Celibacy

[Guest guest]

In the Vivekachoodamani it is said that one who doesn't give up sensual

pleasures and still tries to see the Atman - is like somebody who mistakes a

crocodile for a tree trunk and grasps it to cross the river - he'll be

destroyed.

 

Most Indian traditions - Hindu, Buddhist, JainA - are unanimous in their

endorsement of celibacy as a vital element in the quest for the truth.

 

Sri Aurobindo too warns aspirants not to mix spirituality and sex together.

According to him, thought in somecases such a combination is indeed

beneficial to spirituality (in cases of Tantric practices), still it

requires a lot of skill, but will prove disastrous for an unskilled

aspirant.

 

I wouldn't question Aurobindo, but still doubt if sex is compatible with the

jnAnic quest. JnAna is the quest to identify with the spirit as against the

body and mind. Sex only strengthens the identification of one with body and

mind. So how can that ever benefit the spiritual aspirant?

 

Ramana, arguing against the theory that on repeated experience one will tire

of sex eventually, says that it is like pouring ghee into the fire. The urge

will only grow stronger like a roaring fire.

 

 

_______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

 

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om:

 

I am not surprised by the different interpretations of the term 'Celibacy.'

The issue is not really whether the point of reference is 'physical' or

'mental.' Any such separation is a framework to rationalize and justify one's

own deeds. According to Hindu scriptures (specifically Gita) the attitudes

of Jnani (perfect-yogi or stithaprajna) and jiva (imperfect yogi) are quite

distinct. The perfect yogi is above sensual perceptions and consequently

unaffected by pleasure and pain. Harshaji gave a reference to Ramana

Maharishi's statement is quite right but it is very conditional! From Ramana

Maharishi's point of view, he does not experience pain or pleasure from his

deeds (In his biographical reference, he underwent surgery without

anesthesia). If we read his biography carefully, we can easily observe that he

did observe `celibacy' and his determination to free himself from sensual

pleasures and pain is clear as a crystal. I believe that we can learn a lot

from the deeds of jnanis such as `Shankaracharya' `Ramana Maharishi,'

`Ramakrihna Paramahamsa' `Buddha,' `Mahavir,' `Jesus,' `Acharyas of Shankara

Math such as Kanchi, Sringeri and others,' `Acharyas of Vedantic Missions such

as Ramakrishna, Chinmaya, Arshavidyagurukula, and others,' and other names

that I missed who fall into this category. They should be the role models

for serious seekers of the `TRUTH..' A pilgrimage can reach his/her

destination by several paths, some are safer, some may be dangerous and some

will be completely wrong! An ignorant pilgrim is quite likely to choose the

wrong path, adventurous pilgrim may choose the dangerous path and the wise

will choose the safer path.

 

Honestly, if we have to choose between `deeds' and `words' of a jnani such as

Ramana Maharishi, we are better off choosing his deeds rather than

interpreting his words. When we attempt to develop an intellectual framework

to rationalize our deeds we are more than likely get tangled inside an

endless loop of no return. Those who oppose `Celibacy' consider such a view

is dogmatic and they believe it is contradictory to `advaitic philosophy.'

The Hindu Culture's insistence on `Celibacy' does not come from the dogmatic

point of view but it focuses on `discipline' and more correctly `shraddha.'

 

Is it possible for some exceptional people to be `self-realized' without

observing celibacy? The answer is yes but we should recognize that exception

is not the `rule!'

 

Regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

 

This passage is from the editorial of "The Mountain Path"

(available on-line URL: http://www.ramana-maharshi.org)

 

All objectivisation is conceptual, all conceptuality is inference, and all

inference is as empty of truth as a vacuum is empty of air. Moreover there

is no truth, never has been and never could be; there is no thus-ness,

such-ness, is-ness, nor anything positive or negative whatever. There is

just absolute absence of the cognisable, which is absolute presence of the

unthinkable and the unknowable - which neither is nor is not.

Inferentially this is said to be an immense and radiant splendour

untrammelled by notions of time and space, and utterly beyond the dim,

reflected sentience of temporal and finite imagination.

 

regards

Prasanna