1998/04/17 23:00
kundalini-l-d Digest V98 #303
kundalini-l-d Digest Volume 98 : Issue 303
Today's Topics:
archives [ melintonATnospamalison.sbc.edu ]
AutoPost from Kundalini Resource Cen [ Nancy Poitou <npoitouATnospamearthlink.net ]
Re: list list..... [ valerie cooper <madammumATnospamptialaska. ]
Re: Lost Among the Nadis? Come out a [ "Ed Jason" <lobATnospamlineone.net> ]
A clarification and a request [ Harsha1MTM <Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com> ]
thanks [ Matthew Bastress <mattbATnospamchrysalis.c ]
Re: Snaky stuff [ "Brent Blalock" <blal0004ATnospammaroon.tc ]
Re: Snaky stuff [ "Brent Blalock" <blal0004ATnospammaroon.tc ]
AutoPost from Kundalini Resource Cen [ paul west <paulATnospamstationone.demon.co ]
Re: someone needs our help [ jwaltersATnospamridgecrest.ca.us ]
Re: Snaky stuff [ David Bozzi <david.bozziATnospamsnet.net> ]
Re: someone needs our help [ SuZZie <suevtATnospamearthlink.net> ]
Re: Snakey stuff [ Dan Margolis <margolisATnospamtransbay.net ]
AutoPost from Kundalini Resource Cen [ "Trystan g. Dean" <Briony123ATnospamaol.co ]
A Diversion [ Jerry Katz <umbadaATnospamns.sympatico.ca> ]
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 14:55:39 -0400
From: melintonATnospamalison.sbc.edu
To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: archives
Message-Id: <l03130301b15d549fccdeATnospam[198.28.38.107]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mytress wrote:
> The other reason I can bitch bitch bitch if I feel like it. is we the
>K-list Team web weavers will be getting the Archives from my harddrive to a
>website, to be readily accessable just as soon as we can.
I've only seen a little bit of the archive, but there is some *great* stuff
in there!
Precious metal ...
... anyway, I'm going to start using my alt/spirit name here so when you
see notes signed Signalfire you'll know its me.
--Liz aka Signalfire
--Signalfire
The web site you seek
cannot be located but
endless others exist
---- Joy Rothke from Haiku
Error Message competition at Salon
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 09:17:58 -1000 (HST)
From: Nancy Poitou <npoitouATnospamearthlink.net>
To: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Subject: AutoPost from Kundalini Resource Center
Message-Id: <199804171917.JAA29075ATnospamhaleakala.aloha.net>
Kundalini awakening began for me in 1985, experiences too numerous to
talk about here. From past life memories to clairvoyance to OBEs to Kriyas.
My question is, has anyone else considered a medic alert braclet for Kundalini?
I fear going into Kriyas in public or at times and in places that 911 might
be called and have an emergency room doctor shoot me up thinking it is epilepsy.
I saw a Transpersonal Psychiatrist for awhile and joked that I wanted to get
a medic alert bracelet, that would say on the back, "Active Kundalini, if
seisures are witnessed call DR. XXXXX for directions, phone number" or something
to that effect. But I was not joking really because Kundalini is virtually
unknown to western doctors, and at times I feel the hot energy moving up
my spine I begin to worry about this. I had a major experience with Kriyas
at some friends house and they did not know about Kundalini, while my body
shook from seisures/Kriyas and I was unconscious for about 10 minutes
I was lucky they did not call 911, but the fact that Kundalini seems to have
a life of its own I think about this. What do you think?
I am a member of the Spritual Emergence Network, an intern psychotherapist
and run a Spiritual Emergence Support Group, and specialize in Existential,
Religious and Spiritual Problems. I have written an article on the Spiritual
Emergence Process that is being published by the Exceptional Human Experience
Network and two accounts of profound experiences I had associated with Kundalini.
Thank You for your replies, Nancy Poitou
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 12:23:57 +0000
From: valerie cooper <madammumATnospamptialaska.net>
To: GEMINI <drf140ATnospamemail.psu.edu>
CC: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: Re: list list.....
Message-ID: <353749D3.5A3FATnospamptialaska.net>
GEMINI wrote:
>
> ho hum
- OM -
dude (or dudette)!
try to get it right!
;-)
vc
ps (it really really matters!)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 21:41:49 -0700
From: "Ed Jason" <lobATnospamlineone.net>
To: <kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com>, "Ann Morrison Fisher" <annfisherATnospamstic.net>
Subject: Re: Lost Among the Nadis? Come out and Play!
