Kundalini discovery

[Bindi]

Most people Seem to think that kundalini is intelligent, I see it as blind, which would explain why there are so many problems with it. If the spirit, or the spiritual mind, is developed first, it can access kundalini properly and guide it with no dramas and to good effect. To me this means working with the Dan Tians first, and clearing the channels, not with the aid of kundalini, but to prepare for kundalini. 
 

Just thinking aloud here, if part of kundalini’s purpose is to destroy the ego connection to the mundane mind, I’d like to have a place to inhabit within my spirit before that connection is destroyed, which is only possible if the spirit has been fully developed, and I am fully identified with it. 
 

 

[Bindi]

13 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

In what way does the spiritual mind need to be developed? Criteria are? Why are you so certain it is blind and not intelligent? 

If we can agree that we are not our mental or emotional selves, then we are either ultimately no self, or some other ‘spiritual’ self. I have come to the conclusion that beyond my mental and emotional selves I am the latter. To me the spiritual self Is an insubstantial underlying form that we were disassociated from at some early stage of life, evident mainly in the search that some people then conduct throughout their lives to find God or enlightenment, which I see as simply a search for the disassociated spiritual self. 
 

I see it as needing development because not only are we disassociated from the spiritual self, but it is in lifeless pieces that need to be reassembled and re-enlivened, so that ultimately the spiritual self as a whole can flourish.

 

Overwhelmingly the stories of kundalini are of some force that desperately seeks the crown, but it’s not a measured progress, it’s wild and uncontrolled, a force stronger than the mind or emotions can control. People have to allow kundalini to do what it likes. I propose a higher self, suited to the task of directing and controlling kundalini. What if kundalini has to exit out through the forehead, like the Tibetans believe. Kundalini would have no ability to make that decision, only a stronger, higher view would be able to impose its will on kundalinis  direction. Beyond which, kundalini progress in itself doesn’t grant higher knowledge, or lasting Siddhis, so I conclude kundalini is part of the process, but on its own not sufficient. I see it as the ‘earth’ component, more instinctive than intelligent. 
 

 

[Apech]

11 hours ago, Bindi said:

If we can agree that we are not our mental or emotional selves, then we are either ultimately no self, or some other ‘spiritual’ self. I have come to the conclusion that beyond my mental and emotional selves I am the latter. To me the spiritual self Is an insubstantial underlying form that we were disassociated from at some early stage of life, evident mainly in the search that some people then conduct throughout their lives to find God or enlightenment, which I see as simply a search for the disassociated spiritual self. 
 

I see it as needing development because not only are we disassociated from the spiritual self, but it is in lifeless pieces that need to be reassembled and re-enlivened, so that ultimately the spiritual self as a whole can flourish.

 

Overwhelmingly the stories of kundalini are of some force that desperately seeks the crown, but it’s not a measured progress, it’s wild and uncontrolled, a force stronger than the mind or emotions can control. People have to allow kundalini to do what it likes. I propose a higher self, suited to the task of directing and controlling kundalini. What if kundalini has to exit out through the forehead, like the Tibetans believe. Kundalini would have no ability to make that decision, only a stronger, higher view would be able to impose its will on kundalinis  direction. Beyond which, kundalini progress in itself doesn’t grant higher knowledge, or lasting Siddhis, so I conclude kundalini is part of the process, but on its own not sufficient. I see it as the ‘earth’ component, more instinctive than intelligent. 
 

 

 

Is it our spiritual self which is in lifeless pieces or is it our experience that is fragmented and lifeless?  Perhaps through a tendency to identify with the objects of consciousness rather than consciousness itself?

 

In Tibetan Buddhism the story usually goes that such and such master is an abbot at a university and has mastered all the philosophical and meditational techniques and so on.  But is one day visited by a hag (I use this word advisedly - check the etymology please moderators) who chides him and tells him to go off and seek a tantric master who will teach him (among other things Candali).  And the Tummo/Candali is seen as an energy to liberate the mind which has beneficial side effects like keeping you warm in winter.  The hag/vajrayogini figure personifies the firey energy which most importantly takes him beyond intellect and even 'normal' perception, its about, if you like working directly with energy, dancing with it etc.

[Bindi]

37 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Is it our spiritual self which is in lifeless pieces or is it our experience that is fragmented and lifeless?  Perhaps through a tendency to identify with the objects of consciousness rather than consciousness itself?

 

A closer fit to describe the spiritual self for me would be chakras, by analogy if each one is seen as a piece of wood, when reassembled end to end and aligned they will form the trunk of a tree, which will eventually develop and grow a canopy of leaves, and this then is the functioning spiritual body. So I would say our experiences lead to fragmentation, but it is each chakras functioning and their system potential that becomes fragmented and lifeless. 
 

