To: K-list
Recieved: 2003/05/27 22:26
Subject: Re: [K-list] RE: Ignorance of Kundalini (or an equivalent conce
From: mundane zen
On 2003/05/27 22:26, mundane zen posted thus to the K-list:
Dear Bhavin and List,
>[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.
So? As the author says in his introduction to the tantra text, he believes
that there is a common experience that inspired masters from all religions
share. It wasn't meant to be commentary. It was just an appendix.
>My comment indicated that he was trying to discuss a subject that he
>knew nothing about.
And how would you know what he knows? The very fact that he included the
tantra, which is a vivid description of the Kundalini experience, shows he
knows something.
>(He is keen, but in the same way that a young child
>can be keen about playing professional tennis at the Wimbledon
>Championships.)
You derive this from his lack of commentary? As Carl Sagan used to say,
absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Kundalini is
not part of the Buddhist repertoire, nor are any gods and goddesses. As I
said (and you chose to ignore), Buddhism is all about practice.
>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.
Your thesis is not germane to this discussion. But again, how would you
know how much of it I would understand? Frankly, you have a strong
predilection for making assumptions based on the weakest of evidence.
>>"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.
Rarely are things so black and white. In your effort to appear unambiguous,
you express yourself in binary terms and make yourself wrong. The very fact
that the author included the tantra shows that he must have some knowledge
of the Kundalini experience. Otherwise, why would he use it as an example
of the common spiritual experience?
>>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.
Again you reveal your binary perspective, good or bad. A more accurate way
to look at these books and web pages is like a point along a mathematical
function, the limits of which are totally good and totally bad, with most
falling somewhere in between these limits. Thus, there are almost always
good points one can glean from from even poor writing -- like flecks of gold
amongst the sludge in a gold pan. For instance, I didn't care much for that
web page, but I liked the comment at the end about sticking with a practice
for a while to see if it works for you. And that tantra was simply
astounding. Who cares if didn't contain extensive commentary? The book is
about Zen (and there were commentaries on each koan in the book) not about
tantra.
Look, I understand your point about lack of understanding demonstrated by
most of the wannabe spiritual gurus and masters out there. It's
frustrating, not only because it makes it difficult to find anything
worthwhile amongst all the crap, but also because it diminishes the
credibility of all spiritual teachings. Have you ever tried to discuss your
Kundalini or spiritual experiences with a skeptic or an atheist? If so,
then you know "the look" you get. They lump you in with the frauds, con
men, and schizophrenics.
The point I´m trying to make here, and I intend it with all due respect, is
that by using absolute and unsupported phrases like, “he knows nothing’, you
come across as not only arrogant, but flat out wrong. That severely
diminishes your credibility and your message gets lost.
ken
_
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.