AYP in financial distress, starts charging for "Plus" lessons.

[Karl]

Good summation.

[Apech]

The problem with AYP as I see it:

 

It is a practice that focuses very heavily on very specific physical practices, like pranayama.  The intellectual side of our nature, the jnani, is left starved by AYP.  The thinking person is left no option to accept metaphors, like kundalini, as if it was real energy travelling along real channels in the body.

 

If an AYP practitoner is an intelligent person of sceptical disposition they may start to challenge the ultimate validity of all this talk.  But to do so naturally clashes with alll the less intelligent who see no problem with the metaphors, see that the practices work, and therefore superstitiously conclude that the whole kit and kaboodle is TRUE.

 

....

 

Kundalini is a metaphor?  A metaphor for what?

[Nikolai1]

Kundalini is a metaphor?  A metaphor for what?

Kundalini is Divine Reality viewed through the aspect of embodiment.  I say metaphorical becuase absolute reality can be known through many avenues.  Inner bliss IS our Father in Heaven.

[Karl]

Kundalini is Divine Reality viewed through the aspect of embodiment.  I say metaphorical becuase absolute reality can be known through many avenues.  Inner bliss IS our Father in Heaven.

 

Now that sounds like bull crap if you excuse the language. We have just talked about controlling definitions and creating concepts. Anything that is unknowable is inadmissible in an argument. All that is being said is that you feel it is true.

 

Divine reality ? What's that ?

 

What is absolute reality and what avenues can it be known through ?

 

What is inner bliss ?

 

What is Father in heaven ?

 

You have asked me enough questions so now it's my turn to switch on the interrogation lamps. If this stuff is real and concrete then let's have it properly defined up front and openly.

[Nikolai1]

Divine reality ? 

When I speak of this I can only appeal to those who know it.  And those who know it, know it can't be spoken of.  They also know that all attempts, Kundalini included, are metaphors.

[Karl]

When I speak of this I can only appeal to those who know it.  And those who know it, know it can't be spoken of.  They also know that all attempts, Kundalini included, are metaphors.

 

Well you spoke, so it can be spoken of, but you have failed to define it.

 

It's just a version of the Kings new clothes that you are offering. If it was real you can define it. If all you get is a patch of fog then it's a floating concept and should be excluded from consciousness until it is defined. Floating concepts will multiply out until reality becomes anything you think it is. Then, one day reality will come crashing in.

[Nikolai1]

 If it was real you can define it.

When something is real to the heart, it can be felt, and loved, and it satisfies, and whether it's reality can be shared by words makes not the slightest difference to his love of it.  

[Apech]

Kundalini is Divine Reality viewed through the aspect of embodiment.  I say metaphorical becuase absolute reality can be known through many avenues.  Inner bliss IS our Father in Heaven.

 

 

I kind of agree with Karl here - this statement is full of big undefined concepts - which I am sure mean a lot to you but the sense is lost in communicating to others.  If you are saying that because absolute reality is ineffable anything you say about it is provisional ... I'm not sure metaphor is the right word exactly but I'll go with it.  Then doesn't that mean that everything is a metaphor?  In which case you might say a rabbit or a box of chocolates is a metaphor?  

 

Kundalini is a term for a real psycho-spiritual-physical experience ... I don't know the science of it but I am sure something could be measured with MRI scans or whatever.  Its a specific term within the yoga schools - e.g. Kundalini yoga, Raja Yoga and so on.  It is seen as essentially female in nature and personified as a goddess ... although again this could be your metaphor.  It's real in that sense while it might only be 'real' in an absolute sense - along with all the 10k things. 

[Karl]

When something is real to the heart, it can be felt, and loved, and it satisfies, and whether it's reality can be shared by words makes not the slightest difference to his love of it.  

 

It can certainly be real to you, but nobody else. You cannot have cognisance of something which is just a feeling. If you are prepared to throw a concept out then you must be prepared to define it. Kundalini to Apech might mean a whole bag of different feelings to the ones you have.