I am identifying with the chakras, and the channels that join them, and this is identifying with objects of consciousness I suppose, but why not? If that is my spiritual self, what would I gain from disassociating from it? If it’s just another stage, then this too would be ok by me anyway. 

 

37 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

In Tibetan Buddhism the story usually goes that such and such master is an abbot at a university and has mastered all the philosophical and meditational techniques and so on.  But is one day visited by a hag (I use this word advisedly - check the etymology please moderators) who chides him and tells him to go off and seek a tantric master who will teach him (among other things Candali).  And the Tummo/Candali is seen as an energy to liberate the mind which has beneficial side effects like keeping you warm in winter.  The hag/vajrayogini figure personifies the firey energy which most importantly takes him beyond intellect and even 'normal' perception, its about, if you like working directly with energy, dancing with it etc.

I think tummo is an end practice? From what I have read tummo creates a temporary state of bliss and heat, but is the mind liberated permanently? I just don’t know enough about it really. 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

 

A closer fit to describe the spiritual self for me would be chakras, by analogy if each one is seen as a piece of wood, when reassembled end to end and aligned they will form the trunk of a tree, which will eventually develop and grow a canopy of leaves, and this then is the functioning spiritual body. So I would say our experiences lead to fragmentation, but it is each chakras functioning and their system potential that becomes fragmented and lifeless. 
 

I am identifying with the chakras, and the channels that join them, and this is identifying with objects of consciousness I suppose, but why not? If that is my spiritual self, what would I gain from disassociating from it? If it’s just another stage, then this too would be ok by me anyway. 

 

I understand what you are saying.

 

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

I think tummo is an end practice? From what I have read tummo creates a temporary state of bliss and heat, but is the mind liberated permanently? I just don’t know enough about it really. 

 

Tummo is a completion stage practice of a tantric sadhana.  It is one of six.  If one were to attain temporary bliss and heat this would be a deluded version.  Completely possible by moving prana through nadis and so on but entirely missing the point.  So it would qualify as deluded kundalini.  I think this may be the kind of thing that spontaneous kundalini experiences produce - along with strange visions and astral projection and so forth.

[ilumairen]

20 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Let's get down to basics here as opposed to comparing systems and viewpoints. What are kundalini delusions for practitioners in general?

I believe one of the biggest delusions occurs when an individual feels an energetic component to healing of past traumas, and instead of recognizing it as the healing of trauma in a “body keeps the score” kind of way, searches for explanations and settles on naming the experience kundalini.

 

Edit to add: Which I believe is a contributing factor to what you have expressed as the issue of people believing it is their kundalini.

Edited August 16, 2020 by ilumairen

[Apech]

6 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

I think your point sums the problems with the OP in the kundalini thread.

 

Ken Wilber writes about authentic experiences in his book "Spiritual Choices." He discusses delusions as opposed to authentic experience. Delusions as experienced by a psychotic as opposed to one with a healthy psyche. I read all his books back in the 80's and into the 90's. 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Choices-Recognizing-Authentic-Transformation/dp/0913729140/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=ken+wilber+spiritual+choices&qid=1597591815&s=books&sr=1-4

 

 

907 dollars!   I don't think so

 

[ilumairen]

11 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

907 dollars!   I don't think so

 

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/spiritual-choices-the-problems-of-recognizing-authentic-paths-to-inner-transformation_ken-wilber_bruce-ecker/398888/

[Apech]

4 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/spiritual-choices-the-problems-of-recognizing-authentic-paths-to-inner-transformation_ken-wilber_bruce-ecker/398888/

 

wow that is thrifty!

[Apech]

3 minutes ago, ralis said:

I take it that neither one of you have read the book. 

 

No I haven't.  Is it good?

[mrpasserby]

3 hours ago, ralis said:

The six subtle centers (chakras) are merely mental pictures and are meant for beginners in yoga.”

I agree that these words are good comments/examples in supprt of those who have felt pressured to communicate words like chakra as informational focusing points of reference to present ideas/pictures to aid in making practitioner/cultivators the clearest possible comments for them to gain a pictured focus of an area of intent. IME: it seems that when communicating with most about Simple ethereal/spirit activity, that there is a tendency to make what directions/intentions that are written or spoken in words, into some form of Religious/Sacred exceptionality.

[mrpasserby]

Kundalini-delusion:

IME: As a practitioner, I am always seeking more sources of energy, to in-power my workings.

I got a heads up about kundalini energy when I was young, but any apparent energies were dormant within me.

