1998/01/19 18:23
kundalini-l-d Digest V98 #65
kundalini-l-d Digest Volume 98 : Issue 65
Today's Topics: Re: Channeling [ Gene Kieffer ]
Channeling [ "Sharon Webb" ] Dangers of Pranayama-Kundalini Awake [ Harsha1MTM ]
Science and K (was: running in circl [ Kurt Keutzer ] Re: HRTZEN: Re: The Politics of Medi [ Gloria Greco ]
Re: So long for a little while... [ Ann Morrison Fisher To: "Sharon Webb"
Cc: Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com, TGarlandATnospamVIPMail.com, heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com, kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Subject: Re: Channeling Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 04:36 PM 1/19/98 -0500, you wrote: >Gene,
> >You beg the question. This is your bias showing---and scientific
>investigators are supposed to hide their bias from public view. I say >"hide" because nobody is without bias, regardless of what they say or think.
>Splitting hairs and calling it "inspiration" does not alter the fact that >Gopi Krishna became a channel for his poetry.
Oh, I didn't know. So, okay, let's say he was a channel for his
poetry. Then tell me, what do you call those happy channelers who are in touch with various star clusters, space travelers, "God," and
"Jesus," as in the case of the authors of "A Course in Miracles" and "Conversations With God?"
If what you say is correct, then Picasso, Einstein, Normal Mailer,
and all highly talented, creative scientists, writers, artists, etc., are simply channeling. I am more than willing nto accept that term,
instead of the word "inspiration," if you say so. But then you should also offer a term to describe what others do when they are in a state
of self-hypnosis, because they definitely are not the same.
> >The source of this poetry, of course, remains in question, but whether these
>works came from God, the collective unconscious, higher self, the Akashic >Records, or what have you, the fact remains that it was channeled, meaning
>that it came from a source outside his normal waking consciousness, >regardless of what name you wish to put on it. It could not be otherwise,
>Gene. His brain did not contain the language information to allow him to do >this "on his own." I think as a logical person you would have to agree
>unless you are going to tell me that God and/or kundalini magically encoded >foreign vocabulary and syntax into his brain cells.
> >You seem to have an awful lot of trouble with the word "channeling" and you
>seem to want to totally dissociate Gopi Krishna from this concept. Perhaps >your disenchantment with channeling came from your early efforts. :-)
>There are many many forms of channeling, Gene. And some people are clear >channels, while others are not. It is a matter of detachment which,
>needless to say, is why so many channels are not clear. Gopi Krishna became >a clear channel.
Yes, that is correct. I would like very much to dissociate Gopi Krishna
and his work from what is popularly called channeling. There are thousands of books on the market that openly state that they are channeled. This is
fine. I am not against channeling. But I am definitely against the notion that Picasso, Einstein, Normal Mailer, etc., are in the same category as
Neale Walsch, etc.
When Einstein is in a highly creative mood, he is concentrating intensely. His mind is not passive. He is working on a problem, trying to find a
solution. Yes, of course, at some point, the information begins to come to him. This is entirely different than channeling,as the term is
accepted by publishers, editors, etc. If you take a book to a New Age publisher and say that it is channeled, he/she will be delighted. The
New Age editors know that channeled books are potential best-sellers. They know what happened to "A Course In Miracles," and "Conversations With
God," etc. Just try it. You will find that publishers love channeled books. They sell like hot cakes.
>
>And yes...the best fiction is heavily channeled. I did that myself when I >published seven books and forty short stories. But this is not the type of
>"inspired" writing that I am talking about here. The fiction writer, by >necessity, superimposes himself between the channeled information and the
>book. This is part of the process because the writer of fiction is not only >the writer, but also the director, the producer, the star, and the bit
>player in his own drama. The clear channel stands aside and lets the >material flow through him unimpeded.
As I said earlier, when one is writing fiction, or poetry of a certain
type, then of course, channeling is great, just terrific. I have nothing whatsoever against it. In fact, it is something devoutely to be wished.
What I am against are the kind of "channeled" books mentioned above. There
are a great many of them. But fiction, yes, indeed, the more channeling the better.
