paths. Ramakrishna himself was a tantric, although > it can be argued that he didn't engage in any sexual practices > involving women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2000 Report Share Posted October 18, 2000 advaitin , "sunder hattangadi" <sunderh@h...> wrote: > Namaste, > > The word celibacy is a poor term to convey the concept of > brahmacharya. > > For a thorough discussion of the subject, the book [downloadable] > by Sw. Sivananda, can be accessed at URL: > > http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/teachings/brahmacharya.htm > > It would appear to be a logical and spiritual fallacy to > argue that a person living in the Self [the true definition of > brahmacharya] can continue a life of pleasures on par with the rest > of humanity. The Self is genderless & without a sense of body- > awareness. Logical and spiritual fallacies have little to do with one another. That is, logic has little to do with spirituality in reality. Logic is an artifical means whereby the mind organizes information about experience. The Self is utterly beyond the mind and its experiences, and therefore is utterly beyond the means the mind employs in the development of conditional understanding. What you say about the Self is true. However, those who have realized the Self *in* a body still *have* a body. While the "person" in said body may be identified with the Self and not the body, the body doesn't go anywhere, nor do all the phenomena associated with it. That is, while a jivanmukta may have abandoned any identification with his/her body, his/her body continues to exist and display all the phenomena one will find in a living body, including pain, pleasure, and the rest. There is a difference between the experience of pleasure and the identification with the experiencer of pleasure. Here are Ramakrishna's own words: "But it is not harmful for a householder who follows the path of knowledge to enjoy conjugal happiness with his own wife now and then. He may satisfy his sexual impulse like any other natural impulse. Yes, you may enjoy a sweetmeat (candy) once in a while. It is not harmful for a householder." "You may ask, 'Is there any difference between the realizations of two jnanis, one a householder and the other a monk?' The reply is that the two belong to one class. Both of them are jnanis; they have the same experience." > If humanity can look up to Buddha, Jesus, Ramakrishna, > Ramana, and a galaxy of other enlightened beings as true > brahmachari-s, there must be more than a grain of truth to their > definition of brahmacharya. Nobody has controverted them, nor has > anyone equalled their work for the uplift of humanity. Our information about Jesus and Buddha is mythological. That is, we really don't know their lives as they lived them in their time. Furthermore, there have been many, many more enlightened beings who have not received historical credit for the blessing. They came to their realization, some as sannyasis, some as householders, and left their bodies without having any devotees trumpeting their glory. > Regards, > > s. Take care. --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2000 Report Share Posted October 18, 2000 advaitin , "jody " <jodyrrr@h...> wrote: > Logical and spiritual fallacies have little to do with one another. > That is, logic has little to do with spirituality in reality. > Logic is an artifical means whereby the mind organizes information > about experience. The Self is utterly beyond the mind and its > experiences, and therefore is utterly beyond the means the mind > employs in the development of conditional understanding. > > What you say about the Self is true. However, those who have > realized the Self *in* a body still *have* a bodyNamaste, ***As the French are wont to say: chacun a son gout, or each to one's own taste! Regards, s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.