Over the decades, I received a myriad of varying and delusional Kundalini information.

It was only when I had cultivated here at the DBS for a while, that my kundalini started giving me problems, and then with the effort that I put forth, it popped out and started providing me with energy. Thanks 

Edited October 6, 2020 by mrpasserby
clarity

[Bindi]

5 hours ago, ralis said:

 

Are you stating that you have control over this process?
 

What is in my control is the ability to create the right conditions for kundalini. I am happy to spend decades in clearing and establishing the channels, as directed by some higher wisdom within me, a voice that at the same time has always loudly and firmly directed me to leave the root chakra well alone. 

In the Yoga system, the three main channels need to be flowing, and the central channels has its own further layers that also need to be opened before kundalini is activated. Theoretically, kundalini flowing through the finest and most subtle central channel layer will have a different affect than if it travels through one of the side channels or a denser layer of the central channel. 

 

5 hours ago, ralis said:

 

Have you had direct experience with kundalini?
 

 

He who shall not be named did briefly tamper with my kundalini, but so far it remains locked away where it should be, until it shouldn’t be. 

 

5 hours ago, ralis said:

The idea of no self is being touted by Advaita which is another discussion and doesn't address the fundamental problem of mistaken beliefs regarding kundalini. Kundalini is fire and not to be taken lightly!

 

Whether kundalini is intelligent or not belongs to a theological discussion with many points of view. 

 

[Bindi]

5 hours ago, ralis said:

Ken Wilber's short essay in the book "Kundalini Rising" has this to say regarding chakras and the belief that blockages exist. This makes more sense to me in regards to my experience.

 

“under this tyranny appears in the restricted forms known as the chakras.

It is for this reason that the chakras are properly referred to by the terms granthi (knots) and sankhocha (contraction). In the Chandogya Upanishad we read, “In acquiring the traditional doctrine there is release from all knots.” And in the Mundaka Upanishad, “He, verily, who knows that Supreme Brahman, becomes very Brahman. Liberated from the knots of the heart, he becomes immortal.” Likewise, according to the Surangama Sutra, Sakyamuni Buddha explains liberation as the final dissolution of the “knots we have tied in the essential unity of our own Mind.”

And yet, strictly speaking, final liberation, being the timeless and therefore eternal condition of all worlds and selves, is not so much the result of the action of untying these knots, but rather the tacit acknowledgment that these knots do not, and cannot, obstruct ultimate consciousness. Liberation, in short, is not the actual untying of these knots, but the silent admission that they are already untied. Herein lies the key to the paradox of the chakras: they are ultimately dissolved in the realization that they need not be dissolved.

Finally, therefore, the chakras are not real—in[…]”

 

I quoted in three parts which was easier.

 

“At several places along the spinal column the Nādīs form a type of knot (GRANTHI), each of which constitutes a key point in our spiritual development. When these knots are “untied” the energy located within them is activated and the hidden powers (SIDDHIS) are given to us as healing powers, the seeing of past and future, the seeing of auras, and other supernatural abilities.“ https://www.chakras.net/yoga-principles/nadis

 

These knots do obstruct consciousness, and untying them is more complicated than just believing that they are already untied. 
 

Further, Chakras are actually real energy centres, not just “mental pictures ... meant for beginners in yoga.”  It sounds to me as though this author has no direct experience or knowledge of chakras, and in his naivety has sweepingly assumed that it’s all just fantasy. 
 

Here’s a question, does not believing in granthis give access to healing powers and other siddhis? 

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Bindi

[Bindi]

28 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

I am well versed in all the so called levels of yoga from the most basic to the most advanced. I began practicing when I was 15 in 1965. Sufism, Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Hinduism, Kabbalah, Dzogchen as transmitted by Namkhai Norbu etc. I have read most of the relevant literature as well as being a life long practitioner. The quote in your response is fairly basic across cultures, but different cultures will express different morphology.

 

E.g. if you care to read David Snellgrove's excellent commentary on the "Hevajra Tantra" he writes of the evolution/transformation of Indian Buddhism to Tibetan Buddhism. I won't delineate the differences, but suffice it to say, there has been an evolution over time from the Indian point of view to the Tibetan point of view. Some Thangka paintings reveal a lot of the differences between both points of view. My point is that all things spiritual are not always what they appear to be.

 

Ken Wilber is naive? Wilber read all the relevant spiritual literature when the was an undergraduate pre-med student at Duke. He put together a model called the "Spectrum of Consciousness" that gave many of us a roadmap which clarified the massive amount of literature available at the time. Wilber is not only an academic, but a longtime practitioner with various teachers, from Zen to Buddhism as well as Tibetan Buddhism. Hardly naive, don't you think?

