To: K-list
Recieved: 2003/06/01 20:11
Subject: [K-list] RE: Ignorance of Kundalini (or an equivalent concept)
From: Bhavin Desai
On 2003/06/01 20:11, Bhavin Desai posted thus to the K-list:
See my comments below (sorry for the delay)...
> From: "mundane zen" <gutrek AT_NOSPAM hotmail.com>
>
> 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.
[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?
> >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.
[Bhavin Desai] Your technical argument is seriously flawed. The mere
inclusion of something does not imply knowledge of that something. [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.]
[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.
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.
> >(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.
[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. 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. In fact Buddha was born Hindu and hence Buddhism and Hinduism
(also Jain and Sikh) share many common ideas/concepts/terminology/etc.
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.
> >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.
[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. Why are you ANGRY?
> >>"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?
[Bhavin Desai] This was already covered above. Furthermore, note that I
was expressing my opinion, regardless of whether you personally think it
was right or wrong. I do understand multiple valued continuous logic
functions on a topological manifold. Why are you SO ANGRY?
> >>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.
[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"? Why are you SO VERY ANGRY?
> 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.
[Bhavin Desai] Exactly. So why have a Kundalini Tantra text as an
appendix? (-: It was a thin book, so perhaps... :-)
> 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, and it is nothing to do with me or my postings.
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.
> 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. I am not arrogant. I am only
explaining what I have seen. My credibility is unchanged. My message
remains.
----
Postscript: I did have (public and private) messages that indicated
that some K-List members had enjoyed and appreciated my posts. The list
rules allow for the expression of one's own opinions, which I did
clearly with the use of "I". Also, I tried to make my responses clear,
forthright, and impactful. 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), 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.
Bhavin.
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.