1998/05/21 19:55
kundalini-l-d Digest V98 #392
kundalini-l-d Digest Volume 98 : Issue 392
Today's Topics:
Re: The big one [ amckeonATnospamhsmail.nfld.k12.mn.us ]
RE: solong [ "Jan Barendrecht" <janbarenATnospamcorreo. ]
Re: Aura colors [ Ann Morrison Fisher <annfisherATnospamstic ]
Re: Subconscious pressure [ Paul West <paulATnospamstationone.demon.co ]
Re: Subconscious pressure [ Paul West <paulATnospamstationone.demon.co ]
Re: Pranayama, Kundalini and Science [ Harsha1MTM <Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com> ]
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 18:44:05 -0600
From: amckeonATnospamhsmail.nfld.k12.mn.us
To: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Subject: Re: The big one
Message-Id: <l03130307b18a79038ec7ATnospam[126.0.0.108]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Paul:
>The express train running through and over your body...
This happened to me once I surrendered to kundalini. Up until then, because
I didn't know what was happening, I was fighting it, trying to be "normal."
Eventually I got so tired out I just flopped down on the couch in a room
away from the rest of the family, so they wouldn't be "hit" by anything
(flying debris?) And basically said "Ok, here I am, come and get me." I
heard the "train" and felt the sensation and saw the light as it rolled
over me. I was able to get some rest after that.
There was no leading up to "the big one," at least for me. But then I'm not
dead yet :)
amckeon
(chug-a-chug-a-chug-a-chug-a-choo-choo!)
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 01:54:19 +0100
From: "Jan Barendrecht" <janbarenATnospamcorreo.infase.es>
To: "Sunil R Peswani" <peswaniATnospamgiaspn01.vsnl.net.in>
Cc: <kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com>
Subject: RE: solong
Message-ID: <000501bd851c$279b2760$51f14dc3ATnospamjb>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Sunil R Peswani wrote:
[]
> > I am in search of a list on Buddhism which can help me to either
> break or strengthen this Boddhisattva conviction of mine though even this
> also does not matter.
> Nothing (peswani)
Dear Peswani,
It seems to me you are making progress. Below you will find two lists to
subscribe to and a message-board.
I wish you success,
Jan
To subscribe to BUDDHIST mailing list
send an email to listservATnospamvm1.mcgill.ca.
http://www.peaceomind.com/bbs/buddhism/budpost.htm
http://www.peaceomind.com/bbs/buddhism/messages/8.htm
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 20:38:55 -0500
From: Ann Morrison Fisher <annfisherATnospamstic.net>
To: "Joseph Miller" <joemillerATnospamhotmail.com>
Cc: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: Re: Aura colors
Message-Id: <l03010d00b18a7e9f079eATnospam[207.71.50.110]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>>>Ann:
>>>>Hmm, I don't see smokey purple there. Might be interesting to know
>>>>how many people do.
>>>>
>>>Joe:
>>>It may have to do with the chakra being open and K residing in throat
>>>chakra at that moment.
>>
>>Ann:
>>I'm told the electric blue (vajra) energy is visuddha (throat chakra)
>>level. I sometimes see a friend of mine in electric blue and I'm told
>he
>>has throat center energy. When I was working on that level, a friend
>>connected with me and saw me as all bright blue. And I saw lots of
>>electric blue with my eyes shut, or open in the dark. Since I'm not
>>working on that level, I rarely see the blue at all. And that's all I
>know
>>about it! :))
>
>Joe:
>You are right about blue for Kundalini in Vajra, at least according to
>my sources. If that is the color you're seeing you won't see smokey
>purple from that person without a lot of work or good fortune in the
>form of a Kundalini shift. The reason goes back to some of those posts I
>did a short time ago about Vajra and how it is different than the other
>three nadis in that large "coaxial cable" with Susumna as the outer
>layer.
>
>Kundalini in Vajra doesn't open chakras. If throat isn't opened you
>won't get the smokey purple.
>
>Vajra can cause activity, a lot of activity, around any chakra, through
>it K can interact with other nadis around the chakras, the person can
>experience the sort of symptoms associated with that nadi, but Vajra is
>like the beltway around a major city, you can't get "downtown" on Vajra.
>And getting "downtown" is where you open the chakra. For that K needs to
>be in one of the other three nadis, Susumna, Citrini, or Brahma.
>
Ann:
I seem to remember that a while back you had some discussion with some
other people about this very issue, and there was some disagreement.
