Again I thought about this, and I think I might have find a way to bridge the gap between a patristic, dogmatic teaching of chastity and it’s actual practice.
Think of this: I chose to observe brahmacharya as celibacy/chastity. But regardless if it is good or bad to do this in itself, I also need to ask myself: why do I chose to do this ? Because there might be many answers. Perhaps I believe that sexuality is a sin, and I am afraid I will not go to heaven if I indulge myself in it. But what does this say about me ? That I am, first, a coward, second that I am selfish. I want to go to heaven and I try to achieve it by such practices, to my own benefit. So, it is clear, that the motive for chastity does make a big difference, because if the motives are selfishness and cowardrice, how can I honestly expect to still go to heaven ?
So what other possible reason could I find for this renunciation ?
Hear what I have come up with.
I am in love. I am in love with the Eternal Feminine. Now, I really love Her, but because I am a blind human being, I only experience Her in Her many instances, aka, women. I for long have arrived to the conclusion that a Real Man is in love with All and Any Woman. Now, I cannot help loving them. Not for sexual pleasures, no, but indeed as you love someone when you fall in love. Indeed, my ability to Love is my greatest weakness and greatest power in the same time. If in my fear of pain, I give up on this Love, I become extinct, my very existence becomes empty and grey. I do not give up. But I cannot commit to a single woman, either. How could I do that ? It is like eating always the same food. Or having a single species of flowers in my garden. So what can I do, in trying to be faithful to my true Love, but not hurt anyone ? Well, there are many possibilities. Like still chosing one woman, as a partner in the physical life. You do not cheat on your True Love, this way, especially if you are able to see her as Her, an instance of he Eternal Feminine. Does this mean you cannot love Her other instances ? No. But as a human being, under the human condition, you do what you can do. You refrain from seeking Her in other instances. You keep those platonic. But there are so many traps here … like the lure of the unknown, and the freshness of novelty. An unknown woman will always express the Eternal Feminine better. Why ? Because once you get to know a woman, you will realize that she is a human being. Human beings have faults, have karmas, weights to bear, things to adress. To live with a human being is hard. To long for an ideal, the Eternal Feminine, is easy. At this point, I question: do I sacrifice my happiness/longing for an ideal on the altar of humanity ? Is my honesty stronger than my selfish desire for happiness ? Who is the saint ? That who gives up earthly relationships for the Eternal Feminine, an aspect of God, becoming a brahmachari not through renunciation, but through inability to give up this Absolute Love, or that who gives up him/herself for the sake of the fellow man/woman ? Only God could judge that, I guess.
Casanova can be seen as a brahmacahri in progress, and monks might not be free from erotic impulses in their pursuit. Eros is neither good nor bad. It is in the motives, the honesty, the compromise or longing for truth, peace or passion, silence or burning. Tamas is good in it’s place, rajas is good in it’s place, sattwa is good in it’s place. Who are we to judge ?
