1998/05/08 15:33
kundalini-l-d Digest V98 #362
kundalini-l-d Digest Volume 98 : Issue 362
Today's Topics: Re: Non-denominational kundalini? [ "Joseph Miller" ]
Re: Happiness/reply sandeep [ "Gloria Lee" ] what to endure, what to abandon [ Matthew Bastress ]
Re: Happiness [ Mary Ezzell ] Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 07:40:27 PDT
From: "Joseph Miller" To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Cc: aird.houseATnospamzetnet.co.uk Subject: Re: Non-denominational kundalini?
Message-ID:
Chris Hughes wrote:
I suppose the word devout is not the best one I meant that in the "past" people had to go through all sorts of austerities and meditate for years
befor K awakened. --------------------
I am not at all sure that is true. Many people today, many on this list,
were first thought to have physical or mental problems that are now attributed to Kundalini. How many of those locked up in the houses of
horrors society used to maintain for the mentally ill may have had K risings? I don't know but I believe it could be cavalier to assume the
percentage was significantly different than it is today. It may have been different but no one will ever produce any data either way so the
case can not be considered closed by thinking individuals.
As to the "austerities and meditate for years" stuff please note a very, very big difference that has, in my observation, been repeatedly and
totally ignored by the list as a whole: Those people followed those practices, not just to awaken Kundalini, but to guide it and to control
it and its side effects as it progressed.
Modern day example: I have a friend who had no awakening, he was told (by two separate Astrologers) the information in his Jyotish chart his
chance for an awakening were poor to awful. He still insisted on learning a practice from his teacher, practiced it as faithfully as I've
seen anyone, and had, not just a safe awakening but, a safe and full development of Kundalini. In his case K has now progress through Ajna
Charka and is doing its work on the brain centers. It has only been two years since his awakening. Makes old timers like me wonder what's taken
us so long to get where we are.
Namaste,
Joe
______________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 20:42:56 +0530
From: "Sandeep Chatterjee" To: "Gloria Lee"
Cc: Subject: Re: Happiness
Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello Gloria
- >Hey Sandeep....pssst..isn't saying ANY reason also a kind of reason??
>Which is first what you point out to Holly...(except being happy BEYOND >reason does imply without ANY reason)...so then YOU go on to describe
>how it must be unconditional and perpetual...well, aren't those >REASONS??? Can I not be supremely happy .. but say it IS fleeting?? A
>cherry blossom just sends me to ecstasy, tho I know it will not last... >so what?? You are getting just as ATTACHED to your "reasoning" ..so its
>STILL a kind of reason. The ONLY reason permitted for happiness must be >now unconditional, perpetual, and total. Is that it??
First of all Gloria I am totally with you in what you say.
The problem is the limitation of communications. The correct answer would have been
)
Secondly unconditional, perpetual, total are not the reasons, they are the
qualities, they are the flavour, they are the aroma, the essence.
Sweety, I do see >your point you aretrying to make here, but do you see mine?? It seems
>the attachment is really the problem..not the duration. Enjoy, let go...
Agreed to your comment on attachment.It makes no difference whether it is momentary or eternal.
> >Not that interested in perpetual sameness, anyway.
Hmm. Is that an experiantial realization of yours to which I would bow.
Cheers
Sandeep Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 20:52:53 +0530
From: "Sandeep Chatterjee" To: "Rik Wallace"
Cc: Subject: Re: Happiness
Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello Rik,
-----Original Message----- From: Rik Wallace
To: sandeepcATnospambom3.vsnl.net.in Cc: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 11:13 AM Subject: re: Happiness
>Sandeep: >
>> Hi everybody >>
>> If you have reasons to be happy then you really are not happy! >> Any views?
> >Rik:
> >Hm. I thought I was happy till now. :) I can think of many reasons
>to be happy (as well as many reasons to be sad and grumpy!) >but I don't take them very seriously, as they tend not to have
>much bearing on whether I'm happy or not. When I'm happy, >I'm just happy. Hap hap happy. Happy happy.
> >Maybe you mean to imply that happiness is *independent* of cause.
>But I feel ok pretending to hold 'causes' in mind also, as they are >independent, ie. no contradiction to hold both.
> >You might notice that your statement is a conditional!
>*IF* you have reasons, then not happy - or, Happiness *depends* >on 'reasonlessness'! I have a feeling you did not mean to
>imply that. ;) Happiness just IS, reasons or no reasons...
I wander about and I learn. Thank you my friend. The correct manner of putting that poser would be
If you have reasons to be happy are you really happy?
Thank you again Rik for showing me something.
