From: radams@cerritos.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Becoming aware
Date: 29 Sep 92 04:38:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Oct1.160255.21582
Organization: Cerritos College, Norwalk CA

In article <1a3oc9INNlb7@sandman.caltech.edu>, 
dkarma@pro-nbs.acme.fred.org (Druta Karma) writes:

> According to many spiritual traditions, the usual sorts of sexual
> desires and feelings are considered in a negative way. Why? Because they
> foster identification with the material body and ego in the heaviest possible
> way. It is, for many, the highest material pleasure. But it is still material.
> Thus, for those on the path of spiritual progress, or vairagya (detachment)
> material sex and sex feelings present an obstacle. This was certainly
> recognized by the Advaita Vedantists, who would only teach Vedanta to members
> of sannyasa, the completely renounced (sexually) order of life. The Patanjali
> yoga system is also for celibates. 

It is for non-celibates also.

> I don't know what the Buddhist position is.
> In the bhakti-yoga system, which I practice, material sex is considered an
> obstacle to spiritual perfection. But there is an allowance for a kind of
> spiritual sex, which is sex that is performed for sacrifice. Sacrifice means
> you are doing something not for your own personal pleasure (or that of your
> sex partner) but for the satisfaction of the Supreme. 

One may be doing it for the Supreme but if there was no pleasure in it - in
and of itself - people would choose to please the Supreme in other ways.
There is a reason Mother Nature made sex pleasurable. If the act were nothing
more than a sacrificial dirge, nobody would bother (or too few to propagate
the human species). 

Suppression and repression of this instinct can cause as many problems (if not 
more) than overindulgence because feelings of guilt, fear, shame, etc. can 
somehow become linked with sex arousal and manifest in destructive and 
hypocritical ways that are enormously harmful to others. I don't argue 
against celibacy or abstinence but if one imposes this on herself/himself
for some religious reason without having developed the temperament for it,
it can lead to the above problems. Also, if one is married, I see no 
particular morality or manifested spirituality if a unilateral decision is
made to abstain from sex except for trying to coax some some spiritual master 
to this world as a form of ritualistic sacrifice. In fact it would be
rather selfish and un-loving and no master would come near such an environment.
A couple that decides *together* to abstain when they feel that their love for 
one another is more purely and satisfactorily expressed in other ways than 
sex can do so with great success and I have heard of such cases. 

If a couple wants to have children, I think its good if they want to bring
spiritual souls to this world and try to prepare for it but it need not be
considered an austere sacrifice where one pretends to not really enjoy the
sexual union - this would be dangerous. Also to restrict sex only for such
occasions can be repressive and problematic especially if there is no
agreement on this with one's mate. Moderation in sex can be quite compatible
with spiritual progress but it should also be said that sex is not a 
necessary agency for expressing love.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Roger Adams
	radams@cerritos.edu               To those in whom love dwells,
	Cerritos College                  the whole world is one family.
	11110 Alondra Blvd                             A Hindu Proverb
        Norwalk, California 90650
	USA        		          292 Dwapara :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------