>
>When it comes to channeling---or anything else---remember Sturgeon's Law: >90% of everything is crap. In the case of channeling, the 90% includes the
>dogmatic, the narrow-minded, the intellectually rigid, the intellectually >impoverished, the intellectually-addicted control freak, the deluded, the
>cynical huckster, the psychopath, the psychotic, the religious fanatic, the >self-impoverished and disempowered who project their limitations and receive
>them back as gospel, the "lite and luv" dribblers, and those who for myriad >reasons are reluctant or unable to get out of their own way and so let their
>personal bias color what it is they receive.
What you say here I can agree with wholeheartedly. >
>I would strongly suggest you read "Seth Speaks" or any of the other Seth >books by Jane Roberts for a taste of the best metaphysical writing for the
>(temporarily) left-brained skeptic, or for anyone else for that matter. >These are the most outstanding books I have found in a lifetime of reading.
>As a (former) left-brained skeptic--- and it takes one to know one---I think >they would appeal to you.
> I've read "Seth Speaks" and have met Jane Roberts, I think, but it was
so long ago. At that time, I wasn't ready for metaphysics. I'm still not ready for metaphysics. But heck, I know very well that millions of
people love metaphysical writings. Fine. No problem.
>I am curious as to why you answered this personally instead of on the k
>list. Was it because you didn't want to see my response there? >
>And, BTW, thank you for the reading material. :-) >
>Sharon >shawebbATnospamyhc.edu
Dear Sharon,
Put it all on the K-net. I love it. Sometimes when the responses
are so lengthy, I don't bother to hit the "reply" button. But yes, of course, the more readers the merrier. What I've said from the beginning,
is this: Let's do our best to make the knowledge of Kundalini as widely known as possible. If channeling serves the interests of Kundalini, then
I'm all for it.
>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; Studyweb Featured Site; Lotus Light Award
> >-----Original Message-----
>From: Gene Kieffer >To: shawebbATnospamyhc.edu
>Date: Monday, January 19, 1998 9:42 AM >Subject: Channeling
> >
>>Dear Sharon, >>
>> I think channeling is great for writing fiction. I liked to do >>channeling myself, early on.
>> >> Gopi Krishna wrote from inspiration.
>> >>With all best wishes,
>>gene >>
> >
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 18:58:40 -0500 From: "Sharon Webb"
To: Subject: Channeling
Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0081_01BD250C.415EA980"
Gene wrote: >>Oh, I didn't know. So, okay, let's say he was a channel for his
poetry. Then tell me, what do you call those happy channelers who are in touch with various star clusters, space travelers, "God," and
"Jesus," as in the case of the authors of "A Course in Miracles" and "Conversations With God?">>
Let me ask you a question:
What do you call Micky Spillane, 500 authors of romance books, Shakespeare, and a National Enquirer Reporter?
I call them all writers. And one of them was very good at it. :-)
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; Studyweb Featured Site; Lotus Light Award
Attachment Converted: "C:\SLIP\EUDORA\kundal91" Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 18:16:44 EST
From: Harsha1MTM To: gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com, lodpressATnospamintercomm.com
Cc: heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com, kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com Subject: Dangers of Pranayama-Kundalini Awakening
Message-ID:
In a message dated 98-01-19 13:52:17 EST, gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com writes:
< Swami Tirth writes:
"How these [Hathayoga] execises [as perfomed by Kundalini]are connected with the rousing of the Kundalini is a matter for research,
Although various attempts are being made to explain their action on the nervous plexuses, they are generally based on vague speculations.
Unfortunately we have yet no institution worth the name where a batch of ardent and sincere students, with a good knowledge of
anatomy and physiology, with their Kundalini aroused could take up the research work in that direction. Generally anatomists and
physiologists are quite ignorant of and indifferent to this sphere of study." >>
Harsha writes: I agree that this could be useful but also dangerous for those
being studied. Although there are limitations here as well, the effect of Pranayama on the nervous system and Kundalini awakening can be systematically
studied. Advanced Prananyama exercises have a powerful effect on the nervous system and the brain. For a while Swami Rama (Himalyan Institute) was also
interested in similar testing and volunteered himself to the Greens in Menninger Institute . I have first hand experience with advanced Pranayama
exercises involving breath retention. This is a serious danger zone for the novice Hatha yoga practitioner. Kundalini Manifestation and awakening with
Pranayama (initially) is different and much more dangerous than such an awakening in meditation. This can only be known from personal experience.
