Shaktipat

[ShaktiMama]

No this Tao description is from the Huang-Lao School. Confusious something very different leaning back towards punishments and order, and not expanding freedom and human rights.

 

I know you are upset about the state the world is in. I respect and honor you for your big heart and concern and dedication for harmony and justice.

 

We concerned for and seek the same thing...the healing of Mother Earth and all who inhabit her.

 

 

s

[Raymond Wolter]

 

I don't think you can exactly map them over each other.

 

s

 

That exactly has been the problem many of us are trying to point out here. Santiago and you seem to be mapping all these terminologies from different traditions with each other in rather simplistic and using them inter-changably and that is what is not being appreciated here. Though you now say Shakti is Tao's Power (which is close to Advaita interpretation of Maya being Brahman's power) Santiago uses Allah/God/Shakti interchangeably in all his posts. If you say what is it in words and terminologies, well, on a forum where mind to mind transmission is not always possible we would have to depend on words and in such cases, not every one likes these terms thrown around loosely. Exactly the same concern I expressed regarding Shaktipat and beaming of Chi/Prana. Of course, you are free to do that but it is just that some of us think that is incorrect; or rather not always correct. Cultural lens are not always bad, sometimes stripping a practice of its culture strips it of its value as well.

 

I also disagree that religion and mysticism are different. If there is an issue with religion, it is with incorrect interpretation as religion is based upon mysticism and solid philosophy which drives every aspect of the religion. Mysticism in action is religion, mysticism in itself is not usable as a tool. I can speak for two religions I am familiar with, Hinduism and Buddhism and this is true for them for the most part. Many from Abrahamic religious backgrounds view religion as something evil and want to strip every aspect of spirituality of 'religion' and that does not work well with Eastern religions or practices borrowed from them. Every practice has a definitive place in the framework and each framework is complete in itself. Trying to pull individual bells and whistles out and strip them of their significance is not useful ultimately IMHO.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[3bob]

Intellectualized philosophy and concepts have a place, but they do not replace the reality of Being and beingness of spiritual power and or the matrix for that power of purity.

 

Imo the word "impersonal" is rather problematic when used in reference to various Ways. For instance I've always preferred the word and concept of "impartial" when thinking about aspects of the "Tao". Thus the Tao could be said to have a major aspect of impartial, "natural" justice, yet if that is all there is to the Tao then the Tao could then be said to be is nothing more than a machine of mechanical and impersonal actions or ways.

 

Anyway, I give my witness here that the great soul of the Earth is not a mechanical, impersonal action! Far from it, for Her depth of beauty and goodness is so great and utterly true that it takes the breath away, yet I would not want to cross Her and her children of irresistable white fire, for certain types of forgiveness have limits and impartial actions of justice can and will kick in, so to speak.

 

Om

[Birch]

"led by smart, un-biased, objective, proof-driven people trying to figure out the impersonal Laws of Nature."

 

Let me know if/when you find any of these people

[ShaktiMama]

That exactly has been the problem many of us are trying to point out here. Santiago and you seem to be mapping all these terminologies from different traditions with each other in rather simplistic and using them inter-changably and that is what is not being appreciated here. Though you now say Shakti is Tao's Power (which is close to Advaita interpretation of Maya being Brahman's power) Santiago uses Allah/God/Shakti interchangeably in all his posts. If you say what is it in words and terminologies, well, on a forum where mind to mind transmission is not always possible we would have to depend on words and in such cases, not every one likes these terms thrown around loosely. Exactly the same concern I expressed regarding Shaktipat and beaming of Chi/Prana. Of course, you are free to do that but it is just that some of us think that is incorrect; or rather not always correct. Cultural lens are not always bad, sometimes stripping a practice of its culture strips it of its value as well.

 

I also disagree that religion and mysticism are different. If there is an issue with religion, it is with incorrect interpretation as religion is based upon mysticism and solid philosophy which drives every aspect of the religion. Mysticism in action is religion, mysticism in itself is not usable as a tool. I can speak for two religions I am familiar with, Hinduism and Buddhism and this is true for them for the most part. Many from Abrahamic religious backgrounds view religion as something evil and want to strip every aspect of spirituality of 'religion' and that does not work well with Eastern religions or practices borrowed from them. Every practice has a definitive place in the framework and each framework is complete in itself. Trying to pull individual bells and whistles out and strip them of their significance is not useful ultimately IMHO.

