The Benefits of Celibacy and Chastity

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grotto

If everything is as it truly needs to be, then everything is as it should be, so to go against by picking a “better” way is in rebellion against what is. Is not all seeking desire?

---

The goal is to generally increase happiness and reduce misery or suffering. There is a Buddhist monk who once wrote, "If one could learn to make their mouth as silent as their nose, they would avoid a great deal of suffering." So the goal is happiness, and yet - another way to reduce misery is to accept squarely when we do feel discomfort or pain. Seeking is a desire, and yet it is also possible to be without desire, to be at peace. It is my position, as well as my direct experience, that there is the difference of night and day between everything we know, and what is true peace. I experienced that peace once, several times actually, and it shaped my understanding. I will never forget it or de-emphasize its importance. Nothing else is important in comparison to self-knowledge or enlightenment - though, of course, other things are necessary for it. Everything must be in order. :)

Nikolai, were you aware of some of the things that Dr. Bernard appears to believe, such as the existence of cities within the Earth (which he believes is hollow)?

http://www.greatdreams.com/hollow1.htm
http://www.ourhollowearth.com/Bernard/WorksList.htm

He also claims that a truly healthy woman would not menstruate, in another book.

Perhaps these two websites and the list of book descriptions are the work of someone intent on character assasination, or maybe I am simply too quick to judge. But I don't think he will count as an acclaimed scientist to many people.


Really, I do not find this sort of denigration of our individual animal selves to be a particularly warm and loving vision. To me, it has as many pros and cons as desire and suffering do. Perhaps it is a matter of taste. I know that you are mostly trying to share experiences that you are having and want others to have similar experiences, and that is great, in my opinion. I just think the scientific angle is a weak angle on why to take this path.

Regarding a person's limitations, and taking an expert's opinions without question: I think it might be worth considering why this Dr. Bernard's writing might get attention in English-speaking Hindi circles. One of his books that seems to get more attention than some of his others is called From Chrishna to Christ, in which he presents historical evidence for a seminal Christian Gospel called the Gospel of Chrishna. I doubt that it is his unimpeachable objectivity in itself that has brought him to the attention of some Hindus, regarding scientific and spiritual matters.

I get the ugly feeling that people just end up taking sides on things when we get extremely convinced about the universal rightness of debatable religious prescriptions and proscriptions. I don't know why science would be necessary support for something that people have been drawn to and developed themselves with for thousands of years. I guess it is an effort to reach out, and capture a certain kind of mind. But in this case, I think it works better without it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Of course with no hard feelings, just a tedium.

---

Well, I wouldn't want to be tedious, so I withdraw from this discussion without rancor.

God bless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Classic, I wouldn't take everything those people say without question.

The book is called Brain Gain, subtitled The Wisdom of Celibacy and Chastity by His Holiness Danavir Goswami. The first chapter is inspired and discusses the writings of Dr. R. W. Bernard... I put a link to his work earlier, on page 2 or post 23, that link is here: http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/contin.htm

I haven't read all of it. I don't really expect anyone here to read it, nor will I challenge them to. Who wants to read about something they are not interested in, and which goes against what they've been taught?

---

I'm more than happy to read something that goes against what I've been taught. I think that's the only way to refrain from becoming closed-minded. I think everyone should, though this is not at issue here.

Quote:

---

Dr. Bernard was not the only person besides myself to advocate the benefits of celibacy, and that it does not do harm. Besides spiritual teachers, there are hundreds if not thousands of acclaimed scientists who have come to similar conclusions.

Yes, there are a similar number of those who say the opposite, who say exactly what you said - it is good because of the reasons you mentioned. So, do some research, and come to your own conclusions.

---

I'm not here to advocate "sex is good for your health", I'm just pointing out that the scientific evidence provided which you have restated as the basis for your argument is incorrect. Physiological issues such as whether or not the spine reabsorbs fluid and whether or not seminal fluid is the same chemical composition as the brain is not up for debate. Either it is, or is not and there is no room for interpretation.

Quote:

---

Again, I wouldn't take everything your university professors tell you without question, in fact I would say probably the majority of it is very wrong. If you take what they say without question, then you are limited by their limitations (in their thinking, which isn't separated by a void from their actions and lives, and inner hopes or depressions).