For more information see my paper at the Kundalini Gateway, European
Site--Frans, could you send the address to the list please. I promise to save it for the future.
Harsha
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:11:20 -0800 From: Kurt Keutzer
To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com, gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com, heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com, Teresa ,
keutzerATnospameecs.berkeley.edu Subject: Science and K (was: running in circles)
Message-ID:
> Teresa says: > Unlike evolution, the conversation on scientific research, scientific method, etc,
> etc, has been going in circles for quite a while. One can only hope that it loses > just enough energy to leave its path, spiral in and come to a halt.
Kurt says: I'm sorry to say I have to agree.
I think that part of the reason for this lies in what I think are come common misunderstandings regarding science and part of
it lies in the lack of any particulars from the ``call for science.''
> Teresa continues: Proving something scientifically is not the powerful cure-all we would like it to > be. Modern science is still an immature field. It has many imperfections, and is
> still busy trying to understand its own foundations. The science community does > not care about studies done by spiritual foundations. For example, the Maharishi
> institute has published a number of interesting papers on meditation that have been > completely ignored. That's not good, it's not bad, it just is. Everything in its
> time.
Kurt says:I found among many members of the list the notion that there was a ``scientific monolith.'' We often heard comments about ``science doesn't ...'' or ``*the* scientific community says''. There is no such animal. There are hundreds of
scientific ``mini-communities''. Acceptance in a mini-community means getting funded and published. Researchers at Maharishi International University get both. Recognizing research doesn't particularly mean getting articles in the NY Times - it
typically means getting your research cited. Keith Wallace's original TM research has got plenty of citations. Has this research had much impact? Depends on where you look.
As a whole science *is*, as you say, an immature field, but that does not mean that it does not have the potential to provide
value. So what can a scientific approach do for kundalini? I think that a scientific approach may help us in making a balanced awakening of kundalini a more repeatable phenomenon. Given that we get a post a day from someone who has an unpleasant effect
due to an unbalanced awakening, that a better understanding of the phenomemon would be valuable. Can science provide a better understanding? well, we'll see.
Teresa continues:
> Before Gene tries to fund studies to prove the incredible things he proposes, I
> suggest he remember that he will be in "Rome" and to get anywhere at all will need > to do as the Romans do. This means picking very small, very simple, well defined
> topics, and coming to very small incremental conclusions. And he should be > prepared to spend years doing the sort of careful research that the scientific
> community accepts as valid. Otherwise he wastes his time and money.
Kurt says: Careful, yes. Incremental - well, that's up to you isn't it? Einstein's research wasn't incremental and he did most of it without any funding. Which brings me to my complaint with Gene and company. Gene has not proposed a scientific model of
kundalin or a single hypothesis to be tested. George Tompkin's approach
http://www.stn.net/icr/kundrsch.html
was found in the Institute of Consciousness Research homepage, not KRF. It seems to me to be a very inefficient approach. As I understand it, it proposes to get lots of kundalini yogis and lots of ``scientists'' together and see if they find
something. In any case we can all read the description and make our own judgements.
Lest this be one more post that is ``more heat than light'' - I would be happy to correspond with anyone who has a scientific model of the kundalini process or a scientific interest in kundalini. For others who are interested in recent scientific
reserach on kundalini - a recent abstract is below.
Kind Regards, KUrt
> JOURNAL. Venkatesh, S; Raju, T R; Shivani, Y; Tompkins, G; Meti, B L. A study of structure of phenomenology of
> consciousness in meditative and non-meditative states. Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, v.41, n.2, > 1997:149-153.
> Pub type: JOURNAL ARTICLE; RESEARCH ARTICLE >
> > Abstract: Twelve senior Kundalini (Chakra) meditators were assessed during meditation session and non-meditation or control
> session using Phenomenology of Consciousness Inventory. Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:26:16 -0800
From: Kurt Keutzer To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com, ritag39ATnospamix.netcom.com, gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com,
heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com Subject: TM and kundalini (was: the politics of ...)
