I understand the importance of sadhana. However, I do not see how making love is anymore distracting from one’s sadhana and progress to param-ananda than is having that platonic and compassionate relationship sans sex??? Why is it considered higher or more favorable to one’s progress to reach a point where you are platonic and no longing engaging in sex? One would still exchange affection via words and emotional support in times of need. Attachment is still there. How is that any more detached than having sex also?

It is not a hindrance as long as you are making progress on other elements involved in spiritual progress. At a point further along the spiritual path it naturally comes about that celibacy is helpful and one gives it up naturally, without feeling the pain of having given it up.

Why is celibacy touted as an ideal in so many different religious systems?

But eventually (may not be in this lifetime), one realises by direct experience (not through suppression) that in our dualistic existence all sensations, pleasurable or painful, including the sensations that we enjoy from sex are fleeting and impermanent. That is why most margas (paths) require celibacy, because it is a distraction from knowing the ultimate. This is true only for the renunciate, the monk or nun or ascetic and not everybody may be ready to truly renounce. For a householder, it may be an easier restriction to follow, by having sex with one committed loving partner and only renounce sex, when you truly have a platonic relationship that doesn’t need sex as an aid to keep the relationship truly loving and compassionate. The spiritual quest is the quest for paramaanandham (eternal joy), which comes from realising the truth as it is.

I agree with this in general but since it is the rare person, if any, who can be celibate their whole life without hypocrisy, I think celibacy should not be regarded as an “ideal” at all. I think the Prophet Muhammed was onto something when he practically forbade it. It just does not work for most (if not all) people. I find that happy couples who have a regular and healthy sex life are much more balanced, peaceful and less concerned with sex than the actual “celibates” I know.

I do not understand how making love every once in a while can ever be a substantial hindrance to spiritual progress.

Why is celibacy touted as an ideal in so many different religious systems?

but religious taboos also, many surrounding sexuality, which, coming from a religion which more or less idealizes brahmacharya (celibacy), can prove to be quite troublesome on many levels, psychological being one of them, for us. Celibacy is the ideal. If you can’t do that then sex only within marriage – not before. Even that is seen as something less than the ideal and something to be “overcome in time”.

Let me quote what I said elsewhere on Celibacy.

Celibacy that is involuntary and imposed (either by oneself or by someone else) is not useful in any way. It may lead to frustration and increasing interest in sex, which defeats the purpose. If one is interested in sex, it is better to enjoy it and work it out rather than suppressing it. Abstention has to come from within oneself to be of any value. Abstaining from sex is only one part. Real abstention involves abstaining from all pleasure and pain of the senses and just be an objective observer of ones sensations (vedana). And this again is only one of the 8 yamas as prescribed by Patanjali in the Yogasutra for instance. There are of course 4 niyamas to complement these as well. Celibacy is helpful for someone on a single focused spiritual quest, it is not a taboo. Abstention from all desires not just sex in the single focused pursuit of a particular goal will lead to success in achieving that goal and most people have done that and continue doing that for a limited time in their lives and there is nothing unusual about that. The converse of that is true as well where one can pursue sex and sensory pleasures and abstain from everything else! That maybe a quicker path to spiritual self-discovery since one gets to know the fleeting nature of such pleasures and is forced to look elsewhere for paramaanandham. Of course we have Tantra that uses sex or more specifically maithunam as a tool for spiritual progress. Different strokes for different folks:) There is no one size fits all. So if it doesn’t yet work for you don’t force yourself into it and suppress the urges, work it out over time.

Very good advice. Since being over here for more than a year and having the space to do that, I have gotten better at living my own life. But my more than a decade long experience in India is still alive and well within me – so I still sometimes speak from that space – although alot less than I used to, so I’m improving with time – getting more self-focused and chilled – like the people around me.

Pardesi Gori, can’t you forget about what others do for once and just live your own life? You’re obsessed with Indian people and their habits! Get over it!

Kurma, I’m not even talking about “strictly religious” when I talk of “traditional”. They could even be atheists but they have alot of cultural taboos and rules of conduct. So whereas they may not be living a “traditional” lifestyle in terms of religion or whatever, they are living by the taboos that their parents/grandparents/culture have set up for them. This then creates a culture of denial regarding certain subjects which are usually not deemed as appropriate for conversation.

Anyway, since I deal mostly with Indians and non-Indians who follow certains branches of Hinduism, we are plagued not only by cultural/societal taboos, but religious taboos also, many surrounding sexuality, which, coming from a religion which more or less idealizes brahmacharya (celibacy), can prove to be quite troublesome on many levels, psychological being one of them, for us.

Celibacy is the ideal. If you can’t do that then sex only within marriage – not before. Even that is seen as something less than the ideal and something to be “overcome in time”.

p.s. some hindus who emphasize that “hinduism is really monotheistic” exhibit the same tendency of reformulating the religion to be in keeping with mainstream american standards.

Guilty as charged; where I was raised, it was often easier to begin a meaningful dialogue exchange on religous beliefs and practices by putting forth that point of view. Of course, those discussions were rare. The conversations were often one-sided harangues about finding Jesus (“why, is Jesus lost??” she asked, as an 8-year old.)

I haven’t glanced through all the comments, so perhaps this aculturation has already been mentioned: “going to temple on Sunday.” (Sunday??)

The temple I go to on occasion has cricket/ping pong/football teams, is forming a youth group as well as retreats for teens, has a ‘choir’ (er, a bhajan group), and ‘Sunday’ school for learning more about Hindu practices, cultural arts, and one’s “mother tongue”.

I happen to think these social structures have the capacity* to be positive, yet it’s amusing to have grown up worshipping primarily at home, because (a) there were no temples in small-town America, and (b) well, most of my family’s prayer took place at the family/home ashan anyway.

This particular brand of social structure centering around religous worship reminds me of midwestern-American Christianity, particular that of Baptist churches. I wonder how much of these social structures centering around a temple is because of American cultural influence, and how much is the old country’s influence, the need for ‘like’ to come together in a community forum.

Thanks for the recommendation, Abhi – ’tis on my reading list.

• only if gossipy vituperative doesn’t get in the way. (Do I have some “good news,” indeed!)