PDA

View Full Version : Spirituality and Sexuality



sexuality
29 June 2009, 02:17 AM
Hi Friends!

I am from South India. Nice to meet you all. As is obvious from my handle, I am interested in psychoanalyzing everything, including what we call religion. In the west, Freud and others analyzed the sexuality inherent in the behavior of so-called religious people.

Thanks for all your help.

atanu
29 June 2009, 10:57 AM
Hi Friends!

I am from South India. Nice to meet you all. As is obvious from my handle, I am interested in psychoanalyzing everything, including what we call religion. In the west, Freud and others analyzed the sexuality inherent in the behavior of so-called religious people.

Thanks for all your help.

Namaste,

I think this type of thought is erroneous and belong to minds that see everything from a narrow perspective only. This type of thinking is reflected from minds, which dwell in a limited motivational area of human mind.

For example, there is a Tagore song: "You have made me unspendable. You empty me out and fill me up again and again. You have made me unspendable" (I have intentionally reproduced it grossly). Now, during my very young age, I understood that Tagore was a sexy guy. It was purely superposition of my sexy thoughts on Tagore, whose every song now I see as praise of Lord, and in the particular song Tagore praises Lord for the unlimited creative intellect that God endowed Tagore with.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
29 June 2009, 11:35 AM
Spirituality is about spirit, that which is ungraspable. Sexuality, on the other hand, is about grasping only.



Without wisdom repression leads to volcano and not spiritual upliftment. The difference is merely to know the distinction between attachment and non-attachment. Repression and then constant dwelling on the subject is worse than obtaining a release (when inevitable) and then cooly meditating on the spirit. Else one must be a Hatha Yogi.

Om Namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
29 June 2009, 03:58 PM
I'm with Atanu. (as usual) East is east and west is west, never the twain shall meet. What many Hindus do in the stead of psychoanalysis is drop their problems via prayer to the deity at the temple. And it works. Spiritual knowledge is light years ahead of Freud. Regardless, best of luck with your research. At this time in your individual soul's evolution, that is obviously what you (referring to soul) need.

Aum namasivaya

sexuality
29 June 2009, 11:10 PM
I'm with Atanu. (as usual) East is east and west is west, never the twain shall meet. What many Hindus do in the stead of psychoanalysis is drop their problems via prayer to the deity at the temple. And it works. Spiritual knowledge is light years ahead of Freud. Regardless, best of luck with your research. At this time in your individual soul's evolution, that is obviously what you (referring to soul) need.

Aum namasivaya

Thanks for your response, but it seems more emotional than rational.

dhruva023
29 June 2009, 11:30 PM
According to you, what is spirituality?

sexuality
30 June 2009, 12:27 AM
According to you, what is spirituality?

Let's focus on the topic.

Eastern Mind
30 June 2009, 12:30 AM
Thanks for your response, but it seems more emotional than rational.

I'm not sure if I should even respond since my take and your take are so very different. I can so dismiss the sexuality inherent in religions, as you say. Each is entitled to their opinions based on their experiences. I find nothing at all sexual about bhakti. In fact it does the opposite of sexual arousal. Its kind of like feeling the presence of God. if you haven't had this experience, then you have no starting point at which to begin a discussion. Most Hindus have had this experience of a godly presence, either within themselves through sadhana, or darshan at a temple. Trust me, it has nothing to do with repressed sexuality, as the very same Hindus who worship God so sincerely can next day be very unsupressed regarding sexuality. I have no idea what you afre trying to discover by this line of thought. I think it belongs more in a sex forum, frankly. Its the Europeans and western thought that repressed sexuality , starting with Queen Vic.



Aum Namasivaya

sexuality
30 June 2009, 12:45 AM
I think it belongs more in a sex forum, frankly. Its the Europeans and western thought that repressed sexuality , starting with Queen Vic.
um Namasivaya

That's exactly my point.

devotee
30 June 2009, 02:50 AM
Thanks for your response, but it seems more emotional than rational.

If the definition of being rational is whatever comes out from you, aka, "sexuality", yes !

