In light (or shadow, as the case may be) of the John Friend/Anusara scandal and the recent NY Times response article, “Yoga and Sex Scandals: No Surprise Here,” in which William Broad claims that yoga originated as a “sex cult,” I decided to finally ask a question I have been wondering about for a long time…what about brahmacharya ? Remember brahmacharya ? If you are a yoga teacher, they may have mentioned it briefly in your yoga training. If not, then I’m guessing you’ve probably never heard of it.
Traditionally defined as divine sexual conduct, which depending upon the circumstances can mean celibacy, or sexual restraint, moderation, or continence, brahmacharya is one of the 5 yamas (ethical rules for correct living) outlined in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras (perhaps Mr. Broad has heard of Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras?). Let’s say that again: brahmacharya is one of the foundational yogic guidelines for life. Yet, it’s the one traditional principle of yoga that most modern yoga practitioners balk at, trip over, or skip over. I mean, yoga is sexy (if Equinox ads are to be believed.) Celibacy is not. Most Western yogis can’t seem to reconcile with the idea of brahmacharya , so they tend to just ignore it altogether, seeing it as an outdated relic from yoga’s ancient past. Believe me, I’ve tried to initiate conversation about it on online yoga forums and have been literally met with dead silence. I’ve even seen some go out of their way to broadly re-define brahmacharya in non-sexual terms like in this article by yoga blogger, JC Peters: (see http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/blog/the-most-important-yogic-tool-you-have-the-bullshit-detector/ )
This is not to say that the above article is “bs,” or that there’s no room for modern interpretation of this or any other yoga principle. But what if we put the sex (or lack thereof) back into brahmacharya , just for the sake of consideration. I’m going to argue for the more traditional definition of brahmacharya which is that it is indeed meant to be a guide for yogic sexual conduct.
Does the fact that brahmacharya is included in yogic philosophy and guidelines mean that yoga is anti-sex, or that sex is considered shameful or “sinful” as it is thought of other religious traditions? I think the answer to that is yes and no. Modern Indian society does indeed tend to shroud sex with shame. Some argue that this is a hangover from the sexually repressed Victorian era of British colonialism. Some blame it on Islamic conquest. Personally, I blame it on patriarchy in general, of which Islamic and British colonialism were certainly manifestations, but Hindu cultures have their own indigenous variations which likely predate those historical periods. On the other hand, Hindu philosophy (which always rests on higher ground than that of the lay society) offers a specific place for sex in human life, which does not contain any particular stigma….just that there is an appropriate time and place for it. This is why Indian philosophy can include both brahmacharya and the Kama Sutra and the obscure Tantric sex ritual.
Hinduism outlines 4 stages of life. The first stage is called, none other than brahmacharya …this refers to the student stage of life, when one devotes all of one’s energies towards study. What would modern day high school and college look like if students practiced the discipline of celibacy? Boring? Maybe. But I bet most teachers would agree that it would make it a whole lot easier to teach! The 2nd stage of life is the grhastya or householder stage. It is during this stage that one may actively pursue kama (sexual enjoyment) within the context of the householder relationship, or in modern terms, a committed relationship. But even within the sanctioned sexual relationship, a modified form of brahmacharya is advised, in the sense of sexual restraint when appropriate and/or sexual continence. Traditionally, this precept was directed exclusively towards men. Whether this was because women were considered to be merely objects of sexual desire or whether they were considered to be inherently spiritual, as some claim is is beside the point. This is where modern re-interpretation comes into play. In our times, women are spiritual aspirants just as often as men, and so brahmacharya applies equally, though perhaps slightly differently.
So how do we wrap our modern minds around this idea that seems like such anachronism. I find it helpful to make the analogy between sex and food. Both are appetites–natural urges for survival. While sex is not a life and death issue for the individual as is food, it is necessary for the survival of the species. That puts sex on a subtler plane than food. Also, while the food you choose to put into your body affects only you, your sexual choices have a larger sphere of influence. Our sexual behavior can affect the health of our society.
The yogic/ayurvedic view of food is that food is of 3 types: sattvic (pure), rajasic (stimulating), and tamasic (impure). Sattvic foods are simple and bland, such as milk, nuts, and fruits. Rajasic foods are tasty, flavorful, spicy, and/or rich foods that stimulate the senses and activity like Indian/Thai/Mexican food, tea, coffee, etc. Tamasic foods, such as fast food, processed food, alcohol, etc. produce lethargy and illness and promote negative mental and spiritual qualities. As the obesity epidemic in the US has made clear, the modern consumerist lifestyle, which is spreading around the world, pushes a very unhealthy attitude towards food. As a society, we are addicted to tamasic foods. We are all well aware by now that our insatiable appetite for junk food is bad for our physical health. From the ayurvedic standpoint, it leads to poor mental and spiritual health as well, which we are also beginning to realize as a society.
