stefos

what does "selflessness" have to do with the raising of kundalini? because it's something that J. Krishnamurti said?

 

that doesn't even make sense! it's empirically disproved by just about EVERY person who has ever risen their kundalini.

 

in a non-dual reality where GOD ALONE exists, do terms like "selfish" or "selfless" even have any meaning?

 

my highest aspiration has never been to "selflessly serve," as you put it. my spiritual life has been driven almost solely by the desire to know GOD/TRUTH via direct experience.

 

you seem to attribute an importance to our species that i do not. i think it's quite acceptable for us to destroy ourselves entirely, if that is to happen, and i don't think the universe will care any more about the extinction of our species than we care when black ants and red ants commit genocide.

Hi,

I will indulge in a final post on this forum because this is tiresome nonsense is enough for me....really.

Many people on this forum and the Buddhist forum claim to know what Krishnamurti taught when they in fact don't.

Krishnamurti taught that change can only happen when we are Choicelessly Aware and not forcing Choiceless Awareness.

Fundamental to "the teachings" which came out of that vessel, Krishnamurti, was no "me" or "self"

He did posit an ultimate reality and a relative reality and he stated that for the ultimate to be, the "me/self" had to die.

So Hundun, let's share:

First, I don't really know your perspective spiritually speaking.

It does appear that your are a syncretist

My caution: Be careful about combining different spiritualities IF that's what you're doing.

I have my own views and I tread cautiously with these matters.

Second, Anyone today can read a book about Kundalini from a Vajrayana perspective, Shaivistic, Yogic or Western "Rosicrucian/Alchemical" perspective.  So What?  Words are words.......What actual Kundalini is, is debatable!  Ego death is not debatable.

Third, The proof is in the pudding, the actual fruit or phala of the actual Kundalini (if it exists) actually having had been manifested.

In this 3 ringed circus of a discussion, I have not heard anything about being SELFless which means what?

Nonduality which IS the dissolution of the "me/ego" not the promulgation of siddhis & riddhis through a particular "Kundalini" sadhana or quasi-sadhana.  Every path which teaches that siddhis/riddhis manifest in the course of a particular sadhana also says to not pursue those things but ultimate reality which is not the power manifested in a siddhi or riddhi.

That is the point of Advaita Vedanta/Kashmiri Shaivism, Jnana Yog and of Dzogchen/Mahamudra...Ultimate Reality.

Many people are fascinated by Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, Thought projection/reading, etc.  Understood, it's pretty fascinating stuff really!

They aren't the point.  If one is Theistic, Union with God/Brahman is the point...If one is Non-theistic (ex. Buddhist) then oneness with the Dharmakaya is the point or Nibbana/Nirvana.

Examples:

1. Ramana Maharishi taught about the Self not the self, which is to say Brahman. In Shaivism, All is Shiva = Brahman

2. Dzogchen is about ultimately saying, being, doing all things in the state of presence which is where the ego is gone and the nature of mind acts or is instead of the proverbial "monkey mind."  The same goes for Mahamudra...same goal as Dzogchen.

So finally and again I ask, Why do people want to "Raise the Kundalini?"  What is your motive (It's a rhetorical question, not one I want an answer to)

The goal is non-duality and the raising of the Kundalini doesn't need to happen for the non-dual state to be.

Power hungry people want powers that "the common man" doesn't have.............if one is honest about this.  Which is why bozos in the New Age and in the Eastern religions can bloat human selfishness by promising powers, namely from the opening of the chakras through sadhana.  A real teacher/guru will say "Nonduality is the goal."

Be Blessed! So Long!

Stefos

Hi RyanO,

In my opinion, NO.

I believe that you should read the written works of J. Krishnamurti instead first.

The so-called "Buddhist" realm is vast but you should stick with Krishnamurti, who wasn't a Buddhist by the way.

After many years, Find a real teacher of Dzogchen who gives Guru Yoga Transmission.

Without many years of study and living the teachings transmitted through Krishnamurti, you might not understand Dzogchen.

Krishnamurti and Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta and the Bible "Old Testament/New Testament" go hand in hand.

