Bindi

Life is long So are you saying we are all 'not of this world' whether we realise it or not? And that we are all one with the Father whether we realise it or not. Along the lines of Bob's "countless permutations in effect that when identified with seem to make it feel like separation is so." In John 17 Jesus asks the Father that the apostles may be one with Himself and the Father. So according to your logic the Father would just have to grant them that understanding. Yes, possibly, but again following this logic, he granted them understanding of unity in the descent of the Holy Spirit, but there were associated gifts, much as siddhis are associated with enlightenment. So to claim unity or enlightenment without the associated gifts genuinely strikes me as hollow words. What effects of unity would satisfy your criteria? Would a single experience of unity be enough to qualify someone as having realised unity? Or would the experience of unity have to be permanent? Is there any requirement to have associated gifts? Where do you set the bar? I have had 2 days in my life where I have experienced a profound level of unity, but for me visiting wasn't enough. Am I just a harder judge than you? I agree with this, I think our physical senses do blind us to the source. And yes most traditions would be just trying to get us to recognise our unity with the source. But different traditions try to get us to recognise that unity in different ways, and this is what can cause disagreements. You do light practice (though if someone could tell me why it's called light practice when no one seems to be able to actually see light I'd be much obliged). I also have a solution - develop extra sensory perception that is able to perceive that level. Vive La Différence?

Appeared in whose image? What does 'appeared in their image' mean? Is there scriptural reference to the chosen ones being those with eyes to see or ears to hear? In this passage the chosen ones seem more likely to be the children of the light, who came from the light. Yes we are all children of God, whether we are paying attention or not (with a nod to Bob). Okay, a little exploration of motion and rest. To work as an analogy surely it has to make sense on this level first. And I get the train example, my perception of motion and rest is relative. And maybe someone with physics knowledge could clarify for me if and how this means that motion and rest are actually the same? But regardless of this, what does motion and rest have to do with residing and receiving?

And kundalini (though it is not a transmission) is repeatedly referred to as an ascent. I wonder if these two, descent of the Holy Spirit and ascent of kundalini actually have an ultimately necessary relationship in us beyond any religion, ie. to be utterly complete human beings are they both necessarytogether. I didn't know that the Holy Spirit descends to the heart, not that I've ever really explored the topic.

Yes, absolutely. And I do hear those echo's, and they have my full attention

Distinguishing 'we as the chosen' is awfully close to self righteous religious aggrandisement, as 'they' are then the opposite of 'the chosen', the unchosen, the one's who didn't make the grade and don't belong to the in group. It seems divisive and self promoting. The evidence I would look for of 'the Father' in people would be unconditional love, unconditional knowledge, miraculous healing - I don't intuitively grasp motion and rest as the definition of 'the Father', it just seems so dry and soulless, maybe it would sing to a physics professor, or a mathematician?

Yes we have different opinions as to whether kundalini is an energy located in the root chakra or if it is universal consciousness, but I would agree with you that kundalini might be associated with universal consciousness if you were referring to kundalini that has been fully raised through the crown chakra. I think Kundalini in that state must be synonymous with universal consciousness. Perhaps we're just looking at opposite ends of the kundalini spectrum. Yes I believe I am separated from 'God', that is the reality I am working within. Maybe the whole question can be seen as a case of the chicken or the egg. Is it the belief that I am separated from God that causes me to be separated from God, or is it that because I in fact realise that I am separated from God that I believe that I am separated? I personally value the certain knowledge of my separation from God as it is the spur for me to work towards unity. The only thing that would change my mind on this is if I had actually achieved unity, which for me is synonymous with enlightenment, and all that that would entail. Until that day I will remain adamant that I am separated.