 

 

[Nikolai1]

Kundalini is a term for a real psycho-spiritual-physical experience 

Yes, indeed it is and I do not wish to lessen it.  But, reality itself is a strange admixture of the psychic the spiritual and the physical.  People do not realise this, and those who have had powerful kundalini experiences often don't take into account the, lets's say, hallucinatory nature of this and all experience.  They then argue for its reality against those who have started to realise that a big contributing factor was the suggestion of the approach. So,

 

Christians are met by mother Mary.

Buddhists see Buddha

Native Americans see the ancestors.

AYPers have kundalini experiences.

 

As we awaken intellectually, things that once seemed very real become doubtful and we find ourselves as ex-belivers arguing with the believers.

 

With time a synthesis can be reached and we see that that all reality is of the nature of suggestion and there is no other.  The real and the unreal are the same.

[Karl]

Yes, indeed it is and I do not wish to lessen it.  But, reality itself is a strange admixture of the psychic the spiritual and the physical.  People do not realise this, and those who have had powerful kundalini experiences often don't take into account the, lets's say, hallucinatory nature of this and all experience.  They then argue for its reality against those who have started to realise that a big contributing factor was the suggestion of the approach. So,

 

Christians are met by mother Mary.

Buddhists see Buddha

Native Americans see the ancestors.

AYPers have kundalini experiences.

 

As we awaken intellectually, things that once seemed very real become doubtful and we find ourselves as ex-belivers arguing with the believers.

 

With time a synthesis can be reached and we see that that all reality is of the nature of suggestion and there is no other.  The real and the unreal are the same.

 

AYPers have experiences they describe as Kundalini and people tell them is Kundalini ......but-go figure-no one knows what Kundalini is.

 

All the rest are reporting seeing dead people. If they were real, then we would all see them.

[Nikolai1]

Karl - you seem to be a good exampe of the person I'm talking about. Someone who had visions, then dismissed them as unreal.  But have you seen that that the living people are visions and are now dead?

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Here's a metaphor for the last page and a half of this thread.

 

[Jeff]

Yes, indeed it is and I do not wish to lessen it.  But, reality itself is a strange admixture of the psychic the spiritual and the physical.  People do not realise this, and those who have had powerful kundalini experiences often don't take into account the, lets's say, hallucinatory nature of this and all experience.  They then argue for its reality against those who have started to realise that a big contributing factor was the suggestion of the approach. So,

 

Christians are met by mother Mary.

Buddhists see Buddha

Native Americans see the ancestors.

AYPers have kundalini experiences.

 

As we awaken intellectually, things that once seemed very real become doubtful and we find ourselves as ex-belivers arguing with the believers.

 

With time a synthesis can be reached and we see that that all reality is of the nature of suggestion and there is no other.  The real and the unreal are the same.

 

Very good points, but it should also be noted that there are various heights (or depths) of perception. People (like with AYP) tend to call any energy movement kundalini. Also, many people do not yet have the mental clarity to truly percieve energy/light flows and rather than diving in the ocean, they have only found the bathtub in their own house.

 

Best wishes.

[Karl]

Karl - you seem to be a good exampe of the person I'm talking about. Someone who had visions, then dismissed them as unreal.  But have you seen that that the living people are visions and are now dead?

 

I don't need to. I only require proof of what is real.

 

All men are mortal

Buddah is a man

Buddah is mortal.

 

If I can discover evidence that persuades me that all men are not mortal, or some men are immortal then that changes the paradigm. However a vision isn't an immortal, it's just a vision. We can then make the inductive leap because we know people have dreams and hallucinations. These are common and so it isn't beyond the wit of man to conclude that people are seeing hallucinations.

[Nikolai1]

Very good points, but it should also be noted that there are various heights (or depths) of perception. People (like with AYP) tend to call any energy movement kundalini. Also, many people do not yet have the mental clarity to truly percieve energy/light flows and rather than diving in the ocean, they have only found the bathtub in their own house. Best wishes.

Yes, I've noticed this phenomenon countless times in all paths.

 

When something is held up as constituting spiritual progress, people get themselves very excited about it, even though it is very everyday annd commonplace.