 

It's something to be considered that Santiago and I have come from two different journeys and have converged at a crossroads and decided to travel forward as co teachers because of spiritual kinship and agreements that we discovered we shared. I can't speak on his journey of awakening but I can speak of mine. I can only say his was traditional path compared to my non traditional path.

 

My background is an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian. That is my family tradition. I turned away, horrified at its dark side and what it had done to my spirit, and spent about 10 years deprogramming myself. But there were places I just couldn't reach, to excorcise, to transmute to something else.

 

I was taken unawares by a kundalini awakening initiated from an unconventional, western mystic's shaktipat. I had no idea what it was and he wasn't a really good teacher of a shaktipat tradition. He could only speak of it in superficial, generalized way. He wasn't a very good shepherd and I was pretty much left to fend for myself. So I discovered many things about this energy, this awakening, on my own. I walked the solitary path for years only interacting with other kundalites that I found online. No real bodied kundalites that I could find near me.

 

What I learned quickly was this alien energy that was taking control of my whole being and making it do stuff was intelligent. It was also what I can only call Divine. I also knew submission to this Divine Energy was paramount to my survival and subsequent and ongoing transformation.

 

Through a period of trial and error I learned to listen and not resist. Resisting meant I got bitchslapped...that means I got sick, experienced pain that was physical, spiritual, mental, and emotional. Compliance and submission meant unimaginable bliss and the presence of a joy so exquisite it bordered on painful. Positive reinforcement is a great motivator. I learned much on an empirical level about this energy and how to live in concert and moving in harmony with it's direction.

 

Later, years later, I began to discover that there are many traditions that say...do this, breathe this way, meditate like this, meditate like that, consider this, consider that, eat this way, move that way...on and on and on...to bring people to a place that I already was and was living. Every tradition had a book of policies and procedures and memos from the upper management on how to do this. I didn't have that so I took my directions directly from Shiva Shakti. Does that mean I listened perfectly? No, but when I didn't there were consequences that were very clear and so learned to make different choices.

 

So I look back and I see the traditions and paths converging to a point where I am already standing. What I know is what some people think is the end of the journey is just the beginning. I am not better than anyone because of it but there are some advantages standing here. It's like looking at a piece of embroidered fabric. Look on the side opposite of the design and its all a jumble of strange stitches, knots, mix matched disorder. I feel like I am standing on the side where I can see the design. I can see the pattern in the chaos. Does that make better me than anyone else? Of course not, but I sure can share my perspective with others and assist them if they will let me.

 

Maybe another example is I am swimming in the lake. I give you my report what it is like swimming in the lake. You disagree. Those terms dont describe what your swimming in the lake is like.

 

But I may be swimming in a freshwater lake in Wisconsin at 4pm in the middle of July. There is a thunderstorm way off in the west. I can hear the rumblings. I can see the forests and the native animals that live in that locale. I describe them all to you..the scents, the way the air feels, the softness of the water. The bright greeness of the algae up the rocks as the minnow dart under them searching for food.

 

You say, that is not the way it is. My lake is fed by a hot water spring. It has a bit of a salty taste and there is no algae on the rocks. You are taking a swim at midnight. You see the milky way spread across the inky sky. The wind is soft and barely blows. You can smell the pine trees around the shallows of the shores. It is April.

 

Oh yes, I say. I remember that lake. How beautiful, how lovely. Come sit in my lake for awhile for it is beautiful and lovely too. No, you say. My lake is salty and the sky is dark and the stars are out. I can't be in your lake for there is only this lake.

 

I saw yes, how beautiful and how lovely, but there are other lakes that are beautiful and lovely as well, just different.

 

No, you say. I must have my lake this way. You must describe all lakes like my lake. They are all alike.

 

Or, maybe you don't. You come over and have a swim in my lake. Then we go find another lake to swim in together. This lake sits under jungle canopies. The flowers are so fragrant, the air so humid. There is a waterfall that feeds that lake. How beautiful and how lovely and we find others in this lake. We share our experiences and go find other beautiful and lovely lakes to share.

