Kundalini again.

[Guest guest]

Namaste All, IMO,

 

The word Kundalini itself is misleading. It may have meant earing and

became associated with Sakti worship due to practitioner's wearing of

the same. Some describe K as having 3 coils, this is really a

representation of the 3 gunas. Feurestein posits that the extra half

coil represents a divine being traversing the universe. Some

describe it as a lump, they cannot all be right. Whatever as with all

systems there is a lot of exoteric and esoteric symbolism. Usually the

less aware take the exoteric literally, for example believing in 3 1/2

coils at the base of the muladhara.

 

Ramana and Lakshmana Swami say it is all in the imagination, cakras to

boot, and that K is really the mind. The mind is the manifestation of

Sakti, all is the mind. Sakti is the Goddess/Saguna and Prana is the

energy. Mind is thought stuff made of prana. This is all very relative

and within illusion of course, ultimately all unreal.

 

I have personally all my life experienced this K in a greater to

lessor degree. Even today I do. However I do not accept the

representation of it as K. To me it is the Sakti's power of prana

cleansing the inner sheaths, and purifying the mind so it becomes more

spiritually aware.

 

I know there are K yogas, Sakti worship and a whole bunch of different

beliefs, but that is what they are belief systems. They are useful in

concentrating the mind but do not bring about liberation from

illusion.

 

The movement of sakti is the mind and everywhere, why just concentrate

on some currents or nadis that pass through the human concept? That is

like saying a whirlpool is somehow separate from the ocean. There are

nothing but nadis and cakras, otherwise there is no manifestation. At

the basic level one couldn't differentiate the human form and its

subtle sheaths from the rest of manifestation. Our own minds do that!

 

I can accept that it is a religious structure to aid people to get

some direction, but any religion will do that, it is the one

pointedness that is important.

 

I never cease to be amazed by people who take things literally and

exoterically, such as coiled serpent etc. I suppose I shouldn't be.

Liberation is simple, yet people write encyclopedias and invent

rituals ad infinitum, and then insist that it is the whole truth. They

write books and give themselves jobs teaching it all.

 

As I showed in Heisenbergs Uncertainty, we cannot observe sub atomic

particle without affecting what we observe, for at that level we are

part of the action. In more subtle fields the mind would be even more

so, people would feel and see what they expect to. K and Cakras are

all ultimately imagination, but it is a method and thats as far as it

goes.

 

We are the mind/Sakti and it is ourselves that cleans our awareness,

to reveal the truth.......ONS.......Tony.

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> The word Kundalini itself is misleading.

 

What word isn't misleading?

> Usually the less aware take the exoteric literally,

 

Only the less aware are interested in the less aware.

> The mind is the manifestation of Sakti,

 

What word is not misleading?

> I have personally all my life experienced this K in a greater to

> lessor degree.

 

'Who' is more fruitful than the degrees.

> To me it is the Sakti's power of prana

> cleansing the inner sheaths, and purifying the mind so it becomes

> more spiritually aware.

 

I'm thinking of making a list of things to do.

Mental note: First item; make a list of things to do.

> I know there are K yogas, Sakti worship and a whole bunch of

> different beliefs, but that is what they are belief systems.

 

Oh yes. Much different than "PRANA CLEANSING THE INNER SHEATHS

SO THE MIND BECOMES MORE SPIRITUALLY AWARE."

> They are useful in

> concentrating the mind but do not bring about liberation from

> illusion.

 

Duh. No, make that double duh.

Tony, are there circles on your carpet?

> The movement of sakti is the mind and everywhere, why just

> concentrate on some currents or nadis that pass through the human

> concept?

 

True or false: Comparing the concepts of "CONCENTRATING ON SELECT

NADIS"

and the other concept of "THE MOVEMENT OF SAKTI IS THE MIND AND

EVERYWHERE"

is [true or false] NOT a concept. You have 3 seconds.

> That is like saying a whirlpool is somehow separate from the ocean.

 

Metaphors are weak.

> There are nothing but nadis and cakras, otherwise there is no

> manifestation.

 

Hey! Now there's a concept!

Think I'll throw in the trash with all the other ones.

> At the basic level one couldn't differentiate the human form and its

> subtle sheaths from the rest of manifestation. Our own minds do

> that!

 

What? Keep us addicted to concepts?

What do you know. Another concept!

(pesky flies)

> I can accept that it is a religious structure to aid people to get

> some direction, but any religion will do that, it is the one

> pointedness that is important.

 

Without balance one could be so one-pointed

as to become stubborn.