Use discrimination when reading and in application. LOL

Buddhism is Atheistic as it's practiced/taught today. I personally do not believe the Buddha was an Atheist and proof exists that various "Buddhisms" were censured by King Ashoka during the councils of India ....Krishnamurti, Advaita Vedanta and the Bible are Theistic but when it comes to the Bible, Biblical Christianity is not being taught, only parts and portions are being taught. Jesus is fully alright with me.

God bless........A AH HA SHA SA MA (6 spaces of Samantabhadra) mantra

Stefos

P.S. I'm a straight shooter and have no time for philosophical games!

Hi everyone,

I'm amazed that no one here thus far has mentioned E.W. Bullinger!

He wrote The Companion Bible, Number in Scripture (Gematria from a Jewish & Christian perspective) along with The Witness of the Stars as well as other works.

His Witness of the Stars was based on the book Gospel in the Stars by Joseph Seis and an earlier work by Frances Rolleston called "Mazzaroth" which is the Hebrew word for "Constellation."

I would also check out this gents website...I'm not sure if he's alive or not however:

http://www.templesecrets.info/sitemap.html Tony Badillo is the gents name!

Farewell children! LOL

Be Blessed!

Stefos

I was wondering how this "new" thread started! LOL

Great!

So, No one here so far can honestly say "I want to be completely selfless and serve others out of altruistic love" as the answer as to WHY? they want to "raise their Kundalini!"

There we have it.

So the issue becomes this: Work on being selfless and not selfish saying "I want to raise my Kundalini"

Blessings upon all who read this,

Stefos

I suppose the "Crown jewel" of this topic is this:

Why do you want to raise the Kundalini?

For Power or Selflessness?

Very simple........."Spiritual" excuses are just that, selfish desires lightly veiled over with spiritual verbiage.

Utterly meaningless in a world where we are at a Nuclear crisis....Don't forget folks.

Stefos

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.

Take care,

Stefos

Please refrain from using things i say to further your own argument. Thanks.

Sure thing.

What do you think about what I've posted?

I'm eager to read your take.

Thanks

why in the hell anyone would want to suck anything inside their male parts is beyond me

 

whoever does that will undoubtedly find themselves in a hospital soon enough

Hi,

This is the point I'm trying to make here!

Reading a book about transcendental/metaphysical realities is NOT where its at!

Without a REAL guru who's understood this deep stuff AND who explains it properly you have mild to wild speculations. Swami Sivananda didn't write this to kill people....believe it.

No one here can say they honestly want to awaken Kundalini to be selfless & serve humanity......No, people are on power trips called Siddhis.

From Christianity to Advaita Vedanta to Buddhism, transcendent reality is for ALL and the founder/expositors of each major religion that I've stated said basically "Be without the self."

That encapsulates what I've been saying here all along.

Be blessed,

Stefos

I will say that "Raising" one's Kundalini through instructions in ANY book is wrong.

Like Krishnamurti said, If you are selfish in any way then you do an Infinite harm.

Why do you want to "raise the Kundalini?" Answer that honestly.

A real Guru will test you deeply on these matters.

Gurus who REALLY know how "do the Kundalini thing" don't explain it to you via a book.

You NEED the Guru not reading a book about "sucking up mercury through the urethra" as if the book

explicitly shows you the particulars in this practice.

Swami Satyananda said many times that Gurus in the past and today test people before serious things

like this.

End of discussion.

Hmm, JK. often said things like that underlined below in a quote from him, along with the rest of it:

 

"You know, a great many gurus from India have come to this country, like a great many missionaries have gone to the East it is their turn to come now. And they are going to pollute your mind as the missionaries have also polluted the other minds. These gurus with their tradition, with their peculiar assertion wrought in tradition, their authority which demands obedience, compliance, conformity, and with their groups, with their ashrams, it has become now in this country a form of concentration camp. You know the word 'guru' means, amongst many other things, one who removes ignorance, one who points the way, one who relieves you of your burden. The root meaning of that word, I have been told, means weight. And unfortunately these gurus that come here give you their burden, they don't relieve you of your burdens but they foist onto you their ignorance, their problem, their systems. And unfortunately here, people are so gullible, accept something that comes from the ancient country, with their ancient culture, and their mysterious religions, superstitions, beliefs and all that ritual. And it would have been very good if you had never heard of that word, if you had not accepted anything, then you could listen afresh, then you would be able to examine the thing for itself, not what you have been told, or your own particular experience, or what you think it should be"

 

(copied from the Krishnamurti website under books)

O.K. Great! He was VERY concerned about blunt commands from huckster "gurus."