Dharmaboy_Vishal
30 June 2009, 03:00 AM
That's exactly my point. Since Hinduism is liberal, isn't possible that the religion centers upon sex and only sex, unlike other oppressive religions? Which is why I wonder whether all sadhanas in Hinduism are about experiencing orgasmic bliss (and this orgasmic bliss might be called god).


Namaste,

I'd like to address a couple of things pertaining to what you say sexuality-ji and please don't feel like i'm attacking you. First off let me introduce myself so you know where i'm coming from; my name is Vishal Dharmananda and i've been an Advaitin (Nondualistic) Vaisnava for about a year now. I grew up a Southern Baptist, so i understand that you have this thing for psychoanalyizing religion in terms of being sexually repressive, but i think you are looking at things from a purely dualistic (or should i say dichotomic) standpoint and not in the shades of grey that life truly presents itself.

Possiblilities about the degree to which Religion deals with the topic of sexuality dont just come in two types (a.k.a. either sexually repressive or sexually premiscuous), the funny thing is we have a habit in the West of categorizing things that don't need to be categorized... According to many traditions of Hinduism there are various relationships that a Bhakta (devotee) may have with the Lord: one may view god as their lover, mother/father, brother/sister, friend, master... etc., etc., etc. Arguably any devotee can have any conception of the Lord they want. This is a luxury we enjoy as Hindus. I offer this as evidence in support of what Eastern_Mind-ji, was saying earlier about Bhakti not necessarily involving a devotee falling in love with God.

Additionally, i can't remember now who said it but i strongly disagree that the Spirituality and Sexuality are two seperate things and that Spirituality comes from repression at all. I may be more liberal than most Hindus in this belief and probably a lot more liberal than most Vaisnavas but since i started reading and taking Advaitin teachings to heart, i have found that everything is interconnected and that includes Spirituality and Sexuality. For example, i've heard there being a difference between the acts of having sex and making love. Qualified by the belief that sex may just be going through the motions, whereas making love is about having a deeper connection with the other individual; giving yourself up to them and/or "becoming one" (if you will)... Thus, using the aforementioned logic i'd argue that making love is a very spiritual experience.

Finally, i'd like to point out that not all male Bhaktas of the Lord dress in women's clothing in order to offer their spirit (metaphorically or otherwise) to Him. And classifying all male devotees who dress in women's clothing as homosexual is a mistake from the beginning. Especially, since there may be at least one person out there who is in love with their wife but still feels in love with the Lord, this is because there are different types of love in the world, not just one that is centered around amourous feelings or lust.

Om Namo Narayana

Dharmaboy_Vishal
30 June 2009, 03:16 AM
Namaste Devotee-ji,

I'd like to point out that he is just asking questions and stating his opinions. This all comes from his lack of understanding in the beliefs of various Hindus. He is not "stupid" and i think it's actually counterproductive to insult someone who is looking for answers. Additionally, i'd like to humbly point out that you are doing the same thing to Madonna and Michael Jackson that he has done to Sri Ramakrishna, Meera and Chaitanya. Sexuality-ji is looking for knowledge and treating this human being badly because he doesn't have all the information to make assumptions isn't fostering a wellrounded, inclusive environment where people can come to inquire and obtain the benefits of your knowledge or the knowledge of others. Furthermore, i personally think that this thread isn't nonsense it's a learning experience for everyone, including Sexuality-ji.

I hope i haven't offended you, but i felt that needed to be pointed out. Gandhi-ji said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." If you beat Sexuality-ji over the head because of his opinions after he beats you over the head because of yours (not that this has already happened, but with a little more aggression it could start)--then no one ends up right in the end; and consequently no one grows.

This isn't meant to be mean or argumentative, it's meant to express the opinions of one humble Hindu who would like to see this thread stay open.

Thank you!

atanu
30 June 2009, 05:32 AM
Namaste Devotee-ji,

I'd like to point out that he is just asking questions and stating his opinions.
Thank you!




From Sexuality

Since Hinduism is liberal, isn't possible that the religion centers upon sex and only sex---

would it not be reasonable to assume that 'bhaktas' like Ramakrishna, Meera, Chaitanya were simply sexually repressed people looking for an outlet to release their boiling sexual energies? --------------



No, sexuality is surely not stating mere opinions. This fellow is passing emphatic judgements. His statement as above (and many more) are neither based on facts nor on a common premise of mutually acceptable definitions of spirituality and sexuality. And when Dhruva asks a definition from him, he acts supercilious.