 

> I never cease to be amazed by people who take things literally and

> exoterically,

 

I am never ceased to be amazed by how much I am distracted

by how I'm never ceased to be amazed, by how other folks take things.

> Liberation is simple, yet people write encyclopedias and invent

> rituals ad infinitum, and then insist that it is the whole truth.

 

You've never done that.

> They write books and give themselves jobs teaching it all.

 

You're fired!

> As I showed in Heisenbergs Uncertainty,

 

I didn't know your last name was 'Heisenbergs." I thought you were

Irish.

> we cannot observe sub atomic

> particle without affecting what we observe,

 

What does this suggest?

It suggests we must be very, very quiet.

> for at that level we are part of the action.

 

Or stagnated inaction. Our choice.

> In more subtle fields the mind would be even more

> so, people would feel and see what they expect to.

 

What would happen if those folks expected to see nothing?

> K and Cakras are all ultimately imagination,

 

What isn't?

> but it is a method and thats as far as it goes.

 

No, I'm quite certain you'll have more to say...

> We are the mind/Sakti and it is ourselves that cleans our awareness,

> to reveal the truth

 

Ok. Now that that's cleared up, can we go home now?

[Guest guest]

, david.bozzi@n... wrote:

> , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

>

> > The word Kundalini itself is misleading.

>

> What word isn't misleading?

>

> > Usually the less aware take the exoteric literally,

>

> Only the less aware are interested in the less aware.

>

> > The mind is the manifestation of Sakti,

>

> What word is not misleading?

>

> > I have personally all my life experienced this K in a greater to

> > lessor degree.

>

> 'Who' is more fruitful than the degrees.

>

> > To me it is the Sakti's power of prana

> > cleansing the inner sheaths, and purifying the mind so it becomes

> > more spiritually aware.

>

> I'm thinking of making a list of things to do.

> Mental note: First item; make a list of things to do.

>

> > I know there are K yogas, Sakti worship and a whole bunch of

> > different beliefs, but that is what they are belief systems.

>

> Oh yes. Much different than "PRANA CLEANSING THE INNER SHEATHS

> SO THE MIND BECOMES MORE SPIRITUALLY AWARE."

>

> > They are useful in

> > concentrating the mind but do not bring about liberation from

> > illusion.

>

> Duh. No, make that double duh.

> Tony, are there circles on your carpet?

>

> > The movement of sakti is the mind and everywhere, why just

> > concentrate on some currents or nadis that pass through the human

> > concept?

>

> True or false: Comparing the concepts of "CONCENTRATING ON SELECT

> NADIS"

> and the other concept of "THE MOVEMENT OF SAKTI IS THE MIND AND

> EVERYWHERE"

> is [true or false] NOT a concept. You have 3 seconds.

>

> > That is like saying a whirlpool is somehow separate from the

ocean.

>

> Metaphors are weak.

>

> > There are nothing but nadis and cakras, otherwise there is no

> > manifestation.

>

> Hey! Now there's a concept!

> Think I'll throw in the trash with all the other ones.

>

> > At the basic level one couldn't differentiate the human form and

its

> > subtle sheaths from the rest of manifestation. Our own minds do

> > that!

>

> What? Keep us addicted to concepts?

> What do you know. Another concept!

> (pesky flies)

>

> > I can accept that it is a religious structure to aid people to get

> > some direction, but any religion will do that, it is the one

> > pointedness that is important.

>

> Without balance one could be so one-pointed

> as to become stubborn.

>

>

> > I never cease to be amazed by people who take things literally and

> > exoterically,

>

> I am never ceased to be amazed by how much I am distracted

> by how I'm never ceased to be amazed, by how other folks take

things.

>

> > Liberation is simple, yet people write encyclopedias and invent

> > rituals ad infinitum, and then insist that it is the whole truth.

>

> You've never done that.

>

> > They write books and give themselves jobs teaching it all.

>

> You're fired!

>

> > As I showed in Heisenbergs Uncertainty,

>

> I didn't know your last name was 'Heisenbergs." I thought you were

> Irish.

>

> > we cannot observe sub atomic

> > particle without affecting what we observe,

>

> What does this suggest?

> It suggests we must be very, very quiet.

>

> > for at that level we are part of the action.

>

> Or stagnated inaction. Our choice.

>

> > In more subtle fields the mind would be even more

> > so, people would feel and see what they expect to.

>

> What would happen if those folks expected to see nothing?

>

> > K and Cakras are all ultimately imagination,

>

> What isn't?

