1998/01/06 20:31
kundalini-l-d Digest V98 #11
kundalini-l-d Digest Volume 98 : Issue 11
Today's Topics:
Re: Faith/Religion [ anandajyoti <anandajyotiATnospamgeocities. ]
Re: Faith/Religion [ "Gloria Lee" <samyanaATnospamhotmail.com> ]
Religion?? [ Gene Kieffer <gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com> ]
Re: sadism, masochism...slavery??? [ Tantrika <hummer13ATnospamearthlink.net> ]
Subjective [ Gene Kieffer <gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com> ]
Re: Faith/Religion [ Harsh Luthar <hlutharATnospamkeynes.bryant ]
Re: Subjective [ Harsh Luthar <hlutharATnospamkeynes.bryant ]
RE: Faith/Religion [ TGarland <TGarlandATnospamVIPMail.com> ]
Re: Religion?? [ "Sharon Webb" <shawebbATnospamyhc.edu> ]
Gayatri Mantra [ Solar Lion <gtaATnospamcwnet.com> ]
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 14:03:32 -0800
From: anandajyoti <anandajyotiATnospamgeocities.com>
To: Kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com, heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com
CC: "Harsh K. Luthar" <hlutharATnospambryant.edu>,
Gene Kieffer <gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com>, AthenaATnospamreninet.com,
hlutharATnospamkeynes.bryant.edu, NancyATnospamwtp.net
Subject: Re: Faith/Religion
Message-ID: <34B2AA27.25FA4DB9ATnospamgeocities.com>
Harsh K. Luthar wrote:
> >> Gene Kieffer wrote:
>
> > Dear Wilathi,
> >
> snip....
> ..... let science deal with Kundalini with an open objective mind.
> snip...,> Sincerely,
> > gene
>
> Harsha writes: Dear Gene, you seem to buy into the common notion
> accepted by many people; i.e. if someone says something is "Scientific",
> it means that it is "Objective" and therefore it has more credence.
> Science.
> Gene, I would really like
> you to consider what is meant by "Objectivity" and what is meant by
> "Subjectivity" and what role our definitions of these terms play in how
> we perceive and experience Reality.
>
> Harsha
Anandajyoti>
Subjective experience is dependent on the state of the mind of the person,
although it is concerned with the object perceived.
Objective experience on the other hand signifies, relating the state of the
mind to an object, which is outside the perceiving mind, and is recognized
as having an existence, independent of the perceiving mind.
In our experiences in space -time, there is the perceiving mind (the
subject), that which is being perceived (the object) and the medium of
transference of the information, from one to the other, in this case from
the object to the subject.
The nadis ( I am not alluding to the physical nerves in our physical body),
and the the Kundalini energy itself, are in our subtle bodies. The effects
of the movements of the Kundalini energy in our subtle bodies are reflected
and felt in our physical bodies.
The effects or experiences of the movement of the Kundalini have been
replicated
in the University of Toronto, in Canada.
I also add an excerpt from the report in L.A.Times of October 29, 1997. on
Brain Research.
Robert Lee Hotz, L.A. Times Oct. 29, 1997
No one knows why humanity felt its first religious stirrings, but
researchers at University of California, San Diego, reported Tuesday
that some people's brains may be hard-wired to hear the voice of heaven.
In an experiment with patients suffering from an unusual form of
epilepsy, researchers at the university's brain and perception
laboratory determined that the parts of the brain's temporal lobe may
affect how intensely a person responds to religious beliefs.
People suffering this type of seizure have long reported intense
mystical and religious experiences as part of their attacks, but also
are unusually preoccupied with mystical thoughts between seizures. This
led the team to use these patients as a way of investigating the
relationship between the physical structure of the brain and religious
experiences.
In a carefully designed experiment, the researchers determined that one
effect of the patients' seizures was to strengthen their brains
involuntary response to religious words, leading the scientists to
suggest that a portion of the brain was naturally attuned to ideas about
religion.
