--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > I also heard him asked the question directly, and he answered (surprising > > himself it appeared) that he would have to call himself a householder, > > because he lived in the world and controlled a large organization (or words > > to that effect).> > > So I guess him banging groupies was evidence of his consistency then? > > This is one highly specific context dependent statement among dozens of times > I personally heard him refer to his monkiness. Notice that the list of > things he mentions that make him a "householder" does not include banging > chicks. > > "Householders" means you marry someone and raise a family. > It doesn't mean you get to be a rock star on the tour bus > with 20 somethings when you are in your fifties, ditching > one when you get tired of hitting that and moving on by > leaving the last girl behind when you travel.
Well, actually none of the four ashramas means this, so it's kind of a non sequitur. And none of the four ashramas, for that matter, fit MMY's life circumstances even if you don't consider the women. One could make the case that when a person embedded in the ashrama tradition tries to mix two of the ashramas, they're very likely to shortchange both of them. Maybe that's why so many swami-types who are out in the world running movements end up sleeping with their followers. They have to interact constantly with women, unlike a renunciate, which means they're more likely to get horny; but they don't have a wife to sleep with if they do get horny, unlike a grihastha. Not an easy row to hoe. CAVEAT FOR THE BRAINLESS: No, I'm not trying to excuse or mitigate MMY's philandering. It was wrong no matter how difficult refraining might have been.
