Hillary & Happy Daze

[Guest guest]

Well, Hillary, I believe you've carried the day. After all my work,

you step up to the plate and with a nonchalant presentation of a few

potent quotes proceed to knock the whole thing right out of the park.

Congratulations. As should be abundantly clear, I come from that

generation that was provided with our Ramana Maharshi quotes by Paul

Brunton and John (?) Osborne, who, in the clarity of hindsight,

confined themselves to R.s most pithy teachings about seeking the

Self in asking "Who am I?", and never gave us any of those instances

when he was not in dialogue with a Jnani or a "would be Jnani"

westerner.

Some valuable stuff you've got there. As to K., I got most of my own

observations from Mary Lutyens' excellent biography, a read that was

inspired, oddly enough, by Rajneesh, who commented that no one could

even begin to understand K. without taking his early training and

history with Annie Besant, Ledbetter and the Eastern Star into

consideration. My other observations of K. were as a result of seeing

and meeting him up in Ojai, Cal., his Summer digs, many years ago when

I was out in Santa Monica with Baba on his 2nd "World Tour". A few

amusing stories to come, but all in good time.

I've never read the book you cited, but consider your mention of it

and the quotes a minor act of God (perhaps, I should say, of the

Goddess).

Finally, with regards to the Buddha, I have what can only be called an

inference, but not a bad one as his own scriptures go. Buddha, if

you'll remember, after leaving home and taking to the road as a "home

leaver" renunciant, took up instruction and practice with 5

renunciants. The path of renunciation, tapasya and the active

development of "siddhis", is a Kundalini path. As far as I know,

there is no development of siddhis that does not depend on Mantra and

the arousal and manipulation of Kundalini. If anyone has any thoughts

about this I hope they'll post them.

Of course, Buddha ultimately rejected the path of austerity in favor

of his establishment of the "Middle Way" between extreme renunciation

and the path of Brahmanic ritual. Still, just skimming the Buddha's

massive and systematic exposition reveals a character that could not

have finished with his renunciate brethren without learning their

secrets about Kundalini.

To consider the Buddha's life without considering Destiny or Karma is

a folly that only an Academic could pursue, and it seems fair to me

to suggest that the Buddha's "karma" wasn't to re-reveal the Goddess

to the vast mass of her devotees that made up the non-Brahmanic

remainder of Indian society. So, he decided to found Buddhism,

instead, and we're all the better for it. Still, within 500 years,

Kundalini had re-entered the Buddhist pantheon under the guise of

Mahayana and Tantra, which only goes to show that you can't keep a

good woman down.

Just kidding, Tony. Well, Tony. Doesn't you feel better? Now that

you've come out of "denial" and entered the world of "only occasional

confusion" that informs the rest of us. If we had known that you had

submitted yourself to Satya Sai Baba and then left and/or denied Sai,

We might have had a little better handle on your rejection of the K.

experience. Of course, I may not have any of this right, but,

somehow, I feel certain that you will soon set me straight.

Dear Lynette, my vehicle is inoperable and my airbag is broken, so if

you can arrange my karmic recall I'd be more than grateful.

yours in the bonds,

eric

[Guest guest]

Hi Eric,

>snip<

> The path of renunciation, tapasya and the active development of

>"siddhis", is a Kundalini path. As far as I know, there is no development

>of siddhis that does not depend on Mantra and the arousal and

>manipulation of Kundalini. If anyone has any thoughts about this I hope

>they'll post them.

 

Siddhis arise naturally in the course of spiritual development, and they

will arise whether or not the person has active Kundalini. I used to teach

meditation (Raja Yoga) to non-K. people. And not only did I NOT encourage

Kundalini, I taught in such a way as to discourage any sudden overt

manifestation of K. Also, I never encouraged anyone to work for siddhis.

They are not important, and when people work mainly for gifts or siddhis or

"psychic development," they are likely to neglect the spiritual side and

develop in a lop-sided way that has its own built-in limit.

 

But in my classes various people did develop their own gifts. It just came

naturally. We talked about it in passing and made no big deal of it.

People seem to have their own natural gifts that will come out - some "see"

better, some "hear" better, and some have more unusual gifts.

 

The lower gifts or siddhis come first. Then after a while, in the course

of spiritual development, they disappear. And a little later, the higher

gifts come.

 

It is not necessary to have physically active Kundalini to have siddhis.

But there is no one without Kundalini. It moves at more subtle levels long

before it goes physically active. So in that sense you could say that

Kundalini produces siddhis.

 

It would be a mistake to think that everyone who has active K. made a

decision and began some sort of practices to arouse it. Nowadays, it is

appearing spontaneously in many people. Often, they have no idea what's

happening or what to do about it. For that reason alone, it would be

good for more people to know something about Kundalini, so that if it ever

does happen to them spontaneously, it won't be totally shocking and

mystifying.

 

No one knows why there is this big increase in spontaneous K. activation in

the Western world. It's been suggested that it's because so many people

have been into some form of meditation or healing, etc., and this spiritual

activity eventually leads to it. Another suggestion is that it may have

something to do with the effects of all the electronic equipment that

surrounds us in our daily lives.

>To consider the Buddha's life without considering Destiny or Karma is a

>folly that only an Academic could pursue, and it seems fair to me to

>suggest that the Buddha's "karma" wasn't to re-reveal the Goddess to the

>vast mass of her devotees that made up the non-Brahmanic remainder of

>Indian society. So, he decided to found Buddhism, instead, and we're all

>the better for it.

 

Eric, I love you! And I can't believe you said that! ) Gautama didn't

decide to found Buddhism, he just started teaching what he had learned.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

, EBlackstead@c... wrote:> good woman down.

>

> Just kidding, Tony. Well, Tony. Doesn't you feel better? Now that

you've come

> out of "denial" and entered the world of "only occasional confusion"

that

> informs the rest of us. If we had known that you had submitted

yourself to

> Satya Sai Baba and then left and/or denied Sai, We might have had a

little

> better handle on your rejection of the K. experience. Of course, I

may not

> have any of this right, but, somehow, I feel certain that you will

soon set

> me straight.

> yours in the bonds,

> eric

 

Namaste Eric,

 

As Wim and Angelique will tell you, I have not denied Kundalini but

the interpretation and distortion of it. I deny what many call a K

awaking as being in all cases 'K'.

 

Some experienced may indeed be actually the physical nerves themselves

not the subtle currents.

 

Kundalini Sakti is the mind, prana is the instrument of manifestation.

 

What people call K is actually prana. It doesn't result in liberation.

 

With regard to brashtas, or fallen yogis like, Sathya Sai Baba. I

thought of him as a bhodisattva. The allegations coming out are about

him being a molestor and pedophile etc. Same with his friend

Muktananda, and his specially made 'screwing bed', an alleged molestor

of young women. Oh yes you could tell, those who had the K experience

with him, they always has expensive gifts.

 

Anyway as they only parroted the truths one could still learn from

their books. Osho! well what can I say? His reputation in India

speaks volumes.

 

My most spiritual energy experiences were actually in the presence of

Ammachi not sb or anyone else...ONS.....Tony