A question about chakras and compromised energy

star · 2nd February 2006, 06:41 PM

Why would you want to pull energy down from the higher chakras to the root chakra? Yeah, it will be "contaminated" as it loses the vibration of the higher chakra. This seems so totally counter-productive.

I would like to know more about that, if you could give some more specifics? I have heard of using energy pulled down through the crown to raise Kundalini. I belive the site was Kundalini-Teacher.com

I have never heard of enrgy worsenign as it is pulled down through the body before. I thought that would be good for the rest of the chakras. I'm not very advacned though, so I can only speculate like this.

Matthew · 2nd February 2006, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by star

I would like to know more about that, if you could give some more specifics? I have heard of using energy pulled down through the crown to raise Kundalini. I belive the site was Kundalini-Teacher.com

I have never heard of enrgy worsenign as it is pulled down through the body before. I thought that would be good for the rest of the chakras. I'm not very advacned though, so I can only speculate like this.

Yes, I have worked with systems that pull down cosmic energy. (I'm thinking specifically of the Cosmic Healing system I learned under Mantak Chia and his healing tao system...great guy.) This energy can in essence be "stepped-down" as it goes from the crown to the root. However, this "gnostic" site suggests that energy from higher centers should be sent to the root chakra; there is no mention of any higher energy being brought into the system through the crown first. It's one thing if you are assimilating external energy- quite another if it is your own energy. Also, in my experience, there was no need to consciously step this energy down. I believe it is a natural process that happens whenever there is an influx of energy.
Star, I am always wary of sites that offer advice on kundalini. There is very little useful info out there and much is counter-productive. Be wary of their claims.

-Matthew

**Tom** · 2nd February 2006, 08:10 PM

A good reason to take energy from the upper chakras to the lower chakras would be manifestation. The upper chakras are more open and full of possibility than the lower chakras, but when it comes to making a choice and picking a direction it is often necessary to step it down into the more physical lower chakras.

**Beekeeper** · 2nd February 2006, 09:21 PM

Thank you,

You've all confirmed that I was suspecting. The site is Gnosticweb and the information comes off their video tutorials which you work through progressively. There's much delaying of information in this process to keep you "hanging in", I guess.

Tom, I have been using NEW and I tend to be the subversive on the the Gnostic forum who subtly redirects people to RB's info.

Matthew, I studied psychology at university and so I struggled with the use of the term ego too. I think maybe "id impulses" might be a better term! They recommend the complete elimination of the "egos" but endlessly delay how this is achieved. So, being the resourceful type, I put the term "elimination of egos" into my search engine and there are dozens of hits, many of which are clearly about why this is not desirable. So, there's a whole other side to investigate. (They have frequently cautioned me about the manifestation of ego in my desire to know intellectually rather than experientially. Sadly, I'm not proficient in the astral so all I can do is rely on the information of those who are.)

They don't recommend the pulling down of energy from other centres. They say that the depleted energy in these centres robs the "superior" energy from the root chakra. This then tries to regain energy and draws back the compromised energy from the higher centres. They don't teach energy raising. They advocate complete consciousness and elimination of ego as a way to preserve/increase energy.

They say it takes 30-40 years to raise the kundalini.

I will finish their tutorials with an open mind (I'm a compulsive finisher

) but I certainly won't limit myself to them.

**Tom** · 2nd February 2006, 10:32 PM

Do you really want anything to do with this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belzebuub

**CFTraveler** · 3rd February 2006, 01:37 AM

Frankly, I wouldn't do anything a guy called Belzebuub would tell me to... but that's all those years of Catholic upbringing. But anyway- usually in new age/metaphysical circles the term ego is used to mean something somewhat different than the psychological ego meaning. Not even Id would cover it, although it is closer to the 'new age/metaphysical' meaning. (Can we say na/m?) For example, in A Course in Miracles. the whole 'fall from grace' thing is described is as the human condition believing that we are separate from God (thus eternity) but it is an illusion, since God-based reality is based on eternity, not on limitation- so what they call 'ego' is the mechanism that places reality in limitation- the belief that the limited reality is the 'real' reality- and it does it via fear. If you believe that you can end, die, lose, etc, you feel fear. So the ego is the agency that delivers that fear- which can be expressed as hate, and all the negative emotions, including self-serving love. So the ego is similar to the psychological ego in that it helps you to exist in 'limited' (physical reality) but is in charge of making you suffer via 'baser' emotions- more like the Id in this case.
I don't know if this cleared anything up-
For the ACIM followers- sorry if I messed up any of the main ideas in my attempt to condense the topic-
And, for the psychology majors- sorry about my simplified descriptions of Ego/Id and all those fun terms- It's been a while since psych 101. A long while!

**Beekeeper** · 3rd February 2006, 07:14 AM

You know guys, I got started on that site because it offered courses in AP. Their techniques are viable even if their spirituality is naive if not downright suspect.

As for "Beezlebub," they give some explanation of how he was brought over to the light. Yadda yadda. I think it's some guy who has called himself Beezlebub because someone convinced him of something. Whatever.

Actually, strangely, I remember meeting him in a new age shop when he was Neville Nobody. (I recognise him because he reminds me of someone I knew- who was a bit of a devil, come to think of it.) Anyway, he offered to read my cards but I got the distinct impression he was "crackin' on" so I declined.

CF, I was raised Catholic too. I teach in a Catholic High School (English mostly, so I'm not too disturbed by words having multiple or evolving meanings.) I went to mass six times a week in my primary school years because my working parents used it as a kind of before school care (and Sunday was obligatory). I know who the Big B is.

I'm still learning about a lot of the things mentioned on this site but I'm not a total nong.

Cheers all and thanks for responding to my post.

(Postscript for CF. I remember, as a kid, having a problem with the whole fall from grace myth- before they taught us Evolution. I always wondered why an all-knowing,prescient, omniscient God would let the serpent into the garden to tempt those two innocents.)_

**CFTraveler** · 3rd February 2006, 02:08 PM

Well, you can have a laugh if you ever read one of the Gnostic Gospels (can't remember which one.) In it Jesus tells the apostles how Yahweh and Yaldabaoth were anti-gods with each other and Yahweh was the one who told Adam to eat the apple, and Yaldabaoth didn't want him to, and when he did it was the other one that got mad and made him human. They kind of turn it around to show that Yahweh wanted us to have knowledge of good and evil-very interesting indeed. (And the book of Enoch talks about Lilith being Adam's first wife, and she did something wrong and gave birth to demons, so she was thrown out of the garden and then they made Eve for him, so she was his second wife.) It's all interesting stuff which shows the mentality of the times of the people writing it.
Lucky for me, we got taught evolution in catholic school, the priests we had were open minded about that and we got to read from Teillhard De Chardin (I prob. messed up his name).