Guest guest Posted August 27, 2001 Report Share Posted August 27, 2001 , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: > Ramana and Lakshmana Swamy give it not much validity as per moksha, so > I am looking a little deeper on this subject. > > It seems it is only considered a method for obtaining > siddhis...ONS...Tony. Dear Tony, Well, lets see! ) Question: How to find the Atman? Response: "There is no investigation into the Atman. The investigation can only be into the non-self. Elimination of the non-self is alone possible. The Self being always self evident will shine forth of itself. The Self is called by different names--Atman, God, Kundalini, mantra, etc. Hold any one of them and the Self becomes manifest. God is no other than the Self. Kundalini is now showing forth as the mind. When the mind is traced to its source it is Kundalini. Mantra japa leads to elimination of other thoughts and to concentration on the mantra. The mantra finally merges into the Self and shines forth as the Self." p. 80 *Talks* Question "what part does Kundalini play in bringing about Self-Realization? Response: Kundalini rises from any lakshya that you have. Kundalini is prana-sakti (life-current) p. 240 Mr. T.K. S. Iyer asked Sri Bhagavan [Ramana] about the source of sound. Response: The general opinion is that para (sound) comes from the Muladhara ....at the bottom of the spine. All sounds beginning from vaikhari (thought form) are contained in para which proceeds from Kundalini; and Kundalini is not different from the Heart. In fact the whole shadadhara (six-fold centre) is contained in the heart. The sushumna with its source Kundalini is included in the Heart p. 262 Question: How to seek the mind? Response: Breath-control may do as an aid but can never lead to the goal itself. While doing it mechanically, take care to be alert in mind and remember the "I'-thought and seek its source. Then you will find that where breath sinks, there the 'I'-thought arises. They sink and rise together. The 'I'-thought also will sink along with breath. Simultaneously another luminous and infinite "I--I" will manifest and it will *be* continuous and unbroken. That is the goal. it goes by different names--God, Self, Kundalini-Sakti, consciousness, etc., etc. p. 313 Question They say that Kundalini must be roused before Realisation and that its awakening makes the body feel hot. Is that so? Response: The yogis call it Kundalini Sakti. It is the same as vritti of the form of God (Bhagavatakara vritti) of the bhaktas and vritti of the form of Brahman (Brahmakara vritti) of the jnanis. It must be preliminary to Realisation. The sensation produced may be sasid to be hot. p. 358 Love, Hillary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2001 Report Share Posted August 27, 2001 , druout@a... wrote: > Response: Kundalini rises from any lakshya that you have. Kundalini is > prana-sakti (life-current) p. 240 All sounds beginning from vaikhari (thought > form) are contained in para which proceeds from Kundalini; and Kundalini is > not different from the Heart. In fact the whole shadadhara (six-fold centre) > is contained in the heart. > The sushumna with its source Kundalini is included in the Heart > > p. 262 > > Question: How to seek the mind? > > Response: Breath-control may do as an aid but can never lead to the goal > itself. While doing it mechanically, take care to be alert in mind and > remember the "I'-thought and seek its source. Then you will find that where > breath sinks, there the 'I'-thought arises. They sink and rise together. > The 'I'-thought also will sink along with breath. Simultaneously another > luminous and infinite "I--I" will manifest and it will *be* continuous and > unbroken. That is the goal. it goes by different names--God, Self, > Kundalini-Sakti, consciousness, etc., etc. > > p. 313 > > Question They say that Kundalini must be roused before Realisation and that > its awakening makes the body feel hot. Is that so? > > Response: The yogis call it Kundalini Sakti. It is the same as vritti of > the form of God (Bhagavatakara vritti) of the bhaktas and vritti of the form > of Brahman (Brahmakara vritti) of the jnanis. It must be preliminary to > Realisation. The sensation produced may be sasid to be hot. > > p. 358 > > Love, Hillary Namaste Hillary, I accept all that for he is saying that Kundalini Sakti is not different from 'Mind'. It is another word for the Universal Mind of Saguna Brahman. My expression may be difficult to grasp, even by myself but I am trying to find out how it all got so distorted and even perverted. Discounting the mentally unbalanced, deviants, and so called gurus, what happened? Kundalini is mind,"I-I", mind is prana the manifestation of the Saguna Brahman or Sakti. Sakti and Prana have become interchangeable when in fact prana is the power or manifestation of the Sakti...never mind. I have experienced this so called K all my life since I was a child, even now. However my major manifestations were all not lower than the Heart Cakra area. Ammachi gave me a bija mantra, and when I use it, an energy happens but is non localised generally above the heart cakra again. I am