Message-ID:
Rita says:
> Dear Friends, >
> TM's theory is the "Science of > Creative Intelligence", and traces its root back to Sankaracharya's Advait school of Vedantic
> thought, but is tailored for Western ears
Actually the origins of the TM practice is another great discussion topic - but probably not particularly appropriate for this list. If you're interested you might check out: ``Is TM a kind of Siddha Yoga?'' in
http://www.execpc.com/~libra/kund/siddha-mahayoga.html
> . It is true that many TM meditators are not familar > with the terminology of "kundalini". However, everything unfolds in proper sequence, and through
> experience one begins to recognize and validate their experiences.
On the average I would agree that ``everything unfolds in proper sequence'', but I believe that more people have dramatic kundalini awakenings through TM than through any other technique. Perhaps this is simply because a large number of people
practice TM. Check out the number of unbalanced awakenings among TM practitioners in Lee Sannella's book. Perhaps it is also because the technique that TM uses is identical to the technique that many teachers use to awaken kundalini. In either case I
do feel that TM initiators should be given some training in counseling individuals undergoing a kundalini awakening.
Kind Regards, Kurt
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 18:59:30 -0800 From: Ray Morel
To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com Subject: Re: Meditation and prayers
Message-ID:
Thank you everyone who wrote me those kind letters about prayer and helped clarify my views on God. I have not really exacted any theories
of approach yet, but some day soon, I just might pray. To what I have no idea, but i think I have the general idea! You are all great
teachers and I am so thankful I found you. Someday I will be helping others find themselves with you all, I know
it. Until then, I'm a faithful student!
Love, Tammy Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:30:51 +0100
From: Gloria Greco To: anandajyoti
CC: ritag39ATnospamix.netcom.com, gkiefferATnospamnetaxis.com, Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com, TGarlandATnospamVIPMail.com, heartzenATnospamlistserv.servtech.com,
kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com Subject: Re: HRTZEN: Re: The Politics of Meditation and Kundalini Research-A
Message-ID:
anandajyoti wrote: >
> Gloria Greco wrote:
I like to think that there is something out their for everyone, and one person relates to the Conversation With God, or Course in Miracles,
another to TM, or Sai BABA and others to the church or even to simple meditation however it comes to them. It is ok. And some even relate to
me.
There is no right or wrong in this, some folks go a ways with a teaching and then it becomes very serious and they are ready for something
different & they are guided in that direction. I have to say that God has mapped out my course every step of the way since I was born into
this life, so I can only believe that the same grace applies to every soul serious about knowing and finding God within them. Not judging is
not only a sign of consciousness, it is also a sign of understanding the delicate nature of those established frequencies, we must enter the
place most compatible with our frequency, so you can see why God creates many mansions in this regard.
> > > >
> > > On 01/19/98 09:43:58 you wrote: > > > >
> > > >Dear Harsha, > > > >
> > > > Good idea. I remember having two lengthy discussions about TM with > > > >one of the Maharishi's long-time disciples.
> > > >had never heard of Kundalini. >
> Anandajyoti> Would you call it that they are unaware of the happenings in the world. Or they may even > have chosen to do that. Does it bring the aspect of Kundalini down, or anyone's spiritual awareness
> for that matter. I don't think so. >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Anandajyoti>
> > As many perspectives ,as many are paths to the same goal, in the spiritual arena.Christ had also said,
> "There are many mansions in my Father's house" > TM is a valid path, so are so many in the world around. No one is exclusive.
> Exclusive is the individual who wishes chooses one path or many. Each of us have different and unique > aspirations for our spiritual life.
> In my life I have understood and practiced to express myself in the language of my audience, a > language that they can relate to. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has done the same, for the Western world. He
> has rather made it simple for the western mind to understand and apply the Vedantic Practices, without > any archaic language barriers. I would consider that healthy and appropriate.
> I do not know whom Gene Talked to, regarding the TM etc., who maintain their ignorance about > Kundalini. Even if they are ignorant or chose to be so is their prerogative, being unique individual
> themselves. > That in no way invalidate the TM or the path of the Kundalini.