Krishnamurti himself DID talk about Siddhis coming about due to Choiceless Awareness.

You can read about this in "Truth and Actuality"

He understood the phala or fruit of meditation.

Have you taken what I said to you about reading what HE meant about a "guru"?

Obviously not.

The book is called "The Awakening of Intelligence."

Please read that particular excerpt otherwise you're just randomly quoting.

I'm done with you not addressing what I've stated. Sorry.

I want to move this discussion forward and you want to cul-de-sac it.

Take care,

Stefos

Hi Zoom,

Attacking my person will get you a visit from the moderators.

I've already sent out a report on your thread!

Swami Sivananda NEVER explained what he exatly meant, how much, why, etc.

You made a blanket statement which means nothing.

Take care,

Stefos

 

until one has at least a few key understandings of what a true guru is then all of the negative connotations and stories about false, dubious or half-baked gurus can easily dominate and even be taken as truisms... which is really missing the quintessential meaning, purpose and greatness of a true guru, which is apparently (as heard in his own words) exactly what happened to J.K..

Not the case........You haven't done enough homework on this man to really know what teachings came through him.

Krishnamurti DID explain what a real guru is.

His definition of "guru" is to be found in the book "The awakening of intelligence."

Insofar as Sat Guru or True Guru or literally a THAT Guru is concerned, that is a guru who knows Brahman.

"The Teachings" which manifested through Krishnamurti, as he himself stated, were not about consciousness expansion as might be misexpressed by certain teachers of Neo Advaita Vedanta but rather the letting go of the self completely and utterly in the context of the brain cells being the "storehouse" of "the me." Jnana Yog is the letting go of the personal self/ego.

He said what he said.........If you don't like it, sorry...Oh well!

I'm done here.

Be Well!

This guy's teacher, Sivananda Sarasvati, was the guy who wrote the first Kundalini Yoga book I was reading 20 years ago, in which he advises to suck first milk, then honey AND FINALLY QUICKSILVER UP THROUGH YOUR URETHRA INTO YOUR DICK TO MAKE SURE TO STAY CHASTE!!! :lol:

 

I'm sure the student's system is at least as good as his teacher's...

I actually own this book and S.S.S. no where advocates what you think he's saying.

Enjoyable to read how you take something and can't extrapolate the meaning yourself but make assumptive reasonings behind and past it ----> Regarding quicksilver.

Dont' put words into peoples mouths........Mahasiddhas don't explain to people how that stuff goes openly, hence the restrictive nature of ALL Tantric practices.

Zoom, just stop where you are. Unless you commit to a REAL guru (SAT guru), you're making speculations about these matters.

Have a nice evening!

Stefos, Yes, I have studied his life to some degree, both through reading several of his books and from other sources. (along with your submissions like this "funny guy" feeding the groupies video) I'm not into being ranked at all. Btw, I can make that statement based on certain facts that I've been fortunate enough to come across, while his opinions are generally put-downs and denials of traditions and the people of same that have experiential being-ness and knowledge far beyond his shallow stance of being an anti-guru guru.

 

I'd add that I think he did come up with some gems at times in his writings, so I'm not against everything he said...

Understood. Krishnamurti DID in fact talk negatively about "gurus" as his definition of a guru was a person who together with another discovered truth. The book "The awakening of intelligence" discusses this in the chapter where Krishnamurti explains to a swami what he viewed as a real guru.

He wasn't a "Guru" because he said that he didn't want followers and he didn't want people's money either.

Studying and living out a teaching aren't the same as you know.

This person, who's particular "teachings" are akin to Advaita Vedanta & to Semde Dzogchen, was serious.

He DID state that over & over that the "empty mind" apprehends reality.

By this statement, he didn't say a Blank mind but when empty it could also properly perceive with clarity.

Hence the Emptiness/Clarity of Dzogchen (my words) and of Brahman.