 

We share what is beautiful and so lovely with each other. That is That Which Is in its many different expression.

 

This is just my small attempt to describe why describing in only one way can be limiting.

 

 

I say from personal experience and listening to many conversations over the years that our bodies are designed to have this awakening of this energy. It makes our bodies happy to allow this to unfold. To resist the unfolding is to resist the energy that created the universe. To say I know better than the energy/consciousness that created the universe is laughably foolish and prideful.

 

Many, many of the things that happened to me in the 90s during this awakening period I did not know what to call or define them but the result was and still is life altering and continued transformation. Along the way I met people like Dr. Glenn Morris and last year Santiago, a student and friend of Dr. Morris. People like them fill in the gaps for me with the pc terms of different traditions. I have a lot of pivotal experiences and awareness come to me through direct experience that I found out have actual names.

 

When the energy of Shakti began to awaken in my and transform my whole being, body, mind and spirit it did excorcise the last of the fundamentalist fears that are unreasonable and hateful.

 

The emphasis on terminologies from my side is a crutch or a life jacket people hold on to. I see and feel fluid flow of one energy/one consciousness that permeates all traditions. Impersonal intelligence or Nature harmony unfolds or an anthropormorphized Force doesn't really matter to me. I use the vehicle that works for me at that time. Some time it pleases me to lose my self in the Absolute and sometimes I delight in playing in the fields with the Gods and Goddesses. It is good to create confusion and instability in thought process. Just my opinion. Being incorrect! Question what you know and accept! That Which IS is not diminished by our puny questions, concerns, fears or desires. Be uncomfortable in your beliefs. It shows what you are attached to.

 

The naming or I should say the attachment to the name destroys the ability to see what we want to understand. I call it everything because I see so many qualities of That manifested in different cultures. I have yet to come across One Name that ecompasses all these different qualities of how That manifested.

 

so just a very, very small window into some of my experiences that still cannot be described or communicated without diminishing That for me.

 

there are no words

these are just some of my experiences I share.

 

s

[sifusufi]

Yes very intelligent

 

Obrigado

 

 

 

Did swim twice in the past two weeks and haven't felt better in years

[Vajrasattva]

That exactly has been the problem many of us are trying to point out here. Santiago and you seem to be mapping all these terminologies from different traditions with each other in rather simplistic and using them inter-changably and that is what is not being appreciated here. Though you now say Shakti is Tao's Power (which is close to Advaita interpretation of Maya being Brahman's power) Santiago uses Allah/God/Shakti interchangeably in all his posts. If you say what is it in words and terminologies, well, on a forum where mind to mind transmission is not always possible we would have to depend on words and in such cases, not every one likes these terms thrown around loosely. Exactly the same concern I expressed regarding Shaktipat and beaming of Chi/Prana. Of course, you are free to do that but it is just that some of us think that is incorrect; or rather not always correct. Cultural lens are not always bad, sometimes stripping a practice of its culture strips it of its value as well.

 

I also disagree that religion and mysticism are different. If there is an issue with religion, it is with incorrect interpretation as religion is based upon mysticism and solid philosophy which drives every aspect of the religion. Mysticism in action is religion, mysticism in itself is not usable as a tool. I can speak for two religions I am familiar with, Hinduism and Buddhism and this is true for them for the most part. Many from Abrahamic religious backgrounds view religion as something evil and want to strip every aspect of spirituality of 'religion' and that does not work well with Eastern religions or practices borrowed from them. Every practice has a definitive place in the framework and each framework is complete in itself. Trying to pull individual bells and whistles out and strip them of their significance is not useful ultimately IMHO.

 

So technically its just "1" aspect of much more aspects. But its the Primordial force in manifestation. Or the primordial "energy"/Power.

 

SHAKTI is ENERGY in manifestation and also Kinetic Force it is also the "Vibration" or "WORD".

It is the BARAKA of the Sufi.

 

If you understand the Sufi perspective of the name ALLAH you will find that with in that name contains the secrets of the Primordial unmanifested, the Manifested, the 1st created Light/source, the Male & Female yin yang shiva shakti principles, the Connection of Earth man & Space,the 5 elements & MAN & THE MANIFEST & UNMANIFESTED "GOD", the sacred Breath/Spirit/Holy Ghost, the Sacred primordial Spiral.

