Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 93 Evidence that prove my words to be right are tantric and yogic scriptures. I see u haven`t read them. That is why FOR U it is not convincing - u simply are unaware what they say . Teachings of "every master" are virtual - noone can prove what u or i heard or not. Can u cite ANY text supporting ur view that Kundalini is a specific prana which is "prodused" from joining prana with apana in sushumna? What yoga tradition teaches this? To speak about logic , ok. Plz show me where i contradict myself. However ur ideas are contradictory - how is it possible that subtle physical energies give birth to power of Consciousness? Something like Darwin theory LOL. It is against nature of things and against logic. Tattvas emanate from up to down, thus Kundalini existed "before" pranas appeared. Kundalini is that shakti who gives birth to lower energies of body, never vice versa. Kundalini is connected with Consciousness, Samvit. She is not some "impersonal" prana, vehicle "to go up" or a snake that u can awake by a stick LOL. Only grace of Parameshvari awakenes "lower" Kundalini... "Ascetism, rituals and yoga are of no use. On the way of Kula that is free of illusion, only Love saves". (Kularnava-tantra) A. , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > > And yet you fail utterly to provide any evidence whatsoever that > what I say is 'off'. For someone who claims to value scientific > method, you are quick to dispense with it when making > assertions that you cannot prove about things that you do not > understand. > > But you do provide plenty of evidence that your own views do not > even stand up to the most elementary logical analysis. You show > not the slightest ability to understand what the saints and seers > have to say about koshas, prana, and Kundaliini. > > > Omprem > > > , "Arjuna Taradasa" > <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > > 93 > > > > The problem is not the difference of opinion. Everyone has the > right > > to think and express what they think. > > > > The problem is that "Omprem" said he expresses the view of > particular > > tradition (that too saying he`s a teacher of it!) - while what he > said > > is totally off. > > > > If i say some nonsense, it is just my ignorant viewpoint. But if i > say > > that this nonsense is the doctrine of Yoga, the case is different, > > isn`t it? > > > > > > > Why are you so cricital? > > > Why must everyone attack Omprem? > > > This answer makes sense to me from an intuitive level, it > sounds > > good to > > > me. > > > Omprem didn't say this is the one and only "truth" -- he's > > only > > > answering my question, and rather graciously, at that. > > > I appreciate this answer, and can't see why you should > attack it. > > If you > > > have a different explanation of Kundalini and Prana, please > offer it > > for > > > consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 " Can u cite ANY text supporting ur view that Kundalini is a specific prana which is "prodused" from joining prana with apana in sushumna?" The Complete Illustrated Book of Yoga -Swami Vishnudevananda Bliss Divine - Swami Sivananda The Serpent Power - Arthur Avalon "how is it possible that subtle physical energies give birth to power of Consciousness?" This lack of knowledge is behind all of your posts. You need to seek a Guru to dispell your veil of ignorance on trhis subject. Do more sadhana so that your intellect and mind become clearer and stronger and so that your psychology becomes less obstinate and combative and more open and exploratory. Omprem , "Arjuna Taradasa" <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > 93 > > Evidence that prove my words to be right are tantric and yogic > scriptures. I see u haven`t read them. That is why FOR U it is not > convincing - u simply are unaware what they say . > > Teachings of "every master" are virtual - noone can prove what u or i > heard or not. Can u cite ANY text supporting ur view that Kundalini is > a specific prana which is "prodused" from joining prana with apana in > sushumna? What yoga tradition teaches this? > > To speak about logic , ok. Plz show me where i contradict myself. > However ur ideas are contradictory - how is it possible that subtle > physical energies give birth to power of Consciousness? Something like > Darwin theory LOL. It is against nature of things and against logic. > Tattvas emanate from up to down, thus Kundalini existed "before" > pranas appeared. Kundalini is that shakti who gives birth to lower > energies of body, never vice versa. > > Kundalini is connected with Consciousness, Samvit. She is not some > "impersonal" prana, vehicle "to go up" or a snake that u can awake by > a stick LOL. > > Only grace of Parameshvari awakenes "lower" Kundalini... > > "Ascetism, rituals and yoga are of no use. On the way of Kula that is > free of illusion, only Love saves". (Kularnava-tantra) > > A. > > > , "omprem" <omprem> wrote: > > > > And yet you fail utterly to provide any evidence whatsoever that > > what I say is 'off'. For someone who claims to value scientific > > method, you are quick to dispense with it when making > > assertions that you cannot prove about things that you do not > > understand. > > > > But you do provide plenty of evidence that your own views do not > > even stand up to the most elementary logical analysis. You show > > not the slightest ability to understand what the saints and seers > > have to say about koshas, prana, and Kundaliini. > > > > > > Omprem > > > > > > , "Arjuna Taradasa" > > <bhagatirtha@m...> wrote: > > > > > > 93 > > > > > > The problem is not the difference of opinion. Everyone has the > > right > > > to think and express what they think. > > > > > > The problem is that "Omprem" said he expresses the view of > > particular > > > tradition (that too saying he`s a teacher of it!) - while what he > > said > > > is totally off. > > > > > > If i say some nonsense, it is just my ignorant viewpoint. But if i > > say > > > that this nonsense is the doctrine of Yoga, the case is different, > > > isn`t it? > > > > > > > > > > Why are you so cricital? > > > > Why must everyone attack Omprem? > > > > This answer makes sense to me from an intuitive level, it > > sounds > > > good to > > > > me. > > > > Omprem didn't say this is the one and only "truth" -- > he's > > > only > > > > answering my question, and rather graciously, at that. > > > > I appreciate this answer, and can't see why you should > > attack it. > > > If you > > > > have a different explanation of Kundalini and Prana, please > > offer it > > > for > > > > consideration. 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.