>

> > but it is a method and thats as far as it goes.

>

> No, I'm quite certain you'll have more to say...

>

> > We are the mind/Sakti and it is ourselves that cleans our

awareness,

> > to reveal the truth

>

> Ok. Now that that's cleared up, can we go home now?

 

Namaste David,

 

Yes of course you are right that is why I wrote this in my original

post,

>>> Mind is thought stuff made of prana. This is all very relative

and within illusion of course, ultimately all

unreal.<<<<

 

I do this for those that cannot appreciate total non duality, and for

those in non duality or vndism that cannot bear non dual perspectives

for it shakes their shaky belief system....Fortunately

for me I can talk from both perspectives easily and

understand the benefits of sadhana's etc...ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

, david.bozzi@n... wrote:

 

 

>

> > As I showed in Heisenbergs Uncertainty,

>

> I didn't know your last name was 'Heisenbergs." I thought you were

> Irish.

 

Namaste Mr Bozzi,

 

Perhaps he was my tailor? What's in a name, as a vndist that shouldn't

be important to you, very dualistic. A recent mayor of Dublin was

called Cohen, the present Foreign Minister is called Cowen. So this is

important?

 

In that case Mr Bozzi I'll have vegetarian pepperoni pizza and lasagna

on the side..Non dual of course!!.....ONS.....Tony hahahahah

[Guest guest]

, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

 

[massive clutter snipped]

> Namaste David,

> I do this for those that cannot appreciate total non duality, and

> for those in non duality or vndism that cannot bear non dual

> perspectives

> for it shakes their shaky belief system.

 

Dear Tony, you are a good mirror.

I have much to unlearn.

 

Blessings & Happy Reflecting,

David

[Guest guest]

, hamsayogini@a... wrote:

> Tony wrote [[.. Fortunately for me I can talk from both perspectives

> easily and understand the benefits of sadhana's etc.. ]]

> ** Equally as you should allow all others to reach these same

> conclusions.

>

> Om Santi ...

> Yogini Sakti

 

Namaste Yogini,

 

Let me say this, it may surprise you.

 

I listen to and chant bhajans, I say mantras etc etc.

 

Shanta==God as worship.

 

Dasya==God as parent.

 

Sakhya====God as friend.

 

Vatsalya=====Bhakta as parent.

 

Madhava====Bhakta as lover.

 

Finally Bhavamukha ==In the world but not of it, no god, but Brahman

consciousness...

 

It is not wise to restrict an open forum to a certain level, all

should be viewed.......ONS......Tony.

[Guest guest]

Tony wrote [[.. Fortunately for me I can talk from both perspectives

easily and understand the benefits of sadhana's etc.. ]]

 

I responded "Equally as you should allow all others to reach these

same conclusions."

 

Tony then replied [[it is not wise to restrict an open forum .. ]]

** No restrictions, only compassion.

 

Om Santi ...

Yogini Sakti

[Guest guest]

, hamsayogini@a... wrote:

> Tony wrote [[.. Fortunately for me I can talk from both perspectives

> easily and understand the benefits of sadhana's etc.. ]]

>

> I responded "Equally as you should allow all others to reach these

> same conclusions."

>

> Tony then replied [[it is not wise to restrict an open forum .. ]]

> ** No restrictions, only compassion.

>

> Om Santi ...

> Yogini Sakti

 

Namaste Yogini,

 

What you see to be saying is that this forum should be like a convoy,

going the speed of the slowest ship????? It is not a matter of

compassion at all. It is open. Dharma for example has a club where her

pupils and her are the only ones. That is fine for them, but here it

would just be a group think and self censorship. Compassion in the

western sense and Daya in the Hindu can be two different things.

 

The universal allowing one bad karma or sickness would not be regarded

as something beneficial in the West wheareas in the Vedanta there

really isn't such a thing, for ultimately all karma is good for it

teaches and awakens.

 

So if 'God' smacks one on the head to awaken us from a nightmare, is

that bad? No it is good........ONS........Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony,

 

You wrote:

> What you see[m] to be saying is that this forum should be like a convoy,

> going the speed of the slowest ship?????

 

That is not what Yogini "seems to be saying" at all, it is what you appear

to be understanding. And since you brought up that "slowest ship," if in the

following sentence, you think that I seem to be saying, that you are that

"slowest ship" controlling the speed of the convoy... don't assume that I am

saying that Tony.

This "forum" is not "a convoy," as it is not going anywhere at all, not

hoping at all to get anywhere soon... So there is no holding the convoy

back, Tony.

