Brahmacharya (Celibacy)

[HumbleDevotee]

Hello friends,

I am new to this forum and I am hoping that some of my fellow devotees can help answer my question about Brahmacharya (Celibacy).

I have done a bit of research on the topic of celibacy in Hinduism on the internet. From what I have gathered, being celibate is one of the requirements of enlightenment.

The thing is, as much as a try to be celibate and restrain myself from sexual acts, I usually give in to my sexual needs and end up masturbating. The reason why I cannot resist these urges is because I see women as the definition of beauty.

Swamis suggest that to stay celibate, that women should not be viewed as beautiful beings but rather as "flesh, blood, bone, excrete, urine, pus, phlegm, etc". I believe denying women of their beauty is itself a sin; I'm sure that Lord Shiva doesn't view his consort Parvati in that manner, so why should we view the women around us as such?

Despite the fact that I am not celibate, I always try to attain spiritual knowledge by learning various mantras and stotrams as well as learning more about the Vedic literature, and Hinduism. I also pray everyday and chant mantras everyday.

So my question is; Is it absolutely required for me to be celibate, even though I always try to better myself by attaining spiritual knowledge, praying, and chanting mantras? In other words, isn't devotion to the gods and goddesses, and attaining spiritual knowledge more important that forcing celibacy upon oneself?

Thank you in advance for your time,
Steven

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Madhuri]

There are Hindu traditions which are very strict. My father was a brahmachari for something like 8 years living in the temple and remaining celibate. It's something a person can only do if they feel they are ready for it. Then he fell in love with and married my mum.

It is not necessary to be a brahmachari. It is your choice. If you have strong sexual desires, then repressing them will do you no good. A lot of bad things happen when people repress themselves. Gurus and sanyasis have been known to rape women and children just like priests and anyone else who force themselves to abstain when they are not physically or spiritually ready.

Spirituality is a gradual process. Some people can surrender their lives to religious service and others cannot yet. So if you are not ready to become a brahmachari then do not.

I personally don't have a problem with masturbation. To expect that a person can just give that up without being spiritually advanced it ridiculous and I can assure you that if some people claim to abstain completely they are probably lying. A lot of religious people lie because they don't want to be judged. Remember that.

So if you want to be a brahmachari and can go without sex, don't expect yourself to go without masturbation. If you are serious about being religious, then be a chaste person. Do not have illicit sex. Wait to be married for sex and in teh meantime, devote yourself to your devotional service. But don't believe that masturbating is a sin. That doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever!

 

[Metempsychosis]

Hello friends,

From what I have gathered, being celibate is one of the requirements of enlightenment.

Celibacy is a pre-requisite for some of the Yogic practices,but I dont think a person has to be a life long celibate for following the Bhakti school.Many acharyas like Ramanujacharya were householders at least for some period in their life.

I believe denying women of their beauty is itself a sin; I'm sure that Lord Shiva doesn't view his consort Parvati in that manner, so why should we view the women around us as such?

Because you equate woman to her body,which is wrong as per Vedanta.Even if a woman's body is a standard of beauty ,it is only so till it is alive.

So my question is; Is it absolutely required for me to be celibate, even though I always try to better myself by attaining spiritual knowledge, praying, and chanting mantras?

No,though it is depends on the school.IMHO,Shavite/Advaitic practices emphasise more on complete celibacy than others

In other words, isn't devotion to the gods and goddesses, and attaining spiritual knowledge more important that forcing celibacy upon oneself?

Devotion should lead to Vairagya..i.e they complement each other.We cannot take one foot forward and one foot backward at the same time.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Hello friends,

I am new to this forum and I am hoping that some of my fellow devotees can help answer my question about Brahmacharya (Celibacy).

I have done a bit of research on the topic of celibacy in Hinduism on the internet. From what I have gathered, being celibate is one of the requirements of enlightenment.

The thing is, as much as a try to be celibate and restrain myself from sexual acts, I usually give in to my sexual needs and end up masturbating. The reason why I cannot resist these urges is because I see women as the definition of beauty.

Swamis suggest that to stay celibate, that women should not be viewed as beautiful beings but rather as "flesh, blood, bone, excrete, urine, pus, phlegm, etc". I believe denying women of their beauty is itself a sin; I'm sure that Lord Shiva doesn't view his consort Parvati in that manner, so why should we view the women around us as such?