"It is not clear why such dedicated neural machinery. . .for religion
may have evolved," the team reported Tuesday at a meeting for the
Society for Neuroscience in New Orleans, One possibility, the
scientists suggested, was to encourage tribe loyalty or reinforce
kinship ties or the stability of a closely knit clan.
The scientists emphasized that their findings in no way suggest that
religion is a matter of brain chemistry. "These studies do not in any
way negate the validity of religious experience or God," the team
cautioned. "They merely provide an explanation in terms of brain
regions that may be involved.
Craig Kinsley, a specialist in psychology and neuroscience at the
University of Richmond in Virginia, called the new study "intriguing"
and said "the implications are fascinating."
"People have been tickling around the edges of consciousness and this
sort of research plunges in," Kinsley said. "There is the quandary of
whether the mind created God or God created the mind. This is going to
shake some people up, but (any conclusion) is very premature."
Vilayanur Ramachandran, the senior scientist involved in the experiment,
said, "We are skating on thin ice. We are only starting to look at
this. The exciting thing is that you can even begin to contemplate
scientific experiments on the neural basis of religion and God."
But apart from what is reported, and what I had mentioned in an earlier post
that, yes Science can objectively study the physical manifestations of the
effects of the Kundalini. Yet, it may fall short, when it comes to
subjective experiences of people, who have different, backgrounds, and even
the contents of each individuals sub conscious minds are different. All our
knowledge as I have stated in earlier posts are filtered through the
experiences which we have already had, and when new information is brought
to it, the human brain searches for prior information
to which to relate to and understands the phenomena from that angle or
perspective.
It sort of action/reaction or stimulus/response phenomena. This I think is
the physical angle.
When we try to fathom the depths of our spiritual experiences, I think, its
totally a different ball game, although our spiritual essence expresses
itself through our mental, emotional and physical aspects.
In my humble view, its the integration of our physical, emotional, mental
and spiritual aspects, which would help one and all to know their inner
SELF, which is beyond all these aspects, yet has all of them in it. Its like
a circle whose center is everywhere and the circumference nowhere.
Kundalini, its effects on our physical body , emotions and the mind are the
different stages we all must go through to know, what we are, our spiritual
essence, and why are we here on this earthly plane. This is what I
experience as inner work, without which, we may all be wasting our human
life, in the long run. But we do have the choice, to do whatever, with
ourselves, which is purely personal.
In conclusion, I could say , yes Science can objectively deal with the
effects of Kundalini, but not Kundalini itself, not yet.
Subjective experiences could be infinite in number, objective experiences
will always remain limited as long as they are in space-time, as categories
of thought, as Immanuel Kant had explained. So, do we need another religion
based on Kundalini to comprehend it, in space -time? I don't think so!
Anandajyoti
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/6782
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 15:03:58 PST
From: "Gloria Lee" <samyanaATnospamhotmail.com>
To: AthenaATnospamreninet.com, gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com
Cc: Kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com, heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com,
hlutharATnospamkeynes.bryant.edu, anandajyotiATnospamgeocities.com, NancyATnospamwtp.net
Subject: Re: Faith/Religion
Message-ID: <19980106230359.3499.qmailATnospamhotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
>Resent-Sender: kundalini-l-requestATnospamlists.execpc.com
>
>WILATHI WROTE:
> >Dear all: I dont understand why we have to prove anything. Are
we not
>>trying to realize ourselves? If we need proof, than we have no faith.
We
>>might as well say we don't belive in ourselves as to require proof for
>>our beliefs. The very foundation of all religions is that they are a
>>faith. Indeed it is a requirement. This is why a perfect master will
>>never use his god realized powers to convert anyone. True god
>>realization has to come from within. It is never coerced. If you
want
>>to realize god, you must surrender and love. If you cannot surrender
and
>>love you are not ready for god.
>
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Dear Wilathi,
>
> Now we have reached the crux of the matter. We K-people, generally
>speaking, want our "K-experiences" to be classified as a religion.
