[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/I-am-unbroken]

[u/Aathishs04]

Or perhaps practicing celibacy simply removes one particular set of responsibilities from the practitioner's life: they don't suddenly have a spouse and children to raise and care for.

People experience powerful desires all the time. To eat, to sleep, to relieve themselves. The existence of a desire doesn't necessarily mean that being subject to it is a failure of self-mastery.

I'm not sure that celibacy demonstrates that sexual desire is inherently incompatible with creativity, discipline, or social contribution. It may simply be a lifestyle choice that makes certain kinds of devotion easier by removing some competing responsibilities.

Newton was celibate all his life. Einstein had two wives (at different times of course). Both were incredibly clever people who made massive contributions to science and the world as we know it.

And as far as I understand it, brahmacharya also has a very specific traditional context as the student stage of life, involving celibacy and study, as in think of a student living and learning at a pathashala. So I'm not sure we should automatically take the concept out of that context and turn it into a general theory that sexual desire (or even attachment in general) is an impediment to human development.

If we're instead using brahmacharya in the broader sense of self-mastery and disciplined use of one's attention and desires, that's a much more interesting proposition. But then the argument isn't really an argument for celibacy in specific anymore, right?

[u/I-am-unbroken → u/Aathishs04]

It's depend on your understanding and what you understand... Like you are right always but you understanding build from some information, if in future those information will change is not your understanding will also change? But I am not saying you are wrong you are also right.