Despite the fact that I am not celibate, I always try to attain spiritual knowledge by learning various mantras and stotrams as well as learning more about the Vedic literature, and Hinduism. I also pray everyday and chant mantras everyday.

So my question is; Is it absolutely required for me to be celibate, even though I always try to better myself by attaining spiritual knowledge, praying, and chanting mantras? In other words, isn't devotion to the gods and goddesses, and attaining spiritual knowledge more important that forcing celibacy upon oneself?



Thank you in advance for your time,
Steven

Om Namah Shivaya

This is my view on this subject. All things come in there right time. Say your Mantras do your sadhana to find your path. Find your Dharma householder or monk. The Hindu scriptures are full of householders who have achieved enlightenment. Give it time and find a teacher to help you find your own advice with in you.

All women are manifestations of the divine Mother. Adi Sankara in his Poem Bhaja Govindam said this.

Seeing the full bosom of young maidens and their navel, do not
fall a prey to maddening delusion. This is but a modification of
flesh and fat. Think well thus in your mind again and again.

This is a thought process for controlling desires. Not to degrade women.

Jai Maa

 

[HumbleDevotee]

Wow... thanks for the quick replies . All of you are very knowledgeable. I will take some time and consider what you guys have said. In the mean time, feel free to add any more opinions about this topic. I look forward to reading your comments.

Thanks again,
Steven

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[zenzero]

Friend Humble Devotee,
welcome to RF!
Best Wishes.

Brahmacharya (Celibacy)

existence is nothing but energy; whatever we see or do not see are nothing but energy including thoughts.
The semen too is energy and this semen can travel two ways. One it can travel outside the body and be used up along with thoughts as sex energy OR it can travel upwards to the Crown Chakra to make one enlightened.
There are no rules, you are free to make your rules for the game and play it as per your own rules accepting its consequences fully.
If you have any further queries about any other rules you are free to enquire.

Love & rgds

 

[Metempsychosis]

Wow... thanks for the quick replies . All of you are very knowledgeable. I will take some time and consider what you guys have said. In the mean time, feel free to add any more opinions about this topic. I look forward to reading your comments.

Thanks again,
Steven

Om Namah Shivaya

I found this article to be quite insightful:Celibacy

And there has been discussion on this here before:

 

[Arav]

Hello friends,

I am new to this forum and I am hoping that some of my fellow devotees can help answer my question about Brahmacharya (Celibacy).

I have done a bit of research on the topic of celibacy in Hinduism on the internet. From what I have gathered, being celibate is one of the requirements of enlightenment.

The thing is, as much as a try to be celibate and restrain myself from sexual acts, I usually give in to my sexual needs and end up masturbating. The reason why I cannot resist these urges is because I see women as the definition of beauty.

Swamis suggest that to stay celibate, that women should not be viewed as beautiful beings but rather as "flesh, blood, bone, excrete, urine, pus, phlegm, etc". I believe denying women of their beauty is itself a sin; I'm sure that Lord Shiva doesn't view his consort Parvati in that manner, so why should we view the women around us as such?

Despite the fact that I am not celibate, I always try to attain spiritual knowledge by learning various mantras and stotrams as well as learning more about the Vedic literature, and Hinduism. I also pray everyday and chant mantras everyday.

So my question is; Is it absolutely required for me to be celibate, even though I always try to better myself by attaining spiritual knowledge, praying, and chanting mantras? In other words, isn't devotion to the gods and goddesses, and attaining spiritual knowledge more important that forcing celibacy upon oneself?

Thank you in advance for your time,
Steven

Om Namah Shivaya

I had the exact same problem you did, and still sometimes do. I will see a very attractive girl and give in to masturbation. It was dificult at first. But whats happening is that you are just giving up sexual gratification, but that does not mean that energy is not flowing to the genital region. When energy builds up in the genital region, in males, it creates arousel and erection. That will lead one to masturbation or sex. But, if you take that energy and move it upward you will stop arousing sex and start arousing Consciousness. You can do this threw Yogasana (yogic poses) and Pranayama (yogic breathing). Those two things can lead you to arousing Consicousness and attaining knowledge of the Self. And, if perhaps masturbation still occurs, dont feel bad or feel as if you have failed. Just pick yourself up and try again. If you are going to be celibate you MUST work with the energy or else it will just build up and lead to nocternal emission or perversion of the energy. Perversion of energy means that it will start working in odd ways and block other energies from working right. And, dont look at women as flesh, bones, pus, etc. Look at women as they are, the Soul within. If you see that all women are the Soul, you will stop seeing them with sexual eyes, but with spiritual eyes.

