Guest guest Posted December 5, 2007 Report Share Posted December 5, 2007 Dear Harsha, Many thanks for allowing me to join this list. I have spent some time reading through the old posts and have found much of interest. I recognize another member Anna, from a Jhana list I'm on :-) I have recently been corresponding on some lists on the subject of Kundalini and would like to gauge opinion here. There seems to be (broadly speaking) two approaches to this topic - what I term the `formless' and the `yogic'. It seems that the `yoga / formless' debate centres on a subtle, but important nuance... Namely: The mind and the prana are always conjoined. So does the yogi `direct' the prana into a channel, or does the prana enter the channel, of itself, when the mind " dissolves " into samhadi? On the face of it, it seems to be the same thing but the assumptions which precede the activity are very different. I read around this topic and don't limit myself to Buddhist literature (my background). Other traditions describe this Shakti, as an all-pervasive universal natural energy to which one must `surrender' and in which one's ego-mind is dissolved in bliss. They teach that one is not " in control " - rather " in surrender " , whereas a Tibetan tantrika works hard to be in control of what is always portrayed as a technical (not emotional) process. In fact, `mastery' is a prerequisite of success in this system and is the benchmark of how far one can expect to " get results " . You may be familiar with what I am referring to and perhaps to the paradox I now feel surrounds this topic: If Shakti is some kind of internal `force' within our subtle body, then with correct instruction, determination and application one may gain `mastery' of it. If, on the other hand, it is the energy of the universe (and inseparably suffuses) me then I am in no position to `control' or `command' it - any more than a fish can command the sea he swims in. I would be very grateful for any comments (or questions) on the above. Namaste Sand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 Dear Sand, Thank you for joining and bringing your friendship here to the list. The questions you ask have been discussed before in some fashion on this list. In the perspective of Hatha Yoga, Kundalini Shakti is aroused through effort (pranayama, meditation on the chakras, bandhas, mudras, mantras, laya, and other tantric practices). The arousal of the Shakti leads to superconscious states, refined awareness, and different levels of Samadhi. Ultimately, Shakti merges with Shiva in the Sahasarara (brain center) for Self-Realization. In the Jnana perspective, the self-awareness breaks out in the open first and the Kundalini Shakti follows. Really, our awareness in any form is a manifestation of Shakti and the two are inseparable. Sri Ramana used to say that a Jnani may not have as an aim to arouse the Shakti, but the same thing happens when awareness turns upon itself. Manifestations of Shakti differ depending on the person. Also people describe experiences differently. To a Jnani, the whole body may be flooded with bliss and the mind may be filled with supernatural experiences, and yet it will appear to be a trivial event no different than any other experience. Not even worth discussing as the person remains fixed on the self-nature. On the other hand, to an inexperienced person, electric jolts of the kundalini, various physical events and mental states of samadhi will appear to be dramatic and therefore may be described with great gusto. It does not matter. Whatever one is experiencing (kundalini, samadhi, etc.), one should remain content as the subject only, serene in pure self-awareness without running after the object of experience. So the whole approach of Sri Ramana is different as it questions the very validity of experience that is transient. What type of meditation and practices one is attracted to is due to the personality and past impressions. If one is natural, any path leads back to the Heart. The Heart is what the the ancients called the Self. Sat-Chit-Anand which is our being and at the core of life. Sri Ramana used to say that it is all an open secret. Namaste and love to all Harsha naga.shrine wrote: > Dear Harsha, > Many thanks for allowing me to join this list. > I have spent some time reading through the old > posts and have found much of interest. > I recognize another member Anna, from a Jhana > list I'm on :-) > > I have recently been corresponding on some lists > on the subject of Kundalini and would like to gauge > opinion here. There seems to be (broadly speaking) > two approaches to this topic - what I term the > `formless' and the `yogic'. > > It seems that the `yoga / formless' debate centres > on a subtle, but important nuance... > > Namely: > The mind and the prana are always conjoined. So > does the yogi `direct' the prana into a channel, or > does the prana enter the channel, of itself, when > the mind " dissolves " into samhadi? > > On the face of it, it seems to be the