Brahmacharya / Spiritually-focused Conduct
Meditationtime Forum Post
Date: Posted 3 years before Oct 19, 2016
MiBeloved 3 years ago
Here are some remarks about brahmacharya which means in this conversation conduct (acharya) which results in contact with brahman exclusive spiritual existence. I begin with this definition but with the idea that celibacy in real terms is an absolute requirement to attain this. And what do I mean by celibacy. I will clarify that.
Celibacy in this case means that there is no carnal knowledge in the mind at the time of the pursuit. Why? Because carnal knowledge has the power to divert the person from the pursuit of exclusive spiritual existence because it draws the attention of the person to the bliss aspect of sexual energy, at the expense of losing focus on the bliss aspect of existential energy.
Unless you are mentally inept or have some emotional abnormality, the experience from which carnal knowledge is derived is such that it forcibly centralizes the observing self in the sexual pleasure experience, where everything else pales into insignificance.
In this type of sex experience, carnal information is derived with focus on pulling existential energy as a support for sex energy, rather than having existential energy all by itself with an even diffusement of bliss force in every part of the psyche.
But here celibacy does not have the focal meaning of having no sexual intercourse. It may or may not be that. It concerns the tearing away of the attention for the pursuit of exclusive spiritual existence at any time, during sex experience or otherwise. One may think that this makes no sense, because the only time there is this severe and very blatant tearing away is during sex experience.
But this is merely the conventional moral way of viewing the situation. It has little to do with the reality of what is really causing the self to be diverted from developing awareness of the exclusive spiritual zone of existence (brahman).
Sexual intercourse has great value in the pursuit of brahman (brahmacharya) in so far as it may cause the ascetic to become aware of a design of his psyche which is itself against the development of the interest in spiritual existence. If ascetic has a psyche which has the potential for sexual pleasure, then the fact that the ascetic has no sexual experience or has no developed sexual organs means absolutely nothing in the long term. The danger then is that potential. If it is part of the potential then it means that attempts to reach the brahman spiritual zone will never be completed because of the potential energy which will, as soon as it is facilitated, take the ascetic away from brahman while giving him the reward of carnal knowledge or intimate experience about the interactions and mixing of sexual potency.
Celibacy which means dormancy of sexual force or which means potentially or latency of sexual force, is a fool’s celibacy. In the long run such celibacy will be abolished by nature, when it decides to manifest the sexual potential.
This kind of postponed or latent sexuality is sufficient for celibacy in those ascetics who are into a farce and who need to establish their monk credentials to the public. In the association of value-ascetics, such celibacy has no standing.
It begs the question as to:
What is real celibacy?
Is there such a thing?
Can the potential or latent sexual capacity be removed?
Why balk about brahmacharya, twisting and turning in order to avoid its affiliation with celibacy, when the real issue is that irresistible pull into sexual intercourse?
chris_hall1951 3 years ago
Right On Sir, all success and power to the genuine and not what is contrary, but always hoping for a change in the heart for those who are afflicted with the activities to what is contrary to being a true brahmacari. Your word's are always on the True Side, and not on the side of the adulterated views. All Hail and Infinite Obeisances to An Axis Supreme! Obeisances forevermore to His Divine Grace Srila Yogi Madhvacarya!
Alfredo 3 years ago
The definition in the Panchadasi of Swami Vidyaranya is quite appropriate to define Brahmacharya, when it defines Brahma Abhyasa (or the total, 100% percent absorption on Brahman), as:
“The practice of meditation on Brahman, the wise cognizer, means reflection on It, talking about It, mutually producing logical arguments about It – thus to be fully occupied with It alone.”
Panchadasi VII-106
Swami Krishnananda defined this practice as the highest yoga practice, the peak of yoga. Under his influence, and when we were in contact by letter and later email right before his passing away on December 2001, I wrote an article named "The Practice, and Practicability, of Brahma-Abhyasa". I just posted it in the file section as "The Practice of Brahma-Abhyasa".
Swamiji mentioned that a person that can be 100% consistent in his/her practice of Brahma-Abhyasa, becomes a spiritual giant, a siddha.
Of course, dear friends, this is better said than done, right? Why? Because of addictions. Human beings are plagued by addictions of myriad sources. Some of them are embedded deep in our psyches in the form of samskaras that arises as vasanas.
When a vasana arises, it will commit suicide, meaning it will manifest itself no matter what as the arrow has already left the bow. That's why brahmacharya is so difficult, an almost impossible proposition.
The majority of the gurus, including many of recent fame here and in India were very far from it, it was mostly a con. Usually, where there is smoke, there is a fire.
In compliance, apparently, I would advance to group a few from recent memory: Swami Hariharananda, Ramana Maharshi, Swami Shivananda, Swami Krishnananda, Sri Aurobindo, Mother (Mirra Alfassa), and Ananda Mayi Ma.
MiBeloved 3 years ago
Caroline on LinkedIn:
I would be interested to know what you, Michael, think is the answer to the questions you pose here.
I don't have any answers to those questions, which is why I wonder if you have.
************************
What is real celibacy?
Is there such a thing?
MiBeloved's Response:
In consideration that there are male and female divine forms, celibacy can only have meaning if those forms and their interactions are taken into consideration. The environmental limitations need be considered into the equation. If a divine environment would be found in which sexual expression occurs without genital exchange, then that would be a celibate situation guaranteed because the environment itself would not support the expression of sex in a genital way, and still it would support the expression of sex.
==============================
Caroline on LinkedIn:
Can the potential or latent sexual capacity be removed?
MiBeloved's Response:
The existence of a potential or latent sexual capacity means that it cannot be removed. For success the person needs to be removed into another suitable environment where there is no such potential or latency.
==============================
Michael wrote:
If a divine environment would be found in which sexual expression occurs without genital exchange, then that would be a celibate situation guaranteed because the environment itself would not support the expression of sex in a genital way, and still it would support the expression of sex.
Caroline on LinkedIn:
This is a little difficult to get the mind around. Wouldn't the need for genital expression eventually become overwhelming?
MiBeloved's Response:
Imagine a body in which every part of the body has sex expression nerves, where every action of the body produces bliss-pleasure expression. Then the genitals would have no monopoly or special significance ever. One using such a body would never discover the genitals as a prime means of pleasure.
==============================
Caroline on LinkedIn:
Hence monasteries and nunneries, I suppose. What about the householder? Yogi Bhajan did not appear to think that the way of the householder disqualified one from the spiritual path.
MiBeloved's Response:
Householder life is an impediment for most persons but it is not for a few like Yogi Bhajan.
That is my view.
A wealthy investor won't suffer if there is a stock market crash, because he may be in a certain leverage position anyway. But the same cannot be said for others. What is possible for one person does not necessarily carry over into the life of every other being.