 

Its not just a "Name" like "Steve" its actually an acronym of very powerful sacred and secret names for the most sublime & the most primordial force that we have come to call "God" or "Tao" or whatever you want to call it.

 

But you need to unlock it with the knowledge & experiential keys of the real Sufi sheiks.

 

And no it does not want to "Imprison" or enslave. Sufi Knowledge of Islam I.M.H.O is the authentic concept of Islam.

 

I am not part of any religion I am just part of the ONE force behind all and with in all and beyond all.

 

I Draw what is Truth and useful...the rest well gets discarded.

 

No one has the entire piece of the puzzle. BUT you must understand that the puzzle pieces are in all the ancient aspects of HUmanity and also its deeply etched in our hearts and our dna & genetic memories.

 

It is also I.M.H.O that the sufi knowledge is actually from Egypt & Ancient Sumeria. (interms of on this earth). But its something very OLD and Universal. Much like the concept of a "Jedi".

 

So yes i am a Universal Sufi if you want to label me. But in reality I am a member & servant of that which is beyond a name although it has many names including ALLAH, TAO, OLOFI, BRAHMA, AH OM HUM etc etc etc. It also gave birth to the all aspects of what we are. it is the "creator" or "intelligence of all". You do not have to be muslim to understand this. Nor do you need to be sufi. Its in all real paths. its only one mountain folks with many pathway.

 

 

Peace

 

Santiago Dobles

[Tao99]

.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Tao99

[Tao99]

.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Tao99

[Vajrasattva]

What is the Tao?

BBC Religions Investigation

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/taoism/beliefs/tao.shtml :

 

"The Tao is not a thing

 

The Tao is not a thing or a substance in the conventional sense.

 

It cannot be perceived but it can be observed in the things of the world. Although it gives rise to all being, it does not itself have being [supreme or otherwise]. ...

 

But even the name Tao can lead Westerners to think of Tao in the same way that they think of objects.

 

That sort of thinking is misleading: Thinking of the Tao as some sort of object [like the divine intelligence, GOD, SHAKTI, OR ALLAH] produces an understanding of the Tao that is less than the reality.

 

It might be more helpful to regard Tao as a system of guidance [path or way to something desired]. And if one does this one can translate 'achieving union with the Tao' into 'developing oneself so as to live in complete conformity with the teachings of the Tao' [Way] which is easier to understand, and closer to the truth. ...

 

The Tao is not God

 

The Tao is not God and is not worshipped.

 

The Tao includes several concepts in one word:

 

the natural universe as a whole

the way of nature as a whole"

 

why would I ruin the Tao if I acknowledge its beauty and its divinity?

[Vajrasattva]

All Paths are one my friend.

 

peace

[Raymond Wolter]

Logic should be the basis of Faith

 

3Bob, pardon me for doing just what I didn't want Xabir to do

 

It could be said with some accuracy that in the Eastern traditions, logic is the ally and ultimate source of faith, rather than its sworn enemy and threatening opponent, as is all too often the case in the West. This is so not only because the two conceptions of "faith" are fundamentally different in terms of their willingness to assert positive claims about the absolute nature of reality, but also because the means by which they are arrived at differ fundamentally.

 

In most Western traditions, faith is generally taken as a given, to be accepted without examination - and quite often to be actively shielded from examination lest the various assertions about "God" packaged with it come under scrutiny and fail to hold up. In the Eastern traditions, where positive assertions about the Absolute are usually absent (at least philosophically, if not in practice), one's transcendental faith is more often the result of logical inquiry rather than something to be fastidiously protected from it.

 

A key theme of Eastern traditions, including Advaita Vedanta, Buddhism, and Taoism, is the idea that transcendental truth cannot be apprehended by the conceptual, logical, dualistic human mind. To "apprehend," in this case, means precisely that - to capture, seize, or place in a conceptual cage. For adherents of Eastern philosophical and spiritual traditions, reality is never what we think it is.