Gloria Lee here saying a huge HUH???..WE
DO???******>Fine.
But I think honesty and integrity demands that we select a
>name for our religion, one that is not generic. A generic name, such
>as Kundalini, cannot be patented, trademarked or copyrighted. So if
>we wish to remain exclusive, above the crowd, it would be best if we
>picked a new name and let science deal with Kundalini with an open,
>objective mind. If we truly want to be fair-minded about this, then
>we must not exclude the "unawakened" from gathering the knowledge of
>Kundalini. Kundalini should be accessible to ALL. So, who's got a
>good name for our NEW RELIGION?
>
>Sincerely,
>gene
>G. Lee here:
>HA HA!!!! gene has taken seriously my suggestion to have fun..this is
surely a jest???
______________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 18:03:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Gene Kieffer <gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com>
To: rtrATnospammicron.net
Cc: heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com, kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com,
hlutharATnospamkeynes.bryant.edu
Subject: Religion??
Message-Id: <199801062303.SAA21235ATnospamdavinci.netaxis.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Viki,
It never ceases to amaze me, but I can see that some K-people have
tuned in late and have therefore missed seeing the thread of the
discussion as it has progressed over the past ten days. Since I
cannot respond to every comment, or recapitulte what was said last
week, or yesterday, by this person or that person,or repeat what I
said then, anyone who has tuned in late might think my remark
about "starting a new religion" was meant to be taken seriously.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Believe me, I was just
trying to make a point to those who are so terribly convinced that
nobody--absolutely nobody--could ever understand Kundalini in any
way whatsoever unless he or she experienced Kundalini like they have.
These people, and they are greatly in the minority, I believe,
think that science could never study Kundalini, never! The only
people who can study Kundalini are those who have "experienced
Kundalini."
So in the interests of setting the record straight, let me say for
the record, that making a religion out of Kundalini was not what I
meant by that particular exchange of ideas. The whole universe is
a religion of Kundalini, as all of us know. Religion is Kundalini.
What I would like to understand is this: One of the hottest
disciplines in science just now and in the near future is that of
Consciousness Research. There are Consciousness Research Institutes
all over the country. We think nothing of it. We just take
"Consciousness Research" for granted.
But, and this is my point, many of us K-people think that science
has no business in researching Kundalini. Some say to even contemplate
such a possibility is fantasy.
Now, we accept "Consciousness Research" as something perfectly
valid, just the right thing for science to get into these days. But
really, how can science research consciousness without getting into
Kundalini?
Science can research dreams, hypnosis, genius, mental illnesses,the
retarded, the gifted, etc., and scientists can lump all these studies
under the name of "Consciousness Research," but K-people must know
that the only way to study consciousness itself is through Kundalini.
Kundalini covers all aspects of Consciousness. Kundalini IS
Consciousness.
Of course, we all agree that the only way to study Kundalini, i.e.,
Consciousness, is by awakening Kundalini in ourself. But scientists
are human beings, too, and they can awaken Kundalini just as well as
we can. So it may be that only the awakened Kundalini person who is
also a scientist can do the research. But we never said anything
different than this, and we've been saying it for 29 years.
To return to a new religion. I think it will soon become obvious that
there would be no religions if it were not for Kundalini. The founders
of all great religions, Buddha, Christ, Moses, Mohammed, Guru Nanak,
and on and on, were all the products of Kundalini.
What makes me very sad about these discussions on Kundalini is that
we have a dozen books, dozens of pamphlets, dozens of magazine/newspaper
articles, all on the subject of Kundalini. We want to send a sampling of
these articls and pamphlets FREE to anyone who asks for them. They
need only leave their mailing address on email >gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com< to
receive these articles FREE. We have no other interest in Kundalini than
to help Her become universally know. We thinkk She would like to be
universally known.