 

To the newcomer who happens to have a pretty lofty concepption of kundalini - as a truly unearthly bliss - it might be a bit disaapointing to realise that what everyone is talking about is the same feeling he gets every time his team wins, and his child smiles, and snow gives him a day off work.

[Karl]

Very good points, but it should also be noted that there are various heights (or depths) of perception. People (like with AYP) tend to call any energy movement kundalini. Also, many people do not yet have the mental clarity to truly percieve energy/light flows and rather than diving in the ocean, they have only found the bathtub in their own house.

 

Best wishes.

 

Now you are at it. How do you mean energy /light flows ?

 

I can perceive light perfectly well otherwise I would be stumbling around in the dark. I can perceive the results of energy flows but I can't see them.

[Nikolai1]

I don't need to. I only require proof of what is real. All men are mortal Buddah is a man Buddah is mortal. If I can discover evidence that persuades me that all men are not mortal, or some men are immortal then that changes the paradigm.

Yes, but that is what happens to the spiritually awakened.  It chnages the paradigm because your immortality is directly and concretely felt by yourself.  And the same experience makes you realise that the same is true of alll men and always has been.

 

So the major premise is now . 'All men are immortal.' and the conclusion about Buddha follows suit.

[Karl]

Yes, but that is what happens to the spiritually awakened. It chnages the paradigm because your immortality is directly and concretely felt by yourself. And the same experience makes you realise that the same is true of alll men and always has been.

 

So the major premise is now . 'All men are immortal.' and the conclusion about Buddha follows suit.

Well you should know what's coming next LOL

 

All men are immortal

Nikolai is a man

Nikolai is immortal

 

Now, go prove it. Non of those primes us seem correct in my experience but I'm prepared to be persuaded. We find a good, high bridge, you jump off and I examine you at the end to check what you said was true. That's fair enough. When are you up for that ? I'm free all week. I can't stand the sight of blood so you had better not be kidding. :-)

Edited August 19, 2015 by Karl

[Nikolai1]

Well you should know what's coming next LOL

 

All men are immortal

Nikolai is a man

Nikolai is immortal

 

Now, go prove it. Non of those primes us seem correct in my experience but I'm prepared to be persuaded. We find a good, high bridge, you jump off and I examine you at the end to check what you said was true. That's fair enough. When are you up for that ? I'm free all week. I can't stand the sight of blood so you had better not be kidding. :-)

Do you remember you talked about how our understanding of concepts can be enlarged by experience? Well, let's say that spiritual experience enlarges our concept of selfhood.  If we thought we were mortal before, we know see that mortality only applies to one oart of us - our body.

 

Now we see that both syllogisma are correct.  One is correct with reference to our body, the other is correct with reference to our larger self.

 

If you have no experience of this larger self then the two syllogisms can't both be correct.  It would be a nonsense to suggest so.  When you do have experience, you see no contradiction whatsoever.  It is no more compicated than saying that a dolphin is both a Bottle-Nose and a Mammal.

[Karl]

Do you remember you talked about how our understanding of concepts can be enlarged by experience? Well, let's say that spiritual experience enlarges our concept of selfhood.  If we thought we were mortal before, we know see that mortality only applies to one oart of us - our body.

 

Now we see that both syllogisma are correct.  One is correct with reference to our body, the other is correct with reference to our larger self.

 

If you have no experience of this larger self then the two syllogisms can't both be correct.  It would be a nonsense to suggest so.  When you do have experience, you see no contradiction whatsoever.  It is no more compicated than saying that a dolphin is both a Bottle-Nose and a Mammal.

 

Ah well now you see, you have stepped on the solid floor of my hut in which definitions and fallacies get a horrible stamping on. You bring stuff like that to me and I'm going to test until destruction. Just like the guy who told me his light switches were unbreakable-they weren't.

 

A blue nose dolphin is a mammal. There is no contradiction and could never be one. A blue nose dolphin is part of the genus Dolphins, mammals, living entities. That's a very poor example of equivocation which definitely smacks of desperation.

 

 

[Nikolai1]

A dolphin is a blue-nose, man is a body.

 

A dolphin is a mammal, man is a body and mind

 

A dolphin is a living being, man is a body, mind and immortal spirit.

