Guest guest Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 hey guys excuse if this point re Kundalini has already been addressed [havent been here a bit] Has any one read 'Heart of Yoga' if so, what is their response to Desikachar's interpretation of kundalini? thanks all km Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 , "kalyaanmitra" <kalyaanmitra> wrote: > hey guys > > excuse if this point re Kundalini has already been addressed [havent > been here a bit] > > > Has any one read 'Heart of Yoga' > > if so, what is their response to Desikachar's interpretation of > kundalini? > > > > thanks all > km Hi Km: I have a copy so I pulled it down to read the part on K. Very interesting, thanks for the pointer. Kundalini is the coiled serpent that blocks the flow of prana up the sushumna. I avoid the topic of K. usually because of the emphasis on a frightening release of uncontrollable energy, the thought of which seems counterprocuctive to the willingness to submit to a deep meditation. Desikachar gives a down to earth clear description with the appropriate references to texts to make him very believable. Nice Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 > > Desikachar gives a down to earth clear description with the > appropriate references to texts to make him very believable. > > Nice > Bobby G. thanks bobby G yep there's a whole lotta snakin goin'on - and as some wise- dudes/esses on this site have pointed out, the FX aint much to do with the steady work needed to be 'enlightened'or worthy of being truly human, to get a grip as it were [although i do love the peace that comes from meditation, that it is not the whole story!] also i think Gopi Krishna's book 'Secret of Yoga[coming from one who experienced it]dealt in a neat way with all this 'snake-charming'biz another point re Desikachar [and this must be an error] his translation of 'ha' and 'tha' with ref to ida and pingala are the reverse of everone else [i think this is a typo?]what say u? i did ask a vinniyoga teacher re this and they kinda agreed om shanti km Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 , "kalyaanmitra" <kalyaanmitra> wrote: > > > > > Desikachar gives a down to earth clear description with the > > appropriate references to texts to make him very believable. > > > > Nice > > Bobby G. > > > thanks bobby G > > yep there's a whole lotta snakin goin'on - and as some wise- > dudes/esses on this site have pointed out, the FX aint much to do > with the steady work needed to be 'enlightened'or worthy of being > truly human, to get a grip as it were [although i do love the peace > that comes from meditation, that it is not the whole story!] > > also i think Gopi Krishna's book 'Secret of Yoga[coming from one who > experienced it]dealt in a neat way with all this 'snake-charming'biz > > > > another point re Desikachar [and this must be an error] his > translation of 'ha' and 'tha' with ref to ida and pingala are the > reverse of everone else [i think this is a typo?]what say u? > i did ask a vinniyoga teacher re this and they kinda agreed I'll take your word on this. Just thumbing through 'Heart' brought tears to my eyes. it is so lovely. I love Patanjali and in Desikachar's intro to his translation of "Yoga Sutra" he refers to this as the heart of yoga. One item caught my eye... 4.20 Let us suppose the mind itself could function in two roles, as the fabricator of what is observed and as the observer. The premise that the mind can play two roles is untenable because it cannot simultaneously fabricate and see what it fabricates. That is pretty clear I would say. > > om shanti > km Love Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 4.20 > Let us suppose the mind itself could function in two roles, as the > fabricator of what is observed and as the observer. > The premise that the mind can play two roles is untenable > because it cannot simultaneously fabricate and see what it fabricates. > huum i missed that bit, bobbyg it is a big one! the mind is a big con artist. So here i take things on faith that there is Consciousness that is supra-mental ...since i cant validate that, it can be shot down therefore Buddhist approach is an excellent cold shower but hey, i feel good thinking that there might just be a 'witness'mind [the two birds of the Upanishads] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 , "kalyaanmitra" <kalyaanmitra> wrote: > 4.20 > > Let us suppose the mind itself could function in two roles, as the > > fabricator of what is observed and as the observer. > > The premise that the mind can play two roles is untenable > > because it cannot simultaneously fabricate and see what it > fabricates. > > > > > huum i missed that bit, bobbyg > > it is a big one! the mind is a big con artist. So here i take things > on faith that there is Consciousness that is supra-mental ...since i > cant validate that, Validate it instantly! Be here now, see yourself, and what ever it is doing the seeing is the Real Self. Love Bobby G. it can be shot down > therefore Buddhist approach is an excellent cold shower > > > but hey, i feel good thinking that there might just be > a 'witness'mind [the two birds of the Upanishads] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 , "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > , "kalyaanmitra" > <kalyaanmitra> wrote: > > 4.20 > > > Let us suppose the mind itself could function in two roles, as > the > > > fabricator