also aware of sensations rising and falling in my body generally but that is due to Vipassana meditation. My own thoughts on it are that it is prana, of the higher mind, working on the lower minds, cleansing the sheaths so that awareness can arise. One can build up prana, by pranayama and I have had some very strange happenings or siddhis due to that in the past. However raising prana without a spiritual practice or sadhana doesn't lead to enlightenment, just sexual obsessions and siddhis. I notice that Ramakrishna Paramahamsa didn't go into nirvikalpa samadhi until he was with Tota Puri, who had been there. He was mostly in Savikalpa Samadhi and then eventually on the borderline so to speak. So his experience was of the Saguna/Bhakti type. What I don't believe is that raising prana from the lower physical cakras can result in any spiritual developement, or even moksha. Only purification of sadhana can do that. Finally even with sadhana and prana, moksha cannot be achieved for it is all within energy. The I or ego has to go into the Self or Heart. Siva/Sakti at the Sahasrara isn't possible for Siva is Nirguna Brahman and Sakti is Saguna. So what is united at the sahasrara is the opposites in energy, male and female if you will. So we are talking about two things Kundalini as the Sakti/Mind and prana as an energy. Sarada Devi said that Japa will raise the K. So obviously it can be done without great manifestation daily, for it is in effect the cleansing of samskaras in the awareness sheath, through spiritual practice. So the idea of raising K from the lowere cakras and manifesting prana leads to spirituality or moksha is a dillusion. Some advance people will barely have any manifestation, due to their purur state.....IMO,,,I;m still working on this......ONS....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2001 Report Share Posted August 27, 2001 , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: [snip] > My expression may be difficult to grasp, even by myself but I am > trying to find out how it all got so distorted and even perverted. > Discounting the mentally unbalanced, deviants, and so called gurus, > what happened? Perhaps you might consider the possibly (nay, fact) that the lack of balance and deviation is confined to the context of yourself and your ideas about the subject. [snip] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2001 Report Share Posted August 27, 2001 , jodyrrr@h... wrote: > , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: > > [snip] > > > My expression may be difficult to grasp, even by myself but I am > > trying to find out how it all got so distorted and even perverted. > > Discounting the mentally unbalanced, deviants, and so called gurus, > > what happened? > > Perhaps you might consider the possibly (nay, fact) that the lack of > balance and deviation is confined to the context of yourself and your > ideas about the subject. Namaste Jody, Actually my ideas about the subject seem to be very much in line with what Ramana and Lakshmana Swamy have said about it, at a non introductory level. Notwithstanding what Patanjali and Sankara didn't say about it, very loudly....... I still feel that what people call K is actually raising prana by pranayama etc and isn't per se K-Sakti as the Mind. They are two different things at the relative level......ONS......Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2001 Report Share Posted August 27, 2001 , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: [snip] > Namaste Jody, > > Actually my ideas about the subject seem to be very much in line with > what Ramana and Lakshmana Swamy have said about it, at a non > introductory level. Notwithstanding what Patanjali and Sankara didn't > say about it, very loudly....... We should note very loudly that Ramana, Lakshmana, Patanjali, and Shankara had the benefit of experiential knowledge. All you have is your speculation, so your "in line" thinking is in line in your thinking only. > I still feel that what people call K is actually raising prana by > pranayama etc and isn't per se K-Sakti as the Mind. They are two > different things at the relative level......ONS......Tony. You are like an aviation buff who thinks he can fly a jetfighter because he's read something written by a pilot. Without being a jivanmukta yourself, you are in no position to comment on these matters, and what you have to say about them is close to meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2001 Report Share Posted August 27, 2001 , jodyrrr@h... wrote: > , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: > > [snip] > > > Namaste Jody, > > > > Actually my ideas about the subject seem to be very much in line with > > what Ramana and Lakshmana Swamy have said about it, at a non > > introductory level. Notwithstanding what Patanjali and Sankara didn't > > say about it, very loudly....... > > We should note very loudly that Ramana, Lakshmana, Patanjali, > and Shankara had the benefit of experiential knowledge. All you > have is your speculation, so your "in line" thinking is in line > in your thinking only. > > > I still feel that what people call K is actually raising prana