I wonder why you fail to see this supercilious attitude and the sense of finality in sexuality's posts?

Vigyana Bhairava Tantra teaches 112 meditation techniques, of which only one requires a partership of two individuals of opposite gender. The Tantra clearly states that any technique practised fully can endow with liberation. But this guy (sexuality) declares:


Sex is the most important aspect in the Hindu religion.

We have seen variants of this theme for some time now.

Om Namah Shivaya

brahman
30 June 2009, 06:42 AM
Hindus are not against sexuality, hindu religion doesn't really entertain suppressed sanyasi community, no one is forcing people to join ashrams or even forcing anyone to visit temples.
Hindu sages were very well aware of the sexuality, its applications and position and they have mentioned it in scriptures like kamasutra and Upanishads.


posted by sexuality: “Repressed sexuality becomes spirituality”
this statement is wrong, it happenes otherwise actually,
Repressed spirituality may become sexuality, cos one gain immense vital energy with practices of worship. This vital energy can be transformed in any form and utilize in their good karma or sexuality, creativity, etc…

Everyone is not the same, when we psychoanalyze some people we confirm that they cannot be put even with their mothers and sisters since they don’t differentiate true love. I mean to say that there are incest too, not only bisexual or tri sexual in the group of people mentioned by you.

Always Think good, it you the satan and the god.

Brahman

Dharmaboy_Vishal
30 June 2009, 03:29 PM
No, sexuality is surely not stating mere opinions. This fellow is passing emphatic judgements. His statement as above (and many more) are neither based on facts nor on a common premise of mutually acceptable definitions of spirituality and sexuality. And when Dhruva asks a definition from him, he acts supercilious.

I wonder why you fail to see this supercilious attitude and the sense of finality in sexuality's posts?

Namaste Atanu-ji,

Probably because i'm trying to look at his posts without the perception that he is trying to cause problems... I'm trying to give this person the benefit of the doubt, which is the godly thing to do; it's also what you NEED to do when you post on forums to keep from creating problems with your brothers and sisters. It has been stated many times by Sexologists (and i myself study sexuality also), that sexuality is fluid and not the same for everyone. Thus, when one is talking about such a topic you need to take into account someones ideas of how they percieve their own sexuality. Also despite how society (be it Western, Indian, etc.) feels about the topic, because sexuality is so multifaceted it involves many variations among human beings. All which show up in the Animal Kingdom as well, proving that sexual diversity is natural. But we are not here to argue about sexuality. We are here to talk about Hinduism.

It is obvious though that despite the fact that Sexuality-ji is from South India, this individual doesn't fully understand the Bhakti tradition (no offense intended to you Sexuality-ji). So the point i am trying to make is we should be jumping down his/her throat but coming to this thread to help enlighten his/her perspective on sexuality and Hinduism. Because the truth is, Dharmic faiths differ highly from the Abrahamic faiths in terms of their response to sexuality (which is a subject that goes beyond erotic obsession).

Om Namo Narayana

devotee
30 June 2009, 10:03 PM
Namaste Vishal,


Probably because i'm trying to look at his posts without the perception that he is trying to cause problems... I'm trying to give this person the benefit of the doubt, which is the godly thing to do; it's also what you NEED to do when you post on forums to keep from creating problems with your brothers and sisters. It has been stated many times by Sexologists (and i myself study sexuality also), that sexuality is fluid and not the same for everyone. Thus, when one is talking about such a topic you need to take into account someones ideas of how they percieve their own sexuality. Also despite how society (be it Western, Indian, etc.) feels about the topic, because sexuality is so multifaceted it involves many variations among human beings. All which show up in the Animal Kingdom as well, proving that sexual diversity is natural.