---

Haha I'm a science major, Nik. I take NOTHING without proof. ;)

Don't you think it's a touch presumptuous to say that the majority of what university professors say is wrong? Especially when you aren't even aware of the subject matter? I don't walk into a lecture and have a prof tell me "Have sex. It will keep you healthy." I'm not trying to argue for that point. I'm not saying that celibacy is bad for your health, either. All I'm saying is that the evidence provided in your original post is false. Physiologically false. And accepting a scientific proof such as the chemical composition of grey matter is not being limited by the limitations of another person.

Also- you still haven't answered my other question! Where do masturbation and oral sex fit into your view?

Bill, did you read anything of his writing on continence?

Classic, I apologize but I must discontinue the debate. Actually it is debatable, as there are thousands of scientists and others who debate it and the facts. I may have stated some things wrong, termed grey matter when it was another part of the brain and so forth. I am only presenting, inadequately, that other scientists also say that semen is resorbed, etc. This comes from scientists but everything is debatable, as is proven by the fact that they are being debated. If you are interested or if you have time, read some of Bernard's writing which I linked. I am sorry but I am not able to continue the debate with you. I have learned about myself that I find it very unenjoyable, and that trying to establish dominance, really, in any form, is not what I should be doing with my life.

Nikolai, no I haven't read any of his stuff beyond maybe a couple paragraphs from diffierent texts online, maybe a couple of skimmed pages. I have encountered the writings of some Yogis (if that's an accurate term) that addressed the issue, but the two or three times I encountered it the stress was not so much against sex per se as it was against ejaculation--perhaps those writers were more asana-based? And even those writers didn't seem to be suggesting too strongly that there should be absolute, ever-lasting adherence to such "retention", only that there were benefits to it. I was more into doing the asanas at the time, so maybe that affected my exposure to yogic writings.

I must say that, all along, I have understood how an intense focus on meditation and "pure" consciousness expansion might be helped by sexual abstinence, and so I wouldn't be surprised if it helped one make progress in that direction.

Self-control requires discipline, but I think that discipline can also be a path to a loss of control over one's self. But that's just a simple, general observation about something very complex in its particulars, and it is maybe propaganda for a viewpoint that is important to me.

Anyhow, thanks for sharing your thoughts and feelings, and your experiences on a path many of us are unfamiliar with. There is an optimism, empathy, and a generosity that is typical to your writings, and I think it does this site a good service.

:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

The benefits of celibacy are very overrated. But less overrated than the supposed benefits of intoxication.

---

:idea:Yet, if one is not able to enjoy the benefits of celibacy; the benefits of intoxication may get him/her through the night:ladysman::as-sleep: On a serious note, though, I have found that when I am not "in love", I have a bit more energy; If I'm not depressed because I'm not "in love". And, of course, I tend to be more focused on my own goals, if I am not focused on a lover. Whether or not the act itself causes any great loss of stregnth, I will have to leave to the gentlemen on the forum. I am told that athletes are told to not make love before an important event; What do the gentlemen on the forum have to say?

You know, I have post traumatic stress from sexual abuse and have been celibate for a couple of years at this point while trying to recover. It surely gives you more personal strength, makes you a calmer person and forces more critical thinking about life and the whole romance concept in general. But I can also attest that without romantic love in your life you really do end up feeling like half of your soul is missing, or I do, anyway.

Another good effect, however, is that it teaches you how to love a person's soul rather than lusting over the body, which means a stronger love, hopefully, when you finally get to that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isidro

But I can also attest that without romantic love in your life you really do end up feeling like half of your soul is missing, or I do, anyway.

Another good effect, however, is that it teaches you how to love a person's soul rather than lusting over the body, which means a stronger love, hopefully, when you finally get to that point.

---

:)You seem very strong and wise to give yourself time to heal. After many years of marriage and widowhood; I look back (and forward) and believe I have created a concept of romantic love from novels, poetry and television. One which, for the most part, is unattainable. I am content; I enjoy my hobbies, friends and family. If I were to have another relationship, however; I would want my love to be all encompassing...ecstacy! :blush: :brow: :redface:

Thank you so much. I am still attempting to figure out how I define romance. My memory was knocked out entirely and I am attempting to rebuild it.

Bravo Griffith.