The same is true for sex, but again, on a subtler level. We all know that unsafe sexual practices can lead to poor physical health in the form of STDs. However, sex predominantly acts on our mental/emotional and spiritual bodies. That is to say, there is such a thing as good for you sex and bad for you sex….you can have organic, gluten-free, vegan sex or you can have Big Mac sex with super-sized fries (and of course, the whole range in between). Just as we have an obesity crisis in the US, we also have a sexual crisis. We live in a highly sexualized culture with the consumption of pornography at an all time high. “Sexting” and the like are becoming commonplace amongst kids as young as 10 and 11. And of course, as the yoga community well knows, public sex scandals have become “no surprise.”
Sex, too, can be imbued with the qualities of sattva , rajas , and tamas . Sattvic attraction means being attracted to someone’s spirit. Rajasic attraction is being attracted to someone’s physical beauty or some aspect of their personality (ego). Tamasic attraction is lusting after a person’s sexual characteristics. In our society we are constantly bombarded with sexualized images of women (and men), which blinds us to the truth that all people are inherently beautiful and sexual beings. We are feeding ourselves and our children a highly tamasic sexual diet.
While most of us can admit to these negative sexual aspects in our society, we still have a hard time accepting brahmacharya as relevant to our lives. We just don’t want to say anything bad about sex. To quote George Michael, “Sex is natural, sex is fun.” This view is a hard-won victory of the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s, which fought to liberate us from the shackles of shame that previously (and still) enslave patriarchal societies. This is a good thing. Shame is energetically tamasic . Tamas means “dark” and if you are mired in shame, you know that it feels like pure darkness. As a society, we are highly protective of sex. We certainly don’t want anyone to tell us how to live our sex lives. However, in our over-protectiveness of our love-child named sexual freedom, we are failing to recognize that not all sex is equal. Yes, we do talk about “good sex” and “bad sex,” but our definitions of good sex and bad sex center around how much sex we are having and how much pleasure we are deriving from it. That is like defining good food by how tasty it is and how much we enjoy eating it. French fries are ridiculously yummy and addictive, so that makes them “sooooo good,” right? While we can no longer deny that french fries, though tasty, contribute to all kinds of illness, we’re not ready to give up our deep-fried in trans-fat sex.
Just as our consciousness about food is shifting, so must our consciousness about sex. We hate the word celibacy because it conjures up creepy images of pedophile priests and virginity pacts and the like. But there is a difference between anorexia/starvation and conscious fasting. Denial of natural urges through shame and fear can only lead to tamasic expressions of sexuality, which are detrimental to society, just as starvation is detrimental to an individual. Conscious discipline, however, is different. Perhaps having students practice brahmacharya during that phase of life when it is most difficult due to raging hormones was meant to train youngsters in the practice of sexual discipline. There are studies which apparently show that men in positions of power or authority demonstrate a significant rise in their testosterone levels. This makes sense. That rise in testosterone is precisely what makes men in positions of power more sexually attractive as well. We see enough examples of people who are unable to contain themselves in the face of such surges of sex-hormones and temptation. Not just gurus, politicians, musicians or moviestars, but also doctors, professors and coaches, people in positions of authority and trust. While for men, brahmacharya may mean training themselves to contain their sexual energy, for women, this may mean looking within to understand whether their sexual feelings come from a place of honoring themselves and their womanhood..whether their sexual relations nurture their spirit or harm it. No one said sexual discipline is easy. Brahmacharya just suggests that it should be practiced, like asana (yoga poses) or any skill. As with any new skill, it may feel difficult and unpleasant initially, but with practice, it becomes easier and comes with its own life-enhancing benefits. The practice can only help to reduce sexual predation, consumption of pornography, and other such ills in society.
Even within the confines of a committed relationship, brahmacharya still applies, but in the sense of sexual moderation or restraint. This is meant to promote fidelity and sacredness in a partnership. Even this idea is hard for our society to swallow. In our popular culture, we portray being single as a time to feast on sexual pleasure and marriage (or monagamous relationships) as the time when “the party’s over”. In the traditional Hindu paradigm, it’s the opposite. Being single is the time when you are supposed to be serious and celibate, and the householder phase is the time when you get to enjoy life’s pleasures but within the context of your relationship. It’s no wonder relationships are often so fleeting. We are raised to think “the more, the better” and so we are no longer capable of maintaining healthy relationships.