If you read the biographical work abut him from Pupul Jayakar, Lutyens and others, you'll see that he understood a great many things but didn't discuss them because he thought they were irrelevant as people are SELFish.

Selfish people want things, power, etc. for Self not for other.

That's all I have to say.

Mods, Stefos' posts are off topic.

 

The topic in this thread is "experiences in kriya yoga".

 

The topic is not "How J Krinshnamurti cast aspersions on everyone else's kundalini experiences by claiming them to be false", nor is it a discussion about whether or not kundalini only rises when there is no self (which is obviously false), nor is it "Why do you want to activate kundalini?". Nor is it an oportunity to degrade authentic gurus, like J K has done many times in the past. I consider posting J K here an afront to the traditional authentic gurus like Yogananda, Gurudeva, Saraswati, Dhyanyogi, and more

 

Could you please split them out into another thread or pit them?

 

Thanks.

Wrong....The topic is "Raising Kundalini".......sorry......Reread it!

I would expect you with your Dzogchen bent, Tibetan Ice, to realize this fact:

When I want to awaken MY Kundalini, IT"S a SELFish act.

Does that make more sense?

Modern Buddhism acknowledges no "Self" to begin with....Also Kundalini is irrelevant completely to the Dzogchenpa.

Kundalini belongs to Tantra proper as Jnana Yog belongs to Advaita Vedanta proper.

Krishnamurti understood esoteric subjects but was concerned with the "emptying of the brain cells" of their content.

Which, he said, doesn't make one a vegetable but allows a person to function selflessly and efficiently.

When it comes to the Saraswati epithet and it's roots:

Swami Sivananda, Swami Satyananda and Swami Nityananda are part of the Dashnami order of Sannyasis.

They teach Advaita as the main point not Tantra actually.

Since Swami Satyananda was a Siddha, maybe Mahasiddha, he could write about this but qualified it by saying to seek a real guru, a relationship based on complete mutual trust because of selfless love for one another. You can read this qualifier clearly in his book "Kundalini."

Thank you

P.S. Krishnamurti and Choiceless Awareness or Naked Awareness as known in Dzogchen:

...

 

It's hard to escape that trap, 3bob.

 

...

Ditto for you as well.

interesting that Mr. J. K. was also a misinformed funny guy who hardly knew what he was talking about...

Well, you are entitled to your opinion.....which is all that it is.

Have you researched this man's life?

Have you studied what teachings came out of him?

I think that I were to compare you with him.....Where would YOU be ranked?

Humility buddy is something you lack....that statement you made was completely ungracious and full of self.

Stefos

Yes, the book is the one you posted...I've done the practices following the order of the book, doing only the main ones for all the chakras: during the last period I've split the routine in two parts, one in the morning and one before going to bed because it would take too much time to do all the excercises at one time (it takes me about an hour in the morning and 45 minutes at night).

Unfortunately there are no ashrams near the place I live, and my schedele is quite busy so I doubt I would be able to stay there for a suitable period of time even if there was one... :-)

Kundalini can ONLY be raised where there is no sense of the self or the "me whatsoever!

Are you completely selfless? I'm not.

What is being raised isn't Kundalini but something else my friend......Think about this:

If my Ego says "Yes, I will attain that" THAT is a selfish & arrogant statement.

Also, WHY do we want a "Kundalini awakening?" Good question right? Of course it is.

Here is what Mr. J. Krishnamurti said in regards to REAL Kundalini.........I think he's right:

Hi Jeff,

No, Josephus didn't.

However extra-biblical evidence exists and a number of Jewish works do.

For example, the Toldoth/Toldot Yeshu/Yeshua states: "they hung Yeshu/Yeshua on the eve of Passover"

This is referring to "Geezus" and anglicized version of the Greek, which is my native language, Eesous which is a transliteration of Yeshua or a variant thereof.

The reason I mentioned Josephus was to give light to Orthodox Jewish thought about the composition of man, which innately contains a spiritual component!

Please re-read what I've posted......It'll make more sense.

Thank you,

Stefos

Hi Stephos,

 

Thanks for your description. It does seem like you are mixing a lot of different things with the four components that you have chosen. In particular, Paul was not a direct disciple of Jesus (later visions, also Roman changes) and Jacob Boehme had some very interesting views. On that point, I would present the following verse for you consideration...