Message-Id: <199804172130.WAA12002ATnospamboober.lineone.net>
> But no one should seek it sincerely from a teacher, because they're either
> hiding or they're not real teachers?
You seem to have got the idea from me that all the best teachers hide. I was trying to convey the idea that wisdom is often so bright it becomes veiled. People keep asking about God as if there was no evidence - I don't know where they have been looking.
> >That's right and that is why in Sufism it is said 'Die before you die'.
>
> After THAT death you go on changing and growing. When you stop changing,
> you're just dead. Rotting, mouldering in the grave, wormy DEAD.
Well as one of the qualities of God is to be unchanging - I guess God is dead.
> >The only people who ever taught me wisdom (as opposed to information which
> >is available in books) never tried - they exemplified. They were wise.
> >They embodied.
>
> The teaching method of the Buddha - being. But not hiding. :)
Perhaps you feel all teachers teach in ways you understand or know. This is not the case. You do not know real virtue and goodness and if you do then it no longer is hidden from you.
You know there are some people who with no compassion, torture children by sticking large needles in them often making them cry in pain.
They are doctors involved in an inoculation program. If you did not know that or understand it - its meaning would be hidden.
> >Buddha, Jesus etc could not transmit anything but the most superficial
> >truths through words. That their words are often considered sublime
> >demonstrates our lack. >
>
> Gautama embodied the energy of wisdom, was wisdom. Jesus embodied the
> energy of love and was love. Their words are highly valued because of who
> they were.
Personally I value words above references. Any words said should be on the basis of the words worth.
> >> So Mohammed and Gautama were products of the times they lived in? What a
> >> shame they weren't enlightened 20th-century lobsters!
> >
> >Ask yourself this: 'What perfection in them am I so protective of?'
>
> "Perfection" again! I wonder if you are obsessed with perfection and/or
> the lack of it.
Yes I am.
> Why does the lack of perfection (as you define it) bother you enough to
> provoke such an attack? Apparently you think they SHOULD have been
> perfect! Too bad - you won't find that finished, never-changing perfection
> in a living, breathing human being.
Attack? If I say I am a fool - that is true. Compared to the Higher, Jesus and Buddha were fools - they would have no problem with a statement of their limitations. How can anything be perfect? Only a non-thing like God is Perfect.
> >As for the path . . . develop real qualities, go within. Be kind. Start to
> >find the answers you have. In other words digest what you know.
>
> Well, that certainly is not the path of a Gautama or a Jesus. You could
> sit around thinking about what you already know for the rest of your life
> without discovering anything new. Or embodying anything.
If you say so. Jesus said he brought nothing new. Some have thought of Buddha as someone invigorating existing truths in Vedanta. I consider people innately wise, pretending to be confused . . .
> >Not Mohammed or Gautama
> >or a 20th-century Lobster
>
> Oh, what are you? An 18th-century Lobster?
You can not play a Game you do not understand. I am whatever you think I am. However for myself I am none of those things.
> >just some words you react to . . .
> >
> >Ed
>
> No, Ed, you're the guy generating the words, and you're a puzzlement!
> Sometimes you're so compassionate, sometimes you're so funny I love to read
> your words, and sometimes you seem to want to dismantle everyone in sight!
> Dunno why. But I love you anyway.
That's kind and I appreciate your love.
Sometimes building requires leveling first. It is all part of the same thing. You think it different or partial. To me the results are the only consideration. Do I make people stupider? Do I create and sustain negativity? Of course not. You dunno - and I want you to know as soon as possible. Like all of us with our limited understanding - we look, we diagnose and try to provide the requirement. Good? Bad? Nice? Nasty? Not as important as 'is this what is required?'
The Unrequired
Lobster
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 18:36:14 EDT
From: Harsha1MTM <Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com>
To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: A clarification and a request
Message-ID: <4c6c8d1a.3537d960ATnospamaol.com>
Harsha: Dear List members, at times I am unable to respond to personal
messages sent to my hlutharATnospambryant.edu account. You may feel free to send
them to the AOL account (my personal account) on which I am presently on.
However, I suggest the following: If anyone is in pain or suffering, do not
hesitate to discuss the matter with the list. There are many kind hearted and
compassionate people who will pray for you. Sadness and grief are part of
life and unavoidable. One should express it. By being in the right company
and by the practice of contemplation, the impact of heavy emotions is
minimized and eventually passes. Do not judge yourself too harshly.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 98 19:39:05 EDT
From: Matthew Bastress <mattbATnospamchrysalis.com>
To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: thanks
Message-Id: <199804172339.TAA03336ATnospamlevi.chrysalis.com>
I am overwhelmed with happiness from hearing from you all.