In my signature there is a site that I labeled PREKSHA. Click on it and go on the left side and click on "Yoga & Asan", it will give you poses to practice that will help you with celibacy. They are not JAIN poses, but poses for everyone on their path. Good luck and I hope all goes well for you!

 

[kaisersose]

Hello friends,

I am new to this forum and I am hoping that some of my fellow devotees can help answer my question about Brahmacharya (Celibacy).
Om Namah Shivaya

Any piece of information is only as credible as its source.

What do you mean by enlightenment? There are dozens of different definitions floating around. Knowing which flavor you subscribe to (and why) will make it easier to answer your question.

 

[Satsangi]

I think you are confusing the Siddhis with elightenment. Yes, enlightenment can be achieved by householders as well as renunciates; Siddhis cannot be obtained without Tapas which includes Celibacy.

I disagree with Kaisersose that there are "enlightenment definitions and flavors".

Regards,

 

[kaisersose]

I think you are confusing the Siddhis with elightenment. Yes, enlightenment can be achieved by householders as well as renunciates; Siddhis cannot be obtained without Tapas which includes Celibacy.

I disagree with Kaisersose that there are "enlightenment definitions and flavors".

Regards,

Advaita says enlightenment is end of duality.
Madhvas believe enlightenment is a place in Vaikunta where they worship Hari.
Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe enlightenment is a place in Goloka among Krishna, cows and Gopikas.
Shaivas believe enlightenment is a place in Kailasa with Shiva and his devotees.
UG and Jiddu have said there is no such thing as enlightenment.
There are groups who believe in heaven and hell.

The list is long.

You can consult wikipedia or a book on Hindu beliefs for more details on the various differences in how enlightenment and available paths are different for each belief system.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Enlightenment is not a product of the Human Mind. It is beyond the Human thought process.
Therefor any attempt to define it will incorrect. How can the finite conceive of the infinite.

 

[kaisersose]

Enlightenment is not a product of the Human Mind. It is beyond the Human thought process.
Therefor any attempt to define it will incorrect. How can the finite conceive of the infinite.

That is where Shastra comes in. Shastra exists to provide knowledge that is not available through other means like Anumana or Pratyaksha. Narayana or Brahman, for example can only be known through Shastra. We need words to communicate or else, we would never have heard of Brahman or enlightenment.

The problem here is depending on what one accepts as Shastra, the definitions and paths are very different. They are actually contradictory in several cases and we cannot simply gloss over these glaring differences and pretend they are all the same. That would be an affront to the teacher who created that doctrine, which many people including Satsanghi, do not seem to realize (apparently).

For instance, to state that Dvaita and Advaita schools lead to the same enlightenment would be completely unacceptable to any of the Dvaita teachers like its founder Madhva or later perceptors of that school like Jaya Tirtha, Vyasa Tirtha, Vaadi Raja and others. Their school is built upon the premise that Advaita is false and leads one to hell. How then, can they lead to the same enlightenment? To ignore these differences is the same as rejecting Tattvavada. Or consider Hare Krishnas who are divided/confused on the subject - some believe Advaita is false and cannot lead to enlightenment. Other believe Advaitins do get enlightened, but it is not the same enlightenment found by a Hare Krishna (The Advaitin finds an inferior version of enlightenment where he merges with something they call "Brahma Jyothi").

This new age style of unifying all doctrines, was a 19th century need to ceate the perception of a homogenous Hindu religion for Westerners which was named "Sanathana Dharma" by Vivekananda. But there is no truth to this homogenity, when probed. When Vivekananda was thinking about his new concept of Sanathana Dharma, he probably only had Advaita in mind. But Hinduism/Sanathana Dharma is a lot more than just Advaita, which means, his simplistic version is ultimately incorrect.

