Kundalini

[CFTraveler]

Thank you all. It was most informative.

[tyciol]

I wonder if 100 Kundalini means enlightenment or something... to get 100 it would mean optimized flow through all chakras, meaning they'd all have to be open to their maximum ability.

Is there a maximum ability for chakra opening? Can we not expand them forever until they encompass an area of our bodies that is the world?

I like RB's way of talk, less religious chat compared to all the yoga and buddhist med out there, it's very professional and comforting.

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Now when you raise it the first time, you're not at 100. You have to raise it many more times to 'nourish' it, in order for it to raise to its full potential. Where exactly you are in terms of the span between 0 and 100 depends on the person.

You are right, the first raise is (or...was for me) the most impressive one because it really "enabled" the energyflow and the chakra activity, i was able to raise the kundalini again a couple of weeks ago and it was a lot stronger (Imagize it as a thicker snake)....I also think that the kundalini is only so strong that your body can cope with it, it wouldn`t be logical if you can "destroy" or harm yourself by raising the kundalini....And nature is very logical....I know there are several "warnings" about raising the kundalini and some peoples have reported burnings and such stuff but i`m not sure if the kundalini or their fear (induced from a so called guru or master) that something like a burning could happen was the cause for their phenomenon...The above is only my opinion,based on my experiences, it doesn`t mean that it is for everyone the same, we are all Individual`s..

Your thought`s ?

Dennis

[Celeborn]

I also think that the kundalini is only so strong that your body can cope with it, it wouldn`t be logical if you can "destroy" or harm yourself by raising the kundalini

I would tend to disagree. I personally know a man who spent several years in south america with a number of medicine men. One of them gave him an herbal concoction that would supposedly force kundalini to rise.
Well...Kundalini did indeed rise up through his chakras, in an unbelievably painfull experience that left him incopacitated for a week. Because he had not done any real work with energy before this experience for many years afterward he suffered from nervious twitches and body tremers that western doctors were unable to identify. In the last few months he has gotten better, but he still had terrifying flashes of knowing and third eye vision, and he now has a very difficult time showing his emotions, or holding eye contact.

So, yes, I understand that in this case the kundalini was forced with an aid, and it did not raise naturally, but I still think that it can be dangerious even for those who have done energy work but have not sufficently cleaned out their emotional baggage.

*I am also of the personal oppinion that opening the kundalini channal and forcing the energy up and out of the crown might not be the best of ideas. I fall more into the Daoist camp, in that I think that once the channal has been opened gently over time (and not one with, or a series of skull blowing experience) that the energy should be redirected back down into the body for personal balancing and internal alchemy. This, I feel is the best way to achieve spiritual immortality and true, permenent enlightenment (not the fleeting glimces that come with kundalini raising)*

[Celeborn]

Tyciol:

I like RB's way of talk, less religious chat compared to all the yoga and buddhist med out there, it's very professional and comforting.

For the most part I totally agree. I think that in the west, we absolutly need the clearity. We like things simple, straight forward, and logical.
The only thing that I feel is unfortunate with Robert Bruces system is that it lacks any true building of inner compassion (tantric buddhism), love, warmth, or even an energetically projected friendly smile (Daoism).

In my personal opinion, I feel that some of Roberts methods come off as cold and sterile. And in the field of broadening consciousness, positivity is vital for shaping the enhanced being we are to become. Unless we all want to be like Zen monks (and from my time in Japan I know I don't), with a frown permenently etched onto our faces.

*Of course, what RB does right, he does REALLY right. If you add his NEW as preliminary techniques for, say qi gong or tantra, your practice will be very much enhanced.

[star]

So, what herbs were used?

[Celeborn]

haha. Actually, he himself did not know.

[tyciol]

I don't recall any frowning necessitates in new. Cold and sterile perhaps, but that's neutrality, which is a beautiful thing. Love should not be forced upon us, that should be a decision we make. If we choose love only in promise of reward thereafter, what is it then really?

Besides, that'd naturally develope with an open heart chakra, increased energy, destruction of blocks, better health and doing healing work which as RB describes does use love energy, I think.

Even so, if we choose to develope power without compassion, it should be an option not denied or there's really no will in it.

[Celeborn]

I don't recall any frowning necessitates in new.

Of course their are no frowning necessities in NEW, but in most of the Zen monestaries that I have visited there is an overwhelming sense dedication and devotion, which seem to ♥♥♥♥♥ everything else. As such, there is no laughter, no light heartedness, no no real smilling. And, if you have ever seen a zen monk who has spent a fair portion of thier life at a monestery, they tend to be rather cold and have deep frown wrinkels on their faces.

Contrast this with the Daoist or Tibetian Buddhist monk, who tend to cause those around them to feel comfertable and happy just by being in their presence.

Then look at the differences in their practices and techniques.

Cold and sterile perhaps, but that's neutrality, which is a beautiful thing. Love should not be forced upon us, that should be a decision we make. If we choose love only in promise of reward thereafter, what is it then really?

I never would suggest to try and fake happyness or love. That is counter productive. But, by generating good feelings while doing your meditations, the subconscious mind will begin to integrate them into your daily life.
And if you don't like the idea of working directly with love, and perfer neutrality, that is where the Daoist inner smile technique shines.

Because cold neutrality is not a beautiful thing. Cold neutrality is called apathy, and over time puts you in a pretty bad, bitter place. Warm neutrality, however, is aceptence and friendlyness.

In this Daoist practice you learn to generate calm smiling energy and project it into each of your organs, until your organs learn how to energetically smile back on their own. This harmonizes the different functions of your body into a relaxed, gently pleased state. Over time, the smile will become such a part of you that it will radiate outwards to the people around you, giving off the feeling of open friendlyness and aceptance to everyone you meet.

[tyciol]

Nooo cold neutrality IS good. For a technique. What I mean is that it should be up to us to add our OWN warmth to it, if we so choose. I find if there's too much love in something it can be kind of offputting because it's not the kind I relate to.

Zen Buddhism was popular among the warrior class of Japan I think, and I guess they could be somewhat stern at times. I think there are probably some that laugh, but perhaps they see it as a lack of discipline or respect to do it on grounds. I read a book on it and even I don't understand it too well...