Jeff

The energy body is the “attached” form that is the perceptional framework that obscures the underlying primordial. It is the thing that carries across multiple corporeal forms (or characters in the video game).

The quasar point is a metaphor, not a definition. The Sadhguru point that I was originally addressing was about his concept that it was something that needed to be conserved in some way. Energy/light is only limited if one sees it from the perspective of an individual self. Energy/light is infinite and unlimited. Conventional reality is more like a video game transmission overlaying the primordial. Change (or overlay) the transmission and what you call conventual reality changes.

I am not familiar with the author or what ultimate means to him, so not sure how (or what) to try to compare. Separation of “what” from “what”? No idea what you are asking.

The quasar (or original black hole) is the new galaxy itself, but yes all process of change is limited. Similar to an energy body being a limited happening, but as it burns away the underlying “primordial” is always still there.

Not at all. When a quasar is done, a new galaxy is created. A brief description from Wikipedia below... Since quasars exhibit all the properties common to other active galaxies such as Seyfert galaxies, the emission from quasars can be readily compared to those of smaller active galaxies powered by smaller supermassive black holes. To create a luminosity of 1040 watts (the typical brightness of a quasar), a super-massive black hole would have to consume the material equivalent of 10 stars per year. The brightest known quasars devour 1000 solar masses of material every year. The largest known is estimated to consume matter equivalent to 600 Earths per minute. Quasar luminosities can vary considerably over time, depending on their surroundings. Since it is difficult to fuel quasars for many billions of years, after a quasar finishes accreting the surrounding gas and dust, it becomes an ordinary galaxy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar The old is burned away to make way for the new (potential).

Thanks for posting. I would just say that light is not really a limited happening as stated in the video. A great sun the burns hard and fast does not die, but rather becomes a black hole. A black hole pulls in and creates other suns, that broader field then can become a quasar. And a quasar, is vastly brighter than any sun...

Ultimately it is a knowing. But, when the middle is open, one begins to start consciously feeling energy flows. That feeling can be like a rushing, pressure or vibrations. Additionally, in more hindu cultures it is the point where one is more able to actually “bond” with a guru and other connections.

You should probably update your post to give credit to that actual author of those comments. It was not me.

If you have actually achieved permanent peace, happiness and satisfaction, then why do you still seem to be pursuing more and are not really satisfied? And if you have opened all of your chakras, what cool things have you found you can do?

Guess I don’t really understand your point? My comment praising CT’s words seems to me specifically that he was expressing things in his own words (and why I complemented/agreed him). In particular... The entire purpose of tantra is to pry opened and dredge out stuff. And after you are finally able to let it go, you do sort of find yourself laughing at how you could ever have been caught up in it in the first place.

I think the above says it very well.

Welcome Zero Inf. You are here because you already feel it. Either Consciously or subconsciously, as your heart (or middle dantien) is already open. Yes, practices can help, but ultimately it is more about letting go of issues and fears that obscure the energy flow. And yes, there really is a lot of crazy (and fun) stuff out there. Enjoy the ride.

My view is that it is more “desire” that drives dualistic perspective. Even the first desire for food in a baby goes... 1) Hunger (not yet labeled desire) 2) Satiation of hunger 3) Source of satiation (mother, but not yet labeled) 4) Absence of source of satiation Now everything is off in to dualistic land. There is no need to label or name things, simple desire creates the polarity of dualistic perspective.

Cool stuff that you know a jivanamukta (per AV). Is it someone that you periodically talk to? Or someone you are seeing now on your trip?

Excellent post. And it definitely applies.

I think again it is very challenging with such words like “clarity” as it has a potentially different meaning depending on the context or tradition framework. For me, clarity simply means the absence of things that obstruct one from the primordial. It is not really a “thing”, but more like the absence of things that obscure. Like if one sees more clearly through a window (mind) when you wash away the dirt (issues and fears).

I believe that the Yogācāra (and mostly resulting Zen) view is that is (universal/buddha) mind.

I would agree that there is a lot of challenge in defining with the word "mind". Specifically, The Hindu tradition has a well defined separation, but it has never really resonated with me as it separate it into multiple components that to me is all still part of mind. For me, astral and mind are basically the same. But maybe we could say that astral is more the universal aspects of mind, combined with a "local" aspect of what many think is mind. So then... Universal (Buddha) Mind = Local Mind + Astral Reams

Any such "I" or not depends on the person, but there is pretty much always some aspect hanging around even if the person doesn't consciously think there is one. Also, definitely could play into it at some level, but the OP was more about that natural radiating having an effect on others, which it often does. Most often people are responsible for their own stuff, no matter if there is an "outside" stimuli or not.

My personal view is that “seeing” energy can be fraught with issues as seeing is a reflection in one’s own mind. And such a reflection is subject to the person doing the seeing own issues (and fears) that can impact what they are seeing. Truly clear seeing is very rare. That being said, I think that for anyone who wants to teach, some siddhis capability around knowing about others energy situation is critical. Too often people take a “one size fits all” view, and they may teach or use techniques that are not appropriate or not useful. It is similar to trying to set a broken bone without first having an X-ray. It may just be a sprain or instead a deep compound fracture that needs to be dealt with.

Yes, there are many different levels of manifesting. It the discussion above, it is implied that someone is just naturally radiating energy (like some gurus do). The other persons response would seem to always be a reflection from with in, but I am not sure I understand what you mean by “our reflection from without”? Could you give me an example? If there is no “I”, there is as you suggested no position to assert. And hence, there would never be any aversion for the person of no I. But, a “no I” person will naturally radiate to people around them, and that radiation can cause irritation/aversion in the people around them, as the radiating “hit” their issues and fears causing a reaction.

That is possible. But, usually such things are more about what they feel. Like the energy “hits” some issue that causes anger or fear from some memory, and then they associate that uncomfortable feeling with the person that they subconsciously feel originated it in some way. Like a feeling you get from someone.

I seem to be having a tough time understanding your thesis. Are you now saying that the gospels are really about Jesus being a god (one of many)? And that Jesus was the physical son of the Jewish God (Yahweh)? Also, while many use the prayer “my Father in Heaven”, where are in Jewish tradition are the statement of being “one with the father?” Additionally, Jesus clearly differentiates aspect of his being “son of man” and also “son of god”. Such concepts were clearly heresy to the traditional Jewish view. So what are you saying is your actual view on Jesus? Divine being/god or just some additional Jewish prophet?

Excellent point.

There are many. Also, Norbu clearly states to potential to accomplish "energy things" with others. And even things like "healing" are a form of what I would call tantra.