To: K-list
Recieved: 2003/06/02 03:19
Subject: Re: [K-list] RE: Ignorance of Kundalini (or an equivalent conce
From: mundane zen
On 2003/06/02 03:19, mundane zen posted thus to the K-list:
Dear Bhavin (and anyone else who is still interested in this thread),
>[Bhavin Desai] So what is the point of having an Indian Tantra appendix
>(in a Japanese Zen book) that is exclusively about Kundalini without
>ever mentioning Kundalini (or at least something similar)? Although the
>author talks about a "common experience" there is no further
>explanation, and we cannot conveniently deduce that the subject matter
>is Kundalini, so what chance has an ordinary person?
It's an example of this "common experience", from a non-Zen source.
Kundalini is just a symbol for any underlying spiritual reality. If I say,
given x = 1 and y = 1, both symbols point to the same underlying value.
Thus the choice of which symbol I chose to employ to express the value 1 is
arbitrary and irrelevant.
>>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.
>
>[Bhavin Desai] Your technical argument is seriously flawed. The mere
>inclusion of something does not imply knowledge of that something.
What are the chances that he would include that tantra at random?
>[For example I don't know the following but do you know that "Every locally
>convex space which is a Baire space is barrelled" and the corollary that
>"Every Banach space and every Frechet space is barrelled". This is from
>a mathematics book on Topological Vector Spaces.]
If the author had included an appendix on topology, and launched into a
discussion about barreled l.c.s.'s, bounded linear functions, and the like,
that would be a bit of a non-sequitur, wouldn't it? But he didn't. He
spoke of the "common experience" of realized spiritual masters, and then
included the tantra.
So, I don't understand why you say this "technical argument is seriously
flawed", unless you believe the author just happened to pick it by sheer
chance -- and what is the probability of that? What doesn't follow is that
the author had absolutely "no knowledge" of the Kundalini (or call it x or
y) experience.
>[Bhavin Desai] Furthermore, I don't think that the author knew that it
>was a "vivid description of the Kundalini experience" - that is our
>(K-List) understanding, it is clearly not apparent from the book.
The book is about koan practice, a method, not a description of
enlightenment, the goal.
>Perhaps you have some partially for Zen (Cf. your email alias) and hence
>are trying to protect the author in a completely unnecessary and quite
>unreasonable manner.
Well, I may harbor some subconscious motive like that, but what I primarily
took issue with was your absolute statements and unreasonable conclusions.
>>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
>>isnot part of the Buddhist repertoire, nor are any gods and goddesses.
>>As I said (and you chose to ignore), Buddhism is all about practice.
>
>[Bhavin Desai] I did not ignore, there was nothing to add. Hinduism,
>Yoga, and other systems are also about practice. Recall my
>visualisation about theory and practice being the two threads in a
>double helix, where each thread increases and supports the other.
And Zen teaches to turn-off the theorizing and experience directly. Look at
what theorizing did to most of the mainstream religions.
>You may think that Kundalini is not a part of Buddhism but there are
>equivalent concepts (see Subject/Title line) and some scriptures are
>common.
Yes of course, like using the symbol x or y.
>In fact Buddha was born Hindu and hence Buddhism and Hinduism
>(also Jain and Sikh) share many common ideas/concepts/terminology/etc.
Of course.
>They are "closer" in many respects than even some individual
>groups/sects within other major religions. There may or may not be
>gods/goddesses in Buddhism but there are equivalent concepts. A
>different name in another language does not make the underlying sameness
>different. "God is One, Names are Numerous" - similarly different
>systems/languages/religions/etc have different names for the same
>things.
Sure, but how does all this relate to the point about claiming Paul Reps has
"no knowledge" of Kundalini (or an equivalent concept), merely because he
doesn't delve into a detailed discussion about it in the book? The book is
about Zen -- stories and koans. The purpose of a koan is to confound the
rational, discriminating, theorizing mind, so that one may experience
reality directly -- without interpretation. That wholeness of experience is
what is known as the Void. So, why would the author start analyzing and
theorizing about the Kundalini experience? That's not the Zen way. Thus
the lack of analysis is certainly no reason to assume the author lacks the
experience.
>>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.
>
>[Bhavin Desai] My thesis was an example to make a point. And "you" was
>the generic aspect not the individual aspect. Replace "you" with "one"
>if it reads better.
Ah.
>Why are you ANGRY?
What makes you think I'm angry? I didn't feel angry when I wrote that, and
don't feel so now. Are you perhaps angry that I pointed out the illogic of
your unfounded assumption that the author knows nothing about the Kundalini
experience, and are projecting it on me?
> > Rarely are things so black and white. In your effort to appear
>>... 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?
>
>[Bhavin Desai] This was already covered above.
And repudiated above as well.
>Furthermore, note that I was expressing my opinion,
Well, then it would be better to say "IMO", "I feel", or something similar.
>regardless of whether you personally think it was right or wrong.
(see above)
>I do understand multiple valued continuous logic functions on a topological
>manifold.
Then how can you make such a blatant inductive error? It's a classic case
of hasty generalization, assuming the author has no understanding of the
Kundalini experience just because he doesn't go into a detailed explanation
about it in this little book.
>Why are you SO ANGRY?
Why are you shouting and projecting?
>[Bhavin Desai] You can also regard it as several types of normal
>distribution in statistics, or an abstract region in differential
>geometry, or... Regarding poor quality information: why even bother
>with "flecks of gold" or "sugar" when you can have "gold bars" or
>"honey/nectar"?
Sure, but that's not the point. Flecks of gold do not equate to absolutely
no gold.
>Why are you SO VERY ANGRY?
Now you're just being redundant. And you wonder why I say you make a lot of
assumptions?
>>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.
>
>
>[Bhavin Desai] Aha!!! Your description here appears to indicate why you
>may be so very angry,
That's number four.
>and it is nothing to do with me or my postings.
Now you're going to tell me about my motives?
>Yes, I have talked about my Kundalini experiences with all types of
>people. I don't get any "looks" in the way that I think that you mean,
>nor the other stuff mentioned above.
No? Ok. So, where's the reason for my alleged anger?
>>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.
>
>
>[Bhavin Desai] No. I believe that I am right in that the book author
>and the website authors do not know what they are talking about in terms
>of Kundalini or an equivalent concept.
Simple question: how?
>I am not arrogant. I am only explaining what I have seen. My credibility
>is unchanged.
>My message remains.
It remains a logical fallacy.
>Postscript: I did have (public and private) messages that indicated
>that some K-List members had enjoyed and appreciated my posts.
I have enjoyed and appreciated your posts as well. This one has in fact
been a lot of fun.
>The list rules allow for the expression of one's own opinions, which I did
>clearly with the use of "I".
No, it would be clear if you had qualified it with "I feel" or an equivalent
expression.
>Also, I tried to make my responses clear, forthright, and impactful.
Ok.
>Furthermore I was extremely surprised and astonished that, even though I
>had
>made a fairly simple point (ie good information on Kundalini is hard to
>find),
And in the paragraph (see above) where I agreed with your point, you went
off on some tangent about the source of my "anger".
>everyone just carried on with their own ideas which had no relation to me
>nor to the thread. A bit
>like planting a rose and ending up with a garden of weeds.
"The Supreme Lord said: 'Giving up the desire of [material] activities is
what the learned know as the renounced order [sannyas] while the forsaking
of all fruits of action is what the experienced call renunciation [tyâga]."
-- Bhagavad Gita
ken
_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
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.