Apologies for the long answer - it got long because I find it interesting to explore these issues as well. Dawei, I hope you at least read it in its entirety, since you were the one who introduced these complicated issues The Gospel of John states in verse 17:11 “I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world” and then states in your quoted section (verse 17:14) “they are not of the world just as I am not of the world (2x).” So 'in the world but not of the world'. But it’s also true that in John 17 Jesus asks ‘The Father’ that "... they may be one even as We are" (John 17:11) and that "... they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us" (John 17:20). So he is specifically asking the 'Father’ that he grant them the state of Unity with the Father that Jesus already enjoys. In these sentences at least it is not a state that they have yet achieved. It is a request that Jesus makes to The Father, that he wishes the Father to grant. I think there is a contradiction between the statements that they are already not of the world versus Jesus’ request that they will still come to unity, in that 'not of the world' seems to imply unity having already been achieved. Do you agree that there might be a contradiction here? Referring to John 17 my answer to your first question would be: The source of the initiation would have to be the Father. Is the Father on this plane or beyond this plane? In John 17:11 Jesus states “I am no longer in the world; … I come to You.” IMO this places the Father not in the world, but somewhere that Jesus is going to, somewher beyond this plane. So I would say the source of this initiation is beyond this plane. I wouldn’t like to refer only to John 17 in answering this question as it is complicated by the contradiction I referred to earlier – in one sentence they are already not of this world, but in another Jesus asks that they be brought to a unity which hasn’t yet been achieved with Himself and the Father. I would like to refer instead to The Acts of The Apostles. Early on in Acts and in time after the events referred to in John 17 the apostles are still to be brought into unity with the Father. In Acts 1:5 – 1:8 the risen Jesus states that “Ye shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit not many days hence…[and] Ye shall receive power after the Holy Spirit is come upon you” This initiation was in this plane insofar as the “sound [was] from heaven as from a rushing mighty wind…[which] filled all the house where they were sitting (Acts 2:2). The result of this initiation had worldly consequences, in that the apostles could suddenly speak other languages (or be understood as if they were speaking all languages), and developed the ability to heal otherwise incurable conditions (miraculously) from this time on, such as Peter's healing of the man who had been lame from birth. Incidentally, gaining these specific abilities – speaking in different languages (or being understood as if you were speaking in another’s language), and the ability to heal on such a profound level are not gifts associated with the awakening or ascent of kundalini. Staying with John 17, I see the boundary as whether there is unity/oneness or not with the Father. It seems to me that you currently believe there is no boundary. And that the realisation of this dissolves the perceived but unreal boundary. What do you think of my understanding of the boundary as whether there is unity or not with the Father? And can you say that there is true unity with the Father without the descent of the Holy Spirit (and the power granted of the associated gifts)? Was Jesus asking for the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles when he was asking the Father that he bring them into Oneness?

Having set out on this path, my best bet is to see it through, extending how I deal with emotions rather than trying to reduce emotions hold on me. This may require my consciousness to shift into ajna chakra, ajna as the 'lotus of command', controlling all the lower chakras. I believe that where emotions can flow freely, unconditional love will follow. So my path becomes an experiment, one that I am happy to see through to its end.

But I do differentiate between these forms. For instance I don't think kundalini plays like tongues of fire above the head. Nor do I think that the Holy Spirit is trapped at the root chakra in the form of Kundalini. I completely agree with standard Hindu teaching on kundalini residing at the root chakra, sleeping there until woken up, at which point it starts to act in the particular way kundalini acts upon us, which I believe is different to the particular way in which the Holy Spirit acts upon us. Just as initiating these forms is done in different ways. Effective methods for awakening the kundalini will not result in an experience of the Holy Spirit whereas experiencing the Holy Spirit cannot be initiated by ourselves but is through the grace of God. Beyond this plane it might all be one, but for now we are on this plane, where duality must first be genuinely traversed. This is of course just my opinion, many people believe they are functioning beyond duality right now, I just personally highly doubt it.

Hi Rainbowvein. All I can suggest is that at the level I am working at, which is not an enlightened or formless state, things of the subtle body do have form, and can be worked with energetically. I personally have no problem with traversing the landscape of subtle form first on the way to formlessness. In this landscape, mainly available to me through my mother’s seeing, there is a gold disc, there are pearls, doors, gates, barriers, stairs, a palace, a tunnel, etc, etc. These images are not meditation phantasms, they’re not auras, I understand them as indicative of the underlying reality of the subtle body at specific points in time which must be traversed whether they are seen or not. Much like the chakras are there whether they’re seen or not, and whether one believes in them or not. To see or not see any of these things doesn’t change their underlying reality IMO, but visual knowledge of the subtle level does help in knowing how to direct energies at any one point in time in order to progress as efficiently as possible, directions which change regularly. The quote below captures the sense of these ‘images’ in a positive light.

