About Brahmacharya. . . . and Tantra



Quote (from Arya Putra):
In the context of ‘marriage,’ brahmacharya means ‘godly character’ and does NOT indicate one who abstains from intimate sexual contact with one’s spouse. Of course, one who has a godly character will certainly have discipline and live a life of balance, meaning simply, that they will not become a victim of over-indulgence (and even if they do over indulge from time to time, they will ‘put on the brakes,’ change their ways, and move forward).

Comment: But doesn't godly character have another word i.e., bhagavan? By brahmacharya what i understand is one who is 'vairagya' i.e., dispassionate.

Brahmacharya (like many other Vedic words) can of course denote several different things depending on the context. When used in reference to one who is living in Brahmacharya Ashram (the first stage of life), as well as one who is a Sanyasi, and in reference to one who is a bal-bramachari, it means one who completely abstains from sexual gratification in any form (word, thought, or deed). When the term brahmacharya is used in reference to a householder it means one who is completely faithful to their spouse and never looks outside of their marriage for sexual gratification of any sort (through books, TV, Internet, acquaintances, etc.), and also practices self-control and does not overindulge in intimate sexual contact even with one’s spouse. Ideally, one who is a Vanaprasti (50-75 years of age) should practice brahmacharya of the first type (the brahmachari and sanyasi type), and if unable to do so should practice brahmacharya of the householder-type which should naturally culminate in complete abstinence in due course.

Without a doubt, brahmacharya (of all types) involves the practice of dispassion. Without true dispassion it is not possible to practice self-control (whether married or unmarried, or retired from married life). True dispassion is “Compassion without Attachment.” This is important to understand, otherwise one could be cold-hearted or insensitive with one’s spouse (in the case of a householder or Vedic hermit), vain or proud in the case of a Sanyasi, or simply stuck in one’s images in the case of a brahmachari (Vedic-student).



“I don’t completely reject tantra, but I reject many parts of it. Tantra is an open tradition, and there are many tantras.”

I also do not reject Tantra. I do not practice it as a discipline because I think it is of no use to a true spiritual seeker. It may include some useful points, but it is not necessary (or beneficial) to single out those points (i.e., become preoccupied with them) because to do so is the very antithesis to Yoga, which is BALANCE. Tantra is too much focused on the body and generally leads to a warped sense of spirituality and false mysticism.

Back to Arya Putra list of articles