All I can tell you is that the highway I've been on goes all the way to
sahasrara and right out the top. At visuddha I saw electric blue; at ajna
I saw violet. Toward the end of that shift I was seeing violet with blue
patches around the edges and I worked on transmuting them to violet. (My
own symbolic method, perhaps, but it worked.) After that came atmic with
bipolar black/white.
As I said before, I'm not at all sure to what extent color perception is
subjective. I expected to see blue, violet, black/white, etc., and I did,
as do other students of the same teacher.
Love,
Ann
Date: 22 May 98 03:16:14 +0000
From: Paul West <paulATnospamstationone.demon.co.uk>
To: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Subject: Re: Subconscious pressure
Message-Id: <3564E0B0.MD-0.196.paulATnospamstationone.demon.co.uk>
Dear Antoine,
> From an empath to an emptah. Ask yourself when your are confident, you are
> confident about what? Maybe you can find some levels of attachement there,
> that, yes, are still necessary on your path but could be replaced, if you
> judge it appropriate for you at the time being. Angelique grounding
> exercice, is a nice visualisation to be confident about, until it's replaced
> by something no one can describe.
This is a good point. Sometimes I think that my reality is inside out
or that I have everything back to front because what seems to be
confidence for other people seems to be lack of it, in my eyes. And
what to them seems to be lack of confidence is confidence to me.
Perhaps what I mean to say then is that when I am /happy/ I am less
sensitive to it. As we know happyness can be just an emotion.
True confidence to me is when you are certain, when you know with an
openness and honesty that something is or will be. It's when you're
faced with the fact of the thing. It when you know where you stand and
when you can do anything with a constructive manner. It is a state of
self-assured individuality, not dependency. It is a psychological
reality, not just an appearance. If I decide that something will be,
it will be.
There are those, however, who in society are praised as being the
confident people. They are outgoing, talk a lot about not much, they
have no ability to be alone, and will turn their back on any sign of
weakness rather than have sympathy or compassion for it. They do not
challenge established ways of living and they live within the images
that are set by others. And even though this is so much confidence
they wouldn't know where to start if you asked them to do something
with patience or for them to have enough certainty about something
that they could see it through until it is finished.
Now I may not necessarily be the most intelligent or outgoing person
in the world but there is nothing I can't do and that to me is
confidence without the reliance upon anything. Those other `confident'
people who have all the social activity, have no seriousness, no
importance in the scheme of things. To me they are empty. They seem
only to be confident when it means there is something for them to rely
on, to depend on, and usually nature has delt them a dependable set
out outgoing genes and dna.
> From my experience as an empath, if it may help you. I have found it
> very difficult to feel all the sorows and pains of the people around
> me for a long while.
It can get disheartening.
> It kept me grounded pretty well... At least i did not know then
> i was feelling others that much. I beleived it was all my stuff and
> it was for me to clean it, that i was responsible for it. Then i
> started meeting people, more and more, with a deep peace in them. In
> their presence i just felt so good. I could learn to open myself in
> the way each one of them did.
I find this true of myself also. It is a matter of trust, and one can
only truly trust those who are /really/ genuine. When one needs to
rely on trust to such a degree like I do, one knows all the signs and
tricks to the contrary. It is not for this person to be easily fooled.
It's quite wierd when it happens, but sometimes a person comes along
who seems to exist. They have enough calmness and patience and
acceptance about them that I can kind of see them more, experience
that there is a real person in front of me. When they are that
special, beautiful kind of person, I have every available ability to
talk openly and at length and hold in-depth conversations and say
precicely how I feel with no feeling of guilt or shyness or repression
or any such thing - just like everyone else seems to do most of the
time, it would seem. And yet, even though I am perfectly fine in the
presence of, perhaps, myself, it is when faced with a person of less
unity that I simply do not have the ability. It just doesn't happen,
can't happen. It's kind of automatic.
It was funny, because I was thinking I wasn't having all that much
success with women till one day this woman came along and she was very
down to earth and calm and relaxed. She was `there' more than other
people, in the sense that she existed more. I could see her more, she
had more presence to my consciousness. I could relate to the /true/
life in her, the stillness that is pure movement. I could see balance
in her and virtue and she was able to listen. I could see the
receptivity in her personality, I could tell that she wasn't putting
up a wall to block me out. And it just happened, I just talked to her,
and it just flowed out of me like I'd never talked before. I didn't
think I was capable of being so liberated with my voice. She was
asking me questions about women and wether I had one or was looking or
whatever. This would normally make me feel really shy if asked by
other people, but with her I could say anything and there was no
suppression. And all because I did not sense suppression in her. She
was not shutting me out.