Don't know where to begin but at least have got a place to
start.
Matt
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:25:46 -0500
From: "Brent Blalock" <blal0004ATnospammaroon.tc.umn.edu>
To: <lobATnospamlineone.net>
Cc: "Kundalini - L" <kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Snaky stuff
Message-Id: <3537e8835043002ATnospammhub3.tc.umn.edu>
There is something you didn't respond to. I think it's important, so I'll
say it again.
You said that wisdom was, by nature, not able to be transmitted verbally.
Then I said that I wasn't so "clear" about what you meant by that. Then
you said:
> You are clear. You know what shakti is. If not look it up.
Then I said:
> You mean that, "I am" thing? You mean that there's this thing watching
our
> thoughts and actions, that feels everything that we do, and that's what
we
> are, not a body or a personality? If so, are you saying that knowledge
of
> that nature (the nature of consciousness, samadhi, etc.) is the extent of
> wisdom, and that how to handle relationships or insight into the dynamics
> of human behavior or knowing how to handle the situations that come up in
> life are not wisdom? That's hard to swallow.
I didn't catch your response in your letter. What is your response?
[[[ Here's my response to your most recent message: ]]]
From: Ed Jason <lobATnospamlineone.net>
To: Brent Blalock <blal0004ATnospammaroon.tc.umn.edu>
Cc: Kundalini - L <kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Snaky stuff
Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998 11:58 AM
> > Actually, I think I remember some Zen guy answering a question like
that.
> > His reply was, "mu".
>
> No?
So I need to brush up on my Japanese. My point was that any idea, any
thing that exists can have words to refer to it. There are things that, by
nature, can't possibly be accurately described without someone experiencing
them: samadhi, enlightenment, total non-existence, being under the
influence of certain chemicals... But we have words for them. I just used
them. And my words can cause thoughts that will lead you to remember what
those experiences were like. Hence, verbal transmission of wisdom.
[[[ Next point... ]]]
> > Lack of counterexamples does not make a thing so. What you
> > say sounds baseless and false. Are you implying that I should believe
> > you because I don't have another explanation? That wouldn't be wise.
>
> I would prefer you to be wise. Believing me or anything I say is no way
to > wisdom - of course I wouldn't expect you to believe that.
You aren't backing up or supporting what you're saying. See next response.
[[[ Next point... ]]]
First, Ed said:
> Real qualities:
> kindness, generosity, truthfulness, lack of learnt opinions,
> direct perception, etc
Then I said:
> Why do you say that only those qualities are real? What is false about
> anger, sadness, pain, and selfishness? Do they not exist? And if not,
how
> could we talk about them or experience them?
Ed said:
> Anger is fear of accepting Love
> Sadness is the pain of separation from Love
> Pain is lack of Love
> Selfisness is restricting rather than bestowing Love
> Love is the only Reality - but you can live where you choose
> Choose Love
Why do you believe that love is the only reality? If that is the case,
then, by definition, nothing else exists. But if it is not the case that
love is the only reality, then pointing out that sadness is the pain of
separation from love doesn't mean that sadness is false. If it is not the
case that love is the only reality, you haven't backed up anything that
you've said. So your justification for believing that love is the only
reality is a significant point. I await your explanation.
And here's some food for thought: I exist. I am something other than
love. Therefore, it is not the case that love is the only thing that
exists.
Love is attraction of one object to another. A man loves a woman. A boy
loves his pet. A jock loves baseball. A patriot loves his country. A
vain person loves himself. For love to exist, there must be at least one
object.
You want a proof that I exist? "I think, therefore I am." The one thing
that I do know... The one thing that any life form truly can know is that
somewhere, somehow, they do exist.
[[[ Next point... ]]]
To paraphrase:
I used the word "attachment" the way Ed used "cling".
He disagreed with me, thinking I meant something different than what he
said.
I noticed that we used different words to mean the same thing. Hence, we
agreed on that point.
Ed said:
> You mean we agree. :-) Of course we alway did . . .
> I never doubted it.
We agree about one thing. Almost all of what you have been saying is much
different than that which I believe. We disagree.
