Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Spirituality & Beliefs > Auras & Chakras

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 16-06-2011, 02:28 PM
SerpentQueen
Posts: n/a
 
I don't claim to be an expert on any of this stuff; I just follow where the clues lead me. And often I wonder if that's what it all is supposed to be about? Since I have concluded time doesn't exist (it's just a human construct) and past/present/future are all going on at once, it seems to me that it's an unproductive activity to trace the evolution of such sacred images on any sort of historical timeline. Instead, I view these as present-day clues from the universe, meant to guide us on our own journey of seeking wisdom.

I agree with you, Proktopon, that there are many paths leading to the same place. Ultimately, isn't it said that enlightenment is a gift of grace?

To my eyes, the Naga image very much denotes Kundalini. Because there are wings - heart chakra opening. And a crown (of serpents, in this case) - crown chakra. And is that a pearl the Naga is holding? The pearl represents enlightenment.

The Cecrops is a bit different. He is wearing a crown, a crown of laurels. But there are no wings. Hmm, although I suppose the toga wrap could denote wings.

Here's another image to ponder - not sure how to embed in the post:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ch...nas_design.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 16-06-2011, 02:33 PM
SerpentQueen
Posts: n/a
 
Another thing that resonates with me about Uma's assertion that the "Crown is the destination" is the idea that we can all be Kings and Queens and inherit the riches of the "kingdom" if we want.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 16-06-2011, 03:55 PM
Uma Uma is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,711
  Uma's Avatar
Thanks SerpentQueen for your kind words…
I’m surprised Prokopton, I thought you said the conversation was over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uma
What I get from my teacher is not merely intellectual knowledge but much grace, that which extends far beyond mental fluctuations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prokopton
I would certainly hope so! And of course, what many others get from their teachers, plural (including me from the ones I have had) is the same in that respect, whether one chooses the word 'grace', the word 'shaktipat', or whatever. It would indeed be a strange world if yours was the only teacher of any achievement! What a lopsided thing that would be.

Grace can also mean wonderful things happening in my life – my outer world as well as my inner world. One reflects the other. You imply I am claiming he is the “only teacher of any achievement”. I am not. He is the “only teacher” for me as no one else I have ever met or read has come close to what I get from associating with him. There are many wonderful teachers. He does not claim he is the "only teacher" either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prokopton
Like Uma, I had an excellent kundalini teacher (Glenn Morris) who has gone on to be the root of many a lineage and was incredibly gifted at syncretism. However, he never claimed his way was the only true way! Simply one way that worked, and a living and dynamic and evolving way at that.

Neither does my teacher claim his way was the only true way. On the contrary, he sees commonality in all noble traditions – the one truth of life that speaks for itself in many languages – unity in diversity. And this is my point also. Neither can he be so narrowly classified as a “kundalini teacher”. He teaches how the natural and spontaneous awakening of Kundalini brings out the Inner Guide in all of us, or true Guru in all of us, and that this Guide leads us to customize our way or a combination of ways. An ordinary “kundalini teacher” is focused on the raising of Kundalini energy through forceful means such as breathing and other yogic exercises. Sri Vasudeva does not do this. In fact he advises against it unless (if you insist on this path) you have an extremely competent teacher to guide you. His bio is on my website if you’re interested and he speaks for himself on YouTube.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prokopton
We can post pictures of rivers saying they might resemble something about kundalini. We can't say that the path of a river is kundalini -- not unless we want to abandon the truth for fantasy!