I find, in contrast, that most other people of the world are dead.
They are not `all there'. True self has only one appearence, it is
unmistakable. If I see any measure of self in another person I view it
as a barrier, and that is what it is. And it halts me in my tracks.
The more self there is in a person the more I am totally repressed by
their being there. Sometimes if it's really a bad person who I can see
immense ego in, and who ignites a feeling of ego within me, I would be
on a real downer even if I know they are in the building.
To put it all into a framework I think I could say that if I were
faced with someone who has a similar degree of acceptance and balance
as I do, and I say that without meaning to boast... If I were faced
with someone as sensitive and who did not block me out, I would be
myself, I would be normal, and normal is marvellous. But there are so
few people in the world that I have ever felt this with. Most people
have no oneness, they are like little isolated identities. It's not
the same as being individual, because individuality means undivided -
no divisions, and I think most people have lots of divisions in them.
In fact I know they have. I don't know if it is a protective
mechanism, maybe it is simply wisdom, maybe it is empathy, but when I
am faced with someone who is not genuine and true I immediately
experience the insensitivity of their attitude. Maybe it's not meant
to be personal, they don't seek me out as such, but if I see it it is
there, in the collective, and as God we are an omnipresent whole.
> Being an empath became a gift no more a burden. Coming to see people
> who where not in peace, after that, brought me to be able to see
> that emotions, and all that stuff, we feel from other just pass.
> There are not mine. Being attached to them, beleiving they where
> mine, i would keep them for days seing someone.
I don't know that I like to call it being empathic. It sounds like a
kind of additional psychic ability. To me it's simply what I see and
what my consciousness experiences. After all reality is not just to do
with eyesight, we don't just see what's in front of us. The mind on
all levels, especially subconsciously, is connected with the minds of
others and it is on those levels that psychological activity takes
place. There are a lot of different people with a lot of different
personalities, and those personalities are so diverse. But I have read
many times from wise people that personality/character is an illusion,
an ego-thing, and I know that true self has no self-image, no
emotional preferences and no reactivity to things based on the past.
Those things are what forms most of a human personality, and I see
this, and I do am not fond of it. I can't relate to it. It just
doesn't work. There are loads of people walking about with all these
personalities and it's like I am just not related to them, by their
choosing. The true human population in the world is very, very small.
> Now, like Morgana once said on K-List, something like this. I simply
> step in a croud or in someone "aura", and i feel so much, i am who
> the person beleives she is. I step back and i am no more.
For me it is somewhat subconscious. I am also highly intuitive. It
brings about change in me. Let's not say it is causal. Let's say that
mind is one and when other parts of the one that are incarnate in
another human body decide to be the living dead, the rest of the one
experiences it. The part in the all and the all in the part. I have
aquired a number of astrological readings about myself and many of
them remark that I am likely to be what they call `mediumistic'. This
is basically what I refer to as the subconscious pressure, and what
you refer to as the empathy. Having moods kind of gives me lots of
possible faces, lots of possible `personalities'. I can be joyous like
a little kid or deadly serious like a mature adult.
I look at other blokes sometimes in to work through a possible
insecurity I might have. I have some problem with security because
being sensitive makes me feel so accessible, and it's not nice being
accesible to the wrong things. I see that age does not correspond
to what appears to me to be spirituality or wholeness. Some people
have an attitude towards others, which lasts their whole life
unchecked, that I do no believe is very selfless or righteous. It's as
though to look at a person laterally, sideways, to look for how close
they are to the present as a measure of their true worth rather than
what high or low status' they are attaining at a specific and
unchangind distance from reality, flitting from one illusion to
another in the presence that they are evolving when all along they are
no closer to the present or to selfnessness. I see the same fault in
the march of civilisation. I often will see a greater degree of
selfishness and ego in a person of, say, 5-10 years of age, than I
will have in myself. It is a matter of being child-like. I do not have
all that of a concept of age. I know you measure it in years but it's
like it's always at the same radius away from the center of the
circle, not that the person is actually getting closer to the center
or whatever. The beginning of time starts way later than the eternity,
and the end of time finishes way sooner than eternities continuation.