Traditional doctrines are incompatible with one another, were intended to be complete in themselves and were *never* intended to be seen as part of a package called Hinduism where somehow they are the all the same (ignoring differences) and lead to the same goal.

 

[joea]

Hello friends,

I am new to this forum and I am hoping that some of my fellow devotees can help answer my question about Brahmacharya (Celibacy).

I have done a bit of research on the topic of celibacy in Hinduism on the internet. From what I have gathered, being celibate is one of the requirements of enlightenment.

The thing is, as much as a try to be celibate and restrain myself from sexual acts, I usually give in to my sexual needs and end up masturbating. The reason why I cannot resist these urges is because I see women as the definition of beauty.

Swamis suggest that to stay celibate, that women should not be viewed as beautiful beings but rather as "flesh, blood, bone, excrete, urine, pus, phlegm, etc". I believe denying women of their beauty is itself a sin; I'm sure that Lord Shiva doesn't view his consort Parvati in that manner, so why should we view the women around us as such?

Despite the fact that I am not celibate, I always try to attain spiritual knowledge by learning various mantras and stotrams as well as learning more about the Vedic literature, and Hinduism. I also pray everyday and chant mantras everyday.

So my question is; Is it absolutely required for me to be celibate, even though I always try to better myself by attaining spiritual knowledge, praying, and chanting mantras? In other words, isn't devotion to the gods and goddesses, and attaining spiritual knowledge more important that forcing celibacy upon oneself?

Thank you in advance for your time,
Steven

Om Namah Shivaya

Welcome to RF HumbleDevotee.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

That is where Shastra comes in. Shastra exists to provide knowledge that is not available through other means like Anumana or Pratyaksha. Narayana or Brahman, for example can only be known through Shastra. We need words to communicate or else, we would never have heard of Brahman or enlightenment.

Very true, we need words to communicate. But this communication is very limited in an Attempt to understand Brahman. The scriptures them sevles teach this.

The problem here is depending on what one accepts as Shastra, the definitions and paths are very different. They are actually contradictory in several cases and we cannot simply gloss over these glaring differences and pretend they are all the same.

True, we should never gloss over the truth. ( What little my opinion is worth)

For instance, to state that Dvaita and Advaita schools lead to the same enlightenment would be completely unacceptable to any of the Dvaita teachers like its founder Madhva or later perceptors of that school like Jaya Tirtha, Vyasa Tirtha, Vaadi Raja and others. Their school is built upon the premise that Advaita is false and leads one to hell.

This view came after the foreign domination of India. The idea of an eternal Hell and other concepts came from the Abrahamic religions. It was not a natural part of the philosophic construct of the Indian Subcontinent.

How then, can they lead to the same enlightenment? To ignore these differences is the same as rejecting Tattvavada. Or consider Hare Krishnas who are divided/confused on the subject - some believe Advaita is false and cannot lead to enlightenment. Other believe Advaitins do get enlightened, but it is not the same enlightenment found by a Hare Krishna. The Advaitin finds an inferior version of enlightenment where he merges with something they call "Brahma Jyothi".

There has been successful philosophic attempts to organize Hinduism into a collective family of faiths. (Not just one belief system) Adi Sankaras Panchadevata, Adhyatama Ramayana (Its mix of Bhakti and Jnana), and the Teachings of Ramakrishna all are proof of this fact.

It is true that the Iskcon believe that Advaita Enlightenment is lower then Love of Krishna. It needs to be said, Sri Caitanya when told by his disciple Ramananda of Prem-Vilas-Vivarta (Mystic union with the Beloved) is the highest state. The Bhagavan did not say he was wrong, just not to talk about it.

I believe that What Sankara called infinite Knowledge and Sri Caintanya called infinite Love are the same thing.

This new age style of unifying all doctrines, was a 19th century need to ceate the perception of a homogenous Hindu religion for Westerners which was named "Sanathana Dharma" by Vivekananda. But there is no truth to this homogenity, when probed.

Swamiji's Ideas were much more complex then you statement would lead others to believe. He talked a lot of the different belief systems of Vedanta.

He did not teach that Madhva and Sankara were the same. He said that humans move from lower truths to higher truths. Not from falsehood to truth. It's clear from his writtings that there are very different philosophic schools in Hinduism.

