amoyaan

I've wondered this for some time. There are many similarities and overlaps in the Taoist/Chinese and Yogic/Indian models of the body's energy system and primary energy centres. Do you consider the dantiens to be essentially the same as the chakras? Obviously, the middle and upper dantiens seem to correspond with the location of the fourth (anhata) and sixth chakras (ajna) in the yogic system. Does this mean the lower dantien is equivalent to the second chakra (svadhisthana)? Both have approximately the same location in the body. Or are the chakras and dantiens different in terms of what they are and what they do? My feel is the chakras are energy regulators and the dantiens serve as kind of batteries or storehouses for energy. Any thoughts would be appreciated

On a more serious note, I kinda think of all the problems in the world, masturbation and porn and its associated 'evils' are probably not high on the list. I do however know that it can be an issue for people in terms of addiction and compulsive behaviour. It can interfere with relationships. This is symptomatic or deeper issues that need to be addressed. I sometimes think in our culture we lack a sense of aliveness. We're totally out of touch with nature and our own nature. We live largely artificial lives. Maybe the 'hit' of a burst of instant sexuality activates some hidden primal aliveness. Of course this can be addressed in terms of qi, and the underlying psychological and maybe physiological needs that might need looking into. Otherwise it's just the free flow of energy expressing itself as it's designed to.

Leave masturbation alone!

One of the greatest teachers on the planet. He will be missed.

Everyone seems to have a different conception of what enlightenment is. Lacking a common definition, conversations on the subject tend to be divergent. But to answer the question from the Vedanta definition of enlightenment, being jnana, self knowledge, then nah...the chakras have nothing to do with it. Knowledge of chakras doesn't equate with knowledge of self any more than knowledge of toenails does it can be helpful though, getting the gear into check in order to have a clear, still, inquiry-worthy mind

The Swami Dayananda Gita Home Study course is the ultimate in every way. I read it every day and am still only on volume 4. It covers EVERYTHING in amazing detail and clarity. It is now available in PDF format as well as hardback

Thanks for the comments! I never believe anything I read now, although I always keep an open mind unless it's quite obviously whack. I wasn't sure what to make of the 432 hz theory...I can't really comment as I'm not a scientist and haven't done research or much reading in this field. Certainly, ambient music especially sounds better to me at a lower tuning...calmer, warmer, more tranquil. However more upbeat music loses its punch a bit. Tried listening to Cocteau Twins at 432 and it's not as great I don't think. Innersoundqigong thank you for the link. It's a pretty epic article you wrote on your blog...at first glance my initial impression was - this guy is either a genius or a madman haha It's not something I can skim through to be sure...I will sit down and consider it when I get some time. You certainly seem to know your stuff which makes me most curious.

Is anyone familiar with the theory that music is best tuned to the pitch of 432 hz rather than the standard 440 hz? Some people claim the pitch change was instigated by the Nazis to negatively affect the listener, but I haven't found evidence to support this. But there does seem to be evidence to suggest that music tuned to 432 hz has a more beneficial effect on the human mind/body. If you compare the same piece of music at 432 hz and its original 440, the change is very noticeable. At 432 hz music sounds much softer, smoother, not nearly as sharp or intense, but more relaxing and tranquil. You can download 432 hz music players on your smartphone. I'm curious to hear your opinions on this! http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/21/heres-why-you-should-convert-your-music-to-432hz/ "Most music worldwide has been tuned to A=440 Hz since the International Standards Organization (ISO) promoted it in 1953. However, when looking at the vibratory nature of the universe, it’s possible that this pitch is disharmonious with the natural resonance of nature and may generate negative effects on human behaviour and consciousness. 432 Hz is said to be mathematically consistent with the patterns of the universe. It is said that 432 Hz vibrates with the universe’s golden mean PHI and unifies the properties of light, time, space, matter, gravity and magnetism with biology, the DNA code and consciousness. When our atoms and DNA start to resonate in harmony with the spiraling pattern of nature, our sense of connection to nature is said to be magnified. The number 432 is also reflected in ratios of the Sun, Earth, and the moon as well as the precession of the equinoxes, the Great Pyramid of Egypt, Stonehenge, the Sri Yantra among many other sacred sites."

Vtrader, read "The Charisma Myth" by Olivia Fox Cabana, great book, highly recommended to anyone http://www.amazon.com/Charisma-Myth-Science-Personal-Magnetism/dp/1591845947/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8 I also suggest doing some metta/loving-kindness meditation if you don't already. Radiate love. There's nothing the worlds needs more and people will respond to that

I totally get this! Nothing in this world really belongs to us, it all belongs to the field of existence; all just objects that are simply arising and subsiding in awareness. Even our body doesn't really 'belong' to us. We had no part and no say its creation. It's just something that appears for a duration, same as the mind and all its constituent thoughts, desires and fears. Maya makes us assume ownership, but the ownership is just an illusion...and the source of much suffering.