I have to warn you though. I do not know if I am telling the truth or
wether I am completely deluded. I constantly seek to find this
out. I think the whole empathy this is perhaps only how it works on
the physical level. I tend to rely on appearences quite a lot I must
admit. If I'm not in harmonious surroundings I'm not happy. Maybe all
I'm seeing in the world is an illusion of my own design, a reaction.
Or maybe I am clearminded and am seeing the truth. I am not sure about
this. I am not confident of this. It might not be true. I might just
be summoning an image or feeling of honesty within me, it might not be
genuine or real. I might be looking at the appearance of things rather
than the actual thing, but what is there for the ego-self to look at
if not appearances. I think the empathy is mainly a personality thing.
Most people say that I look doubtful and unsure. Astrologers have said
that I will need to be constantly reassured.
Something I do, and I have only recently noticed this, is I will try
to summon within another person something that I have inside of me so
that it will affirm its truth. Now, you could take this as being a
beautiful form of giving. Or not. Even if there is a great truth that
I feel inside, a wisdom, something I know, I can not easily admit to
it personally. I might be wrong. It's just humility, you know, not
lack of true confidence. The only way I feel that I can have another
person know that I know it, is to try and get them to come about it
themselves, so that I will see from them the affirmation that it is
real. I do this automatically. I don't really understand it. Sometimes
I think it is like being a teacher, and sometimes I feel like I am the
student. And I really can never decide which is more likely. I think
that it is no such much that one be one or the other, but to what
degre they are both at-one. I think there has to be both aspects as a
singularity - qualities of both. I am open to both sides. And maybe
that's the essense of it - not something that logic can really touch.
I seem to have a belief, inbuilt, natural, that I know what is right
for other people. I see myself trying to get them to do things `my
way', and it is like I am hungry to see it in them. It's like I am
thirsty for the devine essence of reality. I remember Sai baba talking
about this in someting I read - that the divinity was the only food
for him and that he tried at any opportunity to cultivate it in all
people so that he could be fed. I feel like that sometimes.
I don't like it when people are unhappy, I can't handle it. I start to
break up inside. When I was at work this woman in her 40's perhaps had
a terribly bad cough. She was in the corner coughing like mad and it
sounded /really/ rough like she was having trouble getting a breath. I
did not know why but I was almost crying. I couldn't handle her being
like that because it meant that there was unhappyness, an absense of
love, a suffering, and that meant I was going to suffer too. It's the
same as when I see some aggressive idiot with a big ego and vanity.
Seeing it just makes me feel real unhappy. Yet if I am faced with some
young kid who is balanced and happy and loving it ignites joy in my
heart and I am so happy.
Another thing that astrology readings have said of me is that I bring
hope to others. I think this is true. Although I am not sure I am so
able to do it these days because of the sheer amount of negativity in
people. I kind of need the positivity in the first place in order to
be happy enough to liberate people. When I am presented with what I
consider to be doom-mongers, the living dead, driving conflict between
people and making endless comparisons and idolising many unworthy
things in the name of entertainment (I am not much fond of anything
but the simplest of personal entertainment), it just makes me feel so
empty, so in need of food, so rejecting/rejected. And you know what
the very worst thing is? When I am faced with someone who has
completely lost the way. Even if they are genuine, even if they are
kind of sad, the sheer loss and the sheer asking for help and the
dependence and the somewhat self-chosen illness, it can cause me
physical illness. Sometimes it doesn't take long before I feel like I
will be physically sick. I am sure that a drop in my level of joy
causes me to become ill.
On a bus a stranger came up to me having just got out of hospital
after his fourth heart attack. I smiled at him. I have a big smile. I
couldn't help myself but smile. He wanted to know what I had to be so
happy about, what the answer was to happyness in life, because his
life had gone so down the tubes. But, his negativity and loss was
overpowering, and in a couple of minutes time I was just about ready
to throw up. I reached a few times. There is just such a rejection
within me, psychosomatic. All I feel in those situations is a longing
that the person will just go away, that I just want to be left alone,
because I feel abused and spoilt and ultra-sensitive. I just can't do
anything, I just can't do it. I felt sorry for the bloke, but I just
couldn't relate to him. He smoked, looked like he might be a big
drunk, he was rude and loud and imposing and disrespectful and
dependent and smelly. Very smelly. I could not handle that. He kept
asking me while I was smiling at him. I kept shaking my head as if to
say "there is no reason", while maintaing the false smile. I react to
falseness with such a feeling of falsenss. It is not at all pleasant.