same thing but > the assumptions which precede the activity are very > different. I read around this topic and don't limit > myself to Buddhist literature (my background). > > Other traditions describe this Shakti, as an > all-pervasive universal natural energy to which > one must `surrender' and in which one's > ego-mind is dissolved in bliss. > They teach that one is not " in control " - rather > " in surrender " , whereas a Tibetan tantrika works > hard to be in control of what is always portrayed > as a technical (not emotional) process. In fact, > `mastery' is a prerequisite of success in this > system and is the benchmark of how far one > can expect to " get results " . > > You may be familiar with what I am referring > to and perhaps to the paradox I now feel > surrounds this topic: > > If Shakti is some kind of internal `force' within > our subtle body, then with correct instruction, > determination and application one may gain > `mastery' of it. > > If, on the other hand, it is the energy of the > universe (and inseparably suffuses) me then > I am in no position to `control' or `command' > it - any more than a fish can command the > sea he swims in. > > I would be very grateful for any comments > (or questions) on the above. > > Namaste > Sand > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:50:47 -0800, Harsha wrote: > What type of meditation and practices one is attracted to is due to the > personality and past impressions. If one is natural, any path leads back > to the Heart. The Heart is what the the ancients called the Self. > Sat-Chit-Anand which is our being and at the core of life. > > Sri Ramana used to say that it is all an open secret. > > Namaste and love to all > Harsha As always, Harsha, you maintain the sublime focus on the core essentials - The heart is ever the instrument of " giving " first, and receiving as a secondary reflex in the presence of genuine love. A longtime friend who has taken up the practice of meditation again, asked me yesterday about how to handle or approach this state of prana enrichment and remain both focused and " without personality " as the being that observes is always distracted and emotionally touched by the sheer magnitude and enrichment of prana, let alone Samadhi -- but true Samadhi exists when the self is dissolved and the " I " is indistguishable from the Everything That Is -- so we won't worry about that condition...just the multitude of states that lead to it. Many schools focus on the very act of breathing -- the pure breath of fire -- if the practictioner is focused firmly on that, then the " I " and other temptations at " control " rather than release can be avoided...whereas some schools train one to focus on a phrase, a mandalla, an image of light to take one from the inner state of noise and self-thought to the next level of greater awareness and the higher energy state necessary to contain and channel the prana as it flows. If one thinks of the physical body as a warm pool of water (like a jacuzzi or spa) that is charged and heated to an intense level of higher flow by jets of prana, and that the consciousness or atman can at will dip into or out of this cosmic pool by degrees until it is " sensitized " or familiarized with this greater, hotter energy, I think that one can achieve a state of ease, without stress, without judgment or evaluation. It is easy to suggest to someone that they should just " be " but we all have learned that just " being " might be one of the most difficult to attain states of all -- we are always desiring to evaluate or " check out our own natures " while at the same time hoping to control or remember all the details so that we can duplicate the experience again. We need to relax, and remember that each experience is unique, and not subject to precise duplication...just as learning to ride a bicycle gets easier with each new ride, it would be strange to suggest that each ride was an exact duplication -- the more one rides, the easier every subsequent ride will be, and we can only truly enjoy that ride once we have achieved familiarity and mastery to the degree that riding becomes an almost automatic behavior, without fear, without conscious effort and where the exhiliration and joy of the ride becomes supreme over the practised steps needed to mount the bike or change gears. Namaste & Holiday Blessings, Zenbob > > naga.shrine wrote: >> Dear Harsha, >> Many thanks for allowing me to join this list. >> I have spent some time reading through the old >> posts and have found much of interest. >> I recognize another member Anna, from a Jhana >> list I'm on :-) >> >> I have recently been corresponding on some lists >> on the subject of Kundalini and would like to gauge >> opinion here. There seems to be (broadly speaking) >> two approaches to this topic - what I term the >> `formless' and the `yogic'. >> >> It seems that the `yoga / formless' debate centres >> on a subtle, but important nuance... >> >> Namely: >> The mind and the prana are always