Actually we may not post copyrighted pictures according to Daisy who erased the entire thread (doesn't matter that almost 300 people viewed it so it was of interest to many, rules are rules). As to your point, you insist on classifying Kundalini energy as different to universal life force energy. The difference is primarily one of location. Kundalini is prana/chi/qi/lifeforce - the power of God - existing in a human body. The human body is designed to be a perfect vessel for the final journey to enlightenment, unlike a river which, although it has a consciousness of its own, has no brain and therefore no way of harnessing intellect and ego. Kundalini is all about transforming ego. The entire universe is composed of consciousness manifesting as energy. When we ignore the Guide within, the Guide without speaks to us through all of life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SerpentQueen
Actually, why are there no more dragons? They aren't mythical creatures. I believe I read somewhere, they truly did exist at one time - though maybe not spouting fire out their mouth. Maybe dragons are... an archetype.
Julius Ceasar wanted to open a dragon museum at one point so he was talking about dinosaur bones. There are quite a lot in China. But also the Kundalini experience can be very dragon like for some people or at some stage – fiery, overwhelming. So you put the two together and that’s the human imagination for you, always hybridizing and creating metaphors for invisible experiences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SerpentQueen
Since I have concluded time doesn't exist (it's just a human construct) and past/present/future are all going on at once, it seems to me that it's an unproductive activity to trace the evolution of such sacred images on any sort of historical timeline. Instead, I view these as present-day clues from the universe, meant to guide us on our own journey of seeking wisdom.
I so wish the conversation would move in this direction, which is to me also the more productive one. Unfortunately I had to respond to relentless attempts to discredit everything I'm saying. And now Daisy has erased my threads with pictures to address that so I may leave off wasting my time on this forum if the focus is so much on form and so little on substance.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 16-06-2011, 04:17 PM
Chrysaetos Chrysaetos is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,079
  Chrysaetos's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uma
The human body is designed to be a perfect vessel for the final journey to enlightenment,
According to Dharmic religion, yes. But that is one particular take on things..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uma
unlike a river which, although it has a consciousness of its own, has no brain and therefore no way of harnessing intellect and ego.
You see a river as an ''individual'' but all it really is is an illusion. Rivers, mountains, hills, and lakes are formed by nature itself and it is only us who see them as individual rivers, mountains, hills, and lakes. Mountains and hills are part of the earth's 'skin' so to speak, and lakes and rivers are just natural bodies of waters. Where does a river start and where does it end? It is us who make these judgements and then we give it a name.

But if I understand your view correctly, making a sandcastle on the beach and a water canal creates ''individual consciousness but without ego and intellect''..

I strongly agree with Prokopton on the pictures you have posted. You assumed that Stonehenge and Egyptian snakes had something to do with an Indian belief. And you see the ''Holy Spirit'' as ''Kundalini''. It reminded me of conspiracies that collect reptile symbolism from different cultures to ''prove'' that reptilian humanoids exist.

With it you are interpreting other cultures through particular blinkers. It is subjective, yet it is presented as if it is the truth. Prokopton's take on this is fundamental and much needed if we have an interest in mythology and pictures.

As for the 'Crown'.. I don't know whether such a thing exists. I do know that we can experience a lot of things with the power of thought and visualisation, but again this is not a guarantee it is actually 'real'. Other people could very well experience 20 chakras, or no chakras at all. :>
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 16-06-2011, 05:00 PM
Prokopton
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uma
I’m surprised Prokopton, I thought you said the conversation was over.

I said I doubted it could go much further... I also sensed you wish I would stop talking so the conversation could go in the direction you would prefer!

I said that because I think you've been misinterpreting me, and I still think that, since you say:

Quote:
I had to respond to relentless attempts to discredit everything I'm saying.

But when did I attempt that? I thought we agreed on many things! I'm not attempting discredit everything. Need I remind you that you said "Yes 100% on the above" to what I said a few pages back?

I have this unfortunate liking for the truth, and what I was saying was what I thought was true! I'm sorry if you find it less than fully congenial, but it seemed to me that what you were saying sometimes ran counter to the truth.

Some of the points I was making, which I think are of paramount importance and need to be made:

1. Comparing enlightenment experiences, we do not always find something that we necessarily can say is kundalini. So that means we do not know that 'kundalini is the basis for all spiritual experiences', as you said.

2. There are multiple spiritual energies. For example if you work in a Taoist system you will make use of some forms of energy that yoga doesn't use, and the same if you work in a Hermetic/Platonist system. I speak, again, not from reading only but from experience. There is a definite difference between the energy systems I've learned. The one heading of 'kundalini' doesn't subsume them all; kundalini is, and is acknowledged to be, a specific process.

3. Mystics who achieve what they perceive to be the ultimate do not all agree on the nature of the experience, and indeed often argue violently for centuries about that subject. One simply cannot say that all mystics agree on the nature of the Ultimate, and be true to the what the mystics themselves said.

Etc.

These facts (and they are facts) seem important to me, in the question of determining the overall nature of spiritual awakening.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that your teacher is not the only teacher, and what he is teaching therefore surely is not the only teaching! Which is nice to hear.

Yet throughout the thread you have said certain things 'are true', which other teachers disagree with... if you mean they are true for you on your path, that is one thing, but of course, it's not what you said! For example you say seven chakras above, seven below, seven within the body, and these are the transcendent and the hellish and the manifesting, and if someone mentions there is another way to experience things, you say you are not interested in hairsplitting and intellectual agendas! But why should everyone else's experience be hairsplitting and your own experience be true? (That is, if you agree that your teacher's is not the only teaching?)