Now this brings up another question: How can one know whether his/her
Kundalini is genuine or a delusion? We all know what hypnosis can do, and
we all know that a lot of people these days are self-deluded about a lot
of things. Is there any objective way to know who's deluded when it comes
to our favorite subject?
ALl best wishes,
gene
With all best
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 15:18:47 -0800
From: Tantrika <hummer13ATnospamearthlink.net>
To: iri <iriATnospamivyrealty.com>, kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: Re: sadism, masochism...slavery???
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980106151836.007ed700ATnospamearthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
There are numerous websites re BDSM if a person has questions. For some
people this is a legitimate expression of their sexuality, I know some
people in that community and they seem to be happier when they are into it.
it's not my thing, but if it is between consenting adults whatever goes on
in their bedroom is up to them. I'm not sure what if anything it has to do
with this list though.
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 18:24:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Gene Kieffer <gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com>
To: hlutharATnospamkeynes.bryant.edu
Cc: AthenaATnospamreninet.com, Kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com, heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com,
hlutharATnospamkeynes.bryant.edu, anandajyotiATnospamgeocities.com, NancyATnospamwtp.net
Subject: Subjective
Message-Id: <199801062324.SAA22038ATnospamdavinci.netaxis.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Harsha,
Regarding what is subjective and what is objective, I think you would
get a lot out of Anandajyoti's latest discourse on the subject, which I
believe he emailed to you, also.
The first book I ever published was "The Biological Basis of
Religion and Genius." That was in 1970. After we published the book,
Ruth Nanda Anshen, who had her own imprint through Harper & Row, in
New York, bought the book and published it through H. & R. with an
18,000 word introduction by Prof. C. F. von Weizsacker.
I wrote all thise before for the K-list, but I know you missed it.
So I will be as brief as possible, hoping that you will read it.
Professor Weizsacker was/is a scientist. In order to be given a
Max Planck Institute of your own, you must have distinguished yourself
in science to a very, very high degree. Professor Weizsacker was a
close friend and colleague of Werner Heisenberg. Professor Weizsacker
visited Gopi Krishna in Kashmir three times, each time for about two
or three weeks.
Professor Weizsacker introduced Gopi Krishna to Heisenberg and they
had a long discussion, after which Heisenberg said that he agreed with
everything Gopi Krishna said.
Both Weizsacker and Heisenberg are considered to be objective
scientists.
As you say, I myself might not know the difference between what is
objective and what is subjective, but I think many of us on the K-list
will agree that Weizacker and Heisenberg know the difference, and I
think Ruth Nanda Anshen knows the difference, too. She bought two of
Gopi Krishna's books to publish under her imprint at Harper & Row.
Dr. Anshen was a protege of Alfred North Whitehead, a personal friend
of Albert Einstein, Pope Pius X, Jonas Salk, and many, many of the
leading scientists and philosophers of this century.
On the hand you say you know all there is to know about Urhdhva-retas,
and on the other you say that there is no objective way to verify the
existence of Kundalini. How can you have it both ways? How, on the
one hand, can you know about Urdhava-retas, and on the other hand say
that science can never verify Kundalini?
All best wishes,
gene
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 17:28:16 -0800
From: Harsh Luthar <hlutharATnospamkeynes.bryant.edu>
To: anandajyoti <anandajyotiATnospamgeocities.com>
Cc: Kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com, heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com,
"Harsh K. Luthar" <hlutharATnospambryant.edu>,
Gene Kieffer <gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com>, AthenaATnospamreninet.com, NancyATnospamwtp.net
Subject: Re: Faith/Religion
Message-Id: <34B2DA30.6A4FATnospamkeynes.bryant.edu>
Dear Anandajyoti,
Thank you for taking the time for your detailed and eloquent response.
It was quite magnificient and informative. You are both a Philosopher
and have an appreciation of Science. The only thing I would say is that
there is no clear line of demarcation between what is objectively
perceived and what is subjectively perceived. In all cases, the mind
remains the instrument of perception.
