The following question popped up in a course on the Ken Wilber mailing list:

In a well-known quote Sophocles, on being asked how he felt about his declining sexual interest, answered: "Upset? certainly not! It's like being unchained from a lunatic!"

As we progress up the ladder from Worldcentric to World, the question arises whether heightened sexual awareness is an obstacle or an asset on the path. Or, to put it the other way round, whether sex simply becomes less of a concern as we ascend to these rarefied heights, just as the trees vanish as we rise beyond a certain point when journeying through the mountains. There seem 3 basic possibilities:

• an intimate relationship can be the basis of a profound inner understanding which is an aid to progress on the path
• sex is something to be experienced and "got out of the way" in order to progress further
• whole-life celibacy is really the best of all

Did the Dalai Lama attain his enlightened state as a result of his celibate status or in spite of it?

Come to that, the great proponents of celibacy have always been males talking to males: is there a difference in the female POV in this respect?

• Progress on the path might be expected to lead to improved sex - less influence from conventional ideas and expectations, more consciousness, control, compassion and communication, all good qualities in a sexual relationship. Maybe there is feedback too, improved sex leads to progress on the path.
• At higher levels one would expect to be the master of one's sexuality rather than its slave - impulses from the body, from the imagination and from external sources come and go like the clouds KW talks about, and can be taken or left depending on the circumstances, but need not be the cause of illegal or unethical behaviour, or of emotional distress caused by the idea that e.g. the guy down the street is having a great time we're not having.
• It's a short step from that to consider celibacy as in no way a burden provided one is properly prepared for it, though i still find it difficult to see the imposition of whole-life celibacy as anything more than a legacy from the pre-rational churches (i wonder in passing if celibacy is so different from monogamy, both impose a limitation on one's personal life and offer a moral justification).

We live in an age where sex dominates the media - every nature programme must portray at some point the copulation of dinosaurs, sticklebacks or whatever, and many mystery programmes end up with the detective screwing his/her sidekick and/or the prime suspect (which wasn't the case a few years ago). Also in interviews with celebrated spiritual figures the presenter cannot resist putting the question about how they deal with their celibacy - instead of telling the guy it was none of his business, many of them politely offer something like: the worst thing is curiosity, about how it might be to enjoy a relationship with a loving partner and all the rest. This curiosity seems an unfair burden to place on one who is supposed to lead a spiritual life and advise people on their personal and spiritual problems, and i can't see what advantages celibacy might have to compensate for this.

Finally, the arguments for celibacy date from a time when women were supposed to be celibate "in the head" - i wonder if our emancipated women react to the idea of celibacy in a different way from men?

8 February 2000

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page

Last updated 25.4.2003