Hi Jeff,
Sometimes there are thoughts, and sometimes not. When there are no thoughts (the thoughtless state), this would be called nirvikalpa sahaja samadhi. When thoughts are present it would be called savikalpa sahaja samadhi. Irritation and anger require the process of identification with the mind, so no they would not be present.
The fundamental aspects of unity are that there is no outer and inner and no perceived and perceiver. Those things are seen to be illusory.
Christi
Sometimes there are thoughts, and sometimes not. When there are no thoughts (the thoughtless state), this would be called nirvikalpa sahaja samadhi. When thoughts are present it would be called savikalpa sahaja samadhi. Irritation and anger require the process of identification with the mind, so no they would not be present.
The fundamental aspects of unity are that there is no outer and inner and no perceived and perceiver. Those things are seen to be illusory.
Christi
Hi Jeff,
It is that the distinction between inner and outer is illusory. Outside what? Inside what? Do you see? Where is the line that separates the two? Other people still exist but not separated from what you fundamentally know yourself to be. They are a part of you too.
It is more like a continuous flow of love. So there is compassion, and love and the desire to be of service in the world. “Responsibility” sounds a bit heavy, having a sense a bit like “what is expected of you”. There are no expectations imposed from outside. Unity is a very spontaneous state as the “heaviness” of the process of attachment and identification is gone. In that freedom and spontaneity, action is motivated by love. So if I saw a child running into the road in front of a car, I would run to grab the child even if I might be hit too, but not because I “should” because I am a responsible adult, but in the same way that you would pull your own hand out of a fire to prevent it from being burned. One of the aspects of unity is that other people’s pain and suffering become your pain and suffering. But pain and love can exist at the same time in the same space, so that is the grace.
Adyashanti says something similar. He says that you reach a stage where you pour all of yourself back into the world in an overspilling of divine love. That is the shift from nothingness to everythingness that he talks about. But of course by that point, the boundary between yourself and the world has broken down, so it is not so much an active pouring as a naturally occurring flow of energy and compassion and action.
To be honest I have very little idea. I am letting the process happen by itself but I don’t know what will happen if anything. At the moment the crown chakra has dissolved and there is a fairly continuous flow of amrita from the top of the head downward. I would be tempted to say “into the heart”, but it is not yet that clear. There is a lot of fireworks going on, that is all I can say right now.
Christi
You’re welcome. “The End Of Your World” was published in 2008.
It was stated as a quote, but I figured you meant it as a paraphrase. Still, I’m unable to locate any material regarding the type of interaction described.
As I’m sure you are aware, it is not as common in Zen (or for those with substantial Zen influence) to talk about kundalini… His book “True Meditation” talks about the type of practices he was experienced with, and although it is not kundalini or energy focused, it is helpful for many.
Hi Chas,
The yes and no answers would remain the same. I left out the “If you were in Adyashanti’s shoes…” bit for brevity and to make for easier reading rather than to change the question.
You see, Adyashanti had been through a kundalini awakening and was (and still is) aware of the energetic aspect to awakening. The zazen practices lead to the awakening of kundalini just as any valid spiritual practices do. So although they do not use the word kundalini in zen teachings and practice, it is still an aspect of the path. So if I were Adyashanti, and I knew what he knew from my own experience, and I was teaching others about spiritual practices then yes I would speak about the energetic aspect of awakening and I would speak about it from my own experience as a part of the whole journey. And it seems like Adya does that and I am happy that he does.
My only issue there was that it was left out of the books that he published before “The end of your world” (pre 2008), because many people could read the books, do the practices in them and then that could lead to an energetic awakening that they would have no way of knowing how to handle. One problem is that people often don’t associate energetic symptoms with their spiritual awakening, so in cases that are problematic they often think they just have some mystery illness that seems to go on for months or years and which the doctors cannot explain. In those cases they will not call up the author of the book and say “hey what’s happening to me?” because they don’t make the association.
I wrote in my post above to Jeff about the relationship between responsibility and love. So whether it is seen as a sense of duty, or a sense of responsibility or a sense of compassion or love, whatever it is, the bottom line is that if a spiritual teacher does not teach their students about the energetic aspect of awakening and how to deal with it when it arises then they are not doing their job properly. It would be like an athletics coach training people how to run, but not warning them that they could sprain an ankle or tear a ligament if they don’t train properly.
