^^ that right there is exactly what i'm talking about.
it's just more religious dogma. personal spiritual development isn't that complicated and by making it that complicated you're doing more harm than good. who gives a rats butt about all that mess. just live your life to the best of your ability and you will progress as you should.
Before leaving for this year I want to be sure this part is clear (that's also tied in general with other points I made).
We are actually saying the same thing. Don't focus on the terms, go beyond them. "Kundalini", as a whole, has been used as a metaphor to describe the phenomena of the mind in words. If you look at it only by terms, then it may seem "religious dogma" but it's not. It is just a representation of a certain phenomena, and, since to representate a phenomena you must use words (to share that phenomena intellectually, until you cannot understand it for yourself), some terms have been used to describe it. As I tried to explain "rising kundalini to the top", means, in philosophical terms, "coming to the source - and going beyond - of fenomenology". Adopting one descpription or another (and of whatever nature it may be, it doesn't matter), as a reality or in the literal sense, without going beyond it, then that's religious dogma, but that's the fault of users, not of the description in itself.
Kundalini is a metaphor describing this phenomena (that's present in *everything*), Yoga is the practical way to experience that phenomena, and "Yoga" (that means "Unite" in the sense of "putting under control") are just different paths to understand the phenomena of the mind. There are various ways to experience that phenomena, and they have been elencated in the various principal yoga paths:
Gnana-Yoga: Union by Knowledge
Raja-Yoga: Union by Will
Bhakta-Yoga: Union by Love
Hatha-Yoga: Union by Courage
Mantra-Yoga: Union by Speech
Karma-Yoga: Union by Work
(There are many others, when this "grouping" can be expanded in more specific sub-branches, or when two or more can combined, etc. but these are the principal approaches divided by "categories" - that are not to be taken obviously as true boundaries but as a sort of grouping togheter - they can be tied or worked on singularily and in them a mix of the others are always present, but the differentiation is on the principal aspect of the way to approach the "union")
All of these, again, are terms, in which some discipines have been elencated (or better, regrouped to make the student understand the "trend") to come to that "Union", or control of the mind (that it means also "control of nature" or "control of everything", but that's an ample argument too long to discuss here), depending on the nature of the individual. Everyone does this by him/herself when following a path (of whatever nature). All the paths come to the same end. Some path may be longer but less tourtous, others can be shorter but more difficult, and so on, but they all come to the same place in the end.
The same happens in so called "Ceremonial magic" (as a whole term, meant as "Kundalini" to describe a concept):
The Qabalah (working with it as a philosophical system): Union by Knowledge
The Sacred Magic (working with the Astral Body, i.e. its control and development, etc.): Union by Will
The Acts of Worship: Union by Love
The Ordeals: Union by Courage
The Invocations: Union through Speech
The Acts of Service: Union through Word
So, everything it's the same, terms are just terms. What matters is beyond them. What matters is the "control of the mind" to reach beyond "interpretation", with whatever means you can find necessary or good for yourself. However, as I said many times, a structure is usually adopted so you have an order on where to work upon, or you will just turn round and round without coming nowhere. You don't need a pre-existent structure (also if it speed things) just a scientif approach on what you do (that it doesn't mean a scientific point of view - as any other point of view - but an ordered way to approach your work, as by taking notes and understanding how to replicate results, etc).
So, you see, Kundalini as a whole it is not a practice, it is a description. The practice of Kundalini (the description) is Yoga/Union (of whatever form). Then there's also a specific practice of Kundalini (that's tied with the description in the fact this description has been adopted in conformity as to the representation of what it seems to happen in that practice, and developed in terms around it - I don't know if you understand what I mean here), but as I said that's a specific use of sexual energies to have specific results, that, while tied to the control of the mind (in the sense that you need this control to do it), it goes also beyond it in a certain sense. Then there are also some Yoga practices that, while not using Kundalini as the practice in the full sense (or in this sense very later on), use the description of it as a way to approach meditation (and also to have some particular results), and so to reach that "union" with the description. The three things, however, while tied togheter, are at the same time distinct things.
I understand that all the matter of "Kundalini" has become a mess, but that's the fault of people using the description and practice as if they were the same thing, or giving the description a literal value (so a "religious dogma") or similar things (and then mixing it again with the practice and so on). If, however, you read authors as Patanjiali or Vivekananda, or either the Sankhyas it is easy to understand these things and differentiate them and either understand that Kundalini, as a description, is just a description on how the "universe" works, from the point of view of the mind.
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM