Spiritual Code and Restraints

Author(s): Manu Doshi
Publisher: Manu Doshi

Page 38

2) If the instinct is not overcome, would the code not lead to perversion by starving the body of its natural urge? 3) If perversion is repressed, would the sexual urge not come out with explosive force? 4) Would the starvation of sexual instinct not give rise to different psychosomatic and other diseases? 5) Is it not likely that an aspirant gets sick of repression and gives up the monastic life? 6) Total insulation would mean that a man should not touch a woman or vice versa even for the sake of nursing or for other type of service. How is it justifiable?
These questions relate to the pitfalls of the restrictive approach. We do come across cases of perversion and of giving up the renounced life particularly among the monks and of prevalence of psychosomatic diseases among the nuns. Moreover, the code of segregation results in untouchability of the worst type, in the sense that it forbids even touching of mother, sister or daughter by a male celibate and of father, brother or son by a female. This can hardly be considered desirable. While commenting on the restrictive approach, Mahatma Gandhi had therefore said that the celibacy that forbids one from touching his mother or sister is totally worthless. As such, we need to consider whether there can be better, more sensible and more reliable ways of observing celibacy.
Indulgence in sex takes place mainly because of two factors, i) persons concerned have attachment for each other and ii) they experience pleasure with the sense of touch. While examining these two aspects in the following paragraphs, presentation has been made mostly from the male point of view. That is, however, more or less applicable to females as well and need to be interpreted as such.
Attachment results from attraction that usually arises because males perceive beauty in females and are attracted towards them. The question to be considered here is whether attractiveness of female is factual or it is simply a fancy of males. When we look around us, we notice that the male elephant is more attractive than his female, the lion is more attractive than the lioness, the peacock is more attractive than the peahen, the rooster is more attractive than the hen, the male sparrow is more attractive than his female and so on. If these are the phenomena at large, how can a human male be less attractive than a human female? Why does the man feel that his other half is more attractive? Can it not merely be a reflection of his own attraction that he perceives in the mirror of his beloved?
Moreover, a girl perceived as attractive by one man may be perceived as unattractive by another. How does it happen? Had there been inherent attractive features and if the viewers had an identical perceiving capability, every viewer would perceive the same degree of attractiveness. But the attraction remains subjective instead of objective. There is therefore a reason to believe that the attraction of a man for a particular woman should be the outcome of his own perception, not a matter of fact. Here, we are not out to pass any judgment over the beauty of women. The intention is simply to analyze the phenomenon of perception.
Take another instance. A man gets enamored of the lovely hairs of his girl-friend. He cannot stop lavishing praises for that. If the girl is by his side, he would not miss the