No doubt your intentions are noble. However, every problem in every situation cannot have the same solution. I never like to attack the way I did & that you may verify from my other posts. But here he crossed the limits. He is giving his opinion with a tone of finality about our revered Hindu Saints in a derogatory manner. This act of sacrilege cannot & must not be tolerated. Will you tolerate if he told you similar things about your mother & sister ? For him, behind all behaviour the reason is suppressed sexuality. So, he can very well say same thing about mother's love for his son or sister's love for his brother & vice-versa. Where will he stop ? Please tell me. There are times when for stopping violence you have to pretend to be violent.

Though I was a student of science but I read Freud & his theories out of simple curiosity. To me, Freud himself appears to be suffering from some deep complexes related with his sexuality. You take some mentally deranged people, gather some data based on those subjects & finally tend to generalise it for the mentally sound people too ! First of all, this statistical findings are highly misleading. I will tell you how ? I can prove that Number 3 is the most unlucky number. For that I would collect everything wrong that happened in past related with number 3 & "prove" my proposition ! Similarly, I can also prove that Number 3 is, in fact, lucky using the same methodology !!



It is obvious though that despite the fact that Sexuality-ji is from South India, this individual doesn't fully understand the Bhakti tradition (no offense intended to you Sexuality-ji).

I think he is telling lies or he is a non-Hindu.


So the point i am trying to make is we should be jumping down his/her throat but coming to this thread to help enlighten his/her perspective on sexuality and Hinduism.

IMHO, you are mistaken. My dear friend, he was here to enlighten you & me about his "research work & his findings" & not to learn Hinduism.

OM

atanu
30 June 2009, 11:31 PM
Namaste Atanu-ji,

Probably because i'm trying to look at his posts without the perception that he is trying to cause problems...
Om Namo Narayana

Namaste Vishal,

Your intentions are noble and i do not doubt it.

Actually, I think that I know 'sexuality' under various other names. Though I empathise with 'sexuality', on the common understanding of plight of the poor and plight of the under-privileged, i do not like his biased attitude (mithya attitude). For example, please examine his post and you will find that he has not mentioned any ill with any muslim guru or practices. I think I can detect him from his post.

We have seen this several times.

Om Namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
01 July 2009, 07:23 AM
There is an interesting article on homosexuality and Indian history and laws here:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Ancient-India-didnt-think-homosexuality-was-against-nature/articleshow/4708206.cms

Aum Namasivaya

satay
01 July 2009, 10:54 AM
namaskar,


Actually, I think that I know 'sexuality' under various other names. We have seen this several times.

Om Namah Shivaya

Indeed. It seems to be a habbit of this muslim to hide in a woman's burka.

Dharmaboy_Vishal
01 July 2009, 01:13 PM
"So the point i am trying to make is we should be jumping down his/her throat but coming to this thread to help enlighten his/her perspective on sexuality and Hinduism." - Dharmaboy_Vishal

Namaste Devotee,

Thank you for quoting me above because i now realize that i left out a word in my sentence that changes the entire meaning. The quote should read:

"So the point i am trying to make is we should not be jumping down his/her throat for coming to this thread to help enlighten his/her perspective on sexuality and Hinduism."


No doubt your intentions are noble. However, every problem in every situation cannot have the same solution. I never like to attack the way I did & that you may verify from my other posts. But here he crossed the limits. He is giving his opinion with a tone of finality about our revered Hindu Saints in a derogatory manner. This act of sacrilege cannot & must not be tolerated. Will you tolerate if he told you similar things about your mother & sister ? For him, behind all behaviour the reason is suppressed sexuality. So, he can very well say same thing about mother's love for his son or sister's love for his brother & vice-versa. Where will he stop ? Please tell me. There are times when for stopping violence you have to pretend to be violent.

Well i think this is where we fundamentally disagree. Doesn't Lord Krishna talk about keeping the mind calm in the Gita? How can your mind be calm if you are jumping at everyone's reactions and ignorant opinions in life? Nonetheless, "must not be tolerated" sounds just like Christian and Muslim fundamentalist reactions to living life in a non-Christian or non-Islamic way... And last time i checked our way of life is built on tolerence and God-consciousness, or was i mistaken in that? As far as saying something about my mother or sister, i'm not attached to the people that i love in such a way that i would become violent to "perserve their name." My mother and sister don't need me to defend them. And i think the reason you view things like this is because you are dualistic in your thinking (correct me if i'm wrong about you being an adherent of Dvaitin philosophy but that's what i've gathered from some of your other posts). Violence only begets violence my brothers and sisters. If you want someone else to change it's up to you to change yourself and lead by example. I offer this up to you as i've learned this through many of the teachings taught by Swami Vivekananda.

