The Benefits of Celibacy and Chastity

I've heard discussions and statements about this before. Books on yoga told me it was healthy to "not ejaculate," and science reports in mainstream news told me that frequent ejaculation (well it is difficult to put it succinctly w/out humor) has health benefits. I've just spent less than five minutes looking over some web search results for associated keywords, and the same schism shows up. Articles defending celibacy in the Catholic clergy or expounding upon yogic practices say sexual continence is good, and Western medical/mainstream media say the opposite.

One impression I got back when I was doing asanas and reading (well, browsing) about the more spiritual end of yoga was that it was part of getting students in line with the yogic way of life. Not meaning to be offensive, but I think it might be fair for a lay person to detect a certain "if a student can be made to control this particular instinct, then they can be expected to follow much other advice closely as well." Celibacy would obviously help to develop single-mindedness (in more senses than one). I find it easier to associate celibacy with the carrying on of traditional behaviors, rather than promoting creativity. But there are bound to be exceptions.

As usual in the yin/yang dance of ideas, I find there to be a strong case to be made for developing such control, but also a strong case for realizing self-denial and submission might not always be the best path in the long-term. The best advice I ever read about this particular issue (well, the advice that struck me as the most reasonable at the time) was from some Tantric teacher in some magazine article, who said that, once the point is reached where one is ready to "finish," then it should be a situation where the man feels comfortable whether he chooses to do so or not do so. Why not mix things up, from time to time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

So unless you can come up with an argument that the people in your list are more creative and more driven than other artists, and that those qualities are attributable only to the celibacy, then reeling off a list of celibate artists gives no useful support to the original premise.

---

Just to shorten the list a little; I would say, Gandhi, Thoreau, Sri Aurobindo, Swami Vivekananda, Nietzsche, Sidis, Buddha, Christ, these are mostly great leaders and all great geniuses in their own fields. Most of them are also vegetarians and do not engage in intoxication, which are pretty much equally as necessary as celibacy.

It's not an argument, Mark. I am not arguing that only geniuses are celibate or that all geniuses are celibate, or that all celibates are geniuses. I never said or implied with tone anything remotely like that. The fact is, loss of the vital fluids results in loss of energy. It is as simple as that. In fact, it is a big loss of energy, and may have other deteriorative effects. That's the negative side, but the positive side is that chastity, celibacy, they greatly increase the energy, in relation to not being celibate.

One other person, who was in the list, but may not be quite as well known, was Sidis. Sidis was an extraordinary genius with perhaps the highest IQ ever to live. He was lecturing at Harvard when he was 11, and he could speak all the languages of the world, over 200, and translate between them instantly. When he was a teenager he decided not to be celibate for the rest of his life.

Um, to clarify; I am attempting to have a discussion, not an argument - secondly, I am presenting reasons and evidence to help people consider that perhaps the media's glorification and worship of sex is not the only way, and definitely not the ultimate truth, nor should it be taken for granted without questioning if it is true. So the list of such persons as Pythagoras, Nietzsche, so on, and others - which actually I had meant to add Tolstoy to, so I am not sure, I should learn more about him.. - is part of the reasons but it is a much smaller part than the fact that the loss of vital fluids is unhealthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

I've heard discussions and statements about this before. Books on yoga told me it was healthy to "not ejaculate," and science reports in mainstream news told me that frequent ejaculation (well it is difficult to put it succinctly w/out humor) has health benefits. I've just spent less than five minutes looking over some web search results for associated keywords, and the same schism shows up. Articles defending celibacy in the Catholic clergy or expounding upon yogic practices say sexual continence is good, and Western medical/mainstream media say the opposite.

One impression I got back when I was doing asanas and reading (well, browsing) about the more spiritual end of yoga was that it was part of getting students in line with the yogic way of life. Not meaning to be offensive, but I think it might be fair for a lay person to detect a certain "if a student can be made to control this particular instinct, then they can be expected to follow much other advice closely as well." Celibacy would obviously help to develop single-mindedness (in more senses than one). I find it easier to associate celibacy with the carrying on of traditional behaviors, rather than promoting creativity. But there are bound to be exceptions.

As usual in the yin/yang dance of ideas, I find there to be a strong case to be made for developing such control, but also a strong case for realizing self-denial and submission might not always be the best path in the long-term. The best advice I ever read about this particular issue (well, the advice that struck me as the most reasonable at the time) was from some Tantric teacher in some magazine article, who said that, once the point is reached where one is ready to "finish," then it should be a situation where the man feels comfortable whether he chooses to do so or not do so. Why not mix things up, from time to time?

