Energetic Research into Chakras and Kundalini

[Timotheus]

[Akkadian]

I wanted to add that Robert Bruce perceives the colors of the aura to be in flux and the current (mind?) state of a person defining which aura colors predominate. I'm sure this relates to your findings of which energies predominate in a person.Oliver

I exactly concur. We might vary the terminology and description perhaps - to a point but the principles are the same. Our feelings and thoughts constantly change and this constantly reflects throughout our inner vehicles and their auras.

I'll write more when I have more time - this weekend fixing the mechanics of my wife's old car; a true test of karma yoga!

A.

[iadnon]

Hi:

Well, what I'm going to tell is based on what I've read about the subject.

The chakras (or God's jewels) are doors to their correspondent planes. So, muladhara, Kundalini's nest, connects us with the earthly energies. Swadisthana (located in the navel) does so, but with the energies of the lower astral plane... and so on.

It seems that every chakra, even if it's located in its corresponding plane, has a counterpart in the rest of the planes. So, there would be seven Muladharas, seven Swadisthanas and so on. Maybe that's the explanation for the "underlying" energy centers. Anyway, the main function of each one of them would be in the appropriate plane.

About the colors of the chakras, there are different color scales for them. Aleyster Crowley gathered that information in his 777 book. Anyway, we have to bear in mind that the images that a "viewer" sees have to pass through his/her brain, processing the information in some certain way. So to say, it is interpreted based on that person's knowledge baggage.

Greetings.

[Akkadian]

Many people follow what others have said or written about chakras, many people also follow traditional beliefs too. However we are (sometimes albeit very slowly) progressing forwards in evolution and as a result - our old knowledge becomes replaced with new knowledge as we develop as a race.
It was once commonly believed that the Earth was flat and that it was possible to sail off the edge - but great explorers circumnavigated the globe and taught us that the planet is spherical and not flat. I once had a PC with a 1mb hard disk in it, I thought it was wonderful at the time... now I have one with 500 x that and I think it is wonderful. Ten years from now I can't begin to imagine what will exist. Our technology and our knowledge constantly progress. Could it not be that traditional knowledge about chakras is at best, incomplete? Wouldn't you agree that to be likely?
I don't dare suggest that all that I hold to be true - is actually true; but I would like to think this combination of chakras and the PSE with its "Kundalini" snake wrapped around it, is pretty close; it makes sense to me anyway. The definition is where others examine as deeply as they can and find mutual conclusions, but people need the thought to do so. I'd like to promote such thinking.

A.

[Timotheus]

[Timotheus]

[Akkadian]

I hope you have read this with as open a mind as that which you have sought. I mean no offense and so no reason for defense.

My worthy interlocutor, I take no offence - we are but two minds engaged in discussion - without which, perhaps one or both might not move that fraction further forwards in evolution. I take enjoyment and fervour in such debates.

I perceive that your reply might contain many of your own opinions - which others may not necessarily share:

This "traditional beliefs" as you so lightly put it, are not beliefs at all that are based upon mankinds derivitive sowing. when you speak of, or work with such as is this topic, you are speaking and working with reaped gnosis from creation (universal law).

I don't mean to extract this paragraph out of context – but I take it that you therefore have good cause to accept that all current esoteric knowledge is irrefutable fact? I am inclined to disagree if that is the case. Where one group of people might study reality; they might achieve conclusions about life; but it is only as much as they are actually capable of. Another group of people might have further spiritual development and thus they may arrive at knowledge in excess of the first group. Are we then to think that the first group are wrong in their assumption? - No – we can't – for they could only go as far as they were capable at the time.
If this subject is gnosis from creation; surely there is more? We can not surely believe we are atop all universal knowledge; personally speaking – as much as I discover – I yet further realize there is so much more.

Let me put my concept plainly and simply; would it be so wrong for mankind now to discover (or perhaps more truthfully – rediscover) that we don't only possess a chakra structure but also another energetic structure in the same place which actually deals with our spiritual development – hitherto accepted to be solely relative to chakras? The latter of course, I might add, by far the majority of our brothers & sisters neither see let alone understand.

A.

[Akkadian]

I'm pleased to say I have found an online picture copy of Geoffrey Hodsons' Kundalini Deva:

http://people.tribe.net/karina/photos/3 ... 8007c1ad17

This image shows a series of seven energy centres with an intertwining channel of energy around them - going up and then intertwining returning down again, it was published in 1952. It is very, very similar to the images my wife sees and has drawn in study of the PSE. It even shows there are two different colours to the energy channel when going up and returning back down; again a similar story.

A.

[Korpo]

I am inclined to disagree if that is the case. Where one group of people might study reality; they might achieve conclusions about life; but it is only as much as they are actually capable of. Another group of people might have further spiritual development and thus they may arrive at knowledge in excess of the first group. Are we then to think that the first group are wrong in their assumption? - No – we can't – for they could only go as far as they were capable at the time.

My experience seems to be that even highest attainments in spiritual development do not induce better knowledge skills. I have read about spiritual masters from India and China and wherever say about their school that this is the highest practice and that is the best technique based on solid "science", and that it is better than that technique and whatever. I do not doubt their spiritual attainment - some are even true saints and holy men - but their practical insight in this.

Because they cannot be all right at the same time, and still they all share the God communion. As far as I can see higher spiritual development does not make you infallible, it just removes you back into the primordial state of creativity, non-dualistic peace and intuition. They are uncanny in their ability to detect what a person needs and leading them there if the seeker lets them, led there by the currents of the Universe and the divine will they now reside in. But they do not have superior knowledge beyond what their own explorations and skills and abilities provide them. At least it appears to me like that.

Sri Yukteshwar for example, Yogananda's teacher, is said by some to have created individual practices for different people. Also the Buddha did tailor his teachings to different people. Still people run around and say this practice is the best Buddhist practice or that this kind of Kriya Yoga is the highest, when clearly originators and illuminated masters found it necessary to make adaptations.

So, even though I expect in general a deeper and more guided teaching from a more realized person, I don't think developing spiritually will yield "the right answers" necessarily. Knowledge in this context seems to be still highly subjective and filtered through cultural context. Else the Indian saints would not devote themselves to the 1,000 different aspects of God while the Daoists devote themselves to unity with a Dao which does not have any anthropomorphic features. Since both teachings can lead to God communion, what is the difference than how you were cultured? So is this subjective knowledge truth and what is then actually false?

Oliver

[Akkadian]

Well put! I agree entirely.

A.