 

BTW, on a personal retreat in Death Valley California I realized that Wilber just may be correct regarding so called knots. Sky gazing as taught by Norbu turned my view upside down regarding kundalini and just about every view I held dear.

 

 

No matter how much he has read, and how much he has practised, if he is not aware of the subtle energy body including the chakras and granthis, then to me he is naive. He has studied with Tibetan Buddhists, yet he doesn’t believe in chakras? “In Tantric Buddhism, the understanding of the subtle body is essential: chakras and channels.“ 
 

All sorts of people have all sorts of beliefs about the nature of the chakras, and I have heard this view, that they don’t exist, from a number of recent teachers, but not everyone who sets themselves up as a teacher automatically actually knows about the subtle body. 
 

My personal experience with the granthis attests to the healing powers granted when the heart knot is untied, it’s a process, it allows healing qi to flow out through the hands where it didn’t before. It’s a proof if you like, I get what they are saying, and as I asked earlier, do you gain healing powers by merely disbelieving in granthis? 
 

 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Bindi said:

 

“At several places along the spinal column the Nādīs form a type of knot (GRANTHI), each of which constitutes a key point in our spiritual development. When these knots are “untied” the energy located within them is activated and the hidden powers (SIDDHIS) are given to us as healing powers, the seeing of past and future, the seeing of auras, and other supernatural abilities.“ https://www.chakras.net/yoga-principles/nadis

 

These knots do obstruct consciousness, and untying them is more complicated than just believing that they are already untied. 
 

Further, Chakras are actually real energy centres, not just “mental pictures ... meant for beginners in yoga.”  It sounds to me as though this author has no direct experience or knowledge of chakras, and in his naivety has sweepingly assumed that it’s all just fantasy. 
 

Here’s a question, does not believing in granthis give access to healing powers and other siddhis? 

 

 

 

 

I agree with you here.  While it may be true that the diagrams of chakras are indicative for practitioners, chakras themselves are not mere mental pictures.

 

How do you mean 'believing in granthis'?  If you loosen the knots the energy flows and you develop.  You could develop siddhis.

 

 

[Bindi]

3 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

I agree with you here.  While it may be true that the diagrams of chakras are indicative for practitioners, chakras themselves are not mere mental pictures.

 

How do you mean 'believing in granthis'?  If you loosen the knots the energy flows and you develop.  You could develop siddhis.

 

 

Ken Wilber doesn’t believe the granthis exist - “final liberation, being the timeless and therefore eternal condition of all worlds and selves, is not so much the result of the action of untying these knots, but rather the tacit acknowledgment that these knots do not, and cannot, obstruct ultimate consciousness. Liberation, in short, is not the actual untying of these knots, but the silent admission that they are already untied. Herein lies the key to the paradox of the chakras: they are ultimately dissolved in the realization that they need not be dissolved.“ 

 

I‘m just saying I do believe the granthi’s exist, and and that siddhis are developed when they are loosened, pretty much in line with standard yoga beliefs. 

[Apech]

18 minutes ago, Bindi said:

Ken Wilber doesn’t believe the granthis exist - “final liberation, being the timeless and therefore eternal condition of all worlds and selves, is not so much the result of the action of untying these knots, but rather the tacit acknowledgment that these knots do not, and cannot, obstruct ultimate consciousness. Liberation, in short, is not the actual untying of these knots, but the silent admission that they are already untied. Herein lies the key to the paradox of the chakras: they are ultimately dissolved in the realization that they need not be dissolved.“ 

 

I‘m just saying I do believe the granthi’s exist, and and that siddhis are developed when they are loosened, pretty much in line with standard yoga beliefs. 

 

I'm with you - tho' I suppose you could argue about what 'exist' really means - but that's too abstract.

[Old Student]

3 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

Related and possibly deserving of its own section to elaborate on the problems of kundalini delusion is sincerity. While many people claim to be sincere enough about their quest to activate the kundalini, again, their intent existed before discovering what a "coon dull lee knee" was, and that kundalini--a kind of pasta made out of roadkill for rednecks--was one of the top ten Google search results that turned up when trying to find "reel ultmuht powur". Likely what comes up are related topics on the dantians, Mo Pai, ninjas, and yoga pants. 

 

So imagine then that such seekers sincerely believe that hours of Googling and Wikipedia provides sufficient information on enlightenment and awakening. 

 

Most people will not pronounce kundalini the way it is pronounced in the original anyway, so that really really isn't a measure of any authenticity.  Most Americans can't pronounce a word with more than two syllables without an accent on one of the syllables.

