Brahmacharya

[MahaHrada]

If you want to believe that you can raise awareness permanently up the sushumna without celibacy, go for it.

Like you said before this depends on sampradaya, in kaula dharma it is the opposite to your belief, highest attainment, or complete awakening of kundalini in this life, is not possible without a sexual partner.

[Seeker123]

EM,

I am sure this question is as old as the hills and I dont want to keep at it. But to make some points.

1. I am not saying Sanyasa is not good - it is our duty to support Sanyasis. But merely stating that Sanyasa is not the only way for Moksha.

2. If Sanyasa is the only way I doubt our literature will feature so many married sages. Here are some more - Yagnavalkaya (2 wives) and Uddalaka (had wife and son). I am sure there are many many more.

Sringeri Sankaracharya Mahaswamigal who was widely regarded as a Jivanmukta says one can attain Moksha from Grishastashrama. But there may be more distractions. He also says that Gnanis may continue to live as Grishastas after Gnanam it all depends on how Ishwara wants them or Prarabdha if I may add.

I think the point is cultivating a mind free of binding desires (those without which I will be unhappy etc.). Non-binding desires are not a problem and no need to be devoid of any desire which is impossible as long as one is alive.

I have gotten a chance to reflect more on the last sentence of my previous post. I feel that the goal of Jivan Mukti after Sanyasa is still better than the goal of heaven after death or Mukti after death or in a future life time.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Seeker: I don't view it as argument. The beauty of Hinduism is it has more than one school of thought. You have yours, I have mine, someone else has theirs. They all fall within the umbrella of Hinduism. I do not support your viewpoint, and you don't support mine. Like I said, this is the beauty of Hinduism. There is room for all of us. I'll leave it at that.

Aum Namasivaya

[Seeker123]

Sure, we can agree to disagree but do reflect on the wide prevalence of married Hindu sages.

http://rajathathablog.blogspot.com/2...-of-india.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashyap

[Sahasranama]

It is indeed a simple fact that most Hindu sages lived life as grihastas, that is undeniable, but they also practices tapah and brahmacharya within grihastashrama and before they entered grihastashrama. The practice of yoga is not limited to sannyasa ashrama.

[jasdir]

What are the steps to enable one to "claim" brahmacharya?

Only "The falling in love with god" can enable one to CLAIM brahmacharya, Nothing else is needed.

Now the question is: How this works ?
The answer is: Its the game of "falling in love" not doing, or trying, or pursueing love", Because.. falling in love means -- once falled there is no any way out.

Thus.. intelligent and sharp people can never know -- what is falling in love, because they want to know -- what is falling in love -- before falling into it.

Now how can one explain, what is falling.., only the one who has falled can know it.

[Seeker123]

It is indeed a simple fact that most Hindu sages lived life as grihastas, that is undeniable, but they also practices tapah and brahmacharya within grihastashrama and before they entered grihastashrama. The practice of yoga is not limited to sannyasa ashrama.

I agree. I guess my main question is did they have to practise brahamacharya within Grihastashrama in order to attain Moksha? My readings on the life histories of these ancient sages suggest not - because otherwise it would have been stressed repeatedly. I am not denying that brahmacharya has not been praised or that Sanyasa ashrama has not been praised. Just that it does not appear an essential qualification for Moksha.

[Eastern Mind]

I agree. I guess my main question is did they have to practise brahamacharya within Grihastashrama in order to attain Moksha? My readings on the life histories of these ancient sages suggest not - because otherwise it would have been stressed repeatedly. I am not denying that brahmacharya has not been praised or that Sanyasa ashrama has not been praised. Just that it does not appear an essential qualification for Moksha.

Vannakkam: Personally, I find history and puranic stories all debatable, and I take it all with a grain of salt. It might be fiction, it might be truth, and nobody really knows. Things get distorted over time.

On the other hand, if we look at modern sages alive today, or in the very recent past, there is much less debate or conjecture on what they have to say. I personally can't think of any modern Guru or Sage that is married. Whenever one is caught breaking the brahmacharaya vow, it becomes a scandal within minutes. The maths of Haridwar and Rishikesh, and aadheenams of South Inidia are filled with renunciate monks. I believe there's a valid reason for it.

Aum Namasivaya

[Seeker123]

Vannakkam: Personally, I find history and puranic stories all debatable, and I take it all with a grain of salt. It might be fiction, it might be truth, and nobody really knows. Things get distorted over time.
Aum Namasivaya

I think we can learn a lot from Puranas. I doubt they would have misled on such an important issue. Even if we discount all Puranas the examples of Yagnavalkya and Uddalaka are from Upanishads.

Vannakkam: On the other hand, if we look at modern sages alive today, or in the very recent past, there is much less debate or conjecture on what they have to say. I personally can't think of any modern Guru or Sage that is married. Whenever one is caught breaking the brahmacharaya vow, it becomes a scandal within minutes. The maths of Haridwar and Rishikesh, and aadheenams of South Inidia are filled with renunciate monks. I believe there's a valid reason for it.

Aum Namasivaya

I agree with your comment on modern sages. If they had already taken the Sanyasa vow then they have to remain brahmacharis and if they break it they get into trouble. But if they never took the Sanyasa vow will the maths accept them? Will society regard them as sages?