To: K-list
Recieved: 2002/10/17 10:20
Subject: [K-list] Re: There is no Kundalini and There was no Moon Landing
From: mundaneyogi
On 2002/10/17 10:20, mundaneyogi posted thus to the K-list:
--- In Kundalini-GatewayATnospamy..., SoitPPATnospama... wrote:
> There is no Kundalini.If you mean there is no literal serpent at the base of one's
spine, then of course you are correct. It is a symbol for a
psychological, physiological, and largely subjective experience.
Yet it is very real and can be experienced directly.
> The imagination is powerful to decieve the mind. We are deluded
> into thinking we are having a transcendant experience. But that
> is the nature of transcendance.
Just because an experience is subjective does not mean that it
isn't real, nor does it mean that it is delusional. My most
powerful Kundalini experiences happen during meditation, when my
heartbeat has slowed way down, when breathing and discursive thought
have temporarily stopped, when the only thing left is awareness.
Then I get the rush of Kundalini, and it makes my whole body tingle
with bliss. I feel a transcendent consciousness that extends beyond
my physical body.
Kundalini manifests when everything is calm and clear, which is
entirely opposite of a delusional state, which occurs when the mind
is overly excited.
> We believe we are working through a process. But there is no
> process.When Kudalini is active during meditation one doesn't think about
processes or anything else. It just is.
> While the process is as plain as day.It is easy to become deluded
> into believing that we are "progressing" while the belief of
> progression itself is born from the ego-mind.If I can read your meaning through these grammatical and semantic
errors (by the way, have you ever considered using paragraphs?), I
think you are essentially correct. Thoughts of progress are born of
the ego. I measure my progress by the duration and depth of
samadhi, and by how meditation affects my daily life. Yet this is
tangential to the issue of whether Kundalini exists or not.
> Quintessential self is everything.Yes, and quintessential Self is apprehended most clearly when
Kundalini is fully awake. One could even say that Kundalini IS
quintessential Self.
> It is everything because it is both the here and the later.No, it is here and now. Later is always yet to come.
> Before time existed in our minds, as an infant, there was no more
> a "now" than there would be a "then".Wrong again. There was just now.
> I remember very well the exact moment that the thoughtform of
> hard time was born in my consciuosness. I didn't like it at all,
> to say the least, and tried my best to avoid it although knowing
> somehow it's integration was somehow inevitable. I can remember
> arguing in my mind, with my parents, although not knowing how to
> explain it, that this idea of "time" was ludicrous and unnecessary
> and so much weight to have added on life.You say Kundalini is imaginary, yet expect people go along with the
idea that you can recall philosophical concepts and going through a
dialetic process about time from when you were an infant? I
remember when I was around three, and wondered why I was not my
mother, why we were separate individuals. However, the memory
exists now as only a brief thought or vision. Are you sure you
haven't embellished your infantile struggle with the concept of
time with imagination?
(by the way, the pronoun "its" doesn't take an
apostrophe, that's a contraction of "it is")
> That is where I am returning to. However with an adult mind to
> boot. I am returning to no-time.How can one go back in time if there is no time? This idea sounds
suspiciously like it came from some New Age self-help system. I
suspect you have been sucked into some egomaniac's bastardized
version of Scientology.
> I have wreaked havoc on myself prying with Kundalini concepts.Kundalini is not a concept. It is something that can be experienced
directly.
> Thinking I have come along in my progress. And that I must be
> "more" of something.. or "less" of something else. Paying close
> attention the "power" I am exerting, or the amount of "surrender".
> But I decieved myself in the process. Because of one key point. In
> my delusion I had virtually forgotten what true "surrender" even
> meant.. because I had forgotten myself.Well, you obviously became sidetracked by the symbols and the
system. Kundalini appears when all that shit has settled down, like
a jar of pond water becomes clear when it remains still long enough
for the silt to settle to the bottom.
> Essentially, or quintessentially, the self that existed as I was
> as an infant…C'mon, you didn't just discover this. What system sucked you
in? Be here now, man. The past is gone.
> …
> But then we should know that Kundalini desires us to leave our
lives.How can you say Kundalini desires anything when you began this whole
rambling polemic with "There is no Kundalini"? You're
being illogical.
> …
> But the quintessential divine angel within us.Ok, you don't believe in Kundalini, but you believe in
quintessential divine angels. *eyeroll*
> Had I forgotten permanently who I was. I would have lead myself
> down a black path of woe and blamed myself entirely in the end
> believing I was simply not enough as I was.I don't see how you can so confidently predict what would have
happened.
> Trying, in vain, to force a rabbit to be a wolf.Where did you pick-up this rabbit and wolf analogy? I thought you
wanted to be like an infant again.
> There is a path to self. But it is through self
> and through self alone.True. So why do I get the impression you've adapted
someone's belief system?
> …
> Never let another tell you who you are. If they speak to be so.
> They must be ignorant themselves. That is the challenge of all who
> know themselves while others do not. To doubt ourselves is to
> believe another over ourself. We know who we are. We were born
> knowing who we are.You actually recall when you were born? Isn't it true that what
has really happened is that you've been seduced by some
self-styled New Age guru and his system of beliefs? Maybe you were
in a weak and credulous state and it helped you – good. But why
you feel the need to piss on Kundalini is beyond me.> And it will never leave us. God does not leave us. We and God are
> One. And God does not create anything ugly out of itself.
Then where did maggots, blowfish, wart hogs, and such come from?
I've felt oneness with God – during active Kundalini. On
what do you base your oneness concept?
> Believe in yourself. Believe in your dreams. And let your
> surrender, to yourself, be your Guide.What is your true Self? Do you really know?
> And Kundalini will dissappear. There is no Kundalini.Bullshit. The only way I'd go along with that statement is if you
meant Kundalini as a symbol. But then we divide the intrinsic
wholeness of the universe into separate things and attach symbols to
them for purposes of communication. We do this with everything, but
it doesn't make the things themselves disappear anymore than it
makes the universe disappear.
> There is only you. There is only self.In 1969, after the Apollo moon landing, a TV news reporter
interviewed a 90-year-old man and asked him what he thought about
it. The man was convinced it was all a hoax. Because he could not
conceive of the technology required to put someone on the moon, and
because he had never been there, he was sure it didn't really
happen. The man is like you. You apparently have never experienced
Kundalini, and you cannot conceive what it is like, so you conclude
it doesn't exist. I'm sorry for you, because you're
missing out on what may be the only real experience of your true
Self.
Peace, Love, and Truth,
Ken
http://www.kundalini-gateway.org
http://www.domin8rex.com/serpent/spirit/kindex.htm
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.