I agree that God is not a person, it is an energy, and most likely the very fabric of the universes, but that energy is surely the purest form of unconditional love imaginable. The Holy Spirit which represents that energy must then surely be associated with that same unconditional love energy. As far as I can gather, this quality of energy 'descends', and is associated with the crown chakra. In Christian terminology it is 'the descent of the Holy Spirit', for example in Acts 2:2-4: “Suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent, rushing wind, and it filled the whole house. There appeared tongues as of fire and it sat above each one of them. And they were filled with the Holy Spirit.” The fallen aspect of 'God' could be quite easily associated with kundalini that is carried near the genitals, that actually makes a lot of sense to me - what if the gnostics got it right in that sense, that there is an embodied aspect of God (not necessarily 'fallen'), but the gnostics didn't have the terminology for a separate concept of kundalini as we are familiar with it. Kundalini has been associated with fire (as the fire serpent), and the central channel that kundalini needs to travel up, Brahmanadi, is also associated with fire, as is the Holy Spirit (as tongues of fire). So I would agree that these various energies and channels ultimately have the same nature, but I also agree with T_I that they have markedly different roles to play, and to lump them all in together is just confusing and unnecessary.

From what I can gather the dantian system and the chakra system are interrelated but separate systems. It seems to me that the dantian system responds to certain physical postures, whereas the chakra system primarily responds to emotions. But they’re interrelated in that the chakra system has to be cleared to a certain extent before the dantian system should be worked with, and then when the dantian system has been completed to a great extent work on the chakra system should be resumed. Maybe dantians/chakras are like a higher level yin/yang system, like ida and pingala are simpler level yin/yang systems. This might be why it is not useful to try and compare the two systems, because they’re really chalk and cheese, but both equally important of course. I personally believe that the gold disc itself has to ascend to the MDT and then the UDT.

I tried to search TLM on TDB and got no matches. I then tried to google it and got TALISMAN MINING LIMITED, The Leprosy Mission, Télé Lyon Métropole, The Lego Movie, The Little Mermaid, Thetis Lake Monster… You get the idea. Any more info for my TDB search would be much appreciated

I'm trying to get my kids to do it and I'm lucky if they do it for 1-2 minutes. Do you know why it is necessary to do it for so long, and whether just a minute or two will still have a good effect?

Lama Yeshe gives an introduction to Buddhist psychology in this excerpt from "Becoming your own therapist."

A site that directly relates emotions to chakras:

To my understanding the pranic system needs to be cleared of obstructions, especially ida and pingala nadi’s, but clearing them has an effect on all the minor nadi’s as well. Clearing ida and pingala I think also includes clearing and opening the chakras along the way, but pranic energy doesn’t seem to ‘realise’ the chakras, perhaps this is what kundalini energy is for. But I do think that pranic energy is very useful, and like the author writes in the quote above, I think it is more accessible than kundalini energy, maybe like energy kindergarten… My experience is that obstructions in ida and pingala (and the chakras) do seem to respond to more dense methods such as work on the emotions, self enquiry, and at a certain stage energy work. There are other methods which I haven’t tried, such as alternate nostril breathing and kechari. I’m not familiar with meditation, and so I don’t know whether meditation is an attempt to clear ida and pingala, or sushumna, or something else entirely.