Znanna
01 July 2009, 06:17 PM
Namaste,

The slithering of the snake, Lady Kundalini, could be considered erotic.

Certainly it holds attention (to me, anyways) in a similar fashion.

Makes meditation a pleasure, for sure!

More seriously, the embrace of the Beloved, the Twin, is bliss beyond any physical thing I've ever known. A sexual analogy, as even poetry has its limits, could be used to describe.

The paradox is that, in not resisting, the tension is redirected to acceptance ... the union is without the friction which beguiles, when the two are ONE, and there is no difference, the notice of the ecstacy becomes irrelevant.



ZN

vcindiana
01 July 2009, 06:47 PM
[quote=Dharmaboy_Vishal;29339..........
...........If you want someone else to change it's up to you to change yourself and lead by example. [/quote]

This is a beautiful and very thoughtful statement made.

I know this post is nothing to do with the original topic. Please permit me to state the following.

In this public forum I cannot go on explaining my personal experiences, but all I can tell you is that over the last 10-12 years I have learnt hard lessons in trying to control others. I have discovered that no one can control a thought or an action of another human being. In the famous Geeta Ch2 verse 47 God has given each one of us full freedom (eva adhikar) and He purposely has abdicated any control on our lives. The change has to come from the heart of each one of us. Only thing that changes another person is me to be Gracious to others.

I think many people from India are Gracious and hospitable. (perhaps it is one of their Swadharmas!)

Thank you for reading. Love............VC

devotee
01 July 2009, 10:54 PM
Namaste Vishal,



Well i think this is where we fundamentally disagree. Doesn't Lord Krishna talk about keeping the mind calm in the Gita? How can your mind be calm if you are jumping at everyone's reactions and ignorant opinions in life? Nonetheless, "must not be tolerated" sounds just like Christian and Muslim fundamentalist reactions to living life in a non-Christian or non-Islamic way... And last time i checked our way of life is built on tolerence and God-consciousness, or was i mistaken in that?

We must agree to disagree & respect even conflicting views. :)

Lord Krishna does say in BG to keep your mind calm but keeping one's mind calm doesn't mean that one should not fight when there is a need to stop Adharma. You must fight if the situation so demands for the sake of Dharma, keeping you mind calm. The whole eighteen chapters of BG are devoted to making Arjuna understand why there was a need to fight !

And I don't think everything is wrong with Christianity & Islam ... there is no need to reject each & everything they think & do. I am not concerned with what a Christian or a Muslim thinks or does in such circumstances ... I am concerned with what my Dharma is.


As far as saying something about my mother or sister, i'm not attached to the people that i love in such a way that i would become violent to "perserve their name." My mother and sister don't need me to defend them.

That is really very nice. However, a typical Hindu brother or a son doesn't think the way you do. For him it is secondary what his sister/mother can do when abused by someone ... what he can do in such a situation to stop that abusive person is more important.


And i think the reason you view things like this is because you are dualistic in your thinking (correct me if i'm wrong about you being an adherent of Dvaitin philosophy but that's what i've gathered from some of your other posts).

What you say is news to me. I don't think you have read my posts carefully.

OM

atanu
01 July 2009, 11:43 PM
"As far as saying something about my mother or sister, i'm not attached to the people that i love in such a way that i would become violent to "perserve their name."


Wrong. As long as one is in the waking/dreaming/sleeping realm, a man needs to defend mother, sister, daughter, as they also guard a man. Else there was no need for Mahabharata-- wherein the root cause was insult to Draupadi.


------Thus, using the aforementioned logic i'd argue that making love is a very spiritual experience ------

Would that mean that spiritual experience can be made permanent by using Viagra?:) Please do not come from the reverse direction.