[[[ And then there's this point. And a big one, too. ]]]
Ed said:
> Yes the 'empty mind' brigade are so busy allowing thoughts to float by,
> perhaps they will never think that there are lobotomy processes that will
> create this condition. Is anyone seriously saying you have a mind -
> don't use it?
Then I said:
> Yes. As I am constantly reminded, people say all kinds of things that
> other people would find "crazy." I think a word choice that explains
their
> view better would be, "You have a mind. It's in the way. There is
> something beneath it worth uncovering. Learn to get it out of the way."
Ed also said:
> You have a mind - use it. You are bonded to the material world - or
> have you never thought of that? Perhaps you can let it just float by...
>
> the unkind, miserly, dishonest, opinionated, unperceptive Lobster
> floating by . . .
> floating by . . .
> floating by . . .
I also said:
> The following story is not true, but for simplicity and the sake of the
> discussion, I will write as though it actually happened. ;)
>
> [Insert muti-page story about LSD and about "floating by".]
(For those of you who have not read the story, I recommend doing so. It
was written on Friday, April 17, at 3:05 AM. I was the author, and the
subject was "Re: Snaky stuff".)
You said that "emptying the mind" and "watching thoughts float by" were bad
things. Then you said that I should use my mind, not get it out of the
way.
Then I said that the mind is as much a part of the illusion that is reality
as any object. Then I said that once you've gotten your mind out of the
way and understand the truth about what you are, you learn about the
infinite peace that letting thoughts float by brings.
Infinite peace is a good thing. Therefore, emptying the mind and letting
thoughts float by are not a bad things. What do you have to say about
that?
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:45:04 -0500
From: "Brent Blalock" <blal0004ATnospammaroon.tc.umn.edu>
To: "Dan Margolis" <margolisATnospamtransbay.net>
Cc: "Kundalini - L" <kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Snaky stuff
Message-Id: <3537e8855043004ATnospammhub3.tc.umn.edu>
You are reasonable and explain yourself, and I am appreciative of that. I
look forward to finding the truth with your assistance.
> From: Dan Margolis <margolisATnospamtransbay.net>
> To: Imtgxxx <ImtgxxxATnospamaol.com>; Kundalini Mailing List
<kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com>
> Subject: Re: Snaky stuff
> Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 12:14 PM
>
> > Why do you say that only those qualities are real? What is false
about
> > anger, sadness, pain, and selfishness? Do they not exist? And if
not, how
> > could we talk about them or experience them?
>
> I missed this original posting but I'll butt in any way...
> Any emotional experience that requires a sense of lesser ego is
inherently not
> real. To be angry one must have an object of anger...'I'm mad at that
guy for
> taking my last cupcake.' One must also have an attachment to something:
that was
> MY cupcake.. One must also have a sense of separation... That man is
different
> from me and therefore cannot have my cupcake... There is no reason to be
> attached to the cupcake...The cupcake was there, now it's gone, why be
angry?
Now my question can be more precisely asked. To become angry requires a
number of false beliefs: that you own the cupcake, that the other person
is separate than you, that you can't be happy without the cupcake, etc.
But how do these false premises make the experience itself unreal? If they
don't then it can only be said that anger, sadness, etc. merely have a
basis in an illusion, not that they are non-existent.
> Genuine emotions require no subject or object or attachment. love and
joy are
> boundless and ever present... They require no object of love or object of
joy...
> I'm joyful...
What about clinical depression? What about boredom? What about paranoia?
These feelings aren't always directed toward a thing.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 15:35:07 -1000 (HST)
From: paul west <paulATnospamstationone.demon.co.uk>
To: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Subject: AutoPost from Kundalini Resource Center
Message-Id: <199804180135.PAA17013ATnospamhaleakala.aloha.net>
just a test message
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 18:33:21 +0000
From: jwaltersATnospamridgecrest.ca.us
To: SuZZie <suevtATnospamearthlink.net>
CC: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: Re: someone needs our help
Message-Id: <199804180138.SAA08416ATnospamridgecrest.ca.us>
SuZZie,
Tell the person to lie on his back, without crossing the legs.
Breath in through the nose with the tongue on the upper palet,
then lower the tongue off the palet and breath out through the mouth
slowly. Keep the mind on the breathing. This should allow him to
sleep.
What he's experiencing is commonly called the microcosmic orbit and
is normal, and one of the first goals of chi-kung.
Is he practicing chi-kung without competent instruction ? He should
be in contact with his instructor about his experiences.