After Ida and Pingala are balanced, the Prana is guided to enter and flow into the mouth of Sushumna. This flow of Prana in Sushumna is one of the first goals of meditation. Prana flowing in Sushumna brings a great feeling of joy, sukhamana (sukha=joyous; mana=mind). The tremendous peace of mind can seem to be enlightenment itself, for those not familiar with the further reaches of Kundalini Awakening and spiritual experience. As the spiritual journey can seem quite complex at times, this brings a simplicity to the process, by providing a sort of first bench mark to aim for (Prana flowing in Sushumna). All of the practices can then be seen as having a common goal, that of bringing Ida and Pingala to an inner balance, where Prana then flows in Sushumna. Prana flowing in Sushumna is one of the critical points of the inner journey. The entire inner journey can be summarized in 3 steps: • First, awakening of Sushumna [after Ida and Pingala are balanced]. • Second, Kundalini Awakening. • Third, Kundalini rising to Sahasrara, the crown chakra. Swami j (edited).

One energy, the energy of consciousness, which changes form and has different names in the different forms.

Staying with the same author: “The crown chakra is the centre of higher intuition or the higher buddhic faculty. This faculty when fully developed, manifests as “direct knowing” or “direct inner perception.” It is knowing without having to study. What is learned through the buddhic faculty in a few minutes will require weeks, if not months, to put into words.”

I wonder if some clairvoyance is reliant on the third eye being open at all, or if the third eye must be open for clairvoyance to occur then maybe it only needs to be open partially. Choa Kok Sui states that "Lower clairvoyance uses the lower chakras" and that the 'third eye' is "the centre of higher clairvoyance". A case in point, my mother has a great talent to see what is happening on the subtle body level, but she also 'sees' that she hasn't opened her third eye. In fact she started being able to see when she first opened her heart chakra. Throughout her life even before opening her heart chakra, she occasionally had random visions. I have read and do believe that with the 3rd eye open there is always "direct inner perception accompanied by inner vision". According to Choa Kok Sui the third eye is direct inner perception with form, it is the open crown chakra that is capable of direct inner perception without form.

From what I can understand, awakening apparently involves a realisation of reality, it’s about being in the present, with the mind at bay, no thoughts, which leads to this realisation, and it is available to anyone who is able to completely still their mind. In this state, what is not real appears to fall away over time, leaving only the present, and silence. Apparently risen Kundalini is not necessary to be in an awakened state. Please feel free to correct this definition. But are those who claim to be awakened claiming to be enlightened, and what is enlightenment? First and foremost it seems to me that in enlightenment there must be light, perhaps even an explosion of light within. This light is presumably associated with unity with God/the Cosmos, and direct knowledge from this source. And it is considered to be a long and arduous path to enlightenment, and certain conditions must be met, for example going beyond identity and ego. Is risen kundalini necessary to achieve an enlightened state? Again, this definition may need to be corrected. It does seem that we in the West are more exposed to stories of ‘awakening’ than enlightenment – is it just different terminology, or is there a deeper difference? If there is a difference, does awakening lead to enlightenment?

I realise there are a few different opinions about the difference between kundalini and prana. If prana is kundalini Shakti, I personally don't see how it could be active in Ida and Pingala and other minor nadi's before being released from the base of the spine. This information may be wrong, but I gather Tibetan yogins consider the activation of prana (Tibetan: rlung) as merely a prerequisite for the activation of kundalini (Tibetan: gTummo). Or it might be just a matter of degree, so some kundalini energy entering the system when kundalini 'awakens' before being fully released, like steam escaping from a closed pot. Also this speaks to my other point, that nothing much seems to happen when chakras are acted upon and cleared and opened through ida and pingala pathways, but I believe they must have been somehow prepared and then become 'realised' or fully activated or 'pierced' when kundalini energy is then released (which would include acquiring the gifts and siddhis contained within each chakra). And equally it seems to me that chakras that are exposed to released kundalini energy don't become activated or 'realised' merely by kundalini release, until they are acted upon by some other force, which I suspect is the prana from ida and pingala. Anyway, I started this thread to try and figure these sorts of issues out

Yes, a very clear article on ida and pingala. Thanks for that reference. I found myself thinking a bit about sympathetic/parasympathetic in these terms today, and right brain/left brain. There must be a few different ways to balance these nadi's. Ramana would say self-enquiry. Ramana seems to be my main response to this video

water was merely an analogy, a literary device, surely what should be being examined was the meaning of the analogy, not water itself.