To: K-list
Recieved: 2003/05/26 21:30
Subject: [K-list] RE: Ignorance of Kundalini (or an equivalent concept)
From: Bhavin Desai
On 2003/05/26 21:30, Bhavin Desai posted thus to the K-list:
See my comments below prefixed with [Bhavin Desai]...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "mundane zen" <gutrek AT_NOSPAM hotmail.com>
>
> In "Zen Flesh, Zen Bones", compiled by Paul Reps, there is an appendix
> >called "Centreing" (which is not really directly related to Zen)
which
> >has a translation of the Vigyan Bhairava composed of 112 verses.
Having
> >read it, it is clear that the subject matter is Kundalini. BUT THE
BOOK
> >HAS NO MENTION OF KUNDALINI or even any equivalent/related concept!!!
> >Also, it does not even attempt to explain the meaning of the verses.
>
> I got out my copy of the book to refesh my memory about the
"Centering"
> appendix. Amazingly accurate description of Kundalini, isn't it? In
the
> paragraph right before the tantra itself, the author says,
>
> "Surely men as inspiritors, known and unknown to the world, have
shared a
> common uncommon discovery. The Tao of Lao-tse, Nirvana of Buddha,
Jehovah
> of Moses, the Father of Jesus, the Allah of Mohammed -- all point to
the
> experience".
>
> Does it matter that the author doesn't use the word "Kundalini"?
[Bhavin Desai] It doesn't matter in practice that he doesn't use the
exact word "Kundalini", but he doesn't use any equivalent word either.
My comment indicated that he was trying to discuss a subject that he
knew nothing about. (He is keen, but in the same way that a young child
can be keen about playing professional tennis at the Wimbledon
Championships.) It would be similar to you trying to describe my MPhil
thesis in Mathematical Logic, where all you could do is repeat some of
the main results (possibly translated partially into English from the
mathematical notations) without really understanding it, or being able
to discuss it or answer questions about it.
> >Discussions of other verses at that site clearly show that there is
no
> >understanding of Kundalini.
>
> "No understanding" sounds too absolute. You might say, "little" or
> "incomplete understanding".
[Bhavin Desai] I will stick to "no understanding". It sounds better to
me. It expresses my feelings clearly and unambiguously. Using
"little/incomplete understanding" may imply that they have some, when in
fact they do not have any.
> >The text may be useful to some people (perhaps), but it is hardly a
> >scholarly
> >work in terms of a faithful analysis of this classic Tantra
literature.
>
> You were expecting what from a web page? I don't understand why you
seem
> so shocked and surprised.
[Bhavin Desai] Clearly, even my reasonable expectations that people
should know what they are talking about and understand what they are
talking about, are too high. HaaHaaHaa, HeeHeeHee. (HoHoHo is
reserved.)
> The true message almost always gets distorted or
> lost altogether. This page actually seems better than most. There's
no
> talk about killing infidels or channeling aliens from Orion.
[Bhavin Desai] Just because it is not written by zealots/terrorists or
weird/crazy people, may make it a bit better by default, but it
certainly does not automatically make it any good.
-------------
To get a reminder of your password or adjust your subscription, visit:
http://kundalini-gateway.org/mailman/listinfo/k-list_kundalini-gateway.org
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.