 

Transcendental noncognitivism, then, is the recognition that the ultimate nature of reality, the Absolute, or "God" is fundamentally ineffable - beyond conceptual and logical comprehension. This conclusion itself, however, is not illogical - on the contrary, it is generally the culmination of an intensive logical process which brings logic and conceptual thought to the very limit of their applicability. To discover the trans-logical, trans-rational nature of reality is itself a logical and rational outcome. Under this approach, it is logic which leads to faith, rather than away from it, as it often does in the West. Far from being some strange process of magical thinking and incomprehensible occurrences as is often imagined by both Western critics and New Age adherents, the mystical process is in fact a deeply logical and rational one - at least until the very moment when logic and rationality must finally be transcended out of sheer necessity.

 

 

Ramana Maharshi on Kundalini (Thanks to the friend who pointed out to this piece and sent Max's interview excerpts - similarities are pretty amazing)

 

Question : How to churn up the nadis [psychic nerves] so that the kundalini may go up the sushumna?

Ramana Maharshi : Though the yogi may have his methods of breath control for this object, the jnani's method is only that of enquiry. When by this method the mind is merged in the Self, the shakti or kundalini, which is not apart from the Self, rises automatically.

 

The yogis attach the highest importance to sending the kundalini up to the sahasrara, the brain centre or the thousandpetalled lotus. They point out the scriptural statement that the lifecurrent enters the body through the fontanelle and argue that,viyoga [separation] having come about that way, yoga [union] must also be effected in the reverse way.

 

Therefore, they say, we must by yoga practice gather up the pranas and enter the fontanelle for the consummation of yoga. The jnanis on the other hand point out that the yogi assumes the existence of the body and its separateness from the Self. Only if this standpoint of separateness is adopted can the yogi advise effort for reunion by the practice of yoga.

 

In fact the body is in the mind which has the brain for its seat. That the brain functions by light borrowed from another source is admitted by the yogis themselves in their fontanelle theory. The jnani further argues: if the light is borrowed it must come from its native source. Go to the source direct and do not depend on borrowed resources.

 

That source is the Heart, the Self. The Self does not come from anywhere else and enter the body through the crown of the head. It is as it is, ever sparkling, ever steady, unmoving and unchanging. The individual confines himself to the limits of the changeful body or of the mind which derives its existence from the unchanging Self.

 

All that is necessary is to give up this mistaken identity, and that done, the ever-shining Self will be seen to be the single non-dual reality. If one concentrates on the sahasrara there is no doubt that the ecstasy of samadhi ensues. The vasanas, that is the latent mental tendencies, are not however destroyed. The yogi is therefore bound to wake up from the samadhi because release from bondage has not yet been accomplished.

 

He must still try to eradicate the vasanas inherent in him so that they cease to disturb the peace of his samadhi. So he passes down from the sahasrara to the Heart through what is called the jivanadi, which is only a continuation of the sushumna.

 

The sushumna is thus a curve. It starts from the lowest chakra, rises through the spinal cord to the brain and from there bends down and ends in the Heart. When the yogi has reached the Heart, the samadhi becomes permanent. Thus we see that the Heart is the final centre.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[Vajrasattva]

the heart is the Biggest KEY regardless the path.

[Aetherous]

What is the Tao?

BBC Religions Investigation

 

They sound confused!

[Tao99]

.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Tao99

[三江源]

.

Edited March 23, 2015 by 三江源

[ShaktiMama]

I think the discrepancy here in perception is between those that have experience of kundalini and those that havent.

 

 

Excellent observation.

s

[ShaktiMama]

[

 

I also disagree that religion and mysticism are different. If there is an issue with religion, it is with incorrect interpretation as religion is based upon mysticism and solid philosophy which drives every aspect of the religion. Mysticism in action is religion, mysticism in itself is not usable as a tool. I can speak for two religions I am familiar with, Hinduism and Buddhism and this is true for them for the most part. Many from Abrahamic religious backgrounds view religion as something evil and want to strip every aspect of spirituality of 'religion' and that does not work well with Eastern religions or practices borrowed from them. Every practice has a definitive place in the framework and each framework is complete in itself. Trying to pull individual bells and whistles out and strip them of their significance is not useful ultimately IMHO.

 

 

So to respond to your other comment:

 

Mysticism is the heart. Religion is the action that comes from the heart. Some hearts are not enlivened by day to day experience of walking in alignment with that which is the Mystical. The action without the living water that flows from the heart is dead. what is left, imo, is adherence to the legalities and rules of the religion.

