[Advaita-l] Kundalini as a product of not-yet-understood biol ogy?
mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com
Fri Mar 11 00:07:59 CST 2005
What I understand from Jaldharji and Praveenji, is that both of you
choose the Jnana Marg as the primary path for realization. Sri
Ramakrishna mentions "Neti, Neti" in this regard while Sri Ramana
Maharshi chooses "Nan Yar" (Who am I?) as a means for acheiving this.
However, as you are aware, this is the most difficult path of the 4
possible (Jnana, Bhakti, Karma, Raja) but not exclusive paths for
Both of you say that all beings to a certain degree are realized
(being concious as all are). Maybe I was too simplistic in my defining
Brahman as a state to reach which is different from what we currently
are in. But, then again, I would like also mention that the Brahman is
the fourth state (waking, dream & dreamless sleep being the other
three) of turiya or superconciousness which is pure conciousness
undefiled by the ego.
So, Jnana is a means to get to Brahman but Brahman is beyond Jnana. In
my opinion, Bhakti is the easier means to get there. In Bhakti, one is
purifying the self by means of divine love and Brahman is closer to
love than reason. As is commonly experienced, where love exists,
reason falls short or said another way "the heart has its ways which
the mind can seldom understand".
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. But is the
opposite possible i.e. can there be realization with Jnana alone and
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 20:23:10 -0800, praveen.r.bhat at exgate.tek.com
<praveen.r.bhat at exgate.tek.com> wrote:
> humble praNAm to all,
> Sorry to step into the discussion and picking these pieces alone. I'm just
> trying to understand this and relate it to some of the things I read
> on Kundalini, including Gopi Krishna. Also apologies in advance if some
> seem rude or just well-known facts, needless to mention.
> Maheshji said:
> > Knowledge of Brahman without Jnana
> > leads to utter confusion and sometimes can be fatal. The book "Living
> > with Kundalini" by the Kashmiri pandit Gopi Krishna brings this out
> > very well. His Kundalini was raised but he was not aware of its
> > significance till much later. So is the case with Sri Ramana Maharshi
> > who realized first and then understood much later in life.
> If you're saying that a person is realized and doesn't know then, Ramana
> also said that any person is always realized. And he also said that
> Atma-vichAra leads to the proper understanding that one is always realized!
> Advaita recommends differentiating between the real and unreal and negating
> the unreal. Although slightly different in approaches, Ramana also said that
> knowledge of Self (by enquiring "who am I?") alone liberates, wherein Self
> is brahmaN from advaitic viewpoint.
> Maheshji said:
> > Which opens up a pandora's box which has been nagging me also: If as
> > per the shastras, on the realization of Brahman, one is freed from the
> > cylce of brith and death, then is it true for one whose Kundalini is
> > raised but who does not understand it's significance?
> If you're saying that on realization of brahmaN and not *understanding* the
> you mentioned so in above statements, then one has not realized as per
> terms. jnAna alone can liberate. Even tripurA rahasya says that experience
> samAdhi is common. Between two thoughts, what is experienced is samAdhi, but
> one doesn't know of it and without understanding one cannot liberate from
> cycle of birth & death.
> Raising of kunDalini raises the awareness/consciousness that is undoubtedly
> understood from various teachers like Swami Sivananda, etc. But as is the
> experience of samAdhi, so is the kunDalini. Once raised, it doesn't remain
> It has to go all the way to sahasrAra chakra and open it. There are many
> different arguments on whether that in itself would liberate the person or
> not! (As such, there are different ways among kunDalini practioners
> wherein some raise it, while others lower it and yet some others do both)
> Maheshji said:
> > And so if you
> > wish to carry this to an extreme, can the Kundanlini be just a product
> > of not-yet-understood biology and has nothing to do with spirituality?
> What Gopi Krishna tried to do is link the biological effects of kunDalini
> and suggested such an investigation. Since biology itself would not have
> much to do with a person's consciousness being raised per se, saying that
> kunDalini itself is not-yet-understood biology is like saying, vis-a-vis,
> biology/science can also be seen as not-yet-understood spirituality! :)
> jai bajrangabali,
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list