---

Yeah. That is the thing. People do not know and there are so many, for many years, who have said that it's unhealthy to be abstinent. The book I am reading talks about this a lot. A lot of scientists, I mean a lot of them, have understood that celibacy is first of all not unhealthy, and secondly actually has health benefits.

And the problem is, it's so engrained in our society, the glorification and almost worship of sex, that anything to the contrary is met with severe skepticism, or ridicule.

I do not know what books you read on Yoga but from my understanding, celibacy is necessary for the practice of yoga, as well as are vegetarianism and freedom from intoxication. If one desires to practice yoga as it should be, then one should also be pure of intoxication and meat-eating, as well as being celibate.

You see, Westerners are so imbibed that they react this way, with skepticism, mockery and scorn. (I don't mean your reaction, Bill.) They do not think there is any other way. However, in India, for example, it is very different. There is a common practice of brahmacari, which means celibate student life. Brahmacari is also a spiritual discipline, the reason of which is to develop self-control, patience, as well as other good qualities. Swami Vivekananda, who is very greatly revered and respected as a perfect spiritual master to many Indians, said once that he owed a great deal of his spiritual understanding to his practice of brahmacari as a youth.

Actually, it is not self-denial. The whole philosophy of enjoyment is rather flawed. The flaw is in the misconception that "I am my body." You see, you are saying, "My body." - so who is the I? The I is not the body, but it is the soul. Christ said, it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh is nothing. Emerson says, the light within, or the soul, is all, while the rest is nothing.

It is a high ideal to be free of desire, but it is an ancient remedy for suffering. The Buddha also taught that attachment is the main cause of suffering.

Swami Vivekananda said, "So long as there is desire or want, it is a sure sign that there is imperfection. A perfect, free being cannot have any desire."

So, it is a very high goal to be perfect. And here in the USA, it is a common phrase, "No one is perfect." In fact the idea of perfection is the most offensive one! Why? It is because we are taught that we are, just by nature, a fallen human. But this is not true - we are not by nature a fallen human, but in essential nature we are pure consciousness.

We are in ignorance of our true nature, which is saccidananda, or existence-knowledge-bliss. We think we are this body, and all the things that go with it; but they are all externals, they are like the outer clothing, or the car - while we are the person wearing the clothes, or the driver - the soul.

It is actually not impossible to be perfect. Why should it be? Why have we gotten so mixed up as to get this limitation engraved in our hearts - no one is perfect, and perfection is offensive? How can we reconcile that with our natural optimism that anything is possible?

Our natural position is boundless joy - we come from light, do we not? The sun is a great source of energy, it is the source of all life on earth. So our source is light - why can we not then be pure? Whatever is the source, everything comes from it, and everything returns to it. So why are so imbibed against anyone who speaks of a spiritual light, as Emerson did? Especially when some of those are giants among humanity, geniuses and saints?

No, it is not self-denial to follow in the path of the divine saints such as Christ, Buddha, Swami Vivekananda, who understood and embodied a divine love. We have become cynical and cold-hearted, interestingly, by following the propaganda of glorification of sense-enjoyment and worship of sex. Swami Vivekananda also said, "anything done in selfishness is contraction, anything done in love is expansion. Therefore live by love as the only law of life."

Now I am not saying sex is wrong; just used for the wrong purposes it is wrong. I would agree with Plato who said, sex should only be used as a means of procreation.

What about this thought, everyone - what if the orgasm is so pleasurable, evolutionarily or by design, or by whatever force - because it is bringing a new life into the world? And that a new life has the potential to be an embodiment of love? Thus we have evolved, or been designed, to feel an orgasm because it is the exultation of the new life?

Nikolai, I liked your last paragraph. I'm no expert on Tantric texts as they relate to sex (or at all, for that matter, although I've read some stuff), but that sounds like an interesting avenue to check out, if you like reading about this sort of thing. In sex, there's definitely stuff going on with forces (maybe it is kundalini, or just chi, or even "orgone"...), and it can get more subtle and interesting than just "orgasm." The quote you provided about doing something "in love" producing expansion actually seems to apply here, in my opinion, regardless of the Swami's opinion on this specific matter.

You're right about selfish sex, but I don't see why sex for the purpose of making a child would be the only kind of non-selfish sex. When sex is about love, it really shouldn't be selfish. In fact, one problem that can happen is that either the man or the woman might feel that their partner is being selfish. Indeed, when I think of the stories I've heard about guys visiting prostitutes, it is enough to tell me that it wouldn't be very satisfying, relative to sex with a lover. And the sex in ads and movies is of course an objectification, something apart from our personal experiences with a lover, and so it's easy to see how the whole thing is a sort of a manipulation of people, part of business and mass entertainment. People can get mechanical and transactional about sex, but that doesn't correctly describe all non-procreational types of sex.