My dear Athiest, this was the tenor of the original thread and we followed it. I am chaste at the moment, but I assure you that does not at all mean that I wish to stay this way forever. Believe me when I tell you that although I have had quite a bit of trauma in regard to the sexual question I am still a perfectly healthy Latin female. Just limited at the moment. I fully agree that sex is the most blissful moment a human being can have, but there are also good aspects in taking that blissful moment in moderation. As discussed by Fowles in his novels, when you are chaste for the most part you enjoy sex all the more when you have it. (The sexual trauma to which I alluded came because a man decided that forced quantity was more important than quality and also dabbled in beastiality etc.) The limits are often good and quite necessary; otherwise you end up like that fella.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by isidro

My dear Athiest, this was the tenor of the original thread and we followed it. I am chaste at the moment, but I assure you that does not at all mean that I wish to stay this way forever. Believe me when I tell you that although I have had quite a bit of trauma in regard to the sexual question I am still a perfectly healthy Latin female. Just limited at the moment. I fully agree that sex is the most blissful moment a human being can have, but there are also good aspects in taking that blissful moment in moderation. As discussed by Fowles in his novels, when you are chaste for the most part you enjoy sex all the more when you have it. (The sexual trauma to which I alluded came because a man decided that forced quantity was more important than quality and also dabbled in beastiality etc.) The limits are often good and quite necessary; otherwise you end up like that fella.

---

I think you're just drawing conclusions on the basis of your own experience here.

I'm sure chastity has helped in your and other situations, but that does not make chastity a good thing because it helped you. I don't see anything inherently wrong in chastity, but as a goal for its own sake, it's just silly.

As to less sex making it better, I'd disagree with that entirely. Sex isn't golf, but like golf, the more you do it, the better you'll get at doing it, and the more enjoyable it becomes.

As far as your abuser goes, he was clearly a pervert, but thinking that he became a pervert through desensitising from too much sex is wrong. Lots and lots of men are complete sex addicts, but most of them never stray outside the bounds of decency and consent. Your abuser was a sicko because he was a sicko, not because he had too much sex.

I applaud your ability to discuss a painful subject in such a way, although I am intrigued by your statement that your memory was "knocked out entirely". Are you saying the abuse damaged your mind or that your mind had suppressed the memory, which has now been recovered in some way?

I was chaste by choice before my marriage anyway actually, though I can certainly see how my comments may have brought you to the idea that I am speaking strictly out of trauma, which to some degree, you may be right. I have no problem with sex within marriage, with one person. Knock yourself out. But some people tend to take it to the opposite extreme with no regard for loyalty or love and as DH Lawrence discusses to be taken with the same kind of importance as one would attribute to a mild mannered conversation between two people. That it certainly is not and I believe that if we valued our own masculinity, femininity, and merit as a human being we would not be so quick to give ourselves away to more than one person, with of course the exception being death or much merited divorce.

My mind? You ready for this? I was hit by a semi while 5 months pregnant with my second child on the freeway and after that was pulled into extreme sexual abuse, the culmination of which led to over 850 panic induced seizures which stopped my heart twice and led to nearly complete amnesia. I had to relearn to read and write to a great degree, relearn to do a great many things, hold a decent conversation without going into a panic attack, relearn to be in the same room with a man, even my own brother, etc. I had an MRI which turned out clear, so all this was due to psychological trauma. I would blame the semi but the man continued in his abuse even while I was in the grip of seizure, so I cannot blame that. And to bring us back to the point, this man began this trip of insanity bit by bit, piece by piece, starting with mild porn and masturbation and over the space of twenty years went down from there. This is another reason why I so strongly advocate placing limits on what people do with the blessed gift of human sexuality. He didn't mean for it to get that far. Most people who start crossing the line in giving sexuality a less than paramount seriousness don't expect to go that far. But when he was put to the test, when the stakes were up for him he realized he was fully addicted to sex and could not pull away. By that time, it was too late to have a philosophical conversation. He was trapped. I have acted as his therapist rather than sending him to prison. He has pulled a complete 180 and has chosen to be celibate for about two years now to ensure that he will not do such a thing to anyone else again.

There are actually more traumatic events than that in my life but they hardly pertain to the subject at hand. I am writing an autobiography at the request of a doctor of psychology.

I fear that was a long response, but heck, you asked.

I mean no offence to anyone, but every time I've seen or heard this argument (lots of times) it's always people who aren't having sex who expound the joys of not having any.

Sex is one of the greatest pleasures of humankind. There appear to only be a few species which are able to achieve similar joy levels to us from sex, and failing to enjoy that by thinking something can be gained by going without it is just plain silliness, in my opinion.