of what is observed and as the observer. > > > The premise that the mind can play two roles is untenable > > > because it cannot simultaneously fabricate and see what it > > fabricates. > > > > > > > > > huum i missed that bit, bobbyg > > > > it is a big one! the mind is a big con artist. So here i take > things > > on faith that there is Consciousness that is supra- mental ...since > i > > cant validate that, > > Validate it instantly! Be here now, see yourself, and what ever it > is doing the seeing is the Real Self. > > Love > Bobby G. > > it can be shot down > > therefore Buddhist approach is an excellent cold shower > > > > > > but hey, i feel good thinking that there might just be > > a 'witness'mind [the two birds of the Upanishads] this brings me close to some feeling i keep moment by moment these days; something jan barendrecht said that details moment we thought we were unaware of can be retrieved under hypnosis, and is says that the self is that witness. i know it sounda bit technical but i can "connect" to that subliminal perception (even if it is after the event (laugh!)) in bliss eric ps: talking about bliss, this is how i noticed the nature of the witness when realizing that i was remembering events in a blissful hue although the "intellectual" data was claiming otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 > hue although the "intellectual" data was claiming otherwise. dear eric and bobby g perhaps thats why the wily Hindus [me being one somwhat] never discarded 'buddhi'discriminating mind Lord Ganesh[remover and putter of obstacles] has Buddhi and Siddhi as his consorts and of course, a healthy dose of 'neti neti' seasons 'ananda', and yes it is a combo: sat-chit-ananda [ all equally important] aah!! km Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 , "eric paroissien" <peaceisit@a...> wrote: > , "texasbg2000" > <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > , "kalyaanmitra" > > <kalyaanmitra> wrote: > > > 4.20 > > > > Let us suppose the mind itself could function in two roles, as > > the > > > > fabricator of what is observed and as the observer. > > > > The premise that the mind can play two roles is untenable > > > > because it cannot simultaneously fabricate and see what it > > > fabricates. > > > > > > > > > > > > > huum i missed that bit, bobbyg > > > > > > it is a big one! the mind is a big con artist. So here i take > > things > > > on faith that there is Consciousness that is supra- > mental ...since > > i > > > cant validate that, > > > > Validate it instantly! Be here now, see yourself, and what ever it > > is doing the seeing is the Real Self. > > > > Love > > Bobby G. > > > > it can be shot down > > > therefore Buddhist approach is an excellent cold shower > > > > > > > > > but hey, i feel good thinking that there might just be > > > a 'witness'mind [the two birds of the Upanishads] > > this brings me close to some feeling i keep moment by moment these > days; something jan barendrecht said that details moment we thought > we were unaware of can be retrieved under hypnosis, and is says that > the self is that witness. > i know it sounda bit technical but i can "connect" to that subliminal > perception (even if it is after the event (laugh!)) > in bliss > eric > ps: talking about bliss, this is how i noticed the nature of the > witness when realizing that i was remembering events in a blissful > hue although the "intellectual" data was claiming otherwise. I agree it is moment by moment. Interesting about the witness of events we have forgotten or were unaware of at the time. Each person I guess has triggers that set off "waking up". One of mine is the welling up of tears. About nearly anything. I have learned a trick for shutting them off without killing the awareness current (are you listening Harsha?). I tickle the prana past the heart with an inner volition. Works for me. Love Bobby G. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 , "texasbg2000" <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: <snip> > > Each person I guess has triggers that set off "waking up". One of > mine is the welling up of tears. About nearly anything. > > I have learned a trick for shutting them off without killing the > awareness current (are you listening Harsha?). I tickle the prana > past the heart with an inner volition. Works for me. > > Love > Bobby G. One of my triggers is seeing a grown man cry, so don't do any tickling if I'm around, okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 , "kheyalove" <kheyala@n...> wrote: > , "texasbg2000" > <Bigbobgraham@a...> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > Each person I guess has triggers that set off "waking up". One of > > mine is the welling up of tears. About nearly anything. > > > > I have learned a trick for shutting them off without killing the > > awareness current (are you listening Harsha?). I tickle the prana > > past the heart with an inner volition. Works for me. > > > > Love > > Bobby G. > > > One of my triggers is seeing a grown man cry, so don't do any > tickling if I'm around, okay? > > Out of the question Kheyala, we will tickle and cry together. As a kid I remember seeing my Dad cry at my Grandmother's funeral when the Local gospel singer boomed out 'The Old Rugged Cross". That was '59. It would definitely have made you cry. He was a really rugged man. Love Bobby 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.