Regarding body fluids and energy, I think that jogging followed by a nap could be criticized via the same logic. I think the evidence is conflicting at best.

Regarding the list: Nietszche went mad, eventually, and some think he might have suffered from syphillis. He certainly said a few things that would disturb women, though, and didn't write a lot about "romantic" love, so who knows. I know the list isn't key to your position, but I just want to attach some asterisks to this particular entry.

Of course, for some people, celibacy is exactly what they need, and it might help them become what they want to be. But your original post seemed to be suggesting that it would be best for everyone, and I don't think a sufficiently strong case for that can be made.

I read most of your posts, and I think you've been very generous in sharing your experiences and ideas--I think you have your own approach, but also are providing an interesting look at some non-Western thought and thinkers. Sorry if I'm making to big of a thing about this particular topic, but the discussion was getting interesting and I wanted to join in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

\

It's not an argument, Mark. I am not arguing that only geniuses are celibate or that all geniuses are celibate, or that all celibates are geniuses. I never said or implied with tone anything remotely like that. The fact is, loss of the vital fluids results in loss of energy. It is as simple as that. In fact, it is a big loss of energy, and may have other deteriorative effects.

---

I didn't mean 'argument' in the sense of 'conflict', but in the sense of 'proposition'.

Loss of vital fluids results in the loss of energy only in the way that talking, sweating or begging for alms as a mendicant monk results in loss of energy. Fortunately the human body is designed to expend and then replenish energy stores. There's nothing deteriorative about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I didn't mean 'argument' in the sense of 'conflict', but in the sense of 'proposition'.

Loss of vital fluids results in the loss of energy only in the way that talking, sweating or begging for alms as a mendicant monk results in loss of energy. Fortunately the human body is designed to expend and then replenish energy stores. There's nothing deteriorative about it.

---

I agree. There is just no validity to the statements being presented here. One can donate stem cells, blood, etc and one's own body quickly replenishes the fluids and cells. This whole idea of celebacy taking a toll on the body seems a bit far-fetched to me. Now if you wish to speak of moderation in all things, I could agree that sex can be over-rated and endulged in maybe too much and therefore could cause a person harm, but condemning sex is not natural. Do you see animals restraining themselves, when it is mating season? Maybe people need mating seasons, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine

:smash: Yah! Right up there, along side of sex for endorphins. Just don't laugh at the same time! :D:lol:

---

You don't know how multitasking I can be .... :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

If the word of a published and practicing writer means anything, celibacy dampens creative energy.

---

Sorry, you mean "dampen" in the sense of improving, or in the sense of spoiling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mal4mac

...are there any who have bluntly stated they have been strictly continent? If so, do you believe them? :-)

---

People may say they've been continent as they may say they are addicted to whatever their hormones tell them to do, and in any case they may be talking an absolute truth or an absolute lie. There are those who speak marvels about continence and it doesn't mean they can really contain themselves. There are those who speak marvels about sex and it doesn't mean they practice it regularly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Let's assume you're right about these. Their celibacy would only support your argument if we failed to come up with a list of similarly great artists and thinkers who were not celibate.

But I think we can create such a list, easily.

Here we go - feel free to join in....

Picasso, Dali, Donne, Marvell, Dickens, Joyce, Mahler, Roth, Catullus, Titian, Maupassant, Tolstoy, Turgenev...

---

I will add Leonhard Euler, a brilliant mathematician who was also a family man. If I don't remember wrong, he had quite a few children, so he wasn't precisely containing himself. However, he made significant discoveries now taken for granted in the math field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Sidis.

And Janine, yes there is evidence that is true.

Also I didn't mention them, but every single Hindu saint or acarya has been strictly celibate. Narada, Sankaracarya, Sri Ramakrishna, thousands of others, enlightened persons. Also Buddhists were chaste, such as Lord Buddha, Milarepa, etc.; further enlightened Christians were also chaste, such as Jesus, although he wasn't really a Christian; then there is Fra Angelico, etc.

Perhaps later I can put some quotes from a couple of some of these people.

---

That's what they have said, or what some of their followers (many of them fanatics) have said, but how do you know it is 100% true? Just because someone says so? Well, I'm sure you were not with them 24 hours a day carrying out a surveillance on each one of their acts, and surely no one else was either. There's a theory that states that Jesus may have taken Mary Magdalene as his wife and that they had children of their own. It can be another lie out of many ones often told, or it can be true. As far as I am concerned if it were true, it wouldn't be wrong. So what? Having had relations with women makes him less holy or enlightened? Does holiness and enlightenment ejaculate away during an orgasm not to ever be recovered?

