RE: Kundalini -- Is it ILLIMITABLE or is it LIMITED ? Who oe What perceives Kundalini as a Force or a Mrthod?
Sep 29, 2001 12:14 PM
Saturday, September 29, 2001
Re: Kundalini. What is behind the word ? Is it a
Who or what directs it ?
The best understanding of what is implied in that Spiritual-Mental Force
named KUNDALINI is that it Works In A Spiral because of the universal laws
of analogy and correspondence. Nature does not waste energy by devising new
and different ways of construction when in the phase of manifestation.
It is like FRACTILES -- an endless sequence repetitively to be seen as an
“existence” as well as a “method - law” everywhere. And it has mathematics
as a base.
These state that from the widest possible limits (not to be physically or
mentally defined) to the smallest possible point of sentience, the SAME
GENERAL LAWS APPLY .
It is much like Einstein’s search for an exact way of expressing the GENERAL
THEORY OF RELATIVITY in mathematical terms. Unless the limits of the
ABSOLUTE ALL and the TOTALLY LIMITED are seen to be identical, and as
physical-brain-mind concepts are removed, because of their inherent limits,
no valid answers will ever be secured that are not subject to critical
review by the “What If?”
Now the next question is Does Humanity in its units have and use Kundalini.
It is said to be creative. It lays down plans, methods, and helps to build
Where does it find patterns ? It finds them In the many past events
recorded in the Akasa -- and those relate to Karma, both universal and
individual. Hence memory and accuracy of recording are essential if time
and energy are to be conserved.
What are the material to be used? The MONADS of lesser experience who are
attracted by their nature to centers of constructive activity of various
Who is the USER? Who directs the building? We all know that there are many
levels of architects in practical daily life and some are better than
others. What then establishes the highest and best of these? Is it not a
knowledge of materials? An aesthetic sense? A knowledge of how engineering
is best to be used in selecting materials and balancing a structure? In
fact a good architect combines a large number of arts and tries to use them
for a more efficient and better construction.
What is the “Architect” in us? Is it not the THINKER ? Is it not that
aspect of Mind that has access to the combined knowledge of various arts and
also is thoroughly familiar with the laws of their usage?
In short, it all gets back to a KNOWLEDGE of LAW and LAWS.
This is universally constant and is present in all of us to some degree.
Are we trying to develop that? What is the most efficient way of doing
that? Is it not critical study of the records of the past with a view to
synthesizing for ourselves a view of those analogies and correspondences
that repeat themselves? Can we not review and codify those repetitions
until we perceive the operation of some kind of cyclic laws there ?
Are we not the CHOOSERS when we make plans and do we not constantly use some
aspects of Kundalini but, have not yet identified them?
All this goes to show that we are independent entities: MONADS with MINDS
and those minds are unlimited by time, space, size, environment, or any
other kind of restraints.
But, also, the MIND is not US. The Mind is our TOOL.
How do we get to know it better? What are its strengths and what are its
weaknesses? How are those to be identified?
From: m [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 5:03 AM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: re: Kundalini/Bruce
Some speculative/rhetorical questions here: The role of karma in the
process of awakening more of kundalini (in addition to our regular amounts?)
relates to how we react and deal with those karmically apportioned doses of
it? So that, for example, if one has cultivativated a certain kind of
"balanced approach" "meaningfully enough" (a so-called "heart-centred"
approach) to oneself and life in general . . . the kundalini might be
experienced more-manageably, possibly?
I suspect that the specifics about what kind of balanced approach might most
likely elicit more of kundalini might be a highly individual/karmic matter,
aside from the usual generalizations about it. As in the case of our recent
"accept" matter, some things might be/seem difficult to define in more
generally applicable/"understadable" terms. (I'm using quotes to indicate
certain "various meanings" that I'm leaving "strategically" undefined as to
the "meant more-specific terms" so as to try to avert "too many"
"'accept'-style" tangents . . . or something like that, I think.)
Defining for oneself one's "normal experiences of kundalini" (as opposed to
kundalini functioning in "less obvious" ways)
might result in basically dualistic "normal thoughts" about life/life-energy
r/Related topics: I wonder if the more-involved "kundalini experiences"
might represent the more-involved versions/extrapolations, in a sense, of
the "nomal experiences of kundalini" (even though they might "appear" to be
very different)? In other words, I tend to think that one can, potentially,
"beneficially normalize" one's various kundalini experiences, within
whatever "spriritual/esoteric/heart-centred" parameters one might be privy
to: That without certain kinds of "normalizings" of one's experiences in
general one is, in effect, "missing the point" of one's experiences: that
"understanding" by itself is "not enough" . . . . . in a sense? What is
meant "more-specifically" by "normalizing" in that context is, of course,
"another matter." For example, if the Afghans are carpet bombed with food
and goodies, could they normalize themselves to those things . . . Well, I
guess that's a somewhat different subject, maybe.
And so one somewhat "serious comment" (to put it as "politely" as I can,
without getting "too emotional" about it,
believe it or not, Bruce!) I might have about Bruce's "Kunkalini" post is
that the talk about "cleansing" and the like as a lead-up to more-involved
might be interpreted (by some?) as if it all could be somehow "accomplished
on the side" as if it were somehow separate from one's "nomal" behaviours
and thoughts and values.
My feeling about certain kinds of "meaningful preparations" toward the
"attainment of more-involved/meaningful" "life experiences" (or "kundalini
experiences," if you like) is that the nature of the interpetive "reality"
of one's experiences/perceptions has a meaningful relationship with the
nature of their interpretive "normalcy" (at whatever level of interpretive
"reality/normalcy"). That is, how one defines or approaches "reality" and
"normalcy" would seem to me particularly relevant in any kind of
individually perceived s/Self-evolutionary process.
PS Of course I COULD have used lots more visible quotes in this post, to
suggest so and so (at least some of the "more-specific" meanings might be in
my imagination, if only "in a sense"!) . . . but then, surely one ought to
have some regard for certain of the more "normal conventions" when
attempting to communicate? As ususal, though, I used plenty of invisible
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: firstname.lastname@example.org
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-14759P@list.vnet.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application