 

So, I see in other religions, is ceremony without intimate connection to That which the ceremony honors. I see adherence to law and rule without compassion, without flow and a sense of rigidty and harshness that lacks personal introspection.

 

I am a mystic and a Christian minister. In another time my Christian mystic views would have me on the rack or on a burning stake. If I was a Sufi mystic there is a real danger of being killed if I lived in a different land in this present time.

 

Mysticism is a living practice that arises from a spontaneous harmony with That which religions follow.

 

Doing Chod is a whole different practice when the Source of which that practice revolves is felt and honored as a Living Consciousness. Each ceremony brings one closer to the Source of that religion.

 

I once observed a chod ceremony done by a Tibetan monk for a friend. I felt the room change and watched the dieties move and walk among the space. It wasnt only me that saw Ganesh materialize in an enormous form behind the monk.

 

I am an ecstatic mystic. I do not reject religion or ceremony out of hand.

 

s

[Raymond Wolter]

I think the discrepancy here in perception is between those that have experience of kundalini and those that havent.

 

Which category do you belong to?

[Raymond Wolter]

So to respond to your other comment:

 

Mysticism is the heart. Religion is the action that comes from the heart. Some hearts are not enlivened by day to day experience of walking in alignment with that which is the Mystical. The action without the living water that flows from the heart is dead. what is left, imo, is adherence to the legalities and rules of the religion.

 

So, I see in other religions, is ceremony without intimate connection to That which the ceremony honors. I see adherence to law and rule without compassion, without flow and a sense of rigidty and harshness that lacks personal introspection.

 

I am a mystic and a Christian minister. In another time my Christian mystic views would have me on the rack or on a burning stake. If I was a Sufi mystic there is a real danger of being killed if I lived in a different land in this present time.

 

Mysticism is a living practice that arises from a spontaneous harmony with That which religions follow.

 

Doing Chod is a whole different practice when the Source of which that practice revolves is felt and honored as a Living Consciousness. Each ceremony brings one closer to the Source of that religion.

 

I once observed a chod ceremony done by a Tibetan monk for a friend. I felt the room change and watched the dieties move and walk among the space. It wasnt only me that saw Ganesh materialize in an enormous form behind the monk.

 

I am an ecstatic mystic. I do not reject religion or ceremony out of hand.

 

s

 

ShaktiMama,

 

I get it!

 

- You have had mystical experiences

- You have realized Shakti/Allah/Tao and have had experiences that put Matrix/Avatar/Airbender/Inception to shame.

- You have trained with X, y, z and so on

- You live in ecstasy etc.

- You don't care for terminology etc. as you have direct experience but still will use too many words to repeatedly describe your experiences.

- You first criticize religion and cultural lens and then change your stand - and offer circular arguments.

- You're an eclectic self-acclaimed mystic and so that implies you are not bound by rules or convention, be it in simple terms of communicating.

 

I get it, not once but many times from your many many posts all of which speak the same and try to reassert the fact that you've had some experiences and an assumption that others are merely talking without such experiences. You ignore the fact that such experiences and bliss addiction may not be everyone's choice or that some may not want to flaunt their experiences on this forum for they are personal, true just for oneself and do no ultimate good in talking about them as masters of the yore have all frequently warned.

 

My only problem with you is...you just don't listen. You only like to talk. No one is trying to invalidate your experiences here but this being an online forum, try to listen sometimes and not talk always. It helps, considering you are far from being enlightened (quoting yourself here) Santi and I did that, Santi and I did this..it gets boring and repetitive after a while especially for those who don't care much for these blown up experiences of the body and the mind and like to really explore the source of all this hoopla which is simply quiet, there and lacking any fanfare. What are we here? Kindergarten kids?

Edited July 30, 2010 by Raymond Wolter

[Vajrasattva]

So to respond to your other comment:

 

Mysticism is the heart. Religion is the action that comes from the heart. Some hearts are not enlivened by day to day experience of walking in alignment with that which is the Mystical. The action without the living water that flows from the heart is dead. what is left, imo, is adherence to the legalities and rules of the religion.