> It is not a matter of compassion at all.

> <snips> Compassion in the western sense and

> Daya in the Hindu can be two different things.

 

You are talking from practice and understanding I hope, not from book

knowledge and analysis for analysis sake?

 

The Sanskrit "daya" is more like sympathy, "karuna," another word for

compassion, is more like empathy.

 

Empathy, sympathy, mercy, compassion, of course it is good to be able to

distinguish the meaning of the words, however it is even better to be

compassionate or receive compassion...unconditionally.

> So if 'God' smacks one on the head to awaken us from a nightmare,

> is that bad? No it is good...

 

A bonafide compassionate god (ahum) would not do such a thing. Oh Tony...

you are something! If your good Irish catholic background would be showing

through, you would be telling us about divine compassion not about a "good

head smacking god."

 

Love, Wim

 

"Indirect knowledge gathered from books or teachers can never set a

human free until its truth is investigated, applied, experimented with

and experienced. Only direct, factual and actual realization does that.

Realize your whole self, reintegrate your mind and body." - Tripura

Rahasya, 18: 89-90

http://www.aurasphere.dhs.org

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 - Release 8/7/2001

[Guest guest]

, "Wim Borsboom" <wim@a...> wrote:

 

Tony wrote:

> > So if 'God' smacks one on the head to awaken us from a nightmare,

> > is that bad? No it is good...

>

> A bonafide compassionate god (ahum) would not do such a thing. Oh

Tony...

> you are something! If your good Irish catholic background would be

showing

> through, you would be telling us about divine compassion not about a

"good

> head smacking god."

>

> Love, Wim

 

Namaste Wim.

 

You obviously know very little about good Irish catholic backgrounds,

or you wouldn't say that.hahahaha

 

Sometimes 'God', throws one on to our backs with an illness, and then

says, now that I have your attention. Let me tell you this!!!'

 

God' is a head smacker!!!hahahahah 'God' of course being the balancing

of karma.

 

Also I do have some differences on where you are getting your sanskrit

translations from, they seem to be later than some, but that is

another story.....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony,

 

You wrote:

> You obviously know very little about good Irish catholic backgrounds,

> or you wouldn't say that.hahahaha

 

Were you duped or something? In spite of what you were telling us

previously... you are not over it...

Your stoicism only hides your grief.

> Sometimes 'God', throws one on to our backs with an illness, and then

> says, now that I have your attention. Let me tell you this!!!'

 

'God' does not do such, 'God' is not such, and it does not make a difference

whether you surround 'God' with quotation marks or not...

 

You can of course blame your statement on your, as you say so often "poor

writing skills" but you seem to use that excuse every time when you have

written some derisive statements or some invective...

No dice, Tony...

> Also I do have some differences

> on where you are getting your

> sanskrit translations from,

> they seem to be later than some,

> but that is another story...

 

Of course Tony, I used to translate the texts myself.

 

Love, Wim

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 - Release 8/7/2001

[Guest guest]

, "Wim Borsboom" <wim@a...> wrote:

> This "forum" is not "a convoy," as it is not going anywhere at all,

> not hoping at all to get anywhere soon...

 

Sounds like prison. : )

> it is even better to be

> compassionate or receive compassion...unconditionally.

 

Advice is like poison.

No one wants to drink it first.

> A bonafide compassionate god (ahum) would not do such a thing.

 

A headsmacking god?

Lord no,

but neither a head patting god either.

> Oh Tony...you are something! If your good Irish catholic background

> would be showing through, you would be telling us about divine

> compassion not about a "good head smacking god."

 

Why talk about either and get distracted?

 

David

(prefers filterless}

[Guest guest]

Tony wrote [[What you see to be saying is that this forum should be

like a convoy, going the speed of the slowest ship?]]

** No Tony .. this is not what I am saying.

 

[[it is not a matter of compassion at all.]]

** All is compassion .. love .. understanding and awareness.

 

I concur with your notion of non-duality Tony; I cannot to

your abusive approach. Lessons are best learned with an open hand

than a fist.

 

[[The universal allowing one bad karma or sickness .. ]]

** Karma is without 'good' or 'bad'. Karma is neutral.

 

[[so if 'God' smacks one on the head to awaken us from a nightmare,

is that bad?]]

** It would appear from this comment that your perception of life -

the manner of your samskara & subsequent attitude - is one of

violence (based on the above statement).

 

[[No it is good.]]

** There is no 'good' or 'bad'. There just Is.

 

Om Santi ...

Yogini Sakti