Nithyananda

[Guest guest]

I agree. To me, bramacharya is not renouncing desire, but keeping a single

pointed devotion towards God. If you are single pointed in your heart and all

of your actions come from the heart, then no action can stain you. All action

go towards the further manifestation of God within you. I think that any person

or scripture that has to lay down conditions of what it means to be unified with

God doesn't really " get it. " I understand for the sake of teaching others that

things have to have a construct and a framework, but in it's pure essence, the

rules and framework vanish. Gita also states that when water flows freely there

is little use for water in the well; when wisdom flows through you, there is no

need to seek it through scripture.

 

I also agree that austerities need to be performed even by the enlightened

beings. To not show devotion towards God and constantly keep the temple of our

bodies pure; mental, vital and physical, is completely disrespectful and goes

against ones dharma. Enlightenement to me does not mean perfection; they still

have a lot to learn. Sri Aurobindo said that the integral yoga was for the

enlightened masters. Others have shared that sentiment as well, that the real

work merely begins when you become enlightened, it in no way ends there.

 

Love and Light,

 

Myra

 

 

________________________________

Kulasundari Devi <sundari

 

It's worth noting that in the Brhadaranyaka or Chandogya Upanisad (I can't

recall the precise passage at the moment), it states that a married couple

who has sexual relations only after dark are considered brahmacaris. The

idea was not total continence, but self-control. In the Chandogya Upanisad,

sex is compared and identified with the Vedic sacrifice, down to the last

detail.

 

Over time, the concept brahmacarism became more extreme, particularly as

asceticism was favored in the wake of the popularity of Buddhism and

Jainism.

 

One need not have a negative view of the body and of sexuality in order to

be " holy " or " enlightened. " There are a number of different views on the

science of Tantrism.

 

My own thought is that one should not become brahmacarya unless they are

unable to be any other way. If they have sexual desires and needs, then they

should be a householder. It is not a lesser path in any way, shape, or form,

even though it often isn't valued as highly as sannyas and brahmacarya. It

is simply a different path, but one that has equal opportunity for leading

to realization. Both have their difficulties. As Krishna says in the Gita,

becoming a sannyasin and going into the forest doesn't leave your desires

behind. They will follow you.

 

Having sat at the feet of many holy men and women, having felt Shakti

radiating from them, and having seen some of them in the midst of

controversy, I have come to believe that even after one has achieved

spiritual liberation, they have to work to hold onto it. As long as we are

in the body, we can fall prey to our rapacious ego. No one is above this,

it's real work. Anyone who tells you they no longer have to do sadhana

because they have become enlightened probably also has a bridge to sell you

in the middle of the Gobi desert. The beautiful poetry of the saints shows

that the union with God/dess is elusive, that one must always pursue that

realization and continue to perfect it (and possibly also help others to

perfect it) until they reach mahasamadhi.

 

I realize this is a controversial statement, but it is simply my own view.

 

It is more important to have spiritual integrity than it is to play some

charade of extreme piety. The latter may get you worldy riches, but the

former will bring real, lasting, meaningful riches.

 

jai MA kamesvari

-kulasundari

 

Sri Kamakhya Mahavidya Mandir

www.kamakhyamandir.org