 

So, I see in other religions, is ceremony without intimate connection to That which the ceremony honors. I see adherence to law and rule without compassion, without flow and a sense of rigidty and harshness that lacks personal introspection.

 

I am a mystic and a Christian minister. In another time my Christian mystic views would have me on the rack or on a burning stake. If I was a Sufi mystic there is a real danger of being killed if I lived in a different land in this present time.

 

Mysticism is a living practice that arises from a spontaneous harmony with That which religions follow.

 

Doing Chod is a whole different practice when the Source of which that practice revolves is felt and honored as a Living Consciousness. Each ceremony brings one closer to the Source of that religion.

 

I once observed a chod ceremony done by a Tibetan monk for a friend. I felt the room change and watched the dieties move and walk among the space. It wasnt only me that saw Ganesh materialize in an enormous form behind the monk.

 

I am an ecstatic mystic. I do not reject religion or ceremony out of hand.

 

s

i remember Glenn telling me about that chod ceremony aswell and how the lama "shape Shifted"

[Vajrasattva]

ShaktiMama,

 

I get it!

 

- You have had mystical experiences

- You have realized Shakti/Allah/Tao and have had experiences that put Matrix/Avatar/Airbender/Inception to shame.

- You have trained with X, y, z and so on

- You live in ecstasy etc.

- You don't care for terminology etc. as you have direct experience but still will use too many words to repeatedly describe your experiences.

- You first criticize religion and cultural lens and then change your stand - and offer circular arguments.

- You're an eclectic self-acclaimed mystic and so that implies you are not bound by rules or convention, be it in simple terms of communicating.

 

I get it, not once but many times from your many many posts all of which speak the same and try to reassert the fact that you've had some experiences and an assumption that others are merely talking without such experiences. You ignore the fact that such experiences and bliss addiction may not be everyone's choice or that some may not want to flaunt their experiences on this forum for they are personal, true just for oneself and do no ultimate good in talking about them as masters of the yore have all frequently warned.

 

My only problem with you is...you just don't listen. You only like to talk. No one is trying to invalidate your experiences here but this being an online forum, try to listen sometimes and not talk always. It helps, considering you are far from being enlightened (quoting yourself here) Santi and I did that, Santi and I did this..it gets boring and repetitive after a while especially for those who don't care much for these blown up experiences of the body and the mind and like to really explore the source of all this hoopla which is simply quiet, there and lacking any fanfare. What are we here? Kindergarten kids?

 

Raymond,

 

 

well what she is really saying is that the Heart and the experiential gifts the heart brings are for everyone regardless of religion. That is exactly what I have said aswell. And yes I would rather be again a kid in kindergarten. Why not?

 

a simple fact is that she is not forcing you to do anything nor to do or not do "hoopla". THere is no gun to your head that says listen to susan.

 

 

The thread is about Shaktipat. a subject i am sure about that she has probably more hours and experience logged in on than you yourself who is posting.

 

I remember a very psychic friend of mine who came to see susan the minute she touched him and gave him shaktipat he said "wow she is so connected to Durga! Durga comes through her" and he began to tear. Susan could flaunt more a status but she is actually a more humble and caring person. She is actually very simple. I think meeting her in person and experiencing with her in person is by far a better way to gauge who or what she is capable of instead of trying to diminish who she is on a forum. Its about Love my friend. that is all that matters in this plane and any plane.

 

Yes she doesn't care to be or not be enlightened. Who wants to be a "term"? I think she rather be close to that which makes someone "enlightened" instead.

 

 

You dont have to listen to her. You dont have to want to know about "Shakti" or Energy or the Source of things. You dont have to accept Susan nor myself nor what we do. You dont have to accept me as someone with experience. And you certainly dont have to be curious about kundalini Shakti or Kap. So why make a big deal? If it doesn't matter to you and you are bored?

 

After all she is posting in a thread called "Shaktipat".

 

not "Enlightenment". etc

 

 

 

Peace

 

Santiago

[Vajrasattva]

I think the discrepancy here in perception is between those that have experience of kundalini and those that havent.

 

 

yes this is for sure.

[三江源]

.

Edited March 23, 2015 by 三江源

[三江源]

.

Edited March 23, 2015 by 三江源