It it often like I have no power to change the person. They have their
free will and it seems like I am bound by the universe not to step
over that mark. I try in vain to do something that will make the
person happier but the best I can do is slap a grin on my face. I
cannot force them, I feel that I have no `force power', that there is
nothing I can do but just be there, to just exist. I can't magically
zap away their problems. I am powerless to do so. Maybe k can.
--
Paul.
IRC: #amiga, Dalnet: #blitz
WWW: http://www.stationone.demon.co.uk
E-M: paulATnospamstationone.demon.co.uk
Date: 22 May 98 01:34:44 +0000
From: Paul West <paulATnospamstationone.demon.co.uk>
To: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Subject: Re: Subconscious pressure
Message-Id: <3564D634.MD-0.196.paulATnospamstationone.demon.co.uk>
Amcheon:
> There is another choice, that of a neutral response. I remember when I used
> to work in a bookstore that sold, among other things, "erotic" magazines.
> Sometimes a man would come up to the counter and slam a pile of magazines
> down and glare up at me with a challenge in his eye as if I was going to
> disapprove of him. A kind response may have given him more encouragement
> than I was interested in, and a frown would have proved to him that he was
> able to transfer his shame-based beliefs to me. So instead, I looked at him
> levelly and respectfully and asked:
I can relate to this. When I talked of not provoking a person I didn't
mean to imply that I went to the other extreme. I meant being sort of
neutral, not really having an opinion about it of any description.
Mind you, such neutrality can sometimes come accross as being cold.
Most people prefer you to have some bias as it makes it easier to
conversate. But when you just don't really have an opinion about
something and you just don't really know either way, people find that
to be a bit too cool for them.
--
Paul.
IRC: #amiga, Dalnet: #blitz
WWW: http://www.stationone.demon.co.uk
E-M: paulATnospamstationone.demon.co.uk
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 22:29:32 EDT
From: Harsha1MTM <Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com>
To: janbarenATnospaminfase.es, DruoutATnospamaol.com, keutzerATnospameecs.berkeley.edu
Cc: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: Re: Pranayama, Kundalini and Science (was Kumbhaka)
Message-ID: <31200e97.3564e30dATnospamaol.com>
In a message dated 5/21/1998 4:22:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
janbarenATnospaminfase.es writes:
<< Harsha wrote:
[]
>If there is a scientific interest in studying Kundalini, it would seem that
> Pranayama would be the natural place to start as at least the "external"
> practice of breathing and retaining the breath can be observed
> and measured.[]
Jan: I wonder, if it would be possible to design a program of pranayama that
can
be used as part of the lessons in school. Even with a simple program, it
would provide the possibility to compare matters like ability to concentrate
with a control-group that doesn't practice. If the results are promising,
enough interest will be aroused to continue/intensify the study. The
test-group will later on provide statistical evidence for the relationship
between pranayama and (spontaneous) K.
>>
Harsha: Yes. I think that is possible. It is widely accepted among Yogis
that pranayama gives special powers of concentration. It is mentioned even in
Patanjali. I think this can easily be put to a test in the context of the
"scientific method." That would be a good start.
KK:
I think there are a couple questions that are kicking around here. The
first is: What are `` the advanced methods of Pranayama and their
limits?''
Harsha: Description of "advanced methods" can be found in many books which
have been cited on the list. The "limits" of these methods is what would be
tested.
Kurt: The second is: What do these have to do with awakening kundalini? As
you said before - they are not necessary -because kundalini can be
awakened without them.
Harsha: This is true. Kundalini awakening and Knowledge of Self do not depend
on any particular method. However, we have been talking about testing
Kundalini manifestations in the "scientific" realm. My suggestion is that if
one wishes to study the phenomena of Kundalini manifestations
"scientifically," pranayama may be a good place to start due to ease of
observation of the subjects as to what they are precisely doing and measuring
the results (Heart, blood pressure, changes in the brain patterns, etc.).
Although, I am generally skeptical of what Kundalini research can produce I
feel I should be "supportive" of the scientific method.
Kurt: I'm still unclear about the resolution of the
kumbhaka issue. It seems that kumbhaka is not necessary, as per the
discussion above, but neither is it sufficient. Otherwise these deep sea
free-divers would be kundalini awakened.
Harsha: I agree about the deep sea free-divers. However, Kumbhaka in some
form or another will naturally result in any system of spiritual practice. In
higher Samadhis there is Kevala Kumbhaka. We should leave open the possibility
that the "physiology" that comes into play in the highest Samadhis is not
known to science.
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.