> It only indicates to me the mere shallowness of Gene's argument. > There are people who believe Sai Baba is an Avatar. So be it. Its their choice to believe anything of
> their choice, as long as they do not try to impose their beliefs on others or to destroy the belief of > others.
> Through our discussions we can only present our perspectives, rationally and intelligently, for > consideration and should leave the choice the acceptance and or opposition to the rest.
> All of us on this earth plane are to develop and grow, each according to his/her capacity, and to the > extent our aspirations.
> The ego ramblings only help in creating undue conflicts, as a result of which, our minds may deviate > from the source we all seek to the pebbles and scruples on the way..
> Rita has done well in bringing forward her viewpoint , which is commendable. > So also Gene, has eloquently brought his viewpoints. That is also commendable. But Dear Gene, you are
> missing the whole point through your opinions on Kundalini Research, for over a month now. Don't you > think it is time to let go and let be.? You have asked many times, for volunteers for your project.
> Let it be at that. If those that may be so inclined , give you the opportunity , to further your > quest, so be it. No one is against that.
> > Anandajyoti
--
Enter The Silence to Know God ... and... accept life as the teacher.
Gloria Joy Greco e-mail me at : lodpressATnospamintercomm.com and visit our homepages at:
http://users.intercomm.com/larryn/ &
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/zg888/ Hope you enjoy them!
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 20:08:31 -0800 From: Ray Morel
To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com Subject: meditations
Message-ID:
Hi everyone, it's me again, the one who's not quite sure who she is or what she's doing yet, but she sure is having fun! I don't really know
very much about meditation techniques or anything but I'm making it up as I go along and seem to be doing quite well. I am really hoping to do
it a little more gently than some of you have though because I don't want to get scared. If I do, I have no-one to hold on to and ask advice
from exept everyone in here, and I don't want to wake up out of a nightmare hugging a computer for comfort!!
I am having fun with it though, so far and am making up my own meditations as I go along...is that dangerous? Is anything about
meditating dangerous? I spooked myself though, meditating in front of a mirror in my bedroom,
can't really recall what spooked me, I think i saw a face in my face or something, not sure, anyway I don't like mirrors much anymore!
I find it more comfortable to meditate lying down. In one meditation I am a piece of confitti blowing in the wind. It's kind of like a slow
motion roller coaster ride, feels fun. In another I am looking at a door, and I am trying to go through it but for some reason when I get to
close I start spinning. I haven't made it close enough to the door yet to even look inside? What is this all about? I thought I was supposed
to be able to control my own meditations... And as I have already told some of you I have been working on my brow
chakra and the one in my chest. Just wanted some input, what am I doing right? Wrong? Suggestions
anyone? Hope everyone is doing well, I enjoy reading your letters!
Love Tammy Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:14:24 -0600
From: Ann Morrison Fisher To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Cc: Mike Stickles Subject: Re: So long for a little while...
Message-Id:
Mike!
Congratulations and good luck! We'll miss you.
Ann
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:10:14 -0600 From: Ann Morrison Fisher
To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com Cc: RadiantTch
Subject: Re: physical in alignment with expanded consciousness Message-Id:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Barbara Ellen (RadiantTch ) writes:
>I am having a bit of a time experiencing "being" an expanded >awareness/consciousness (loving observer with no judgement) along WITH tending
>to the business of everyday living of my particular human focus. Part of me >(heck, MOST of me!) wants to "stay" in that awareness space, and not be
>physical at all. I am aware that I am ALSO a physical human being which >requires some focus on the details of life, rather than (or in addition to)
>the big picture, or expansiveness. I am wondering how those on the list >integrate these two ends of the paradox in a workable and comfortable form,
>where both can be experienced at once......?
You are still divided - I hear you talking about the observer and the physical human being. Most people spend more time being the one "out
there" and not the observer "up behind," watching. You're trying to be the observer all the time. Not easy when there really is a split, two of you.
It may help to remember that YOU are the one who is both of these, all of
you. YOU are both the one "out there" and the observer.
The time will come when there won't be two of you any more - just YOU.
Ann
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.