Yes, I was paraphrasing, but not paraphrasing one single interaction (so please don’t go looking for it), but rather paraphrasing a certain approach to teaching which is fairly common in the more advaitic approaches to spirituality.
This seems to be bothering you somewhat, so I will try and explain in detail what I meant by that.
I’ll talk you through one case study, which is a true story and is happening to a friend of mine. Maybe you will be able to see from that what I meant by my comment about Adyashanti and the way the energetic aspect of awakening can sometimes be dealt with as an afterthought.
My friend went to see an Advaita teacher (not Adyashanti) and the teacher taught her to rest in her own awareness and to continually bring herself back to the sense of her True self. She went to see him every day, and every day he said the same thing: "We are the pure self, just rest in that etc. etc. ". So she practised continuously and one day had a very beautiful awakening. That lasted for a few weeks, and then things started to go wrong. Her nervous system was trying to catch up, but was not yet ready to handle the voltage of energy rushing through her body. She basically became unable to walk for much of the time, unable to think and unable to care for her son.
She went back to the teacher and told him what had happened and he said: “yes, there is an energetic aspect to awakening, don’t resist it and continue with your inquiry”. It was many years before she was mostly recovered and able to function normally again.
So my question to you would be: "how is Adyashanti working to avoid that scenario from happening? How does he avoid it from happening to people coming on retreat? Or to people attending his satsangs? Or to people who watch his youtube videos? Or to people who read his books, or who listen to his tapes? Where is the support structure for people who are not ready on an energetic level? ".
As a teacher, that is something that Adyashanti should certainly be thinking about. Adyashanti does address the energetic aspect of awakening, but then so did my friend’s teacher. The problem was that my friend’s teacher addressed it after the fact, rather than before and that caused a great deal of suffering in her case. So does Adya address it after the fact, or before, or at all in the cases of the people who bought is early books?
Just because something is not common, does not mean that it should not become common, and Adyashanti seems to be one of those teachers who is leading the way in making it more common for zen teachers to address the energetics of awakening. So that is a good thing and something that I would encourage him to do more of and I hope other teachers who maybe try to avoid dealing with that aspect of awakening will follow suit.
All the best,
Christi
Hi Christi,
Have you considered that your friend’s awakening happened exactly as it should have? Is there any way for you to know it would have definitely been different if someone like you had been a catalyst? Have you not seen people in AYP dealing with undesirable effects for years and years and some even quitting because they did not agree with it? If you think one system or approach is better, what are you comparing that with? And how does that make you any different than fundamentalists sitting on their lofty thrones pooh-poohing everyone else that disagrees with them? What about all the “shoulds” and “should nots”? Are you suggesting that Adya and other teachers like your friend’s “should” stop by these forums and get your advice on how to do their work?
Is this an example of living in unity, love or compassion? You keep stating you have nothing against Adya, but over and over again, you criticize him (and everyone like him), with a myriad reasons of why your approach through ecstasy is somehow better. Very interesting to see this discussion unfold!
One can sit and build up ecstasy all they want. Without inquiry, the crucial shift of identity is unlikely to happen. There is no question that non-relational inquiry is a problem either. But, once again, neither “ecstatic” nor “self-inquiring” folks can achieve real unity without Grace. This is why in the Gita, Krishna says “Of a thousand seekers, only one can know Me.”
My advice to you would be if you don’t like Adya (or teachers like him), don’t bother following them. If others are drawn to them, let them. There is a divine plan for each of us - not likely to be the same as yours.
“There are as many paths to God as there are souls on Earth.” ~ Bab Aziz
Best,
kami
I think you have completely misunderstood what I am saying Kami. Far from criticizing Adyashati, I have actually been praising him over and over again. I have praised not only him as a teacher and his teachings, but also the innovative way he has developed zen practice to include an understanding of the energetic aspects of awakening.
What I have been discussing with Chas are minor aspects of the path and possible refinements to spiritual practice and teaching that could be made. It is not a question of one way verses another way or spiritual fundamentalism. As I mentioned before, Adya and I are both trained in the Buddhist tradition and our practices have been almost identical over the years.
There was a time when Adya used to give shaktipat. He put a few people in hospital and so he stopped giving shaktipat. Why? Out of love and compassion.
So you see, love and compassion, arising from unity, can lead people to refine their technique and approach to spiritual teaching. Adya has done that and I think every good teacher does that.
