bindo

Master Chu - Nei Kung

Relaxation with a light concentration,(just enough to not fall asleep) has worked best for me.

This guy does some pretty interesting things with water. Raymon Grace Here's two of his websites. Raymon Grace Projects Raymon Grace

Good call Trunk.

Yeah, that was great! Very informative. We need to start Tao Bums Radio or something, to conduct interviews with people like JAJ. I could've listened to him for two more hours. Now I want to buy all his books. Maybe Lama Tantrapa will come by and tell us what got cut out at the end.

I had given up on this show, but happened to check out the website today and found this interview with JAJ. It's pretty good. JAJ interview

haha! one-upmanship at it's finest!

Hi Nate, The first track on both CD's are talking guided meditations by JAJ. All the other tracks are music only.

Stunned and hungover? Gimme a break. I don't even care if you promote KAP here. It's how you do it that is so damn annoying. Anyway,...I have JAJ's Healing Workout DVD and think it's excellent. I also have his Tai Chi Meditation CD's, (Vol.1-Life Force Breathing and Vol.2-Eight Direction Perception)and they are good too.

Great find Hagar! This is good stuff. I've known about Lester for many years. I once had an excellent cassette tape of him speaking but it got eaten by the vacuum cleaner.

Monks and sex

Couldn't agree more.

Here is a video of someone else doing the system by CK Chu. The postures are supposed to be held longer, beginning with 20 minutes of embrace the tree. (or working up to 20 minutes) Their forms are a bit sloppy in the video, but it'll give you an idea of what it's about. The chi flow is incredible, and flexibility is improved quite a bit. It's very stimulating, and quite addicting because you will feel awesome after doing it. Read the reviews at Amazon here.

THE BOOK OF NEI KUNG by C.K. CHU Buy it, do it, and thank me & Blasto later!!!!

hahaha...nice try, but wrong again! You are clearly the one with the limited view of Sri Aurobindo. The Uttarpara speech was made in 1909. You realize he lived for another 41 years, right? This was towards the beginning of his sadhana. How about I contact you when you are in your 70's to see if you have changed your opinion on what you currently believe. Does that sound fair to you? I already mentioned that there was a time in his life when he identified himself as a Hindu, but even then it was more a cultural identification than a religious one. You mentioned his Hindu roots....At age five Aurobindo was sent to an Irish convent school and two years later was sent to England because his father didn't want him to know anything about Indian traditions and language. And while in England, at age seven, his caretakers were instructed to not allow Aurobindo and his brothers to " be allowed to make the acquaintance of any Indian or undergo any Indian influence". He was 20 before he returned to India and learned Bengali. Hindu roots? I think not. Keep trying, and eventually you'll do more than scratch the surface about this great man and his work.

You've been misinformed. This is from Sri Aurobindo's own pen; "The Ashram has nothing to do with Hindu religion or culture or any religion or nationality. The truth of the Divine which is the spiritual reality behind all religions and the descent of the supramental which is not known to any religion are the sole things which will be the foundation of the work of the future". - The Integral Yoga p.353 Many believe a split has occured between sanatana dharma and Hinduism, including Sri Aurobindo. Not everybody considers them the exact same thing. Or they will differentiate between original Hinduism and conventional Hinduism, or lower Hinduism and higher Hinduism. He said he doesn't care if Hinduism crumbles and disappears from the face of the earth. Would a Hindu say that? If you want to believe he was a Hindu, go ahead. I don't care. If you do the research, you'll find plenty of evidence, from his own pen, that shows he wasn't a Hindu.

Does anybody on this forum have the ability to actually stay on topic? Holy crap, man. Drew, they didn't teach anyone to depend on "shakti transmissions". It's called darshan and doesn't depend on whether or not the "guru" is alive. It's a natural occurence of one's spiritual practice, in this case from the Divine Mother. Whatever is currently going on in the Ashram has nothing to do with Aurobindo's teachings. Aurobindo never wanted an ashram in the first place. Others say the ashram has had problems since 1920, or whenever The Mother took over it's operations.

Thank you xabir 2005 and Astral Monk for your well thought out responses. Those were the kind of answers I was looking for. I'm not trying to challenge anyone's beliefs so much as I 'm trying to understand them. Thank you! As far as Sri Aurobindo's philosophy being advaita non dual brahman....in essence it is correct, but not in any traditional way, so it's difficult to categorize it since he broke from traditional Indian thought. Ken Wilber and Sri Aurobindo are too different to just slap the same label on both of them. ***I'm abandoning this thread*** Thank you everyone for your replies.

@mikaelz - you've completely missed the point @pero - you've not only completely missed the point, I have no idea what you're even talking about.

let me ask you to not put Ken Wilber and Sri Aurobindo in the same category. Wilber has it wrong about Sri Aurobindo, and some have gone so far as to say the only thing Wilber and Aurobindo have in common is the word "integral". Also, Sri Aurobindo's understanding of the nature of reality is not Advaitic non-dual Brahman. I think the author is simply saying that when the Buddha arrived and began speaking out, he was stirring up some shit. I'm sure there were plenty of people who thought he was a little koo koo de la cabeza and defended what was the current beliefs. Looking back, it's easy to see the Buddhas greatness and his significant contribution to the world. So, if Buddha could step up. challenge the current beliefs, and change the rules for spiritual advancement, why can't someone else do it in the present time? There were people before the Buddha who claimed to have the ultimate truth(s), and maybe they did have a partial truth, but not the whole enchilada. Then, the Buddha arrives and says he has the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, nobody is allowed to come after the Buddha and say, "No, I've taken it farther still!"?...why not? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I know slightly more than nothing about Buddhism. It's just that everyone seems to be defending every reference to Buddhism when that is not the point. What's in question is the Buddhas ultimate realization. Is it only his ultimate realization? Or is it thee ultimate realization for all time? (don't even try to answer that). The author believes there is room for someone to come along and take it farther to realize an even greater piece of the 'truth pie". And then, in the future, someone else will come along to take it farther still. And so on, and so on... This makes perfect sense to me. Though I understand the resistance to the idea. I'm the same way about Sri Aurobindo as you guys are about the Buddha. When you say, "but the Buddha said this", I say, "So what? Sri Aurobindo says that".

hahaha I love it! And you've only scratched the surface! I like #2 and #7.

Please don't assume this article speaks 100% for me! I didn't write it. The title of the article sucks, among other problems. I don't believe Buddha made an error, but I do believe in spiritual evolution. As a student of Sri Aurobindo's teachings, I can assure you he had nothing but great respect for Buddha. There are so many differing opinions about the true teachings of the Buddha that one is either forced to generalize or say nothing. Otherwise a simple article would become book length so everyone could be addressed. While his tone could be a little softer, I don't think the author shows contempt for Buddhism. He is only suggesting there is more, beyond what the Buddha taught. Despite what is written on the internet, Sri Aurobindo is not a Hindu. He was in his younger years for some 12 years only. Later becoming somewhat critical of Hinduism, at least as a formal religion. (But that's a whole different topic). I agree Buddha (and Lao Tzu) were way ahead of their time. I also believe Sri Aurobindo is way ahead of our present time. I think this article was based on the following quote by Sri Aurobindo. "The traditions of the past are very great in their own place, in the past, but I do not see why we should merely repeat them and not go farther. In the spiritual development of the consciousness upon earth the great past ought to be followed by a greater future." Sri Aurobindo The Integral Yoga p.35