conjoined. So >> does the yogi `direct' the prana into a channel, or >> does the prana enter the channel, of itself, when >> the mind " dissolves " into samhadi? >> >> On the face of it, it seems to be the same thing but >> the assumptions which precede the activity are very >> different. I read around this topic and don't limit >> myself to Buddhist literature (my background). >> >> Other traditions describe this Shakti, as an >> all-pervasive universal natural energy to which >> one must `surrender' and in which one's >> ego-mind is dissolved in bliss. >> They teach that one is not " in control " - rather >> " in surrender " , whereas a Tibetan tantrika works >> hard to be in control of what is always portrayed >> as a technical (not emotional) process. In fact, >> `mastery' is a prerequisite of success in this >> system and is the benchmark of how far one >> can expect to " get results " . >> >> You may be familiar with what I am referring >> to and perhaps to the paradox I now feel >> surrounds this topic: >> >> If Shakti is some kind of internal `force' within >> our subtle body, then with correct instruction, >> determination and application one may gain >> `mastery' of it. >> >> If, on the other hand, it is the energy of the >> universe (and inseparably suffuses) me then >> I am in no position to `control' or `command' >> it - any more than a fish can command the >> sea he swims in. >> >> I would be very grateful for any comments >> (or questions) on the above. >> >> Namaste >> Sand -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 Dear Harsha and Robert, Many thanks for your replies. Interesting that you should mention Hatha Yoga, Harsha, as do this once a week for my health. I am aware that it has some link to energy work via pranayama but our teacher just does a little bit now and again, mainly concentrating on stretches, postures and things which facilitate general wellbeing. I think I naturally incline more toward your description of a Jnani, as I prefer the relaxing and releasing side of things, rather than trying to put myself in control. I think it comes down to it feeling more natural which, as you wrote, is the path to the heart and as Robert wrote " The heart is ever the instrument of " giving " first, and receiving as a secondary reflex in the presence of genuine love " . That sounds about right. I have found (within meditation) the ego to be a kind of tension and suffering - its release brings satisfaction, peace and insight. Namaste Sand , Harsha wrote: > > Dear Sand, > > Thank you for joining and bringing your friendship here to the list. The > questions you ask have been discussed before in some fashion on this > list. In the perspective of Hatha Yoga, Kundalini Shakti is aroused > through effort (pranayama, meditation on the chakras, bandhas, mudras, > mantras, laya, and other tantric practices). The arousal of the Shakti > leads to superconscious states, refined awareness, and different levels > of Samadhi. Ultimately, Shakti merges with Shiva in the Sahasarara > (brain center) for Self-Realization. In the Jnana perspective, the > self-awareness breaks out in the open first and the Kundalini Shakti > follows. Really, our awareness in any form is a manifestation of Shakti > and the two are inseparable. > > Sri Ramana used to say that a Jnani may not have as an aim to arouse the > Shakti, but the same thing happens when awareness turns upon itself. > Manifestations of Shakti differ depending on the person. Also people > describe experiences differently. To a Jnani, the whole body may be > flooded with bliss and the mind may be filled with supernatural > experiences, and yet it will appear to be a trivial event no different > than any other experience. Not even worth discussing as the person > remains fixed on the self-nature. > > On the other hand, to an inexperienced person, electric jolts of the > kundalini, various physical events and mental states of samadhi will > appear to be dramatic and therefore may be described with great gusto. > > It does not matter. Whatever one is experiencing (kundalini, samadhi, > etc.), one should remain content as the subject only, serene in pure > self-awareness without running after the object of experience. So the > whole approach of Sri Ramana is different as it questions the very > validity of experience that is transient. > > What type of meditation and practices one is attracted to is due to the > personality and past impressions. If one is natural, any path leads back > to the Heart. The Heart is what the the ancients called the Self. > Sat-Chit-Anand which is our being and at the core of life. > > Sri Ramana used to say that it is all an open secret. > > Namaste and love to all > Harsha > > naga.shrine wrote: > > Dear Harsha, > > Many thanks for allowing me to join this list. > > I have spent some time reading through the old > > posts and have found much of interest. > > I recognize another member Anna, from a Jhana > > list I'm on :-) > > > > I have recently been corresponding on