I do agree with you Hinduism is not just one school to thought but to many to count.

 

[Satsangi]

Advaita says enlightenment is end of duality.
Madhvas believe enlightenment is a place in Vaikunta where they worship Hari.
Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe enlightenment is a place in Goloka among Krishna, cows and Gopikas.
Shaivas believe enlightenment is a place in Kailasa with Shiva and his devotees.
UG and Jiddu have said there is no such thing as enlightenment.
There are groups who believe in heaven and hell.

The list is long.

You can consult wikipedia or a book on Hindu beliefs for more details on the various differences in how enlightenment and available paths are different for each belief system.

Consider four people seeing a cow from four directions- one will see the head, others the tail, right and left side. All these people have seen the cow and will describe it differently. But, all of them have seen the cow or a part of it. AND all of them are correct in their descriptions. The same example applies to the theories and their founders that you have mentioned above. THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION or rejection of the other unless a person is unble to grasp the beyond the literal apparent meaning of the Shashtras.

Enlightenment, in my opinion, is unique for every individual and is totally different experience then whatever one reads in the Shashtras and understands before the enlightenment.

Regards,

 

[kaisersose]

Consider four people seeing a cow from four directions- one will see the head, others the tail, right and left side. All these people have seen the cow and will describe it differently. But, all of them have seen the cow or a part of it. AND all of them are correct in their descriptions. The same example applies to the theories and their founders that you have mentioned above. THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION or rejection of the other unless a person is unble to grasp the beyond the literal apparent meaning of the Shashtras.

That is not what Tattvavada says. They are very explicit that the only correct doctrine is Tattvavada. No other doctrine will lead one to Hari. You are essentially disagreeing with the doctrine and at the same time, also saying it is correct. This is only possible if you are accepting parts of the doctrine as correct and the rest as false. In which case, we can no longer say they are all the same.

Enlightenment, in my opinion, is unique for every individual and is totally different experience then whatever one reads in the Shashtras and understands before the enlightenment.

I used to think that way too. But if real enlightenment is nothing like what we read, then why are we reading all that stuff? And if/when we find enlightenment, how do we know we found it? I have always used the example of the Indian God Rama. If Rama appears in a vision to an Inuit in Canada, it means nothing as this person does not recognize Rama nor the merit of the Vision. Such a vision can only have value to someone who already knows Rama and also has a clearcut idea of his physical characterestics. If the real Rama looks any different, then I cannot be sure that the vision is of Rama.

Several years ago, when in college, I was once explaining enlightenment to a friend. After serious thought, he told me he felt he was already enlightened. I am sure there are many people around who have felt that and there is no really no way to confirm, either on their own or by outsiders.

Advaita says there is no individual after enlightenment. So there is no question of "hey!, I am liberated now". Dvaita takes the position that Jivanmukti is impossible. I can understand these two. All other types of Liberation like passive awareness, feeling oneness, etc., are vague and unclear. There is every possibility that one can delude oneself by reading these descriptions and concluding that the individual has been Liberated.

 

[zenzero]

Friend kaiserson,

For instance, to state that Dvaita and Advaita schools lead to the same enlightenment would be completely unacceptable to any of the Dvaita teachers like its founder Madhva or later perceptors of that school like Jaya Tirtha, Vyasa Tirtha, Vaadi Raja and others. Their school is built upon the premise that Advaita is false and leads one to hell. How then, can they lead to the same enlightenment? To ignore these differences is the same as rejecting Tattvavada. Or consider Hare Krishnas who are divided/confused on the subject - some believe Advaita is false and cannot lead to enlightenment. Other believe Advaitins do get enlightened, but it is not the same enlightenment found by a Hare Krishna (The Advaitin finds an inferior version of enlightenment where he merges with something they call "Brahma Jyothi").

This new age style of unifying all doctrines, was a 19th century need to ceate the perception of a homogenous Hindu religion for Westerners which was named "Sanathana Dharma" by Vivekananda. But there is no truth to this homogenity, when probed. When Vivekananda was thinking about his new concept of Sanathana Dharma, he probably only had Advaita in mind. But Hinduism/Sanathana Dharma is a lot more than just Advaita, which means, his simplistic version is ultimately incorrect.