It is true that sex is being highly overrated nowadays, but I believe that considering sexual intercourses as a means of departing from health is too much of a misconception. We shouldn't overrate sex, but I believe we shouldn't underrate it either, don't you?

Finally, people often regarded as saints are ultimately the same the rest of us are, that is, human beings made of flesh and blood. If you are a biological entity, flesh is weak and blood boils. I wouldn't put much confidence on the words of those who contradict the very biological nature of living creatures as we are, as though they were saying that sex has the sole purpose of spoiling whatever it touches. So what would we have to do? Just look but don't touch? In my humble view, that's just unnatural at the least.

Celibacy is unhealthy and unnatural

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

Regarding body fluids and energy, I think that jogging followed by a nap could be criticized via the same logic. I think the evidence is conflicting at best.

---

Yes there is conflicting evidence. If you are interested though, you might look at some of the writings by Dr. R. W. Bernard, A.B., M.A., Ph.D.

http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/contin.htm

I would recommend for all the book Brain Gain, subtitled "The Wisdom of Celibacy and Chastity," written by His Holiness Danavir Goswami. I am sure you will find it enlightening. When I first read some of it, I learned a lot, but reading it a little more I gained some more understanding. I would present for you more information from this book, but I am not really feeling up to the task of being one against everyone in such an argument. All I can do is urge you to study and find out the truth for yourself, and give you the assurance that my life is immeasurably better becuase I am now aware of these facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

Celibacy is unhealthy and unnatural

---

(quotes from Brain Gain)

"Buddha taught five precepts (known as Righta Action). Right Action follows after Right Speech. Right Action entails refraining from killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct. These three evil deeds are caused by craving and anger, associated with ignorance. By the gradual eliminating of these causes from the mind, blameworthy actions will find no expression. Being pure in mind, a person will lead a pure life."

"Buddha: 'A mendicant (Bhikku) leads a life of voluntary poverty and celibacy.'"

"Tolstoy: 'Any man can find hundreds of examples around him showing that continence is possible and less dangerous or harmful to health and incontinence.'"

"Von Gruber: 'There's no reason why [sexual] continence should be injurious.'"


To be honest I pretty much took these at random. There are many good quotes from Brain Gain.

Um - I can't really take you all on, in this, one against everyone else. I apologize. I am sorry to see I am the only person who is willing to speak up for the benefits of celibacy and chastity. I hope you all have a good life. If you do some research about the dozens or hundreds of scientists within the last one or two centuries who have done research, I am sure you will find some good reasons to be chaste. I'm not up to the task of presenting it all before you and it's true that Bernard's work is very lengthy and probably will be of little or no use to you. So therefore all I can do is give you my honest assessment that it is very persuasive.

Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Um - I can't really take you all on, in this, one against everyone else. I apologize. I am sorry to see I am the only person who is willing to speak up for the benefits of celibacy and chastity. I hope you all have a good life. If you do some research about the dozens or hundreds of scientists within the last one or two centuries who have done research, I am sure you will find some good reasons to be chaste. I'm not up to the task of presenting it all before you and it's true that Bernard's work is very lengthy and probably will be of little or no use to you. So therefore all I can do is give you my honest assessment that it is very persuasive.

Thank you.

---

Oh, you need not apologize Nikolai. As for me, I think it's been an interesting conversation. Sorry if I sounded too partial on my posts. I didn't mean to say there are no benefits in chastity. What I actually meant is that chastity wouldn't be an alternative for me, being who I am and what I am like. Probably it has its benefits which, if any, I will have to miss :D

Interesting subject to be discussed though. Thank you too :thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

"Buddha taught five precepts (known as Righta Action). Right Action follows after Right Speech. Right Action entails refraining from killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct. These three evil deeds are caused by craving and anger, associated with ignorance. By the gradual eliminating of these causes from the mind, blameworthy actions will find no expression. Being pure in mind, a person will lead a pure life."

---

So the support for you saying that celibacy is a good idea is that someone else said so. Not really scientific method, is it? That's more like hearsay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

"Buddha: 'A mendicant (Bhikku) leads a life of voluntary poverty and celibacy.'"

---

Unless the word voluntary is significant, the same could be said for every murderer on death row. And neither the monks nor the murderers, as far as I know, are more healthy or focussed or energetic than a carpenter who gets it regularly, even with a goat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

"Tolstoy: 'Any man can find hundreds of examples around him showing that continence is possible and less dangerous or harmful to health and incontinence.'"

---

I'd be interested to know whether Tolstoy said this himself or whether he had one of his characters say it. There's a difference.

