Kundalini

[astraladdict]

Anybody have any Kundalini meditation/yoga methods?

~astraladdict

[Selea]

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.

[astraladdict]

Thanks, i'll give that a read

~astraladdict

[Jon_88]

Hi all i was active 10 or so years ago. I released kundalini accidentaly while trying for OBE , so for that question if you just meditate deep enough for long enough it will happen. (i was in meditation for 14 hours straith).

So the Kundalini symptoms was bad so i gave up all spiritual practice as it agrevated it. But now 10 years later Ive gotten it for the most part under control. But i dont meditate for so long anymore. If it was worth it ? Perhaps now 10 years later but while it was bad the answer was NO.

Ask yourself what you want this for , spiritual enlightenment can surely happen more easely on other paths(well actually i dunno since i havent tried any other, i didnt realy want this). As for so called powers , i havent seen any practical powers that have any influence on the world and thats the truth(so far).  Also I guess one of the biggest hazards of Kundalini is that if you agrevate it , it may inflate the ego to propostrous levels. Where you imagine yourself an enlightend master. The spiritual journey is a long one regardless if you raise kundalini or not.

[astraladdict]

I've done so much with so many other things, i guess deep down it's more of a challenge, to complete the spiritual process. A friend of mine who was deep in the kundilni (RIP) told me i'm starting. Since i see flashes of white light behind my eye lids

~astraladdict

[gdo]

Kundalini is not something to toy with.  Simply put, there is a time of preparation that includes physical,emotional,and mental purification that when accomplished will make it possible to raise this energy in a safe manner. 

[personalreality]

*sigh*

this kundalini business always cracks me up.

"kundalini is no laughing matter!  if you do it wrong your head will explode through your genitals!!!"

lol.

just live your life addict.  keep doing your meditations and your being will grow and develop as it should.  forget about buzzwords like kundalini.  just do what you do.   

[astraladdict]

Thanks for the motivation speech PR xD 

~astraladdict

[pondini]

jon_88, i also had a kundalini awakening while trying to have an OBE. i didn't know what the heck had happened and i joined this board to seek answers. i would normally always keep my friends/family up to date on my OBEs/LDs, but the kundalini thing was too trippy. it took months before i told a friend.

[Athymari]

People talk about forcing and then they talk about letting it happend naturally. I have heard about yoga but no one saying that x,x and x is a way to force it.

Dont get me wrong I am waiting for it natural.ly and stories I hear fright me. Though I notice people dont say what DOES force it.

I am I ok continuing doing chakra balancing, meditation, journeying and reiki-types of heal? Reason I ask is tht I have now opened my mjaor chakras and my energy is flowing stronger now and I just dont want to run before I can walk.

If i think that i couldnt up forcing it - i have trouble witht that fear whenver I hit a new stage and I dont want to bring anything on myself as I cant saying its all happening when it should be!

[Selea]

*sigh*

this kundalini business always cracks me up.

"kundalini is no laughing matter!  if you do it wrong your head will explode through your genitals!!!"

lol.

It depends from what point you consider the term "kundalini". If considered as a whole, then Kundalini is just the use of the so-called "Prana", i.e. the manifestation of force/motion. In this sense Kundalini is especially meditation (and especially true meditation, "Dhyana"). When you concentrate (meditate) then "Kundalini" (intended as a whole) rises and the "centres" awake and generates "vrittis" - manifestations. If you meditate on one of these "centres", for example, a specific "vritti" will arise, causing a certain result (a certain manifestation). If you go beyond "vrittis" then "Kundalini" reach the top of the crown (and you have various stages of "Samadhi", going from the gross, to the subtle and to the seedless). In general, simplified terms, "kundalini" it is the phenomena behind the manifestations of the mind, what Wittgenstein called "fenomenology", or Sir Humprey Davy - after being overpowered by laughing  gas while giving a lecture - in a stupor, motionless, exclaimed "the world is made up by ideas".

However, if you regard Kundalini as a specific practice, then it has a specific practical application that differs from the concept as a whole. In this case the practice arises a very specific sexual "current" and this can be dangerous because, apart the possibility of breaking you emotionally if you are not ready for it (so not balanced), it is either a very strong experience that's tricky to manage. One of the worst things it can happen I already said, the one of being "stuck" in the head with no possibility of "step" back.

Kundalini has been referenced by good authors (as Vivekananda) both as in the whole concept, and both as in the specific term concerning a specific practice (others "not so good" authors instead, probably not understanding the differences, mixed one with another or exchanged the two as the same thing). In this thread I was talking about the specific practice (but I didn't include in it the sexual current and how to arise it, since it is not safe to do so without knowing what you are doing).

just live your life addict.  keep doing your meditations and your being will grow and develop as it should.  forget about buzzwords like kundalini.  just do what you do.  

That's true. Meditating (in the real sense of the word, Dhyana) "Kundalini" (on the whole concept) "rises" by herself (i.e. you "control" her, till the point of cessating the manifestation, or fenomenology, "rising to the top"). You don't need to do nothing else. Concentration (till it becomes meditation) is the key, since you direct the mind-stuff (the manifestation) in a direction. As they can be other more "external" practices as Pranayama (that many confuse with control of the breath in its literal sense, when it's not, it is control of prana with the motion of the lungs, in general terms). The "internal" practice (meditation), however, it is more direct to this point, for this it has been called the "Raja" (King) practice.

Kundalini as the specific experience instead is meant to work with a specific "current", and in general terms the sexual one, using the same "Prana" and directing it in a specific way.

[personalreality]

^^ 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. 

it's just like all the confusion in AP.  people are told a million different things and it becomes a clusterf*ck of dos and don'ts and bewares and whatever.  the more you complicate it the less helpful it is.  and kundalini, in whatever capacity, is one of the worst ones out there.  it is part of a specific practice (though it goes by other names in different traditions).  but the bottom line is that all it is is a personal awakening.  if someone chooses to find that awakening through a specific means, then that's fine, but ultimately any practice will achieve this same end. 

[Selea]

^^ 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.

[personalreality]

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.

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.

and yoga technically means "to yoke" and in to yoke together, like a yoke between oxen keeping them together, which can imply union.  that wasn't an argument or anything, just expanding on the topic.

[Thread Killer]

You know PR, it's taken me a lot of years to come to the same conclusion that you are exactly where you need to be. The likes and dislikes, the flaws and the strengths. The only "way" for me is my way.
                           Good To See You Back,
                                                          -Jim-

[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.