Intellectual dishonesty

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg !

 

You wrote:

 

<A side question about Kundalini teachings, a tradition I hardly know

<anything about. If the ego goes rampant during the processing of Kundalini

<- is this related to the teaching in that tradition? Does the teaching say

<that something very profound is going on, and that the person is really

<progressing? For example, one lady told me that in her yogic practice,

<there are "kriyas," spontaneous releases of energy. Each kriya represents

<a burning of karma trapped in the body. Kriyas could manifest as barks of

<a dog or meows of a cat, etc. If you manifest a kriya on the august

<holiday of Shivaratri, then each round of chanting and each kriya counts

<5,000 times as much, burns 5,000 times as much karma, as it would on any

<other day. So there was a lot of ego investment >

 

As far as I understand, Kundalini seems to be the central motor of the psyche

and as such gives life to the mind, the ego, the personality in it's dormant

or "normal" mode. When it awakens, and this can, at least on the surface, be

due to intensive practice of yogic and meditational techniques, psychedelic

drugs, emotional overloading or just plain good luck (or exceptionally bad

luck, depending on your point of view), it's as if higher octane fuel is

suddenly pumped into the engine at a greater rate.

 

All character traits have a tendency to become amplified until the energy

redirects itself or is guided into the higher focal points of consciousness,

which seems to be the goal of this process. That's the reason why the yogic

tradtions emphasize the necessity for thorough preparation before kundalini

awakens, i.e the worst hangups and kinks in the psyche need to be ironed out

and the ability to guide the energy needs to be practiced before it actually

becomes active in the body.

 

I tend to see and feel the whole kundalini-shebang as a biological and

neurophysiological process of evolution as much as an abstract, spiritual

phenomenon however, since the manifestations are so very imbedded in the

workings of the body and nervous system. So, I believe that the different

traditions and teachings that have evolved around this process only describe

it on their own terms and vocabulary, but in essence it's very much a natural

phenomenon of life operating through the physical body, much like orgasm

during sex (which is closely linked to kundalini, btw.) or the inherent drive

for self-preservation and security for instance.

 

The fact that the teachings related to kundalini have evolved the furthest in

India, makes it convenient to use that particular vocabulary, techniques,

descriptions etc. One shouldn't confuse the tradition with the actual process

though, in Western terms one might just as well describe it as an automatic,

evolutionary process of auto-psychotherapy triggered within the nervous

system.

 

In this light, the automatic kriyas (as opposed to the deliberate techniques

of kriya-yoga), that occur during the kundalini-process can be seen as the

release of deeply seated neuro-muscular patterns within the body. This then

is what is usually called the "burning of karma", the letting go of

neurological and muscular conditioning, that compel us to act, feel and think

in ways that limit our self-experience.

 

I've become convinced, that there's often a lot of truth in many of the old

traditions and what superficially seems like superstitious BS might in fact

contain a grain of reality. The manifestation of kriyas on certain days

having a more profound and spiritual effect than on others, for instance, is

probably linked to the fact that certain phases of the moon and other

planetary movements seem to influence the action of the kundalini energy.

 

The recognition of this causal relationship has then probably been passed

down through the ages and becomes part of a religious tradition and teaching,

which urges it's followers to comply with the rule for spiritual merit. This

then leads the followers to want and force the kriyas in order to please God

or whatever.

 

You also wrote:

 

<The question is not freedom *for* the entity, but rather freedom *from* the

entity.>

 

That one sentence really nails it all down - perfect )

 

Best regards,

 

Michael