[QUOTE=siva;78198]DNAch,
What? LOL
I have never read a more ridiculous interpretation of kundalini in all my life. Where did you get this? No offense, but it’s completed deluded and has nothing to do with either the anatomy or the phenomena, both of which have nothing to do with faith.
[B]Kundalini is not of the mind or heart, but of the body.[/B] No drug will make ha and tha come together. Absolutely nothing to do with hallucination. It has to be made to come together, bound and then lifted only with the most vigilant strength and discipline, and that’s over a extended period of time. Partial awakening is possible by accident, through shaktipat, or physical trauma of some type, but it’s fleeting and is not the controlled and balanced union that causes kundalini (or the concerted action of ha and tha, rather than alternating?) to first center in sushumna and then rise in a way that is directed. That takes not drugs or spontaneity, or wishing or faith, but mastery, skill, and more hard work than 99% of people frankly, are willing to put into it.
Sorry for the bad news. The good news is, it’s real for the lucky ones, although you still have to go to work and pay your bills.
Good luck with this one.
siva[/QUOTE]
Hello again siva, I was searching for ‘skeptic’ and this was one of the threads that came up. I’m puzzled by your view of kundalini as ‘of the body’. Do I take this to mean physical, of the same (and only) realm of existence that science acknowledges and measures?
If so, why do you say almost in the next breath:
Science is limited to the instrument with which you measure your outcome. No?
Peer reviews? So, not until all ones peers are unified in their “belief” can we call it science? We can hope that might happen someday, but a peer review of kundalini masters?
Is there some kind of ‘body’ you’re talking about that is unavailable to science? The point about peer review is not that everybody has to believe the same thing - it is to overthrow the influence of belief with hard facts measured from physical properties of the world, in this case, the world that science has so far detected as the sum total of ‘body’. These facts then may cause the scientific world to form the same belief (or ‘theory’, as we call it).
Can science measure kundalini - supposedly a mindblowing amount of energy or power - or not? If not, is that because it’s not ‘body’, or because you consider there to be some other type - a ‘subtle body’?
If it is ‘subtle body’ (undetectable by science), is that only to be found in one’s subjective experience? Do we look in vain for it from the ‘outside’ and must accept that it will always remain something subjectively known?
Then, if that’s true, how does that not make it something usually called ‘of the mind’?
Incidentally, brief googlings seem to indicate kundalini is often considered very much of the spirit - even a goddess, the energy behind creation or the spiritual entity that makes the formless take form. Are these interpretations wrong?