 

And most people googling will indeed have trouble getting past all the Sikh-ish stuff.  Maybe it's just easier to point out that Guru Nanak was opposed to yoga in all forms. BTW, the Sikh community in California (Central Valley and Bay Area) dates from the 1800s, so not all Punjabi Sikhs are 1st generation immigrants.

 

Kundalini is part of Shakti, most Shakti are in Bengal, Bihar, and Odisha. So the only real connection might possibly be that the Sikhs conquered Kashmir and ran part of Burma for a while.

 

But Shakti is in close with Vajrayana which is a branch of Buddhism, and it is close in with a lot of smaller faiths.  Just not really Sikhism (or Sikkhi, if you will).

[Old Student]

1 hour ago, Earl Grey said:

Does "hyperbole" mean anything to you? It's not designated in my post to be a measure of authenticity but a caricature of the kind of individuals I am mocking. 

Nevertheless, American pronunciation of Sanskrit-derived words is second only to the British for mispronunciation.  And people in this thread who believe that Kundalini all comes from Kashmiri Shaivism are just as misinformed as the ones you mock. The greatest explosion in tantra, be it Shakti or Buddhist Vajrayana, in history, came in the Bay of Bengal, and the Pala Kingdom, interacting with Srivijaya, with Tibet, with Khotan, and to some extent with Kashmir, and with Mahabahar, and Purushpur (Balkh and Peshawar).  The birthplace though was in Odisha (which is even easier for Americans to mispronounce).
 

Quote

 

While this is correct, it doesn't change the highlight that this particular wave of immigrants referred to in the article were behind some of the misinformation out there.

 

The immigrants in the article were the ones complaining about Yogi Bhajan.  I'm really surprised everybody forgot about the Birkenstock sandals.  That was their first capitalist enterprise financing his fraud.

[Bindi]

“Sri Ramana never advised his devotees to practise kundalini since he regarded it as being both potentially dangerous and unnecessary.  He accepted the existence of the kundalini power and the chakras but he said that even if the kundalini reached sahasrara, it would not result in realisation.”  Here.

[doc benway]

Just stumbled across some hidden gems...

 

 

[mrpasserby]

On 8/17/2020 at 8:25 PM, Bindi said:

“Sri Ramana never advised his devotees to practise kundalini since he regarded it as being both potentially dangerous and unnecessary.  He accepted the existence of the kundalini power and the chakras but he said that even if the kundalini reached sahasrara, it would not result in realisation.”

I have no argument with this statement about kundalini being dangerous, my own ethereal guides cautioned me about the dangers, however, once I had passed all of my ilk's initiations, the kundalini dangers seamed small, in comparison, and I wanted to connect to the added ethereal energy source.

Edited October 5, 2020 by mrpasserby
clarity

[doc benway]

On 8/15/2020 at 7:28 PM, Bindi said:

If we can agree that we are not our mental or emotional selves, then we are either ultimately no self, or some other ‘spiritual’ self. I have come to the conclusion that beyond my mental and emotional selves I am the latter. To me the spiritual self Is an insubstantial underlying form that we were disassociated from at some early stage of life, evident mainly in the search that some people then conduct throughout their lives to find God or enlightenment, which I see as simply a search for the disassociated spiritual self. 
 

I see it as needing development because not only are we disassociated from the spiritual self, but it is in lifeless pieces that need to be reassembled and re-enlivened, so that ultimately the spiritual self as a whole can flourish.

 

Dzogchen teachings point to the spiritual self, the ultimate self, as primordially pure, literally Great Perfection. By definition nothing needs to be developed. It’s a discovery more than a creation. That’s dzogchen, slightly different than the Vedic view.

 

On 8/16/2020 at 9:44 AM, Bindi said:

I think tummo is an end practice? From what I have read tummo creates a temporary state of bliss and heat, but is the mind liberated permanently? I just don’t know enough about it really. 

 

Tummo burns through stubborn obstacles, the mental and emotional formations, the identification with a limited sense of self, clearing the channels and chakras, opening the central channel. When the awareness fills the central channel, one is said to rest in the Nature of Mind or connect with primordially pure self-awareness. Tummo helps clear the way to the door and opens the door. The end practice is resting in the natural, primordial presence and integrate it with all activity.

[old3bob]

"Dzogchen teachings point to the spiritual self, the ultimate self, as primordially pure, literally Great Perfection. By definition nothing needs to be developed. It’s a discovery more than a creation. That’s dzogchen, slightly different than the Vedic view."

 

Hmm, I suggest not being too sure about such a difference...in the sense that development of a matrix for Self does not mean that Self or Brahman needs development or "creation" .