Well, personally do not follow any way/path/religion and as no path/way is the path/way/religion if any.Here is a personal understanding:

The label *Sanatan Dharma* was coined much before Vivekanada and since Alexander coined the word *hindus* as he could not spell *sindhu* for those living on the other side of the river *sindh* became the label used which Vivekanada wanted to replace with the original.
Next, the label *sanatan Dharma* simply means Sanatan - eternal and dharma - laws of existence. Meaning to state that the laws of existence are eternal and those who follow them live in harmony and merge with IT are enlightened.
So dhrama is said to be simply a *way of life* how one follows the laws of existence is one's own way of life. Various meditators in this geographical region found different ways/paths which helped them merge with existence and they still discover many ways every day and so it keeps evolving and is open ended and not a close ended like the abrahamic paths which follow only one path of the person who merged following the same.

This state of merging is common for all those whom we accept as enlightened and having merged the no more exists as an individual person or mind or ego and so whatever they said or did not say are all meaningless as far as they are concerned but for others who are still with minds or thoughts or egos cling to them and are even willing to fight thinking that theirs is the only RIGHT path.

Your mind is still concern here with the various paths/ways are similar and so you your mind still clings to *flavors* of enlightenment without understanding that once someone drops all clinging is the moment of enlightenment or merging.

Love & rgds

 

[kaisersose]

Friend kaiserson,

Your mind is still concern here with the various paths/ways are similar and so you your mind still clings to *flavors* of enlightenment without understanding that once someone drops all clinging is the moment of enlightenment or merging.

Love & rgds

Zenzero,

The problem is, *none* of these paths say that. None of these standard doctrines tells one to drop the doctrine at some point.

I agree, we are now following a very new age Hinduism where all paths lead to one and there are no rules to follow and somehow everyone will just get there. I am perfectly fine with that. I just am trying to make it clear that this is not the traditional position, by any stretch, as many people think. This is not what Shankara, Ramanuja or Madhva taught. This is more in line with Ramakrishna, Ramana and other modern age Sages and like I said earlier I have no problems with that.

 

[Satsangi]

That is not what Tattvavada says. They are very explicit that the only correct doctrine is Tattvavada. No other doctrine will lead one to Hari. You are essentially disagreeing with the doctrine and at the same time, also saying it is correct. This is only possible if you are accepting parts of the doctrine as correct and the rest as false. In which case, we can no longer say they are all the same.



I used to think that way too. But if real enlightenment is nothing like what we read, then why are we reading all that stuff? And if/when we find enlightenment, how do we know we found it? I have always used the example of the Indian God Rama. If Rama appears in a vision to an Inuit in Canada, it means nothing as this person does not recognize Rama nor the merit of the Vision. Such a vision can only have value to someone who already knows Rama and also has a clearcut idea of his physical characterestics. If the real Rama looks any different, then I cannot be sure that the vision is of Rama.

Several years ago, when in college, I was once explaining enlightenment to a friend. After serious thought, he told me he felt he was already enlightened. I am sure there are many people around who have felt that and there is no really no way to confirm, either on their own or by outsiders.

Advaita says there is no individual after enlightenment. So there is no question of "hey!, I am liberated now". Dvaita takes the position that Jivanmukti is impossible. I can understand these two. All other types of Liberation like passive awareness, feeling oneness, etc., are vague and unclear. There is every possibility that one can delude oneself by reading these descriptions and concluding that the individual has been Liberated.

Friend Kaisersose,

You are trying to apply logic to things that are beyond the logic and that is a big problem- you will always end up with contradictions when there are none. If a person has seen a head of a cow, then how will he accept the description of cow's tail? Naturally he will just stick to the head's description. By the way, you do not know Lord Rama by His looks- even I don't know how He looked except from the Murtis that I see. When you have the vision of the Supreme; He just makes sure you have no doubt that He IS the Supreme- you could even be a Martian let alone a Canadian.

I agree with you that one should STOP reading at some point and start practicing. Do not stick with any descriptions of enlightenment and then compare yourself to see if you are enlightened- that is plainly stupid. If you are enlightened, you will KNOW it without any help from any books.

Regards,