Perhaps the things you say will be helpful to Gene. Best wishes.
Harsha
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 19:30:45 -0800
From: Harsh Luthar <hlutharATnospamkeynes.bryant.edu>
To: Gene Kieffer <gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com>
Cc: AthenaATnospamreninet.com, Kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com, heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com,
anandajyotiATnospamgeocities.com, NancyATnospamwtp.net
Subject: Re: Subjective
Message-Id: <34B2F6E5.75C3ATnospamkeynes.bryant.edu>
Dear Gene, I did get Anandajyoti's note and wrote a response. All the
various names of scientists and people you mention in your note is very
impressive. But my point of reference is different as you may have noted
from my original note. I do not stand against Consciousness research or
Kundalini research. I only think that the best way to do the research is
through engaging in spiritual practices, by awakening the Kundalini and
by taking her to the final destination.
You again bring up your favorite subject of Urdhva-retas. Last time you
confidently proclaimed that Urdhva-retas is different than mere
transmutation of sexual energy. I replied to you and said that it just
is not so. You seem to be fascinated by this Sanskrit term. I have
explained very clearly that transmutation of sexual energy to the upper
brain region is critical for being able to maintain the Kundalini Shakti
at the Crown Center for long periods and remain in Samadhi. I speak from
my own experience, pure and simple.
Our orientation and points of reference are completely different Gene. I
have spent my whole life actually living and breathing Yoga. I believe
in the practical experience. I live the experience. Everyone should
pursue the truth as they see fit and I say this with great love because
I know the Truth in my own Heart.
Best wishes
Harsha
Gene Kieffer wrote:
>
> Dear Harsha,
>
> Regarding what is subjective and what is objective, I think you would
> get a lot out of Anandajyoti's latest discourse on the subject, which I
> believe he emailed to you, also.
>
> The first book I ever published was "The Biological Basis of
> Religion and Genius." That was in 1970. After we published the book,
> Ruth Nanda Anshen, who had her own imprint through Harper & Row, in
> New York, bought the book and published it through H. & R. with an
> 18,000 word introduction by Prof. C. F. von Weizsacker.
>
> I wrote all thise before for the K-list, but I know you missed it.
> So I will be as brief as possible, hoping that you will read it.
> Professor Weizsacker was/is a scientist. In order to be given a
> Max Planck Institute of your own, you must have distinguished yourself
> in science to a very, very high degree. Professor Weizsacker was a
> close friend and colleague of Werner Heisenberg. Professor Weizsacker
> visited Gopi Krishna in Kashmir three times, each time for about two
> or three weeks.
>
> Professor Weizsacker introduced Gopi Krishna to Heisenberg and they
> had a long discussion, after which Heisenberg said that he agreed with
> everything Gopi Krishna said.
>
> Both Weizsacker and Heisenberg are considered to be objective
> scientists.
>
> As you say, I myself might not know the difference between what is
> objective and what is subjective, but I think many of us on the K-list
> will agree that Weizacker and Heisenberg know the difference, and I
> think Ruth Nanda Anshen knows the difference, too. She bought two of
> Gopi Krishna's books to publish under her imprint at Harper & Row.
> Dr. Anshen was a protege of Alfred North Whitehead, a personal friend
> of Albert Einstein, Pope Pius X, Jonas Salk, and many, many of the
> leading scientists and philosophers of this century.
>
> On the hand you say you know all there is to know about Urhdhva-retas,
> and on the other you say that there is no objective way to verify the
> existence of Kundalini. How can you have it both ways? How, on the
> one hand, can you know about Urdhava-retas, and on the other hand say
> that science can never verify Kundalini?
