Kundalini/Tantra

[Guest guest]

Good morning and Sat Nam,

 

I thought I'd pick up on this discussion .

 

Art said,

 

"Having heard the discussion earlier re. sexual energy and zenbob's

reply,it occurred to me that what we have is a kind of controversy in

the fieldbetween those who relate the physical frame very closely to

kundalini energy... prana... ida/pingala... the chakras (some related

them to specific glands in the physical body) and those who hold that

while their is a connection between the physical body and the spiritual

body they are not identical... however connected by the nadis... thus

the chakras are identified as along the sashumna as well as ida /

pingala nadi current and not impeded in the physical form itself but in

the spiritual energy body...."

 

Art,

I found this very interesting and was wondering if you can say more

about the controversy and who does vs doesn't closely relate the

physical and spiritual fields. I think this controversy is evident

throughout both the east and west in terms of materialism vs Idealism,

Freud vs Plato etc. Freud saw culture, religion and everything higher as

sublimations of libidinal energy. I find this tempermentally repugnant

since I guess I'm more of an idealist or Platonist. I think Plato would

say that we might THINK we desire this girl with red hair and these

features etc but what we REALLY want is Beauty or Proportion and are

only representing it in a physical picture. They would say that the

whole concept of repression is based on an assumption that we are just

drives and passions. I guess each camp would argue that the other side

derives from itself. The Buddhists speak of mutually arising where each

principle arises with the other one and it's not that Energy or primary

or Mind. I think they also say that it's a contradiction for something

higher to come from something lower. The higher has to be there from the

beginning it can't "evolve". It's just that we don't remember or

recognize the Real. I also found something interesting in Shakti's book.

Can anyone explain this,

 

Yogi Bhajan speaks of the kundalini:

"Yes, kundalini is known as the nerve of the soul. This is to be

awakened. Your soul is to be awakened. When sould gets awakened there

remains nothing. What else is there?

In the practical reality, these chakras are imaginary and nothing

else. This kundalini is just a kundalini and nothing else. It is not

very important. These pranas and apanas are just there. Everything is

set in us. We lack nothing. We use these terms simply to make the

process clear so we can get on with it. It is very simple. After getting

myself into the darkness for years together, I found that if I would

have known on the first day that it was so easy, I could have save

myself a lot of hassle. "

 

Debbie

Jokes for Inspiration and Elevation

http://jokes4inspiration.listbot.com

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/6/99 8:27:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

debrc writes:

 

<< In the practical reality, these chakras are imaginary and nothing

else. This kundalini is just a kundalini and nothing else. It is not

very important. These pranas and apanas are just there. Everything is

set in us. We lack nothing. We use these terms simply to make the

process clear so we can get on with it. It is very simple. After getting

myself into the darkness for years together, I found that if I would

have known on the first day that it was so easy, I could have save

myself a lot of hassle. "

>>

Dear Debbie:

 

Here Yogi Bhajan is wisely paraphrasing the Dzogchen school of Buddhism which

teaches that enlightenment, or ecstatic union, Rig Pa is a natural state, and

that no effort is required to attain it, merely practical methods of allowing

the mind to let go of the physical form and worldly distraction to achieve

this greater unification or state of "no thought."

 

However, all is not as it seems. To unlearn a thing is perhaps as difficult

if not more difficult than to learn a thing. Sure, something may be natural

and easy...we all learn to walk...but some walk more gracefully than

others...and if we seek to emulate them, we do not "learnt o walk as they do"

we must first unlearn how we learned to walk and then allow ourselves to

"learn to walk as they do." This is ever and always the nature of being a

good student. We must let go of our habits and ideas that block our progress

and "go back to a neutral state" which allows for true learning to occur. We

cannot truly hear, if our minds are creating mental responses, even as others

speak. This requires contemplation and quiet reflection.

 

Do the Chakras exist? Not as physical "things." Are there points where

energies flow and cross? Yes. In visualizing these points can we focus and

channel our Chi and vital force? Yes. Is it material or something that

exists in thought alone?

 

Ah, here is where the neo-Platonic vs. Freudian aspects come into play. Yes,

on one level, the higher ideals or archetypes of eternal forms, "Beauty"

"GoodnessLoveTruth" act as wonderful boundaries to our purely animal

drives and natures.

However, they are boundaries, they do not constitute the entire person. Lust

without the pure ideal of "Love" is dangerous and can be a harmful thing.

"Love" without the physical body to provide the actuality of experience is

simply an abstract ideal...with no fervor or fire. Yearning in the abstract

is interesting, but sharing in the actual is divine. When we are repulsed by

something, we also have to ask, "What is there about this that repulses us?

Do we fear that this reveals something deeply buried within us that we are

afraid to confront?" Now, this is not always the case, certainly, as I am

repulsed by people eating crudely and dripping sauce down their beards and by

people spitting on sidewalks, etc. So, these do not represent repulsions

based on inner fear that this represents some secret desire, need, or aspect

of myself. But, when we discuss Sex or sexual natures in the Western World,

we are talking about a very complex, sublimated, controlled and often

contradictory set of rules, ideals, and images that most of us have been

brought up with...even if our parents were "open, progressive and tolerant."

 

And believe me, many who had "open progressive" parents found them to be

anything but open and progressive once things began to happen to their

children.

 

Sex without love: lust, procreation, and animal existence

Love without sex: spiritual existence...no one left on earth

eventually.

 

Love with Sex (but sex limited to absolutely only the essential

act of procreation):

Charming, but physically unhealthy, distorting...

if humans were designed only to enjoy sex as

a procreative tool, they would have "seasonal

heats" as most other mammals and animals do.

 

Sex with a bit of Love (where love is given lip service in order

for one or more people to be able to earn sex)

Sort of the Mafia version of love and sex. No

long term pleasure from either aspect is possible.

 

Sex and Love (Both looked at as equal and supremely beautiful,

liberating, fulfilling methods of becoming

united as people, and uniting with the infinite.)

This is where I place my bets for long term

happiness and success. Sex should be fulfilling

and love should be ever abiding. Mutual growth

creativity and spontaneous enjoyment of life

are possible. Training in Tantra and Kundalini

raising simply allow for the full potential to

be achieved and for the ideas of "love"and "sex"

to cease making sense as totally separate things.

Unity in this means we often must leave behind

our fears, our preconceptions and our sense

of "appropriate" versus "inappropriate." Thus,

one learns to work from the neutral state of

what is pleasurable, comfortable and fulfilling.

 

 

Just some basic simple thoughts of my own...

 

Blessings

Love,

 

Zenbob