Damn, those preachers, bible-bangers, Buddhas, Yogis and Imams have something to be proud of - denying ecstasy to billions of people.

And for what point? Even in the extremely unlikely event that there really was some physical benefit from going without, it would have to be something pretty damned amazing to make up for not having any sex.

For once I actually agree wholeheartedly with the Atheist.:nod: I somehow doubt that there is little if any evidence of a medical benefit of abstinence from sex. The suggestion of an intellectual or creative worth is completely undermined by the facts. For every single artist or composer or scientist of philosopher that we might call celibate with any degree of certainty, there are dozens if not hundreds or thousands of creative individuals of even greater achievements who were anything but celibate. Among the most obvious (if not to say prolific) we have Picasso, Rodin, Fra Filipo Lippi (surely the "amorous priest" makes for a perfect foil to Fra Angelico, eh?), Gustav Klimt, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, John Donne, Pablo Neruda, D.H. Lawrence, Goethe, Rousseau, Victor Hugo, J.S. Bach, Richard Wagner, Petrarch, Dante, Shakespeare, Raphael, Schubert, Schumann, Napoleon, Thomas Jefferson, Rubens, Titian, etc... etc... If anything, I think the relationship between sex and creativity is closer to that which W.B. Yeats suggested when he declared "Sex and death are the only things that can interest a serious mind." Indeed, sexuality and all the accompanying emotions and experiences seem to be at the core of a vast percentage of all art. If we look to a figure like Michelangelo we find that it is the frustration accompanied by sex (in his case the frustration of his "illicit" desires versus his deeply held religious beliefs) that serve as a source of inspiration. As for the relationship between celibacy and spirituality... I am still somewhat suspect in that I cannot imagine the spiritual separate from the physical and I wonder about the ability of any religious figure to relate or empathize with humanity while rejecting an experience that is so central to our very existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

As to less sex making it better, I'd disagree with that entirely. Sex isn't golf, but like golf, the more you do it, the better you'll get at doing it, and the more enjoyable it becomes

---

:brow: All of my male friends have said exactly the same thing! :nod: To this, I will only add: If one frequently sleeps with someone who is merely missionary; they become bored :as-sleep: and lack agility (Or perhaps they'll think of old boyfriends). If you always sleep with acrobats :banana: You may fail to appreciate the qualities of a corpulant, sedentary lover :angel: A young lover brings many gifts to the bed :santasmil; but few to conversation. An older lover takes a while to warm up :flare: (I know many older wives with carpel tunnel syndrome) :lol: Gentlemen often think that the longer the act of sex lasts, the more satisfied their lovers will be; but this is only true if their lovers are insensitve or have callouses; I would stay away from both :goof: With every lover, we start a clean slate: Some like ice, some ben-gay::flare:
Some like to fight first :argue: Some are sweet and cuddly:angel: I've always stayed away from the ones who like it with a friend:ladysman:

stlukesguild, I have heard that argument several times, but I have to put this one to you. You obviously do not adhere to what these preachers and pedagogues are saying, so obviously their moral standards, as they call them, have not been forced upon you. You are very intelligent person it seems, and other intelligent people also have their agency in whether or not they choose to listen to or believe such preachers. If they believe what they hear, and choose to abide by what they hear, then the preacher is not the one doing the denying. The person themselves choose it. In certain societies, yes, social correctness would essentially force a person to behave well (Puritan societies - think the Scarlet Letter) but you and I have the ability to choose whether or not we want to adhere to such teachings. If a person chooses to adhere, there is no one to blame but the person who made the decision and if they are at peace with their decision, then no harm done. It's their choice and they may do what they like with their own body.

Soundofmusic, I appreciate your commentary, as always. You have a wonderful mind. Here's an idea for ya. Sex isn't about learning from a textbook or porn mag or anything else what to do or how to do it. In its purest form it is about being yourself, wholly and entirely. And if you have that in both parties who needs to practice anything? When you add actual love into the equation (what a crazy concept!) you cherish the other person wholly and completely, and isn't that the best sex anyway? I am not one to tell any poor insecure person not to "practice" or get ideas from magazines, but I can't help feeling that if one patterns their sexual habits out of what they see others do and not how they honestly feel within themselves and out of love for the other person, what's the point? Might as well go do something else that inspires you for an evening.

Just a thought.