>
> All best wishes,
> gene
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 19:56:13 -0500
From: TGarland <TGarlandATnospamVIPMail.com>
To: "'Gene Kieffer'" <gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com>
Cc: "Kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com" <Kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com>,
"heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com" <heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com>,
"hlutharATnospamkeynes.bryant.edu" <hlutharATnospamkeynes.bryant.edu>,
"anandajyotiATnospamgeocities.com" <anandajyotiATnospamgeocities.com>,
"NancyATnospamwtp.net" <NancyATnospamwtp.net>
Subject: RE: Faith/Religion
Message-ID: <01BD1ADD.6ABB5B40ATnospamroc1758lap>
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Kieffer [SMTP:gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 1998 9:51 AM
To: AthenaATnospamreninet.com
Cc: Kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com; heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com; hlutharATnospamkeynes.bryant.edu; anandajyotiATnospamgeocities.com; NancyATnospamwtp.net
Subject: Faith/Religion
Now we have reached the crux of the matter. We K-people, generally
speaking, want our "K-experiences" to be classified as a religion.
Fine.
[TGarland]
Are you crazy???? I DO NOT WANT A RELIGION. The mere suggestion sends chills up my spine, and trust me, it's not a Kundalini symptom.
Teresa
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 20:29:16 -0500
From: "Sharon Webb" <shawebbATnospamyhc.edu>
To: <kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com>
Subject: Re: Religion??
Message-ID: <001901bd1b0b$abe8e8c0$39d01fa8ATnospamsharonwe>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Gene,
As I see it, the problem of asking science to study kundalini with the
limited tools of science is very similar to the problem the
parapsychologists ran into. Parapsychology, because it was considered
outrageous and therefore not a true science, was subjected to far more rigid
and unreasonable controls that its sister psychology.
As everyone with two brain cells to rub together must understand,
parapsychology is a vast field. Yet the tools its researchers are forced to
use are so rigidly quantitative and therefore so limited (to such things as
decks of cards, dice machines and the like) that researchers are not allowed
to study more than about 5% of their professed specialty. Further, even
with these controls and with meticulous work, parapsychologists constantly
have to contend with ridicule, self-styled debunkers (The Great Randi comes
to mind) and lack of funding.
The result of all this? Not much. Not much at all. And should this be a
surprise? What if doctors were ridiculed if they tried to learn about more
than 5% of all diseases? What if astrophysicists were laughed at if they
attempted to learn about more than 5% of the universe?
Could we expect more from a scientific study of kundalini? I don't think
so. It would be subject to the same bias that parapsychology labors under.
Researchers would find themselves having to quantify instead of learn.
Instead of meaningful dissertations, I'm afraid we would be seeing learned
papers about the average width of itchy stripes up the back of "sufferers,"
and yet more learned papers about the surface temperature of these itchy
stripes.
Do we need this? Does this benefit the world? Not the world I live in. In
my opinion, science needs to take a quantum leap in its own understanding
before it can meaningfully study kundalini.
Sharon
shawebbATnospamyhc.edu
A new fractal gallery was posted to this site on Jan. 1, '98:
http://www.fractalus.com/sharon/
USA Today Hot Site; Cosmic Site of the Night: Cool Central Site of the Day;
ENC Digital Dozen for June '97; Enchantment Award; ArtSearch Featured Site;
NetTech NeatTech: Best of the Web in Educational Technology; Eye Candy
Honorable Mention
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Kieffer <gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com>
To: rtrATnospammicron.net <rtrATnospammicron.net>
Cc: heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com <heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com>;
kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com <kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com>; hlutharATnospamkeynes.bryant.edu
<hlutharATnospamkeynes.bryant.edu>
Date: Tuesday, January 06, 1998 6:24 PM
Subject: Religion??
>
>
> Dear Viki,
>
> It never ceases to amaze me, but I can see that some K-people have
>tuned in late and have therefore missed seeing the thread of the
>discussion as it has progressed over the past ten days. Since I
>cannot respond to every comment, or recapitulte what was said last
>week, or yesterday, by this person or that person,or repeat what I
>said then, anyone who has tuned in late might think my remark
>about "starting a new religion" was meant to be taken seriously.
