Campbell

[Guest guest]

" With all the prowess at your disposal at the University of

> California, perhaps your team of PhDs and professors can examine

>Mr. Campbell's findings and report back to the . "

 

As far as I know, Campbell was not really a scholar but more of a synthetiser

and popularizer. It is very tempting to engage in superficial and easy

analogies. It is almost certain the Maya had no clue about kundalini per se

(after all, kundalini is tightly wrapped around Hindu mythology), but may have

had a notion of something similar, with ITS roots in *Mayan* mythology.

 

Nahua & Maya mythology have been universally misinterpreted by New Age

popularizers, profiteers and " medicine people " such as Arguelles, Ruiz and

Hunbatz Men.

 

 

A similar debate is raging in shamanic studies, where some (such as Alice

Keyhoe) claim that the term shamanism applies *only* to the Tungus/Evenk people

and that any talk of shamanism outside of that context is ignorance, New Age

distortion, or worse.

 

I personally am not in the Keyhoe camp, but in this particular debate I

definitely side with Justine. After all, truth is a lover of what IS.

 

y1

[Guest guest]

Sat Nam Mike:

Thank you. I really felt like you read through what I posted and

honored what I was trying to relate instead of reacting to it. You are

absolutely correct about Campbell and, as far as I know, he did not

have the knowledge/ experience to read Mayan iconography/ language so,

for me, it is important to read and understand the scholars that do

read this ancient language. You are correct also about the

misinterpretation of Nahua and Maya mythology. This is what I was

trying to convey in my original post, but I felt that my message was

disregarded, for what ever reason. Thank you again for really reading

my posts.

Sat Nam

justine

 

-- In Kundalini-Yoga , MIke Cross <yaldabaoth1 wrote:

>

> " With all the prowess at your disposal at the University of

> > California, perhaps your team of PhDs and professors can examine

> >Mr. Campbell's findings and report back to the . "

>

> As far as I know, Campbell was not really a scholar but more of a

synthetiser and popularizer. It is very tempting to engage in

superficial and easy analogies. It is almost certain the Maya had no

clue about kundalini per se (after all, kundalini is tightly wrapped

around Hindu mythology), but may have had a notion of something

similar, with ITS roots in *Mayan* mythology.

>

> Nahua & Maya mythology have been universally misinterpreted by New

Age popularizers, profiteers and " medicine people " such as Arguelles,

Ruiz and Hunbatz Men.

>

>

> A similar debate is raging in shamanic studies, where some (such as

Alice Keyhoe) claim that the term shamanism applies *only* to the

Tungus/Evenk people and that any talk of shamanism outside of that

context is ignorance, New Age distortion, or worse.

>

> I personally am not in the Keyhoe camp, but in this particular

debate I definitely side with Justine. After all, truth is a lover of

what IS.

>

> y1

>

[Guest guest]

Thankyou for your post Mike,

 

Excellent information about Mayan culture. I think its important to for

all of us to accept that its still a very important thing that this

phenomena, known by different names and perhaps in slightly different

manners is a part of the universality of things. It's amazing that

varying humans across the globe work with energy in such similar ways

and I think that we can enhance our own practice and deepen our own

personal understandings of Kundalini (beyond teacings of any system) by

being open to knowledge that we can find in many places. I think its

also important that we don't NEED to make everyone in the world

practice kundalini yoga to justify a 'truth' that there is a phenomena

that seems to be multicultural and across space adn time, but it isn't

exactly the same everywhere its found, which is reasonable given the

differences in culture, tempermnet and history.

 

Blessings

EOKS