James
> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 13:02:11 -0400
> From: SuZZie <suevtATnospamearthlink.net>
> To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
> Subject: someone needs our help
> This was posted on the Kundalini message board at Delphi that I
> mentioned about a week ago.
>
> > Hello, I started chi kung a short time ago I was looking for a chi
> > kung discussion but can not find one. I thank someone here may be
> > able to help me.
> >
> > I have been doing TIEN TAO CHI KUNG for only a few months, but I
> > have meditated on and off for a few years.
> >
> > I am a martial artist & iron palm stylist. I am having trouble
> > sleeping at night.When I lay down at night I start to feel
> > energy flowing up my back and down the functional channel. This
> > happens no matter what time of day I do the chi kung.
> >
> > Is this normal this early in training?? What do I need to do?
> >
>
> That was posted on 4/11 and nobody has responded. I just thought some
> of you may have some answers/insights that I can pass along.
>
> Peace,
>
> ~~SuZZie~~
>
>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 21:49:09 -0400
From: David Bozzi <david.bozziATnospamsnet.net>
To: Kundalini <kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com>
Subject: Re: Snaky stuff
Message-ID: <35380695.7C4C4288ATnospammail.snet.net>
Brent Blalock wrote:
> > Why do you say that only those qualities are real? What is false about
> > anger, sadness, pain, and selfishness? Do they not exist? And if not,
> how
> > could we talk about them or experience them?
When I was a child a monster lived under my bed.My of experience of it was
terrifying. Shall I talk more about it?
> So your justification for believing that love is the only
> reality is a significant point. I await your explanation.
Many people on this list could explain how Love is All Reality.Suppose one
finds an acceptable explanation, would it matter if
this is not ones' experience?
> And here's some food for thought: I exist. I am something other than
> love. Therefore, it is not the case that love is the only thing that
> exists.
You forgot who you are..
> Love is attraction of one object to another. A man loves a woman. A boy
> loves his pet. A jock loves baseball. A patriot loves his country. A
> vain person loves himself. For love to exist, there must be at least one
> object.
Every object has a boundary.But Love transcends all boundary.
> You want a proof that I exist? "I think, therefore I am." The one thing
> that I do know... The one thing that any life form truly can know is that
> somewhere, somehow, they do exist.
One can know one exists without knowing who one really is.(as in a dream)
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 21:54:54 -0400
From: SuZZie <suevtATnospamearthlink.net>
To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: Re: someone needs our help
Message-ID: <353807EE.5298ATnospamearthlink.net>
> Tell the person to lie on his back, without crossing the legs.
> Breath in through the nose with the tongue on the upper palet,
> then lower the tongue off the palet and breath out through the mouth
> slowly. Keep the mind on the breathing. This should allow him to
> sleep.
>
> What he's experiencing is commonly called the microcosmic orbit and
> is normal, and one of the first goals of chi-kung.
>
> Is he practicing chi-kung without competent instruction ? He should
> be in contact with his instructor about his experiences.
James,
Thanks for thie information. I have passed it along.
~~SuZZie~~
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 19:20:47 -0700
From: Dan Margolis <margolisATnospamtransbay.net>
To: Brent Blalock <blal0004ATnospammaroon.tc.umn.edu>
CC: lobATnospamlineone.net, Kundalini - L <kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com>
Subject: Re: Snakey stuff
Message-ID: <35380DFE.82286EC3ATnospamtransbay.net>
I left the thread at work but I basically remember a comment and a set of
questions. The comment was that my post was informative and reasonable.
Thank you. The reason my posts seem so reasonable is that I'm far less
effective a poster than the lobster is. While I am able to explain the same
concepts the lobster is explaining or is busy not explaining clearly, Ed is
both outlining some frameworks of thought and causing reactions in the
readers. His postings are far more challenging because they cause a person to
question their own values and to try to figure out what he is saying and why
sometimes his postings don't seem reasonable or logical.
Understanding can be broken down into three levels: conceptual understanding,
intuitive understanding and full being understanding. In conceptual
understanding you understand a concept on an intellectual level. For example
in conceptual understanding you would make a statement like 'I understand how
the laws of karma work.' This doesn't mean you believe in the laws of karma or
that you have any experience of the laws of karma but you understand the
concept of karma. In intuitive understanding you get glimpses of things and
emotional feel a part of the concept. You have an experience which you can
relate to the laws of karma and it makes that much clearer sense. You may not
fully believe in the laws of karma but you have both a conceptual grasp of them
and an experiential understanding of them. When you understand something with
your entire being the subject becomes closed. You know it, you've experienced
it and you've become(not quite the right word) it. This is the understanding
that you seek.