And yes you are absolutely correct Happiness IS.
Anything else (Michelle) I would suspect are comfort sleeping pills, but see
for yourself what is the truth?
Regards
Sandeep
>
>Thanks much for posing the question Sandeep. Enjoying your posts. >
>Reasonless but happy (maybe) -rik >
> >
> Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 10:45:03 -0500
From: "Brent Blalock" To:
Cc: "Kundalini - L" Subject: Re: Weight Loss and K (deja vu? Brent)
Message-Id:
amc:
> Brent Brent Bo-Brent Banana Fanna Fo Fent queried:
Mwahahaha!
Then I said:
>I'm curious. How was your health while your fam was forcing you to eat? >Not eating at all can either be unhealthy or just fine (starvation or
>fasting). Which do you think was the case?
Then you said:
> I *felt* wonderful. To people looking at me from the outside I was > starving to death. Which do *you* think was the case? And as
> Harsha would say: >
> *Who* is asking the question, Brent, *who*?
1) I don't know which the case was. I suspect that you were fine because of the correlation between yoga-stuff and simultaneous low food intake and
good health. That's "[yoga-stuff] and [simultaneous (low food intake) and (good health)]". But only you know which was really the case. Only you
knew how you felt and looked at the time. Etc.
People can mean well and get freaked out by the more unusual side-effects of either K or yoga and try to help (in this case, by feeding you), so I
don't take that as evidence that there actually was something wrong.
2) Depending on the context of the question and the mood I was in at the time, I would reply to Harsha:
"Why, Brent is, of course. I don't do a thing, though. I just watch
Brent."
Or maybe he were really asking, "What are you getting at, Brent? Are you implying something?" Then I would reply:
"No, I'm not implying anything. I'm just collecting data. I have a theory
that goes that people, under the right circumstances, need a tremendously small amount of food to maintain good health, and I'm collecting data that
either confirms or contradicts that theory." Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 12:49:13 EDT
From: Harsha1MTM To: keutzerATnospameecs.berkeley.edu, Harsha1MTMATnospamaol.com, janbarenATnospaminfase.es,
kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com Subject: Re: RE: RE: kundalini rising (was RE: 3 times K. from 1 to 7)
Message-ID:
In a message dated 5/7/1998, 10:24:55 PM, keutzerATnospameecs.berkeley.edu writes: <KK: There are two big questions here:
1) Is Being more fundamental than vibration (spanda). This one was debated at length in the philosophical schools of the Shaivism of Kashmir.
Ironically it was the Buddhists who led me to understand what they were getting at. If Being is transcendental then it can neither affect or be
affected. Thus you can posit as many Beings as you want and it doesn't matter -
Harsha: Jainism states the same thing. According to this perspective, just as
two flames merging cannot be distinguished yet maintain their individuality, the perfected, liberated, omniscient souls exist at the "top of the universe"
free of all Karma (vibrations). Jainism is closer in some ways to Buddhism than Vedanta of Hinduism. The practical methods to attain "liberation" are
similar (meditation, yoga, pranayama etc.) in all three (including Taoism). My feeling is whatever metaphysical system makes sense to someone; they can go
with that.
KK: because according to this view they are in a parallel universe. Nothing cannot influence without being influenced. If Being influences,
then it must be influenced in the process. Everything is interdependent. In this viewpoint the experience of Being as ``transcendental peace'' is just
an incomplete experience of it. As the experience clarifies then Being will be seen not to be transcendental but a great vibrancy pervading all.
Harsha: That view is fine. Although a Vedantin would say that the suggestion
that Being is an experience is problematic. For "whom" does the "experience" clarify? If Being is free of vibrations (Karma), then there can be no
experience to be clarified.
KK: 2) Is any experience alone sufficient to truly awaken us or do all experiences have an end?
Harsha: Yes and Yes.
KK: Here there are many views. Some Buddhist and
Hindu schools argue that no mere experience of anything could be sufficient to bring enlightenment. There must be a cognitive change as well.
Harsha: Yes and Yes.
KK: Others
argue that there must be a cognitive change, but experience itself brings the cognitive change -
Harsha: Yes and maybe and why not? Does the cognitive change come first or do
spiritual experiences come first? How this is perceived will differ among individuals. If spiritual experiences are believed to remove obscuring karmas,
the cognitive change will be perceived or interpreted to come afterwards. If cognitive change is believed to come first (because the individual does not
categorize his/her experiences prior to the change as "spiritual"), then "proper" spiritual experiences will be perceived to come afterwards. Either
perspective may be true from a relative point of view as the mind can only think in terms of cause and effect. This is why Sages often remain silent.