I certainly haven't tried to 'discredit everything you say', and I believe it has a great deal of interest and truth. I simply don't like the way, the minute I talk about a teacher who interests me, or other teachers who have real experiences and systems to teach, you instantly talk about people 'repackaging things to make money', 'misunderstanding' and all the rest of it. You constantly say that 'the recognition [of what you are saying] comes with the experience of it [kundalini or awakening]' yet if that were so everyone who had kundalini awakening would be agreed on its nature. Which is not the case!

Similarly with the idea that 'Kundalini is prana/chi/qi/lifeforce - the power of God - existing in a human body' etc. We don't know that kundalini appears only in the human body, and we do know that there are multiple forms of the lifeforce within the human body, not all of which are kundalini. So this statement is not correct. And it's a shame you decide to make it so... incontrovertibly! You insist your teacher isn't teaching the one and only truth, but surely then there are other possible truths to point out? When you are contradicted it doesn't mean that someone is trying to 'discredit you', just pointing out a mistake or other viewpoint, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SerpentQueen
Since I have concluded time doesn't exist (it's just a human construct) and past/present/future are all going on at once, it seems to me that it's an unproductive activity to trace the evolution of such sacred images on any sort of historical timeline.

I have strong experience of the malleable nature of time, but of course, not on this physical level. History exists. Here, when a person says as Uma did that images prove kundalini has been "recognized since ancient times", they are not simply interpreting the images on a timeless level as you suggest -- they are making claims about what the makers of the images actually meant by them.

Dear me, it's a terrible amount of trouble to go to, to actually listen to the voices of the people who made the images and really understand as best we can what they actually meant!

How much easier it would be, simply to say the images mean what we choose them to mean!

But that of course could only be true to us in the present. It is a completely different question whether this or that nation or culture or time period knew about the kundalini process. There is evidence in some cases for that, but not in others. And without evidence, simply declaring that true is repainting history with no regard for the people concerned, a human habit which tends to have bad consequences.

I personally like the idea that, if I admire the monuments and symbols of a certain people, I can give them the respect of hearing them on their terms, not just on mine.


BTW @Chrysateos, Holy Spirit = Kundalini has been thought partly legitimate by Christian researchers sometimes, see for example this excellent book by a Christian who spontaneously went through Kundalini and had largely to piece it together for himself.

But again it's a question of degree. That doesn't mean every single reference to the Holy Spirit is kundalini, for sure and certain! One has to be sane about this otherwise la-la-land, rather than heaven, is the destination.

Last edited by Prokopton : 16-06-2011 at 09:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 17-06-2011, 01:17 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 19,656
  Gem's Avatar
It's not really important. The snakes and stuff are like saying the snake in adam and eve was a kandalini monster, but all I'm saying is teachers who promice some means to enlightenment aren't entirely truthful, and I involve myself with dhamma type teachings that make such promises too, so I don't harbour a bitterness, but it is rather important to realize how much of this spiritual stuff is complete nonsense and I recommend anyone practices any technique that draws their interest, but stick to practical aspects realizing one experience leads to the next experience to the next then the next...

Alot of this stuff is like searching for your eyeball.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 17-06-2011, 12:07 PM
Prokopton
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
I recommend anyone practices any technique that draws their interest, but stick to practical aspects

I certainly recommend practicality as well! Kundalini is a most real, practical phenomenon, and its consequences. What I've discovered is that some ways do work for me that have worked for a lot of others, and it doesn't get much more practical than that. That is why these things are passed down -- because people find they work.

If you look at worldwide spirituality, no one dogma is going to get you to the truth of what 'everyone' experiences and practices. Assuming that one pattern will hold good everywhere just isn't useful, nor is assuming that there are no connections at all. The only way that you can make simple ideas like that stick is by ignoring the actual evidence to the contrary!

For example, we know chakras don't exist in every system -- but on the other hand, they do exist in some systems. One certainly couldn't say "chakras are Hindu and that's the end of it"! For example there is some rather good evidence that the Hopi Indians in their system have spiritual centres at head, forehead, throat, heart, and navel, and that they use them in a way not dissimilar to the yogic methods. (Although this is also contested by others...)

OTOH, take the Taoist system which involves three so-called 'tan tiens' or cauldrons, the most important one being at the navel. Perhaps some would glance at those and say they are like chakras -- but they aren't! And if you actually learn to make use of those energy centres in the Taoist manner, you will see that they operate differently from chakras. They have an inner-alchemy method that works in some ways similarly to kundalini on a broad level but it goes through a different process.