 

12. The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being." (Gospel of Thomas)

 

Also, I think it is very challenging to attempt to integrate the orthodox Jewish views into the words of Jesus. As he said, he was bringing a new covenant (understanding) into the world. Similar to the concept of a new terma/turning (Buddhism).

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

Well, I don't believe the Gospel of Thomas, in the final analysis.

I do believe what I've just stated to you however in my last post.

I think if one studies Josephus at least, then one can at least approach Jesus's views in comparison to Orthodox Jewish belief in his day.

Without Josephus, it's a moot point.

Gnosticism's leaders & followers didn't know Jesus either!

Food for thought.......

Stefos

Lord Ganesha is the God of Beginnings and a remover of obstacles per the puranic tradition. But also, because he is the deity of the Mooladhara chakra. For Kundalini to awaken and begin her transit to the Crown point, the Moola needs to be awakened first. Sri Ganesha is the presiding deity of the Moooladhara chakra and his bija mantra is "Lam".

 

Why that is relevant (the Kundalini part) is because rituals in the Hindu/Vedic tradition is actually a simultaneously internal and external process. The external acts of fire sacrifice (Yagna) needs to be complemented by internal processes. So, imho, when Sri Ganesha is offered obeisance externally via ritual, there is an internal aspect to it as well...

 

Hindu traditions have other aspects to them wrt deities. The Gods and Goddesses are aspects of the absolute and represent various specific characteristics. Hindus have the ability/freedom to choose their "Ishta Devata" (or Deity of choice). Once the choice is made, they then follow the path prescribed for that deity (until it is time to then follow another deity). So, deities are like teachers (as they contain the potential of specific characteristics that will then unfold in the seeker). But also, at a cultural level, Hindu culture never developed the "my way is the best way" malaise, because there was an effort to syncretize the various systems (of the deities) into an organic familial setting. It is common knowledge that Shiva, Vishnu and Shakti have their respective systems/traditions. But folklore assimilated them into one family. So, in some traditions, Vishnu and Brahma are the sons-in-law of Shiva and Parvati. Ganesha and Kartikeya are their sons. Sarasvati and Lakshmi are their daughters. Vishnu's wife is Lakshmi, Brahma's is Sarasvati, and so on...

Hi Dwai,

Why do Brahma, Shiva or Vishnu need to be worshipped at all IF the goal is moksha/Brahman?

Advaita ultimately points to Monotheism and not Polytheism per se.

I'm not sure if Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu are considered "gods" or deities in the light of the Bhagavad Gita:

If anything, These so called "gods" according to the Bhagavad Gita are not be worshipped, the Gita says.

The Upanishads continuously make mention of Brahman only.

I would appreciate your understanding sir.

Namaste,

Stefos

Hi Stephos,

 

Sorry if I had misunderstood your "tripartite" comment. If you are focused on the orthox Jewish perspective (rather than what Jesus taught and Christian mysticism), then we are obviously talking about different things.

 

 

Best wishes,

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

No offense taken.

I am actually speaking of 4 different things!

1. What Jesus said

2. What Paul said in his letters along with the other apostles

3. Christian Mysticism such as Jacob Boehme

4. Orthodox Jewish thought in ancient time vs. Orthodox Jewish thought today

It's quite deep stuff really.

Jesus spoke Aramaic and probably Greek as certain Greeks were seeking him out.

The Synoptic Gospels use the phrase "which is translated" meaning from Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek, the lingua franca of the day. Jesus did mention certain things:

Ex. He did restate "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength, etc.

This phrase itself is using multiple Greek words, not the same word over and over.

What did Jesus exactly mean?

I have heard no one give a teaching on the totality of that statement and how it looks like in real time.!

Paul said he got a revelation of Jesus Christ and expressed/explained it to the other apostles, he says in his letters.

Christian Mysticism is it's own deep study....I managed to get a copy of William Law's 4 volume set of Jacob Boehme's complete works from a company that reproduced the originial manuscript into a black & white format. Deep stuff as it blends alchemy, biblical Christianity, astronomy/astrology (I believe but DON'T quote me on that) and other things.

Boehme's expression is a result of his time when chemistry/alchemy & astronomy/astrology were combined.

