Kundalini

[Jon_88]

Well seing that it can happen with regular meditation , i know if you go deep enough for long enough it will eventually start. one signal on the way is a penetrating OOHM sound coming from everywhere. Just be sure you realy realy want it.

[laurahill]

Leave alone Kundalini until you are not experienced in so called Raja Yoga (that it is just a name given to a collection of techniques meant to teach you full concentration).

There are people that work on what they call Kundalini without this knowledge, however all they experience it is usually all another thing and you can either do more harm than good to yourself, if for some lucky/unlucky (depends on the point of view) coincidence or case something works as it should (the worst being that you cannot "descend" no more, remaining in a state similar to coma).

To learn how to raise Kundalini you must know how to actively concentrate on something till your consciousness is "merged" with it (Dhyana). When you can do this you place your consciousness (what you call yourself, your mind, whatever) on the root chakra, on the base of the spine, then you willingly arise the spinal column one vertebra at a time, till the end of the head and above. In the process you reach some "gates" that you must pass. The first two are reached by will, the other two are automatic, the fifth is again achieved with will and the last is again automatic. The seventh is not really a "gate" but something else.

This was to give you an intellectual knowledge on what to do, after.

For more information on how to start working on Raja Yoga, the best summary (being the most to the point without too much embellishment etc.) I think it's in in Liber IV (Magick in Theory and Practice) of Crowley, in part I.
http://hermetic.com/crowley/book-4/aba1.html

The most important parts are Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi (also if you don't need Samadhi to raise Kundalini, on the contrary, you must not go there). Asana, Pranayama and Yama are just correlate and having to do with the physical counterpart of the learning process.

Thank you so much for this info..I think your post clear my some doubts regarding kundalini...I am looking for more about kundalini.

[Selea]

I agree in a sense, but again, you are still throwing out tons of "techniques" and "ways" to follow, when all someone needs to do is essentially be themselves.  you are putting yourself in a position of "beyondness", but still insisting on the same concepts.

Sorry if it did take me a while to respond.

There are two problems on your concept:

A) it presumes that you already know who "You" are. To be Your Self you must first know that Self.
B) To express something you need concepts. That's the function of the "external" consciousness. To express a doctrine yout must use terms. That's the limitation of language and intellect.

The terms I used were meant to indicate some concepts. All the kundalini theoric part is meant to indicate a "truth" of a sort. Alas, it's impossible to comunicate a doctrine without using terms. The fact that I'm "beyond" terms it doesn't mean that to explain a concept to you or anybody else I can do without using them.

For what it concerns point A then, being yourself it's a good proposition, in theory (but not in practice because the term is usually completely misunderstood), the problem is that yourself means nothing at all and it doesn't brings nothing at all (again in the use of the word as usually conceived). Inspection of the self brings nothing of concrete if you want to find your True Self. Your Self is NOT yourself and you cannot come to the Self via inspection of the self.

You're trying to say that truly seeking "kundalini" is beyond words and definition, but you are still giving a bunch of words and definition for how to attain it.  Now I'm not saying that those aren't valid avenues, all I'm saying is that for someone who may not know much about the concept, this stuff is frivolous and confusing to say the least.   that's all.

If it is confusing it's because trying putting in words things that cannot be put clearly into words the result will always look as confusing. The more the system is tryng to be exaustive, the more it appears a mess.

For example: I can say that the HGA of Crowley is what it is called the Augodeis or Atman, so a subjective thing and I will be true. I can say on the contrary that the HGA is an objective entity and I will be true also here (and even more, in fact). So, I will say two completely opposed things and people will be thinking I'm contradicting myself or being willingly obscure or confusing (as people think, in fact, reading the writings of Crowley concerning It). What's more then, is that in both cases I will anyway be saying a false thing. Why? Because what you can consider Atman is just an intellectual point of view (and having a different "flavour" depending on the reader) of what "Atman" is, not what Atman REALLY is. The same happens for any other term you can use.

That's one of the motives why many Adepts speak by contradictions, and every real system use terms that contradicts themselves at every turn; because the external meaning of the terms it's not the same thing as the internal meaning of the term, and that internal meaning can only be experienced. To understand the contradictions you must know that internal meaning. Naturally it is a sort of "ouroboros", because if you already know a thing you don't need to know that thing, yet in some way you must try to teach your knowledge. For this, usually, the path to initiation is taught by using the most useful lie for your student at the pont s/he is in at the moment. If you would look at those "teachings" as a whole, from an external as a sort of "teaching opus", you could think one step contradicting the other, but that it is an inevitable limitation of language and intellect. Experience and personal knowledge tells otherwise. That's also one of the motives why I always insist that "belief is a technique".

The only thing you can do, if you want to give a general doctrine useful for every individual (and not tailored specifically to the individual) is to try to use terms the more vague and confusing possible to not have people attach a philosophical meaning to them, same as Crowley used "Holy Guardian Angel" willingly as an absurd term to explain an experience that cannot be explained in words without confusing the reader even more than s/he already is, or, either worse, searching and uniting him/herself with the partial part comprehended by the intellect (so a part of the ego) instead of what's beyond it.