Furthermore, we can't say that the tan tien is only Chinese. Some have told me there is evidence for it as far afield as in the Hebrew, the Norse and the Greek traditions! I'm not able to check it all... but one I have checked for example is the early modern German mystic Johann Georg Gichtel, who was also alchemically orientated (from a Western point of view, he had no knowledge of China) and who wrote for example:

Quote:
Solomon tells us in his Song that your inner dwelling is not far from the navel, and is like a round cup that is filled with the Holy liquor of the pure Tincture.

That could be a Taoist alchemist talking, and he claims to get his clue from the Old Testament! (I haven't looked up the Song to check...)

Then again, Gichtel knew about chakras too from internal observation, only he placed them off-centre in some cases, which is a theme throughout the western use of energy centres too.

I could go on... the point is, the more you actually listen to people's experiences, the more convoluted the connections and differences become. They don't respond to a single overall pattern... there is no point pretending it's 'the same for everyone' or 'different for everyone' when clearly it isn't like that.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 17-06-2011, 12:43 PM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 19,656
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prokopton
I certainly recommend practicality as well! Kundalini is a most real, practical phenomenon, and its consequences. What I've discovered is that some ways do work for me that have worked for a lot of others, and it doesn't get much more practical than that. That is why these things are passed down -- because people find they work.

If you look at worldwide spirituality, no one dogma is going to get you to the truth of what 'everyone' experiences and practices. Assuming that one pattern will hold good everywhere just isn't useful, nor is assuming that there are no connections at all. The only way that you can make simple ideas like that stick is by ignoring the actual evidence to the contrary!

For example, we know chakras don't exist in every system -- but on the other hand, they do exist in some systems. One certainly couldn't say "chakras are Hindu and that's the end of it"! For example there is some rather good evidence that the Hopi Indians in their system have spiritual centres at head, forehead, throat, heart, and navel, and that they use them in a way not dissimilar to the yogic methods. (Although this is also contested by others...)

OTOH, take the Taoist system which involves three so-called 'tan tiens' or cauldrons, the most important one being at the navel. Perhaps some would glance at those and say they are like chakras -- but they aren't! And if you actually learn to make use of those energy centres in the Taoist manner, you will see that they operate differently from chakras. They have an inner-alchemy method that works in some ways similarly to kundalini on a broad level but it goes through a different process.

Furthermore, we can't say that the tan tien is only Chinese. Some have told me there is evidence for it as far afield as in the Hebrew, the Norse and the Greek traditions! I'm not able to check it all... but one I have checked for example is the early modern German mystic Johann Georg Gichtel, who was also alchemically orientated (from a Western point of view, he had no knowledge of China) and who wrote for example:



That could be a Taoist alchemist talking, and he claims to get his clue from the Old Testament! (I haven't looked up the Song to check...)

Then again, Gichtel knew about chakras too from internal observation, only he placed them off-centre in some cases, which is a theme throughout the western use of energy centres too.

I could go on... the point is, the more you actually listen to people's experiences, the more convoluted the connections and differences become. They don't respond to a single overall pattern... there is no point pretending it's 'the same for everyone' or 'different for everyone' when clearly it isn't like that.

Sure there is no doubting internal energy systems, the chi as I would call it, so practice and see and feel and enjoy.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 17-06-2011, 02:20 PM
SerpentQueen
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysaetos
I strongly agree with Prokopton on the pictures you have posted. You assumed that Stonehenge and Egyptian snakes had something to do with an Indian belief. And you see the ''Holy Spirit'' as ''Kundalini''. It reminded me of conspiracies that collect reptile symbolism from different cultures to ''prove'' that reptilian humanoids exist.

With it you are interpreting other cultures through particular blinkers. It is subjective, yet it is presented as if it is the truth. Prokopton's take on this is fundamental and much needed if we have an interest in mythology and pictures.
:>

Have you and Prokopton read this book?

http://www.amazon.com/Return-Serpent.../dp/0932813518

Highly recommend. Not saying it's the "Truth" (that is for you to decide) but it certainly gives an interesting take on things, and leaves lots to think about.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 17-06-2011, 02:35 PM
Prokopton
Posts: n/a
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SerpentQueen
Have you and Prokopton read this book?

Um... no. It is 'NASA pyramids on the moon' stuff, not my thing.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums