[Advaita-l] Kundalini as a product of not-yet-understood biol ogy?

[Mahesh Ursekar]

Pranams:

>> Sorry, I've also jumped into as many places in trying to reply and my
>> sincere apologies if I've crossed over across the list's scope.

The scope of this list is Advaita Vedanta and most people on the list
appear to be scholars on the Vedas, philosophy and abstruse points of
logic or Jnanis in short. But, what is behind this Jnana? What allows
Jnana to happen in the first place? Isn't it divine love? Or in other
words Brahman? Without this source, Jnana is like a computer - awe
inspiring in its power and a source of great wonder but unable to do a
simple thing as make a child smile...and that is when one gets a
glimpse of what Atman really is.

In my opinion, intense Jnana can take you very far indeed. But, on
this path, at the point when "everything falls into place" or one
achieves Self Realization, it requires a huge leap of
intution...logic, shrutis and debates would appear to be quite limited
in their usefullness after this. Silence would be a more appropriate
expression of this truth.

>> But, IMHO, if you're following multiple paths as your question seems to
>> suggest, apart from adding to definite confusion...

Which brings me to the above point - who can claim to follow only one
path on this arduous journey of self discovery? It seem nigh
impossible. Sri Sankara singing "Bhaja Govindam" shows Bhakti, in the
same song one of the verses talks of regulation of breath (Raja yoga),
his setting up Maths for the welfare of people shows intense karma
done with a desire to serve and that he was a Jnani is impossible to
overlook. So, to reach this goal, one needs to follow all the paths to
some degree to make the journey more easier.

With love and regards, Mahesh



On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:08:51 -0800, praveen.r.bhat at exgate.tek.com
<praveen.r.bhat at exgate.tek.com> wrote:
> praNAm-s all,
> 
> (perhaps, changing the subject line was a mistake on my part, but now I'll
> let it be.)
> 
> Maheshji,
> 
> Most of what I say is my own understanding. Jaldharji would be able to give
> appropriate shruti vAkya-s.
> 
> According to advaita, all mArga-s that you talk of are only for chitta
> Shuddhi,
> they're *means*, not the *goal*, jnAna alone can liberate.
> 
> But, IMHO, if you're following multiple paths as your question seems to
> suggest,
> apart from adding to definite confusion, it puts things back onto your
> *faith*.
> In that case, you end up drawing parallels between different mArga-s and
> then,
> it may well also be said that no matter what path you follow, it is bound to
> 
> purify, indirectly raise the kuNDalini, generate Bhakti, add to knowledge,
> etc.
> 
> When you say "the heart has its ways which the mind can seldom understand",
> mixing
> up paths will also lead to saying: "the mind makes you believe that the
> heart has
> its ways, that the mind can seldom understand"!
> 
> 
> Maheshji said:
> > In closing, one final question: From what I have read, realization is
> > only possible when the Kundalini is raised to the crown chakra or
> > Samadhi is achieved. Do you both agree to this? According to
> > Praveenji, I understand, Samadhi without Jnana is meaningliess since
> > Samadhi is happening all the time but we don't realize it.
> 
> As Raviji said in another thread:
> "bhakti, upAsana, aatma vichaara, etc. also awaken the kuNDalini and
> move it up, etc. And it happens automatically without their conscious
> knowledge and control."
> 
> Maheshji said:
> > But is the
> > opposite possible i.e. can there be realization with Jnana alone and
> > without Samadhi?
> 
> AFAIK, from tripurA rahasya, mere knowledge is not sufficient. But, in
> advaitA,
> jnAna is not mere knowledge in modern terms. Being a jnAni would mean
> understanding
> the real as a substratum for everything. Having said that, jnAni would
> perhaps
> know various samAdhi-s too and then it would be being as known from
> "brahmavid
> brahmaiva bhavati".
> 
> Sorry, I've also jumped into as many places in trying to reply and my
> sincere
> apologies if I've crossed over across the list's scope.
> 
> (In closing, I would also like to ask others of what is the position of
> tripurA rahasya
> in Shankara advaita vedAnta for my better understanding?)
> 
> jai bajrangabali,
> --praveeN
>