some lists > > on the subject of Kundalini and would like to gauge > > opinion here. There seems to be (broadly speaking) > > two approaches to this topic - what I term the > > `formless' and the `yogic'. > > > > It seems that the `yoga / formless' debate centres > > on a subtle, but important nuance... > > > > Namely: > > The mind and the prana are always conjoined. So > > does the yogi `direct' the prana into a channel, or > > does the prana enter the channel, of itself, when > > the mind " dissolves " into samhadi? > > > > On the face of it, it seems to be the same thing but > > the assumptions which precede the activity are very > > different. I read around this topic and don't limit > > myself to Buddhist literature (my background). > > > > Other traditions describe this Shakti, as an > > all-pervasive universal natural energy to which > > one must `surrender' and in which one's > > ego-mind is dissolved in bliss. > > They teach that one is not " in control " - rather > > " in surrender " , whereas a Tibetan tantrika works > > hard to be in control of what is always portrayed > > as a technical (not emotional) process. In fact, > > `mastery' is a prerequisite of success in this > > system and is the benchmark of how far one > > can expect to " get results " . > > > > You may be familiar with what I am referring > > to and perhaps to the paradox I now feel > > surrounds this topic: > > > > If Shakti is some kind of internal `force' within > > our subtle body, then with correct instruction, > > determination and application one may gain > > `mastery' of it. > > > > If, on the other hand, it is the energy of the > > universe (and inseparably suffuses) me then > > I am in no position to `control' or `command' > > it - any more than a fish can command the > > sea he swims in. > > > > I would be very grateful for any comments > > (or questions) on the above. > > > > Namaste > > Sand > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 Thank you Zenbob, these are lovely posts you have written in response to Sand's post. Thank you, Sand, for starting this discussion. Jill On Dec 6, 2007, at 1:30 AM, Robert Kirbo wrote: > On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:50:47 -0800, Harsha > wrote: > >> What type of meditation and practices one is attracted to is due >> to the >> personality and past impressions. If one is natural, any path >> leads back >> to the Heart. The Heart is what the the ancients called the Self. >> Sat-Chit-Anand which is our being and at the core of life. >> >> Sri Ramana used to say that it is all an open secret. >> >> Namaste and love to all >> Harsha > > As always, Harsha, you maintain the sublime focus on the core > essentials - > The heart is ever the instrument of " giving " first, and > receiving as a > secondary > reflex in the presence of genuine love. A longtime friend who has > taken up the > practice of meditation again, asked me yesterday about how to > handle or > approach > this state of prana enrichment and remain both focused and > " without > personality " > as the being that observes is always distracted and emotionally > touched > by the > sheer magnitude and enrichment of prana, let alone Samadhi -- > but true > Samadhi > exists when the self is dissolved and the " I " is > indistguishable from > the Everything > That Is -- so we won't worry about that condition...just the > multitude > of states that lead > to it. Many schools focus on the very act of breathing -- the > pure > breath of fire -- if the > practictioner is focused firmly on that, then the " I " and other > temptations at " control " > rather than release can be avoided...whereas some schools train > one to > focus on a phrase, > a mandalla, an image of light to take one from the inner state > of noise > and self-thought > to the next level of greater awareness and the higher energy state > necessary to contain > and channel the prana as it flows. If one thinks of the > physical body > as a warm pool of > water (like a jacuzzi or spa) that is charged and heated to an > intense > level of higher flow > by jets of prana, and that the consciousness or atman can at > will dip > into or out of this > cosmic pool by degrees until it is " sensitized " or familiarized > with > this greater, hotter > energy, I think that one can achieve a state of ease, without > stress, > without judgment or > evaluation. It is easy to suggest to someone that they should > just > " be " but we all have learned > that just " being " might be one of the most difficult to attain > states of > all -- we are always > desiring to evaluate or " check out our own natures " while at the > same > time hoping to control > or remember all the details so that we can duplicate the experience > again. We need to relax, > and remember that each experience is unique, and not subject to > precise > duplication...just as > learning to ride a bicycle gets easier with each new ride, it > would be > strange to suggest that > each ride was an exact duplication -- the more one