Om Namah Shivaya

Dharmaboy_Vishal
02 July 2009, 03:51 AM
Namaste devotee-ji,




We must agree to disagree & respect even conflicting views. :)

Lord Krishna does say in BG to keep your mind calm but keeping one's mind calm doesn't mean that one should not fight when there is a need to stop Adharma. You must fight if the situation so demands for the sake of Dharma, keeping you mind calm. The whole eighteen chapters of BG are devoted to making Arjuna understand why there was a need to fight !


Thank you, that is a good point. However, i guess another philosophical difference between us is that i take it (the Mahabharata) as a metaphorical battle, within one's own self. I don't take any religious text in a literal fashion and take Ahimsa very seriously.:)


That is really very nice. However, a typical Hindu brother or a son doesn't think the way you do. For him it is secondary what his sister/mother can do when abused by someone ... what he can do in such a situation to stop that abusive person is more important.


Please don't take this as me being crass or sarcastic, i just want to make the point that i'm not the typical Hindu. I don't feel like i have to adhere to all the beliefs of a typical Vaisnava to be a "real" Hindu. I take no pleasure or pain in labels.


Namaste atanu-ji,


Wrong. As long as one is in the waking/dreaming/sleeping realm, a man needs to defend mother, sister, daughter, as they also guard a man. Else there was no need for Mahabharata-- wherein the root cause was insult to Draupadi.

That is the dogma you have chosen to live by, i've chosen a different belief. Like i said to devotee-ji above, i take the Mahabharata, Gita, Bible, Qu'ran, etc., metaphorically it has nothing to do with my family. If one takes religious texts literally i have found (through practicing many different faiths) that they are more likely to fall into the trappings of dogma. Besides when you get right down to it there is no distinction between me and my mother it is all an illusion. At least to an adherent of Advaita. ;)

----------------------------
Furthermore, i'm putting an end to my participation in any argument by withdrawing from this thread. Id prefer not to aggravate Satay-ji or any other admin anymore than has already accumulated. Hopefully, it will get back on topic too.

Om Namo Narayanaya

atanu
02 July 2009, 05:55 AM
Namaste devotee-ji,
Namaste atanu-ji,

That is the dogma you have chosen to live by, i've chosen a different belief. Like i said to devotee-ji above, i take the Mahabharata, Gita, Bible, Qu'ran, etc., metaphorically it has nothing to do with my family. If one takes religious texts literally i have found (through practicing many different faiths) that they are more likely to fall into the trappings of dogma. Besides when you get right down to it there is no distinction between me and my mother it is all an illusion. At least to an adherent of Advaita. ;)

----------------------------
Furthermore, i'm putting an end to my participation in any argument by withdrawing from this thread. Id prefer not to aggravate Satay-ji or any other admin anymore than has already accumulated. Hopefully, it will get back on topic too.

Om Namo Narayanaya

Namaste Vishal,

That puts your belief (dogma) against my dogma, and the latter is more just since the inner metaphor only is the outer expression.

What you erroneously understand (and teach) about advaita is true at Turya level and not at waking realm level. Your Mother is your Mother and your wife (if there is one) is another. You cannot treat both of them similarly. Can you?

Nevertheless, i will follow your example not to unneccessarily drag the issue anymore.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
02 July 2009, 06:21 AM
Namaste Vishal,



Thank you, that is a good point. However, i guess another philosophical difference between us is that i take it (the Mahabharata) as a metaphorical battle, within one's own self. I don't take any religious text in a literal fashion and take Ahimsa very seriously.:)

Please don't take this as me being crass or sarcastic, i just want to make the point that i'm not the typical Hindu. I don't feel like i have to adhere to all the beliefs of a typical Vaisnava to be a "real" Hindu. I take no pleasure or pain in labels.
----------------
Furthermore, i'm putting an end to my participation in any argument by withdrawing from this thread. Id prefer not to aggravate Satay-ji or any other admin anymore than has already accumulated. Hopefully, it will get back on topic too.


It is OK, dear ! :) There is nothing wrong in having different opinions on the same issue.

OM

satay
02 July 2009, 02:37 PM
Namaskar,

IMHO, buddhists take ahimsa very seriously. Hindus are not buddhists.