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth. Believe me, I was just
>trying to make a point to those who are so terribly convinced that
>nobody--absolutely nobody--could ever understand Kundalini in any
>way whatsoever unless he or she experienced Kundalini like they have.
>
> These people, and they are greatly in the minority, I believe,
>think that science could never study Kundalini, never! The only
>people who can study Kundalini are those who have "experienced
>Kundalini."
>
> So in the interests of setting the record straight, let me say for
>the record, that making a religion out of Kundalini was not what I
>meant by that particular exchange of ideas. The whole universe is
>a religion of Kundalini, as all of us know. Religion is Kundalini.
>
> What I would like to understand is this: One of the hottest
>disciplines in science just now and in the near future is that of
>Consciousness Research. There are Consciousness Research Institutes
>all over the country. We think nothing of it. We just take
>"Consciousness Research" for granted.
>
> But, and this is my point, many of us K-people think that science
>has no business in researching Kundalini. Some say to even contemplate
>such a possibility is fantasy.
>
> Now, we accept "Consciousness Research" as something perfectly
>valid, just the right thing for science to get into these days. But
>really, how can science research consciousness without getting into
>Kundalini?
>
> Science can research dreams, hypnosis, genius, mental illnesses,the
>retarded, the gifted, etc., and scientists can lump all these studies
>under the name of "Consciousness Research," but K-people must know
>that the only way to study consciousness itself is through Kundalini.
>Kundalini covers all aspects of Consciousness. Kundalini IS
>Consciousness.
>
> Of course, we all agree that the only way to study Kundalini, i.e.,
>Consciousness, is by awakening Kundalini in ourself. But scientists
>are human beings, too, and they can awaken Kundalini just as well as
>we can. So it may be that only the awakened Kundalini person who is
>also a scientist can do the research. But we never said anything
>different than this, and we've been saying it for 29 years.
>
> To return to a new religion. I think it will soon become obvious that
>there would be no religions if it were not for Kundalini. The founders
>of all great religions, Buddha, Christ, Moses, Mohammed, Guru Nanak,
>and on and on, were all the products of Kundalini.
>
> What makes me very sad about these discussions on Kundalini is that
>we have a dozen books, dozens of pamphlets, dozens of magazine/newspaper
>articles, all on the subject of Kundalini. We want to send a sampling of
>these articls and pamphlets FREE to anyone who asks for them. They
>need only leave their mailing address on email >gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com< to
>receive these articles FREE. We have no other interest in Kundalini than
>to help Her become universally know. We thinkk She would like to be
>universally known.
>
> Now this brings up another question: How can one know whether his/her
>Kundalini is genuine or a delusion? We all know what hypnosis can do, and
>we all know that a lot of people these days are self-deluded about a lot
>of things. Is there any objective way to know who's deluded when it comes
>to our favorite subject?
>
>ALl best wishes,
>gene
>
>With all best
>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 17:48:27 -0800
From: Solar Lion <gtaATnospamcwnet.com>
To: <kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com>
Subject: Gayatri Mantra
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980106174825.008516b0ATnospammailhost.cwnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
greetings all
just a posting for all
a mantra of rare beauty
the gayatri
for those that may have not
been exposed to it yet
Aum bhur buvah suvaha
Tat savitor varenyam
Bargo devasya dehe mahi
dehiyo yo na prachodayat
which has many meanings within meanings
but the primary being:
We meditate upon the
glorious splendor of
the Vivifier Divine.
May He Himself illumine our minds!
a more detailed account of the mantra
may be found at:
http://home.cwnet.com/gta/gayatri.htm
one result of this is the realization of the vedas
where much of the kundalini information came from originally
may peace be with you and yours
Solar Lion (Bob)
-------------------------------------------------
Gateway to Awareness ATnospam http://home.cwnet.com/gta/
Metaphysics - Guided Meditation - Energy Work
ICQ uin: 2742596
"Ye Old Metaphysical Book Shoppe"
Online source for Metaphysical Books
-------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.