[Advaita-l] brahmacharya in Raja yoga abhyAsa and advaita anushtAna
vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 27 06:32:22 CST 2012
But Sex is not always cause for losing Brahmacharya. A careful
Gruhastha can keep his Brahmacharya even after marriage.
If a man has sex with his wife in her Rutu Kala there is no loss of
Brahmacharya. If he goes to her outside Rutu Kala Bramhacharya is
I think Rutu Kala is 16 days from first day of monthly course but
first 3 days are not suitable. Others can clarify.
If a Gruhastha is going to his wife only in Rutu Kala always he will
remain Brahmachari ALWAYS. No loss of Brahmcharya.
If he does unnatural act with or without spouse and discharges
anywhere outside female organ Brahmacharya is lost. Artificial
devices for birth control is prohibited.
Some people say he cannot go to his wife in days like Sraddha days of
elders and Amavasya and Sivaratri days. It is prohibited.
He must approach his wife only in the night not day time or evening.
Proper Sex is like doing Vajapeya Yajna because in Brudaranyaka
Upanishad 6-4-3 there is a praise of woman's organ of procreation and
the man who practices sex knowing this gets the result equal to
Vajapeya Yajna. The female organ is like the Yajna Kunda with fire
and he offers the Seed into it.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan
<svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Recently a locally renowned yoga teacher made a statement during his
>> lecture that in the *abhyAsa *of Patanjali's yoga sutra aphorisms, *
>> brahmacharya* is only the "hopeful attitude to see Brahman everywhere or
>> walk in the world with the knowledge/attitude that everything is Brahman"
>> and not the traditional interpretation of celibacy.
>> It was intriguing to hear that from him as he is known to advocate VyAsA's
>> bhAshya of Yoga Sutra for his yoga training and introspection. Assuming
> This may be so within the context of yoga as an independent darSana.
> Then again, those who take yoga as completely independent might
> argue that the dRshTi that everything is brahman is not part of yoga
> darSana and therefore, the brahmacarya mentioned in the yogasUtra
> should have another meaning than this samatva-dRshTi. I'm not sure
> how the vyAsa bhAshya on the yogasUtra interprets brahmacaryA as
> I don't have the text at hand.
>> this was the same VyAsA of *Brahma sutrAs*, my limited understanding of
>> this term from observing yathi-s of advaitic, v. advaitic and dvaitic mutts
>> is quite different.
>> Does the definition of Brahmacharya change with the sadhana mArga? How do
>> the sutrakArA-s treat the necessity of *brahmacharya* in the* *sAdhana in
>> advaitic path? How do they define or expect the understanding of "*
> brahmasUtras 3.4.40-43 discuss this topic. Briefly, there is no return
> to any of the three earlier ASrama-s from the saMnyAsASrama. There
> is a difference of opinion on prAyaScitta for breaking the vow of celibacy
> for a naishThika brahmacArin. One view says there is no expiation and
> the other view says that it is only a minor lapse (upapAtaka), not a major
> one (mahApAtaka) and that therefore the same prAyaScitta should be
> done as is prescribed for a student brahmacArin who intends to enter
> into gRhasthASrama later. The author of the brahmasUtra presents
> both views with respect to prAyaScitta and concludes that one who
> has broken a vow of celibacy should nevertheless be shunned (bahis
> tu ubhayathA api smRter AcArAc ca).
> The fact that according to the brahmasUtra, one who breaks the vow
> is to be shunned, irrespective of whether prAyaScitta is done or even
> possible, shows the high value given to it as a sAdhana. From a purely
> philosophical perspective, for advaita vedAnta, a lapse in the vow is
> an indication of giving in to the dehAtma buddhi after having formally
> committed to the path of saMnyAsa. In hindsight, for all schools of
> vedAnta, not just advaita, it would point to the fact that becoming a
> saMnyAsin was a mistake in the first place. And given that dharma
> allows no formal return from saMnyAsa ASrama, a saMnyAsin who is
> lax about his vows is by definition an adharmic person and should be
> Of course, our contemporary social situation is drastically different,
> but the less I say about it the better!
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list