KK: just as tasting honey conveys all that there is to
know about honey, tasting supreme bliss tells you all that you need to know about the union of bliss and emptiness (Buddhist terminology) or
sat-chit-ananda (Hindu).>>
Harsha: Yes. Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 10:14:47 PDT
From: "Gloria Lee" To: samyanaATnospamhotmail.com, sandeepcATnospambom3.vsnl.net.in
Cc: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com Subject: Re: Happiness/reply sandeep
Message-ID:
>From: "Sandeep Chatterjee"
>Hello Gloria
> >
> >First of all Gloria I am totally with you in what you say.
>The problem is the limitation of communications. >The correct answer would have been
> )
yeah, figured you would know what i was getting at..seems even a "non-dual" or beyond non-dual reality needs to also include room for the
dual elements..saying "both are true" seems to cover a lot of bases..:):)
> >
S)>Secondly unconditional, perpetual, total are not the reasons, they are the
>qualities, they are the flavour, they are the aroma, the essence. G) yes, do you smell the eternal aroma in today's blossom??
>
> >
> >
> Sweety, I do see >>your point you aretrying to make here, but do you see mine?? It seems
>>the attachment is really the problem..not the duration. Enjoy, let go...
> >Agreed to your comment on attachment.It makes no difference whether it
is >momentary or eternal.
G) moving right along here..are we?? next it'll be warp speed ahead...LOL
> >
>> >>Not that interested in perpetual sameness, anyway.
> >Hmm. Is that an experiantial realization of yours to which I would bow.
G) ahhh...Sandeep, you would bow?? Such a gentleman you are. Actually, my "experience" leads me to believe I have been thrown out of
heaven more then once... :):):)
Still smiling tho, Glo
> >
______________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Date: Fri, 8 May 98 15:25:26 EDT
From: Matthew Bastress To: kundalini-lATnospamlists.execpc.com
Subject: what to endure, what to abandon Message-Id:
Dan M. wrote:
> Well, I'm currently going through my spring fast and I go to work every day to > a pretty stressful job. It's a matter of setting priorities. There is no
> rule that you have to be an ascetic and live in caves to pursue spirituality. > It may be easier though.
Up here in my cave the computers get a lot of love. I wonder, doesn't
it seem more ascetic to confine one's attention to nuances of logic all day than to walk in the forest in meditation? Got to find a way
to transform this self-denial to have spiritual benefits... Not sure how to do that.
I discovered something cool while talking to my boss. K gives me the
fluidity to make stress and boredom disappear into just a dull physical body-ache, which is more tolerable than being unhappy. When my boss
says something about timeout errors my second self starts to freak out. Rather than squelching the K and risking a trembling fit,
I can take the timeout error and sympathetically appreciate just how painfully boring it is--from K's point of view timeout errors are like
food poisoning!
Now here's the solemn ?: I hate to put her through it. I'm used to accepting a fair amount of self-torture, but it doesn't feel like ME
anymore! It is verging on evil to force this way of thinking through just to prove a circuit design. Does the dissolution of the ego uncover
crimes against oneself?
Perhaps I'm being soft on myself--if I had children maybe that would be a noble and gratifying reason to submit to it. But I am young and the
things I love aren't (yet) incarnate.
Last night a woman said she saw (in me) a nun, sitting with her face in her hands. She was very sad, and made her fingers walk as if to express
that I had walked away. This affected me deeply. I have awareness of a new kind of suffering in the world that evokes a new kind of love in me.
I feel like I have been brokenhearted for a long time.
Love you all very much,
Matt Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 00:48:48 +0530 (IST)
From: Anurag Goel To: Brent Blalock
cc: amckeonATnospamhsmail.nfld.k12.mn.us, Kundalini - L
Subject: Re: To Activate or not to activate Message-ID:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Hi, I think pranayama will help in losing weight.