You have to be careful to understand what he wrote and what he meant.

Another author is Brother Lawrence and Madame Guyon........Again VERY deep stuff.

Easy to read but to fathom the implications and to live it.......it's not popular, put it that way.

Finally, Orthodox Jewish thought about the "composition" of man.

I spoke with a Lubavitcher regarding this and it was the beginning of me understanding how the Habad or Lubavicher's view the nature/composition of a human being.

From what I know about Josephus, who gives the oldest commentary to the Tanakh available to us, he wrote letters in defense of Judaism of his day and understanding. Perhaps it's time to actually buy a complete copy of his works and find out myself.

In any case, outside of Josephus there is no ancient Jewish source about what Jewish thought was about the body, mind, spirit as such. I have not found any ancient sourcework outside of Josephus.

The medieval rabbinic schools of thought are just that.....medieval.

Stefos

Hi Stephos,

 

I would agree that the teachings of Jesus have been mostly misunderstood and "hijacked" by the Roman Empire with an institutional framework. I would also agree that there are many similarities in the teachings of Jesus to Buddhism, particularly when you look into the more advanced tantric or "dzogchen like" practices (this point has been discussed in the past).

 

 

But, regarding you point...

 

"Biblical Christianity sees people as tripartite: Body (Soma in Greek), Soul (Pseehee in Greek) and Spirit (Pnevma in Greek).

Furthermore, the transformation of a "person" happens by the transformation of the mind (Noos in Greek) and not by the transformation of the body or of the persons spirit since that is taken as already changed."

 

Where do you find support for the tripartite concept in the teachings of Jesus? This seems to be a more Greek/gnostic position. Additionally, the concept of the "Trinity" is found now where in the gospels (or words of Jesus) and was added by the Catholic Church around 300A.D.

 

Thanks,

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

First, the easy stuff,

I never mentioned the word "Trinity" you did!

What does it matter if God is called Trinity or Unity?

I believe that God is One.....period. Not 3 gods like Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu.

Even then in actual "Hindu" belief, the 3 gods I've mentioned are considered aspects of the

impersonal Brahman.

In the Tanakh, God is not portrayed as personal at all although his presence can be

manifested (i.e. Pillar of Cloud, Pillar of Fire, As a man, etc.)

End of discussion there.

Second,

I got the 3 fold nature of man from Paul's letters: Body, Soul, Spirit, Mind.....O.K. 4 part nature of man.

4 different Greek words my man: Soma, Pseehee, Pnevma, and Nous respectively.

I know this because I can read the N.T. in Greek, Greek being my first language.

Jewish thought makes man to have more "parts" or "aspects" then what I've just stated.

Have you researched what contemporary Orthodox Jewish thought is on that?

I believe that they break a "person" down into 7 aspects and not the 4 I mentioned.

There is no written ancient evidence on how the ancient Jews in the time of Jesus understood a man to be, insofar as a comprehensive explanation is concerned.

Do the research and come back.

Stefos

Hello everyone,

Biblical Christianity has been almost completely overlooked in favor of modern denominations.

Modern denominations have dominated the "scene" for millenia.

For example, the New Testament viewpoint of widows:

They are to be serving others and in prayer & devoting themselves to the Lord, the apostle Paul says.

Note, getting married again or the notion of marriage filling a crucial role in one's life for that matter and having sex was never a great goal insofar as biblical Christianity is concerned.

In this and many other areas, we see commonality with buddhist thought about sex and with yogic/Advaitic thought regarding

sex as well as marriage.

Consider this statement of Jesus:

"Father, you in me.....I in you......them in us, that the world may know that you sent me."

The immediate context is Jesus desiring unity of purpose namely that of being one with the Father.

To continue along the lines of unity:

Biblical Christianity sees people as tripartite: Body (Soma in Greek), Soul (Pseehee in Greek) and Spirit (Pnevma in Greek).

Furthermore, the transformation of a "person" happens by the transformation of the mind (Noos in Greek) and not by the transformation of the body or of the persons spirit since that is taken as already changed.

Comments?

Stefos

ok man.

3bob,

Thank you!

Forgiving and forbearing are NOT easy things but they can be.

Stefos