 

If you don't know yourself as spirit, then I can't exactly help you.  But don't get all huffed up and think I'm making some error!

[Karl]

A dolphin is a blue-nose, man is a body.

 

A dolphin is a mammal, man is a body and mind

 

A dolphin is a living being, man is a body, mind and immortal spirit.

 

If you don't know yourself as spirit, then I can't exactly help you. But don't get all huffed up and think I'm making some error!

There you go providing definitions which are patently incorrect. Man is not body, mind and spirit. That is equally attributable to any animal you care to mention - provided we define spirit. You cannot define spirit as immortal if you have not first defined what spirit is.

 

You do not know yourself as spirit either, because you haven't defined it. I could say it was a three legged Martian, some cloud hooks or the bloom on a peach. We wouldn't have a clue. You are defining yourself by what you feel you are that's all. Then you are applying warped logic which does not rely on definitions to confirm the error. It's exactly like a scientist who falsifies the results to fit his theory. Logic will not serve you well doing that, you are simply confirming your own bias.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Karl

[Apech]

Yes, indeed it is and I do not wish to lessen it.  But, reality itself is a strange admixture of the psychic the spiritual and the physical.  People do not realise this, and those who have had powerful kundalini experiences often don't take into account the, lets's say, hallucinatory nature of this and all experience.  They then argue for its reality against those who have started to realise that a big contributing factor was the suggestion of the approach. So,

 

Christians are met by mother Mary.

Buddhists see Buddha

Native Americans see the ancestors.

AYPers have kundalini experiences.

 

As we awaken intellectually, things that once seemed very real become doubtful and we find ourselves as ex-belivers arguing with the believers.

 

With time a synthesis can be reached and we see that that all reality is of the nature of suggestion and there is no other.  The real and the unreal are the same.

 

 

Again I kind of see where you are coming from.  However with Kundalini syndrome for instance it is possible to list the symptoms and therefore run a checklist to see if you have or have had it.  This is fairly specific and definable and testable.  So assigning a term to it seems perfectly reasonable.  Of course many people may have it - but be unaware of the Sanskrit term and call it something else.

 

If you accept that kundalini is term which can be validly applied to a certain aspect of the subtle body - then you can say it exists as much as you can say your liver exists, or that a thought or idea exists in your mind.  Unless of course you are going down the objective realist school and saying it does not exist unless I can put it on a table and bash it with a hammer.  But then you have to doubt the existence of thoughts, feelings, concepts and so on.  Which means you have already limited your acceptance of 'real' in a very limited sense.

[Karl]

Again I kind of see where you are coming from.  However with Kundalini syndrome for instance it is possible to list the symptoms and therefore run a checklist to see if you have or have had it.  This is fairly specific and definable and testable.  So assigning a term to it seems perfectly reasonable.  Of course many people may have it - but be unaware of the Sanskrit term and call it something else.

 

If you accept that kundalini is term which can be validly applied to a certain aspect of the subtle body - then you can say it exists as much as you can say your liver exists, or that a thought or idea exists in your mind.  Unless of course you are going down the objective realist school and saying it does not exist unless I can put it on a table and bash it with a hammer.  But then you have to doubt the existence of thoughts, feelings, concepts and so on.  Which means you have already limited your acceptance of 'real' in a very limited sense.

 

That's not correct Apech. Thoughts and sensations are totally real the the person experiencing them, they are also real from the perspective of onlookers. If you say you have a pain in your leg then either you are lying for effect, or you do feel a pain in your leg. I cannot validate you have it, but I have no need to, you as a person are valid as an object in awareness.

 

If you say you are having Kundalini symptoms then who Can argue ? It's only when asked to define Kundalini as a concept that the truth comes out. Its a feeling, it's real to you and it's real to me that you tell me you have it, but giving it a label is an attempt to make a concrete object out of nothing. If you are in Love it's the same thing. I can empathise a bit from my own understanding, but I cannot know precisely what love is, or if what you describe as love is anything like I experience. Kundalini then is a feeling or sensation that gives rise to a number of non specific symptoms.