Brahmacharya: Merging with the Divine

by
Mitch Hall

    Brahmacharya is the fourth yama (fundamental ethical principle) in the tradition of raja yoga, as codified in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. The concept of brahmacharya has had varying usages and interpretations. Etymologically, brahmacharya is derived from brahma, referring to the divine essence of being, and charya, meaning “to be followed.”1 Therefore, based on the etymology, the concept implies following or merging with the divine, brahma. Translations of brahmacharya into English have included celibacy, sexual abstinence, continence, and chastity. In considering these translations in relation to the etymology, we see an implied correlation between spiritual practice and sexual abstinence.

    Let’s explore the usages of the term brahmacharya. In the traditional Hindu conception of the human life cycle, life was idealized as lasting a century and being divided into four 25-year stages. The first was the brahmacharya stage, involving spiritually guided studies, often in the home of the guru, and requiring sexual abstinence.2 This first stage was to be followed for laypeople by the householder stage (grihastha)  in which sexuality between the married couple was sanctioned for procreation, after which came a retirement stage (vanaprastha), and then a stage of worldly renunciation (sannyasa). In this schema, sexuality is condoned only in the householder stage.3 A spiritual aspirant could choose renunciation at any age, and sexual abstinence was then vowed as a concomitant behavioral requirement.

    Swami Chidananda, who succeeded Swami Sivananda as head of the Divine Life Society in Rishikesh, summarized the cultural perspective on brahmacharya as follows:

    “Therefore, the concept of brahmacharya was part and parcel of the Indian-Hindu social tradition. In its narrowest, restricted sense, brahmacharya meant complete celibacy, but in its broader sense, as it could be applied to the life of a householder, it meant moderation   and self-restraint, not abusing the sex function, and strict fidelity to one’s partner.”4

For the spiritual aspirant, he provided the ontological presupposition for the practice of brahmacharya:

    “Man is a mixture of three ingredients: first, an animal with all the physical propensities and sense urges that one shares in common with animals; second, the rational, logical human level; and third, the dormant Divinity, the sleeping God within. The whole of the spiritual life is a gradual elimination, eradication, of the animal within, and the refinement or purification and education of the entire human nature so that it stops its movement in all other directions and starts taking on an ascending vertical direction. Once the human nature is given an upward turn, one simultaneously starts awakening the sleeping Divinity with the help of all one’s spiritual practices.”5

        In this view, spirituality is a vertical energetic ascent intended to transcend animality in human nature, and brahmacharya is seen as essential to this alchemical transformation. Swami Sivananda, who had been a medical doctor prior to his own embracing of the spiritual path, wrote an entire book on the subject of the importance of brahmacharya.6 Some advocates of celibacy, both traditional and contemporary, have made physiologically based arguments in favor of sexual continence, claiming that the richly concentrated nutrients in sexual fluids, particularly semen for males, can be used internally to nourish the nervous system for spiritual realization.7

        The premise that the animal aspects of human nature, as manifested in sexual expression, are incompatible with spirituality is a historically significant cultural paradigm that one may call into question, as was done by the psychologist Erik H. Erikson who respectfully studied the life and teachings of Mohandas K. Gandhi because he considered that Gandhi’s contributions to the practice of ahimsa (nonviolence) and satya (truth) were essential for human survival and peace. Erikson affirmed, “for man can find what peace there is in this existence only in those moments when his sensual, logical, and ethical faculties balance each other...”8 Erikson posited integration, rather than renunciation and sexual transcendence, as the path to peace. He believed that Gandhi’s linkage of brahmacharya, which he had decided to embrace personally at the age of 38, with ahimsa would reduce the potential potency of satyagraha for eliminating war and injustice. Erikson thought that sexual repression entailed potentially harmful and violently explosive risks.

    For Gandhi, the practice of brahmacharya was challenging. He wrote,

    “Brahmachraya means control of all the organs of sense. He who attempts to control only one organ, and allows all the others free play is bound to find his effort futile...To hear suggestive stories with the ears, to see suggestive sights with the eyes, to taste     stimulating food with the tongue, to touch exciting things with the hands, and at the same time to expect to control the only remaining organ, is like putting one's hands in the fire and expecting to escape being hurt.”9

        The challenges remained throughout Gandhi’s life. When he was 77 and 78, which was after his wife’s death, he would at times be overcome by a physiological shaking, shivering, or trembling, that could only be relieved when he had women caregivers ‘cradle’ him between their bodies or at times when, by his request, he had girls or young women lie naked next to him, “claiming publicly that by having (sometimes naked) women near him at night he was testing his ability not to become aroused.”10 Various interpretations of these idiosyncratic behaviors of Gandhi’s can lead to many questions about the strain of his practice of asceticism and brahmacharya over the preceding 30 years of his life. With regard to the ethical probity of such behavior, Erikson noted that Gandhi’s biographer’s “main objection to the whole episode was well-taken: the women had too little choice either in being involved or in having their actions publicized...”11