by > > pranayama etc and isn't per se K-Sakti as the Mind. They are two > > different things at the relative level......ONS......Tony. > > You are like an aviation buff who thinks he can fly a jetfighter > because he's read something written by a pilot. Without being a > jivanmukta yourself, you are in no position to comment on these > matters, and what you have to say about them is close to meaningless. Namaste Jody, First of all why do you waste so much time responding to all my meaningless posts? Secondly you do not know what my experiences in this area have been, except for those I have posted here. I also can judge somewhat from the rag tag bunch of imbeciles, dry drunks, schizophrenics, delusionals, sexual perverts and charlatans that inhabit this world of K, that confusion is the order of the day. not spirituality, particularly in the West. I know what my experience with this energy has been, and as it is an almost daily event with me, I would hardly call it bookish knowledge. I am just trying to sort out the wood from the trees. I know what I feel it is and I'm just trying to find out why it has become so distorted and taken on a life of its own. I don't know whether you are a help in this or not..Most of those posting on lists do not seem to have gone very deep in the philosophy other than fanciful stuff and energy experiences.......ONS.....Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2001 Report Share Posted August 27, 2001 , "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote: [snip] > Namaste Jody, > > First of all why do you waste so much time responding to all my > meaningless posts? Perhaps I don't see it as a waste of time. Basically, I'm responding to myself in the past. That is, there was a time when I thought I knew what I was talking about but all I really had was empty speculation based on my interpretation of what I read. Furthermore, my interpretation was colored by that set of common assumptions about realization we find so prevalent in the West. These assumptions are incorrect, and when used as a basis of interpretation they produce empty speculation that occludes the truth. For the most part, I used to be just like you. > Secondly you do not know what my experiences in this area have been, > except for those I have posted here. I know you don't speak from the experience of Self realization, as you have admitted this yourself. The subjects you comment on require this to qualify your statements. You may have had awesome meditation experiences, but these are just more experience, they are not jnana. If you are to comment on the work of the Sages, you must be a sage yourself. > I also can judge somewhat from the rag tag bunch of imbeciles, dry > drunks, schizophrenics, delusionals, sexual perverts and charlatans > that inhabit this world of K, that confusion is the order of the day. > not spirituality, particularly in the West. What about the Ramakrishnas and Ramanas and others who've mentioned Kundalini? If the involvement of a few crackpots disqualifies something as having veracity, there would be little worth looking into. > I know what my experience with this energy has been, and as it is an > almost daily event with me, I would hardly call it bookish > knowledge. How do you know your "energy" is Kundalini? Your own experience might call your own understanding into question, but the collective understanding of the Sages? There is a name for this kind of thinking, it is called grandiosity. Coincidentally, it is a symptom of Kundalini emergence. > I am just trying to sort out the wood from the trees. I know what I > feel it is and I'm just trying to find out why it has become so > distorted and taken on a life of its own. I don't know whether you > are a help in this or not..Most of those posting on > lists do not seem to have gone very deep in the > philosophy other than fanciful stuff and energy > experiences.......ONS.....Tony. The first thing you need to find out is that your ideas are squarely in the way of your understanding. I don't know if my posts are a help in this regard, but I will continue to offer my opinions as long as I am compelled to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2001 Report Share Posted August 27, 2001 Beautiful, Jody!! >> I still feel that what people call K is actually raising prana by >> pranayama etc and isn't per se K-Sakti as the Mind. They are two >> different things at the relative level......ONS......Tony. > >You are like an aviation buff who thinks he can fly a jetfighter >because he's read something written by a pilot. Without being a >jivanmukta yourself, you are in no position to comment on these >matters, and what you have to say about them is close to meaningless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2001 Report Share Posted August 28, 2001 Dear Tony, You wrote: > I also can judge somewhat from the rag tag bunch of imbeciles, > dry drunks, schizophrenics, delusionals, sexual perverts and charlatans > that inhabit this world of K, that confusion is the order of the day. > not spirituality, particularly in the West. And you are....? 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.