rides, the easier > every subsequent ride will > be, and we can only truly enjoy that ride once we have achieved > familiarity and mastery to the > degree that riding becomes an almost automatic behavior, without > fear, > without conscious effort > and where the exhiliration and joy of the ride becomes supreme over > the > practised steps needed > to mount the bike or change gears. > > Namaste & Holiday Blessings, > > Zenbob > >> >> naga.shrine wrote: >>> Dear Harsha, >>> Many thanks for allowing me to join this list. >>> I have spent some time reading through the old >>> posts and have found much of interest. >>> I recognize another member Anna, from a Jhana >>> list I'm on :-) >>> >>> I have recently been corresponding on some lists >>> on the subject of Kundalini and would like to gauge >>> opinion here. There seems to be (broadly speaking) >>> two approaches to this topic - what I term the >>> `formless' and the `yogic'. >>> >>> It seems that the `yoga / formless' debate centres >>> on a subtle, but important nuance... >>> >>> Namely: >>> The mind and the prana are always conjoined. So >>> does the yogi `direct' the prana into a channel, or >>> does the prana enter the channel, of itself, when >>> the mind " dissolves " into samhadi? >>> >>> On the face of it, it seems to be the same thing but >>> the assumptions which precede the activity are very >>> different. I read around this topic and don't limit >>> myself to Buddhist literature (my background). >>> >>> Other traditions describe this Shakti, as an >>> all-pervasive universal natural energy to which >>> one must `surrender' and in which one's >>> ego-mind is dissolved in bliss. >>> They teach that one is not " in control " - rather >>> " in surrender " , whereas a Tibetan tantrika works >>> hard to be in control of what is always portrayed >>> as a technical (not emotional) process. In fact, >>> `mastery' is a prerequisite of success in this >>> system and is the benchmark of how far one >>> can expect to " get results " . >>> >>> You may be familiar with what I am referring >>> to and perhaps to the paradox I now feel >>> surrounds this topic: >>> >>> If Shakti is some kind of internal `force' within >>> our subtle body, then with correct instruction, >>> determination and application one may gain >>> `mastery' of it. >>> >>> If, on the other hand, it is the energy of the >>> universe (and inseparably suffuses) me then >>> I am in no position to `control' or `command' >>> it - any more than a fish can command the >>> sea he swims in. >>> >>> I would be very grateful for any comments >>> (or questions) on the above. >>> >>> Namaste >>> Sand > > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > > Dear Friends: Please keep in mind that taking someone's creative > and intellectual works (poetry, art, articles, essays, posts, etc.) > without permission of the authors is a violation of copyright laws. > This especially applies to this list, , as it is a > private list which can be viewed by members only. > > Most individuals do allow their artistic and creative work to be > posted elsewhere if you request it and use their work in a not-for- > profit format for benefit of others. So that is not usually a problem. > > However, if you are taking content from this list with a profit > motive (such as promotion of your site in order to sell products, > ads, etc.), it is critical that you seek the explicit and written > permission from the authors whose works you are using. > > Acting in any other way is dishonest. Thank you. > _________ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 Dear Sand, There is a dedicated to the discussion of Kundalini : If minterested you may join this forum. Regards Venugopal --- " naga.shrine " <sandmaenchen3945 wrote: > Dear Harsha and Robert, > > Many thanks for your replies. Interesting that you > should mention Hatha Yoga, Harsha, as do this once > a week for my health. I am aware that it has some > link to energy work via pranayama but our teacher > just does a little bit now and again, mainly > concentrating on stretches, postures and things > which facilitate general wellbeing. > > I think I naturally incline more toward your > description of a Jnani, as I prefer the relaxing > and releasing side of things, rather than trying > to put myself in control. I think it comes down > to it feeling more natural which, as you wrote, > is the path to the heart and as Robert wrote > " The heart is ever the instrument of " giving " > first, and receiving as a secondary reflex in > the presence of genuine love " . That sounds > about right. > > I have found (within meditation) the ego to be > a kind of tension and suffering - its release > brings satisfaction, peace and insight. > > Namaste > Sand > > , Harsha > wrote: > > > > Dear Sand, > > > > Thank you for joining and bringing your friendship > here to the list. The > > questions you ask have been discussed before in > some fashion on this > > list. In the perspective of Hatha Yoga, Kundalini > Shakti is aroused > > through effort (pranayama, meditation on the > chakras, bandhas, mudras, > > mantras, laya, and other tantric practices). The > arousal of the Shakti > > leads to superconscious states, refined awareness, > and different levels > > of Samadhi. Ultimately, Shakti merges with Shiva > in the Sahasarara > > (brain center) for Self-Realization. In the Jnana > perspective, the > > self-awareness breaks out in the open first and > the Kundalini Shakti > > follows. Really, our awareness in any form is a > manifestation of Shakti > > and the two are inseparable. > > > > Sri Ramana used to say that a Jnani may not have > as an aim to arouse the > > Shakti, but the same thing happens when awareness > turns upon itself. > > Manifestations of Shakti differ depending on the > person. Also people > > describe experiences differently. To a Jnani, the > whole body may be > > flooded with bliss and the mind may be filled with > supernatural > > experiences, and yet it will appear to be a > trivial event no different > > than any other experience. Not even worth > discussing as the person > > remains fixed on the self-nature. > > > > On the other hand, to an inexperienced person, > electric jolts of the > > kundalini, various physical events and mental > states of samadhi will > > appear to be dramatic and therefore may be > described with great gusto. > > > > It does not matter. Whatever one is experiencing > (kundalini, samadhi, > > etc.), one should remain content as the subject > only, serene in pure > > self-awareness without running after the object of > experience. So the > > whole approach of Sri Ramana is different as it > questions the very > > validity of experience that is transient. > > > > What type of meditation and practices one is > attracted to is due to the > > personality and past impressions. If one is > natural, any path leads back > > to the Heart. The Heart is what the the ancients > called the Self. > > Sat-Chit-Anand which is our being and at the core > of life. > > > > Sri Ramana used to say that it is all an open > secret. > > > > Namaste and love to all > > Harsha > > > > naga.shrine wrote: > > > Dear Harsha, > > > Many thanks for allowing me to join this list. > > > I have spent some time reading through the old > > > posts and have found much of interest. > > > I recognize another member Anna, from a Jhana > > > list I'm on :-) > > > > > > I have recently been corresponding on some lists > > > > on the subject of Kundalini and would like to > gauge > > > opinion here. There seems to be (broadly > speaking) > > > two approaches to this topic - what I term the > > > `formless' and the `yogic'. > > > > > > It seems that the `yoga / formless' debate > centres > > > on a subtle, but important nuance... > > > > > > Namely: > > > The mind and the prana are always conjoined. So > > > does the yogi `direct' the prana into a channel, > or > > > does the prana enter the channel, of itself, > when > > > the mind " dissolves " into samhadi? > > > > > > On the face of it, it seems to be the same thing > but > > > the assumptions which precede the activity are > very > > > different. I read around this topic and don't > limit > > > myself to Buddhist literature (my background). > > > > > > Other traditions describe this Shakti, as an > > > all-pervasive universal natural energy to which > > > one must `surrender' and in which one's > > > ego-mind is dissolved in bliss. > > > They teach that one is not " in control " - rather > > > > " in surrender " , whereas a Tibetan tantrika works > > > > hard to be in control of what is always > portrayed > > > as a technical (not emotional) process. In fact, > > > > `mastery' is a prerequisite of success in this > > > system and is the benchmark of how far one > > > can expect to " get results " . > > > > > > You may be familiar with what I am referring > > > to and perhaps to the paradox I now feel > > > surrounds this topic: > > > > > > If Shakti is some kind of internal `force' > within > > > our subtle body, then with correct instruction, > > > determination and application one may gain > > > `mastery' of it. > > > > > > If, on the other hand, it is the energy of the > > > universe (and inseparably suffuses) me then > > > I am in no position to `control' or `command' > > > it - any more than a fish can command the > > > sea he swims in. > > > > > > I would be very grateful for any comments > > > (or questions) on the above. > > > > > > Namaste > > > Sand > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Forgot the famous last words? Access your message archive online at http://in.messenger./webmessengerpromo.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2007 Report Share Posted December 6, 2007 Dear Venugopal, Thanks for that. I've submitted to join. Namaste Sand , Venugopal AK <akvenugopal wrote: > > Dear Sand, > There is a dedicated to the > discussion of Kundalini : > > If minterested you may join this forum. > Regards > Venugopal > 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.