About Brahmacharya.
. . . and Tantra
|
Quote: |
| 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).
|
Quote: |
| “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.
|