Hi Jetsun I'm not sure I agree with this. Do we have evidence that the human psyche is ever-changing? It seems pretty constant to me. The context is ever-changing but the structure of the human psyche and our basic wants, needs and predilections remain staggeringly constant. "Money, sex and power" as one ancient sage described it. Add to that health, family and for those rarest of rare people, spirituality. It always struck me reading the Tao Te Ching how the society described by Lao Tzu and the mentality of the people is pretty much the same as it is today. Only difference is we have iPads and widescreen TVs and twitter. Good point. I'm not really speaking about religion or traditions though, but a science of consciousness and enlightenment, which is what vedanta is (I can't really speak for other systems that people on here follow because I'm not intimately familiar with them, but I'm willing to include them). It works the same now as it did then, because consciousness doesn't change. The structural and cosmetic changes to society over the millennia haven't changed anything with regards to the teaching because it's well outside of those factors. It's every bit as relevant now as it was then. Same with the Tao Te Ching. Truth is truth and it's timeless. It's chronocentric to assume that our 'modern minds' are so far above primitive old minds that we need some special 'new' teaching. This is true. It's not easy for the average westerner to embrace the whole context of the teaching and to be willing to learn Sanskrit terminology for example, some of which is essential to communicate the subtlety and nuance of the teaching. It's not that Westerners and Easterners have a 'different' psyche...human beings are human beings and our psyche is essentially the same, it's just a different cultural context (i.e., what we're used to). It's been made a lot easier however. It's only within the past 50 years that vedanta teaching has been given in English. I guess prior to that the interest wasn't there. Well, if he's successfully helping people 'get' self realised, then his teachings are obviously working for some people, which is great

I like Adyashanti. Of all the modern western advaita-type/neo-advaita teachers, he's probably the best. I do think he's probably self realised and he's a decent communicator. I started with Eckhart and progressed to Adyashanti, as his teaching seemed to have more depth. I read all his books and listened to a lot of audio. It helped me up to a certain point, although it only took me so far. I guess my issue with Adyashanti is common to most western teachers of the ilk. He takes elements from Vedanta and other traditions and is repackaging and teaching them in a decontextualised manner. Does this work? I guess the proof is in the pudding. If his students are getting enlightened, then he's doing it right. I don't personally know of anyone set free by his teaching but maybe they are, I don't know. The fact he's teaching outside of a tradition appeals to western spiritual types cos we like to be 'rebels' and aren't eager to embrace tradition or 'authority'. I was like that for years. It's only recently I realised that was a slightly immature mindset. There's a reason for sampradayas. Over the millennia Vedanta and certain other traditions have been guarded and taught in a certain way that's time-tested and proven to work. The moment teachers start to fiddle the teaching to suit their preferences and personal experience, blind spots can and do occur. When a western teacher starts to cherry pick teachings they inevitably end up with gaps and, unless they are super-skilled at wielding the teaching as a means of knowledge, contradictions and subtle confusions are inevitable. Simply being self-realised/enlightened doesn't qualify one to teach...yet this has passed by many if not most of the modern day teachers. They just spout waffle and end up waxing lyrical about consciousness/awareness in a masturbatory way. If the student is highly qualified, then that might be enough for them. Most people however need a clear, comprehensive teaching that covers all bases and offers a sound methodology. All this talk of 'you're already free, there's nothing you need to do' is not at all helpful so long as the individual is still identified with their ego/individual self. Again, I do like Adyashanti. He's one of the best of the western satsang/neo advaita types. But compared to skilled Vedanta teachers such as Swami Dayananda, Swami Paramarthananda and James Swartz...he's not really a teacher because he doesn't really have a comprehensive teaching, just repackaged, decontextualised fragments of one.

Hi Songstan! Yes, that's exactly it! The experience chasing can be so subtle, especially when it comes to spiritual seeking, but it's there nonetheless, and it kind of tends to perpetuate. The letting go you speak of, and knowing that we ARE what we've been seeking, and have been all along, is an amazing realisation...and kinda funny too

From the Arsha Vidya Facebook page, this neatly sums up the enormously important experience vs knowledge issue: Here's a short video of Swami Dayananda explaining it beautifully The gist: we are always experiencing the self. It's a nondual reality. The problem is therefore not with experience, it's a problem with knowledge. I'm ignorant that I'm the self, and think I'm a jiva, an individual. The only solution to ignorance is knowledge. Chasing after samadhis and mind-blowing cosmic orgasms will not in itself bring knowledge (although it might - if I correctly assimilate the experience and extract the knowledge that I am the self). They may be very good at purifying the mind and making it fit to assimilate knowledge...assuming it doesn't just reinforce the doer aspect of me and give me a craving for more and more samadhis and cosmic orgasms. In which case I'm still just a jiva in samsara, chasing after experience to make me feel whole -- the only difference being I'm chasing spiritual rather than worldly experience. Same trap though, same bondage to experience. I'm thinking aloud now! I had to share this. It was one of the most important realisations and distinctions I ever learned, and I am grateful to James Swartz for first teaching me this. It turns the 'spiritual world' on its head and changes everything

This was a very interesting post Innersoundqigong. Although I highlighted this bit. I don't know who said Ramana was taking on other people's karma but I'm pretty certain Ramana never said that. He got sick and died because it's the nature of the body to get sick and die. From what I have learned, a jnani, someone who is enlightened, doesn't give all that much thought to the body. It's often just referred to as 'the five elements'. When Ramana was dying and his devotees were extremely upset and trying to get him all kinds of cures and treatments, one ayurvedic doctor was applying some kind of clay compress to him and Ramana simply dismissed it by saying "mud on mud". His view of the body was that it was pretty inconsequential...just mud. Nisargadatta was exactly the same. It was just an object, by itself inert, appearing in their awareness. Neither had any great attachment to it.