Love,
anurag
> > To: kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com
> > Subject: Re: To Activate or not to activate > > Date: Monday, May 04, 1998 2:09 PM
> > > > tgxxx wrote:
> > > > >I didn't luck out with my k where I was brought any uncanny urges to
> > >become a >vegetarian and all, > >
> > [...] > >
> > I have been tempted to reactivate the K in order to lose weight, but I > > don't think I'm that desperate yet. Still lookin' for a local yoga
> class.... >
> You're considering awakening Kundalini to lose weight?!! Don't you want > to, like, attain enlightenment and become one with the universe or evolve
> spiritually? I'm not judging you at all. Weight loss is the most original > reason for trying to activate Kundalini I've heard of, tho. :P
> > For weight loss, you ever consider just not eating? I'm pretty sure that
> people need far less food than most people think they need. >
> Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 22:38:11 +0200
From: "Dyckhoff" To:
Subject: erase my Adress from List Message-ID:
Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative";
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005C_01BD7AD1.FAEF9240"
Pelase erase my Adress from List
thanks
Attachment Converted: "D:\EUDORA\ATTACH\kundalini-l-d Digest V98 #362" Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 15:25:12 PDT
From: "Gloria Lee" To: mattbATnospamchrysalis.com
Cc: Kundalini-lATnospamexecpc.com Subject: Re: what to endure, what to abandon
Message-ID:
>From: Matthew Bastress
>
>Up here in my cave the computers get a lot of love. I wonder, doesn't >it seem more ascetic to confine one's attention to nuances of logic
>all day than to walk in the forest in meditation? Got to find a way >to transform this self-denial to have spiritual benefits... Not sure
>how to do that.
Try carrying the forest in your heart...asceticsm is over-rated. :):)
> snip
When my boss >says something about timeout errors my second self starts to freak
>out. Rather than squelching the K and risking a trembling fit, >I can take the timeout error and sympathetically appreciate just how
>painfully boring it is--from K's point of view timeout errors are like >food poisoning!
Sympathy is good. How many selves do you have to give it to, Matt?
> >Now here's the solemn ?: I hate to put her through it. I'm used to
>accepting a fair amount of self-torture, but it doesn't feel like ME >anymore! It is verging on evil to force this way of thinking through
>just to prove a circuit design. Does the dissolution of the ego uncover
>crimes against oneself?
Yes, it does. Especially if you have 'sacrificed yourself' to false gods. Just that you ASK this shows you know better.
If the suffering is unnecessary and its avoidable..that would be a crime. K is tough enough to survive. .. even logical thinking :):)
But are you?? A lot of jobs seem to involve some degree of sacrifice. Have you got a better idea of what you would prefer to do??
> >Perhaps I'm being soft on myself--if I had children maybe that would
No, you are being hard on yourself, more likely. >a noble and gratifying reason to submit to it. But I am young and the
>things I love aren't (yet) incarnate. >
> I have awareness of a >new kind of suffering in the world that evokes a new kind of love in
me. >I feel like I have been brokenhearted for a long time.
This is so very touching...explore that sadness more to see what it is
about...its a very important clue to your future needs and wants. >
Your heart has been softened by your awareness. Suffering is everywhere and your love is everywhere needed. It sounds all too easy to merely
SAY that you are free to go wherever you want, do whatever you want..and just look within for your answers. When you do have some idea of being
called to a different way of life and it has not yet become clear to what..this is a difficult time. Matt, it does not sound like you are
just 'being soft' on yourself..but your discontents are leading you to a new longing. All you can do is open yourself to discover that longing...
You say you are young and have no obligations to others yet, so you are free to explore other options. Whatever are the inner issues by
which you can decide?? What are your dreams?? What are some intermediate steps to explore this? We seldom are given a full-scale,
step by step map of the rest of our lives..but if you follow your bliss..doors will open for you.
My heart goes out to you ( and I feel a twinge of jealousy, too, being
kind of "old" myself)..but any way we can help you explore or think this thru? Sometimes it helps to bounce your ideas off other people.
With love,
Glo
______________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 14:08:17 -0700 From: Mary Ezzell
To: Subject: Re: Happiness
Message-Id:
Feeling a lot of happiness for "no reason" lately, remembering what a guru
said ...
Something about, "Happiness and unhappiness are not really opposites. For example, lack of money can make you unhappy, but having money doesn't
necessarily make you happy.
"Happiness is what you feel when the breath and other body rhythms (cranial sacral etc) are relaxed and normal. It is how the muscles in the chest feel
when they are breathing/moving normally, and sending out the right ripples over the body.
"This can be messed up by worries. Tension stiffens the muscles, they can't
make their normal movements. So anything that causes worry, such as lack of money, can cause unhappiness (unless you are able to detach from it, ie let
the breath-muscles etc go on moving normally even without money :-).
"If getting some money relieves the tension, then the muscles can move normally for a while and produce happiness. Anything that relieves the
tension can do this. Going into a garden, or hearing beautiful music or meeting a loving child -- at these times we forget worries, the tension
drops, and happiness can happen. The frozen wheels thaw and begin to turn -- the brake is taken off."
BD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 12:56 PM 5/7/98 +0530, Sandeep Chatterjee wrote: >Hi everybody
> >If you have reasons to be happy then you really are not happy!
> >Any views?
> >
>Sandeep >
> >
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.