So while I can explain conceptually the reasons why anger is not a 'true'
emotion...The Lobster both infuriates people and gives them an opportunity to
intuit what he means about anger. But conceptual knowledge is a good framework
to move to the next stage of understanding so I continue my postings...
The second set of questions were about paranoia, boredom and I forgot the third
realm of experience.
You first asked something about 'anger' and not being real. I don't remember
the exact question but the answer is that while the anger is a 'real'
experience, it is an entirely subjective experience. You're really, really
pissed off...So what.... this anger can't be measured it exists only in the
sense that you feel it.
As for the paranoia and boredom they both have roots in the same non-existence.
Another way of explaining this without using subject/object terminology is to
use a Tibetan Buddhist teaching where they break the realm of false emotions
into three sections... Aversion, Attachment and delusion. Aversion is the
feeling I don't like this thing. For example, many people are averse to
mosquitos. 'I just can't stand mosquitos.' There is no real reason to be
averse to mosquitos they exist and are functioning exactly how their existence
requires them to. In fact, they've got a far harder life than almost any
critter I can imagine. Imagine having to fly to a mountain about 10000 times
your size that is constantly moving at the same time you're dodging hands the
size of houses swatting at you all so that you can sit there and plunge a part
of your body into the mountain and then suck liquid out...The entire time your
sucking liquid out of this mountain at any moment from almost any direction an
object the size of a football stadium could come crashing down on you... but I
digress Aversion is simply an unfounded disliking of something...If you
understand clearly there is very little you're averse to.
Attachment is wanting something to be a certain way no matter how it actually
is or how it is constantly changing. Many people mistake attachment for love.
The simplest explanation of the difference I've been given is love is rushing
to a partner ecstatic because of how they are...Attachment is asking your
partner "Why didn't you call if you were going to be late?" It's hard to
explain but easy to feel and know the difference.
Delusion is incorrect understanding and is the root of both attachment and
aversion.
So paranoia is partially all three. Delusion that things are out to get
you...Attachment to a sense of safety that requires extreme measures...and
aversion to these beings that are chasing you.
Boredom is aversiona and delusion...You think I should be doing something
better(Delusion) or I'm averse to doing what I'm doing now. The more you
practice meditaiton and other spiritual pursuits the less bored you become with
everything.
I'll let you figure out the third feeling you gave to me.
Dan M.
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:07:25 -1000 (HST)
From: "Trystan g. Dean" <Briony123ATnospamaol.com>
To: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Subject: AutoPost from Kundalini Resource Center
Message-Id: <199804180307.RAA29512ATnospamhaleakala.aloha.net>
Hi! I can't tell you what a joy it was to discover this
website!!!
I was initiated "Shaktipat" style by a Kundalini Master
named Dr. Jamie Robinson nearly ten years ago...but I had
already experienced an awakening during a near-death experience
overseas in 1988, when I was raped by some Indian soldiers
while on a religious mission to Amparai in Sri Lanka.
In 1988 I was serving as a monk with Nipponzan Myohoji, a
Japanese Buddhist Order.
I experienced several psychotic-like episodes, periods of
sleeplessness, cosmic consciousness, esp, telepathy, precog,
periods of bliss, times of paranoia...
As I age, I am transitioning into longer periods of awaken-
ing, with fewer negatives and many many positives...
I find myself devoting more and more time serving others,
and I find myself thinking about the nature of "unconditional
love" a lot...old wounds and hurts are healing, and
within my families miracles of rebuilt relationsips are
happening...
I am grateful to be alive and on this path...I pray to become
more gracefully accepting of this energy and more able
to use the gifts that accompany it to help others...
Blessed Be,
Trystan
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 00:30:38 -0700
From: Jerry Katz <umbadaATnospamns.sympatico.ca>
To: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
CC: au141ATnospamchebucto.ns.ca
Subject: A Diversion
Message-ID: <3538569E.2718ATnospamns.sympatico.ca>
For a nice relaxing Internet rest stop, just real nice in its
simplicity, visit http://204.71.176.71/members3/au141/moe.htm
There's even a kundalini connection!
For another diversion and tremendous links to astronomical sites and fun
surprises visit http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~au141/Profile.html
They're my friends.
Thank you for your attention, hope you enjoy it.
Jerry
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.