Of Tolstoy himself, I offer this neat para from Wikipedia:

On 23 September 1862, Tolstoy married Sophia Andreevna Bers, the daughter of a court physician who was 16 years his junior. They had thirteen children, five of whom died during childhood.[3] The marriage was marked from the outset by sexual passion and emotional insensitivity when Tolstoy, on the eve of their marriage, gave her his diaries detailing his extensive sexual past and the fact that one of the serfs on his estate had born him a son..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

"Von Gruber: 'There's no reason why [sexual] continence should be injurious.'"

---

Perhaps not. Your proposition, though, was that it was beneficial

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

"Um - I can't really take you all on, in this, one against everyone else. I apologize. I am sorry to see I am the only person who is willing to speak up for the benefits of celibacy and chastity.

---

That may not be because you are a lone voice of reason, but because you are wrong. When one is in the minority, that's always an explanation worth considering.

There is nothing wrong with celibacy if it is taken on as a personal decision that needs no validation from others, but to justify something because others whom you hold as somehow on a higher plain than you is setting yourself up for failure. Self knowledge of why you do something is of far more lasting value than following someone else’s ideal. We have far too many followers as it is.

Practicing celibacy or abstinence because you feel it is in your best interest is a good experiment, but expressing your self with another human being is also a good experiment, both have there merits. Neither one is right for all. I have practiced both and have found success with both, but those conclusions were mine, not what some ideal presented as salvation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

... loss of the vital fluids results in loss of energy. It is as simple as that. In fact, it is a big loss of energy, and may have other deteriorative effects. That's the negative side, but the positive side is that chastity, celibacy, they greatly increase the energy, in relation to not being celibate.

---

Given that the sex act involves using some energy and the lost fluids (by mass energy equivalence) have energy, then strictly you are correct! But so what? The person might benefit from losing weight & taking some exercise...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

perhaps the media's glorification and worship of sex is not the only way...

---

Many people would agree with that! But there are many other ways between your extreme and the media's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Actually, it is not self-denial. The whole philosophy of enjoyment is rather flawed. The flaw is in the misconception that "I am my body." You see, you are saying, "My body." - so who is the I? The I is not the body, but it is the soul. Christ said, it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh is nothing. Emerson says, the light within, or the soul, is all, while the rest is nothing.

---

So what is toothache? It is part of your body and part of you! Using psychological techniques you may be able to "handle" the toothache, but you can't deny it, and it's due to the impact of bacteria on your body, so you cannot deny the body.

"So the support for you saying that celibacy is a good idea is that someone else said so. Not really scientific method, is it? That's more like hearsay."

There is vast amounts of research and it is very convincing. But I do not expect you to read it.

I don't expect any of you to, but trust me it is scientific.

On an off-topic. I find it sad that people are consistently utterly unable to avoid topics which do not interest them. The benefits of celibacy and chastity do not interest you, because you do not think they exist. Therefore just ignore the thread, please! Or just say, "I am in the category who thinks they do not exist," and leave the thread.

Yet you people seem so competent at going on for such lengths about something that doesn't exist - the benefits of celibacy and chastity.

Max - thank you for your posts. Mal, we'll have to discuss it later if you don't mind. I hope you won't always think celibacy is an extreme, though. Thank you also for your posts though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

"So the support for you saying that celibacy is a good idea is that someone else said so. Not really scientific method, is it? That's more like hearsay."

There is vast amounts of research and it is very convincing. But I do not expect you to read it.

I don't expect any of you to, but trust me it is scientific.

---

Then why are you quoting the unscientific opinion of the Buddha?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

On an off-topic. I find it sad that people are consistently utterly unable to avoid topics which do not interest them. The benefits of celibacy and chastity do not interest you, because you do not think they exist. Therefore just ignore the thread, please! Or just say, "I am in the category who thinks they do not exist," and leave the thread.

---

It's a discussion forum. Hence the discussion. Surely you wouldn't prefer only to discuss with those who agree with you?

Assuming you relish the debate, and as you've addressed one of my responses to your various apparently supportive quotations, do you think you could find it in your heart to come back with a response to each of the others?

One should have a balance approach to it, that means obsessiveness or extremities both lead to downfall. While sex relates to glands and we have them we cannot avoid them except through a suppressive mechanism.

The Buddha was right in urging us to strike the right course wherein there is any form of extremism.

We know for instance if we are too much obsessed with sex we want to avoid it and if we are too much celibate we want to have it. Taking a right course leads to a balanced life.

If you overeat foods it leads to a state of indigestion and if we undernourish yourself you may fall sick.

By the same token the question of chastity and celibacy is also like that.