We expect our romantic relationships to sustain the high and intense energy of the budding love relationship, and so we get bored and discontent when that energy tapers off, as it inevitably does. But just as children are attracted to high-energy foods like sugar because their rapidly growing nature demands it, a budding relationship often naturally includes a feast of sex because it is in a phase of rapid growth. In all of nature, the greatest amount of energy is expended in the beginning. Think of how much energy it takes for a tender sprout to be able to push its way out of the hard seed and then through the earth. Once it is above ground, it is stronger, but needs much less energy to grow. Think of how fast a baby grows in its first year of life. The most rapid growth actually happens immediately after conception. Eventually growth slows and then plateaus in all things–in plants, in children, and also in love. This is natural. But most relationship advice emphasizes quantity over quality. We are told that a healthy relationship is one with frequent sex. How frequent? Daily, according to pop health guru, Dr. Oz and the like. Women are made to believe that if they don’t want sex that frequently, they have a sexual problem. There’s even a name for it….FSD, Female Sexual Dysfunction. Drug companies are racing to find “the cure” for this problem that apparently plagues up to 40% of American women, according to their own (how convenient) statistics. A woman who is ready for sex anywhere and anytime is held up as the supermodel of female sexual health. This is in direct opposition to the patriarchal viewpoint that good girls don’t enjoy sex. Newsflash: Women do enjoy sex. But does that mean they are in a state of constant heat? Of course not! Human female’s hormonal cycles are monthly. Moreover, there are natural ebbs and flows of sexual energy in a woman’s life. For example, low libido is a common concern amongst post-partum women. This is natural due to the high physical demands of caring for an infant. However, many post-partum women feel pressured to begin having sex with their partners before they themselves feel the inclination. In one post-partum forum that I participate in, this was a common theme. Most women were saying that they were willing to have sex just for the sake of the “greater good” of keeping the relationship ”healthy.” But really? Is sex with a willing, but uninterested partner healthy? Besides being totally biased in favor of men, and therefore patriarchal in nature, this is just microwave tv dinner sex. No effort involved. The effects of too much of this type of sex on the health of the relationship is the same as the effect of eating too many tv dinners. Resentment and neglect build up like cholesterol in the heart.
What would brahmacharya look like in this case? Rather than feeling unsatisfied by the lack of sex in his relationship, a man would need to redirect his sexual energy, not into another person, but into another pursuit until his partner feels her sexual energy levels restored. Re-direction of sexual energy is one of the principles of brahmacharya . Sexual energy can be raised to fuel the higher chakras, which is beneficial to the man and his relationship. Restraint in this case would cultivate a feeling of mutual respect. This is not to say that a man should avoid or withhold all physical affection from his partner. Post-partum women surely need affection more than ever. But as many of the women on the forum expressed, they need to feel like every touch is not a demand for their body. Breastfeeding is a constant physical demand on a woman’s body and sometimes women just crave a little space for their bodies during the baby years. Perhaps rather than emphasizing that a sexually healthy female is one that can satisfy the sexual demands of male desire, we should be emphasizing that a strong, healthy sexual male is one that can provide physical comfort and affection without needing to satiate his desire. Of course, when a woman is ready and desiring of sexual contact, then there is no need for abstinence. It will flow naturally as a communion between body and souls! Quality over quantity. Isn’t one juicy, sweet mango better than 10 cookies? Just as food should nourish our bodies, sex should provide healthy nourishment to a relationship. Too little can certainly cause malnourishment, but so can too much “junk” sex. ( I apologize for the heterosexist nature of this example. Of course, the concepts of brahmacharya would apply to each couple and each situation uniquely, including gay/lesbian/bisexual relationships.)
Sattvic sex nourishes the emotions and the spirit of both partners. It feeds the divine love between 2 people. Rajasic sex is enjoyable, but feeds worldly love…that is, ego-based love. Tamasic sex or “junk sex” may give temporary pleasure, but in the long term it depletes the people involved and often is detrimental to body, mind, and spirit and even to the collective body, mind, and spirit of society. Sure, sattvic food and sattvic sex sound….well, bland. Many may prefer to live in the rajasic realm. Remember that rajasic foods are stimulating to our senses. Most of us want that kind of energy to stay active in our lives. But just as we can occasionally fast and appreciate the cleansing, health-promoting benefits of fasting, can we recognize that conscious celibacy or sexual restraint may have some purifying benefits? Can we concede that we can’t know what those benefits are unless we try it for ourselves? We don’t necessarily need to practice it all the time, unless we are at that place in our spiritual journey where it feels natural to do so. Remember those tasty French fries? For those who have made healthy eating the rule rather than the exception, French fries often no longer taste good at all…in fact, they may even become utterly unappetizing. Just as we all may be in different places in terms of our relationship to food, striving towards healthier eating can only improve our lives. Likewise, striving to incorporate more brahmacharya into our yoga practice can only promote physical, mental, and spiritual wellness for ourselves and for society. That is the point of yoga and that is why brahmacharya is actually one of its fundamentals. Maybe we will see fewer yoga stars ”tumbling” back to earth, if we finally embrace this ignored basic. After all, a foundation can never be strong with one of its pillars missing.