OmSriShivaShakti
29 July 2009, 07:56 AM
Why is there mixing between sex and religion here? Its as if whatever can get the farthest away from religion and morals is being mixed in with our religion now. This is almost as humiliating to me as some Muslim or Christian's claims that the Shiva Lingam is a phallic symbol. Why are such sexual ideas being brought out into the open and mixed with the religion if we are supposed to get past our physical desires??

OmSriShivaShakti
29 July 2009, 07:59 AM
Namaskar,

IMHO, buddhists take ahimsa very seriously. Hindus are not buddhists.

I agree with you there but I think that Hindus should also not act like Buddhists by putting such an emphasis on ahimsa when talking about their faith. For example, whenever someone I know comes to know I am a Hindu, they assume that I am a staunch pacifist, vegetarian, and that I follow Gandhi's teachings. We Hindus need to dispel such false stereotypes through our actions.

rkpande
29 July 2009, 09:30 AM
namaskar,

in my view we digress from meaningful discussion and some how fall in the trap of ego, every one is entitled to express his or her own mind ofcourse without hurting someone's sensibility.
Osho somewhere explained that at the last act of sex, for a spilt second ,one feels egolessness and timelessness, vertually witnessing the atributes of god. he says if this split second encounter gives a person such an exprience that he/she wants to do it again and again, what ananda he or she will get if they merge in him for ever. the first part explins sexuality the second part the spirituality.
Swami Vivekananda mentions somewhere that a person loses his ojas by performing sexual act. manu sahmita and even upnishad grant a householder to act for procreation and not use this act for pleasure.brahmcharya has been given a prominant place in hindu religion.
the reason for that is very interesting.
Hatha Yoga Pradipika says that as long as prana is within the body one lives and dies once the prana leaves the body. the catch word is retaintion of prana within one's own body. every person is given a definate amount of prana and hath yog stongly recomends it to expend it very frugally. that is why all yogic postures are static and not dynamic and one is supossed to do savasan, a deadman's posture to regain normal breaths. prana is life sustaining force and resides at the base of the spine
and is brought forth by breathing and distributed allover the body.
the maximum wastage of prana is during the course of act of sex.
if you want to live long and to persue sprituality for the perpetual state of ananda follow brahmacharya. choice is yours

OmSriShivaShakti
29 July 2009, 09:36 AM
I agree, and I think that we should discourage mixing religion and sex. And forbid deviant sexual acts such as homosexuality.

clito
11 September 2009, 11:02 AM
Namaste,sexuality what a difficult issue,how should we understand sexuality how interpretate sexuality ,its not easy and some spiritual masters are completely opposite on their aproach and importance of sexuality in someones life.Some shaktas ,they think that sexuality can be used for joy ,they even say ,that lust and sexual performance is good it is inherent need in humans nature and we should enjoy it , its a fun game to explore,some of them perform mantra sadhana, after having sex ,saying that is the best moment to raise kundalini.Some others say ,that the only meaning of sexuality is to make it sacred ,meaning the maithuna ritual ,which is a tantrik union between male and female.The goal of this sexual union between male and female, is to reach the shamadi of both partners ,with the help of synchronized pranayam and kriyas.this sexual union is devoid of any lust or sexual desire,only the so called heroes(conquerors of lust)can performe this ritual,and they spend years of moola bhanda, vajroli ,udhiyana and nauli kriyas training.Some others they say that sexuality is the biggest enemy for spiritual sadhana,because the intercourse betwen the two members,creates an emotional distress on people and not only emotional but a physical lost of prana and ojas(the semen)which is te regenerator of human health.they strongly suggest to purify the chakras as a method to cool down lust and trascend the moladhara and swadhistana chakras to function with the influence of the upper chakras,as we know the big mayority of people work with mooladhara and swadhistana chakra during their life, if the person consciousness resides here and the mooladhara is not purified and awake,the person is unconscious of his self the character is dominated by passion,greed ,jalousy insecurity etc.swadisthana if not purified the character is dominated by rajas material ambition and lust.Paramahansa satyananda saraswati who is a world wide renowned tantrik master,as well as Sri Aurobindo suggest that to obtain spiritual perffection we should consider sex as something tamasic and devoid of sense on the spiritual path.