    Certainly the regulation of the powerful and complex energy of human sexuality is important individually and socially. The psychologist Erich Fromm illustrated the problematic manifold manifestations of human sexuality in the following commentary:

    “But sexual desire can be stimulated by the anxiety of aloneness, by the wish to conquer or be conquered, by vanity, by the wish to hurt and even to destroy, as much as it can be stimulated by love. It seems that sexual desire can easily blend with and be stimulated by     any strong emotion, of which love is only one. Because sexual desire is in the minds of most people coupled with the idea of love, they are easily misled to conclude that they love each other when they want each other physically. Love can inspire the wish for sexual union; in this case the physical relationship is lacking in greediness, in a wish to conquer or be conquered, but is blended with tenderness.”12

       In Fromm’s view, human sexuality, when motivated by mutual tender love, can lead to a form of union in which two people relate to each other from the essence of their being, and this connects them to their humanity, to life as a whole, and therefore to their spirituality.

    The contemporary yoga teacher Donna Farhi interpreted brahmacharya in a way compatible with Fromm’s and Erikson’s sense, as psychologists, that healthy, mature sexuality can be compatible with a fully realized, peaceful human life. Farhi wrote, “practicing brahmacharya means that we use our sexual energy to regenerate our connection to our spiritual self. It also means that we don’t use this energy in any way that might harm another.”13 Farhi is aware that sexual energy can be used to hurt other human beings. In the light of the other yamas, we can consider these dangers. Sexual energy is abused and ahimsa is violated in instances of rape, incest, sexual molestation, sadism, child prostitution and pornography, and other sexual violence. Similarly, satya is violated when false promises are made to seduce, when clandestine infidelity is indulged in, and when trust is broken. Asteya is violated in the offense of sexual slavery, whether of children or adults.

    On the positive side, Farhi allowed for sexual union as a way of “merging one’s energies with God,”14 just as much as breath awareness or celibacy can become such ways. She was concerned, that “when any energy is sublimated or suppressed, it has the tendency to backfire, expressing itself in life-negating ways.”15 She acknowledged the possibility of a conscious and joyful practice of celibacy for self-nourishment, and concluded that, “ultimately, it is not a matter of whether we use our sexual energy but how we use it.”16

    Human sexuality involves intimate physical touch, and the anthropologist Ashley Montagu presented evidence that nurturing touch is a primal need throughout the human life cycle.17 When there is a deprivation of nurturing, non-sexual touch, such as appropriate physical soothing and cuddling of the infant, hugging, healing massage, and calming touch, the drive for sexual contact may become exaggerated. Some studies also suggest that the deprivation of pleasurable, not just sexual, touch may be a predisposing factor to aggression and violence.18  This can be seen as a more nuanced perspective on an overly simplistic phrase that became popular in the 1960s, “make love not war.” Appropriate, nurturing, supportive touching between human beings who truly care for one another contributes, according to substantial evidence, to personal health and societal peace. Sexuality has its place in the spectrum of such healthy, nonviolent, truthful touching.

    Personally, I consider brahmacharya a relevant principle in the sense explored by Farhi. Whether I am single and therefore not sexually active or whether I am blessed to be in a loving relationship, I dedicate my sexual energy to the nurturance of creative, spiritual union with life. I see healthy, mature, caring, tender, responsible, pleasurable sexual playfulness in a mutually loving relationship to be compatible with spiritual development of the human potentials for compassion, loving-kindness, selfless service, and peaceful, nonviolent behavior.

References

1.Brahmacharya, Wikipedia, Retrieved November 24, 2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmacharya

2.Swami Chidananda, The Role of Celibacy in the Spiritual Life, Spiritual Writings, Atma Jyoti Ashram, retrieved November 27, 2009 from http://www.atmajyoti.org/sw_role_of_celibacy_in_spiritual_life.asp

3.Wikipedia.

4.Swami Chidananda.

5.Swami Chidananda.

6.Sri Swami Sivananda, Brahmacharya (Celibacy), retrieved November 27, 2009 from

http://www.dlshq.org/teachings/brahmacharya.htm

7.R. W. Bernard, Science Discovers the Physiological Value of Continence, Atma Jyoti Ashram Spiritual Writings, retrieved November 27, 2009 from http://www.atmajyoti.org/br_value_of_continence_1.asp

8.Erik H. Erikson, Gandhi’s Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1969), p. 251.

9.Mohandas K. Gandhi, Bapu's letters to Mira. p.257. Retrieved November 22, 2009 from http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/gandhiphilosophy/philosophy_11vows.htm#Brahmacharya%20(Self%20Discipline)

10. Erikson, p. 404.

11. Erikson, p. 405.

12.Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving: An Enquiry into the Nature of Love. (New York & Evanston: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1956), p. 54.

13. Donna Farhi, Yoga Mind, Body, and Spirit: A Return to Wholeness. (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2000), p. 11.

14. Farhi, p. 11.

15. Farhi, p. 11.

16. Farhi, p. 12.

17. Ashley Montagu, Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin. (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1971 & 1978).

18. James W. Prescott, Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence, The Futurist, April, 1975.