Could Adya have known that they would not have ended up in hospital anyway? Obviously not. Could he have known that it was not the absolutely perfect place for them to be at that time? Obviously not. But he stopped giving shaktipat. So love can be a driving force for change.
Yogani has also evolved his teaching over the years and made adjustments as issues have come up. The main lessons today contain a lot of things that were not there 5 years ago. And some of those changes have been put in place to make the practices safer for people who are sensitive. So Yogani responded to issues and made adgustments, as Asyashanti did. He could have said “if you don’t like it why don’t you go and find another teacher?” But he didn’t. 
But I will say again that I think Adya is a great teacher and the things we are discussing here are minor issues related to safety.
In AYP I have seen a few people (I could count them on the fingers of one hand) struggling with issues for years on end, yes, but in every case it has been people who have ignored the basic advice being given regarding self-pacing practices. So the safety net is there. If people choose to ignore it, then I think that is up to them.
As we are evolving as a species, and as we are expanding into spiritual awareness on a global level I think we can certainly all learn from each other. If someone suggests improvements to a model or a practice or a teaching based on their own experience, that does not make them a religious fundamentalist. Just someone who has noticed something and has a possible solution to a problem.
Inquiry practice is certainly an important aspect of spiritual practice and I have never suggested otherwise. The question for me is, how can it be taught in a manner that is effective and at the same time safe for everyone?
All the best
Christi
Hi Christi,
[quote=“Christi”]
Hi Jeff,
It is more like a continuous flow of love. So there is compassion, and love and the desire to be of service in the world. “Responsibility” sounds a bit heavy, having a sense a bit like “what is expected of you”. There are no expectations imposed from outside. Unity is a very spontaneous state as the “heaviness” of the process of attachment and identification is gone. In that freedom and spontaneity, action is motivated by love. So if I saw a child running into the road in front of a car, I would run to grab the child even if I might be hit too, but not because I “should” because I am a responsible adult, but in the same way that you would pull your own hand out of a fire to prevent it from being burned. One of the aspects of unity is that other people’s pain and suffering become your pain and suffering. But pain and love can exist at the same time in the same space, so that is the grace.
Adyashanti says something similar. He says that you reach a stage where you pour all of yourself back into the world in an overspilling of divine love. That is the shift from nothingness to everythingness that he talks about. But of course by that point, the boundary between yourself and the world has broken down, so it is not so much an active pouring as a naturally occurring flow of energy and compassion and action.
quote: [/quote] To be honest I have very little idea. I am letting the process happen by itself but I don't know what will happen if anything. At the moment the crown chakra has dissolved and there is a fairly continuous flow of amrita from the top of the head downward. I would be tempted to say "into the heart", but it is not yet that clear. There is a lot of fireworks going on, that is all I can say right now. ChristiI think that you will find that as part of the process the dissolving of the crown chakra, there will first be a dissolving/merging with the third eye, then a broader overall "integration' before it all descends into the heart. Thanks again. Best wishes on your path. :slight_smile: Jeff
Hi Jeff,
In classical yoga there are what is called the three bodies and five sheaths. The three bodies are the physical, subtle and causal. Each body comprises one or more sheath. The subtle body comprises the energetic sheath, the mental sheath and the sheath of knowledge. It is one way of understanding the world. So a tree would be a part of the physical world, a thought would be an aspect of the mental sheath within the subtle body and the sensation of being angry or irritated would be an aspect of the energy sheath (pranamayakosha) within the subtle body (sukshma sharira).
So when I say “go beyond the mind” it means go beyond thought, memory, division and form, the basic aspects of the mental sheath (manomayakosha). The tree is still there, but it is no longer outside you and no longer separate from anything else. The sensation of being angry will still be there, but will dry up in time through no longer being fuelled by the mind.
Yes, the merging with the third eye took place before the dissolving of the crown chakra. There is also the sense of integration that you mention and the descent into the heart, but not of the amrita, which is what I was expecting to happen, but rather of the whole being.
You too. 
Sri Ramana Maharshi did mention that the effects of inquiry bypass the steps of energy practices, and in the end result in the same thing (though by different means). This is my paraphrase directly from David Godman’s book.
Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj may not use the words “kundalini” but certainly presents an all-inclusive picture of spiritual discipline, from sincerity, to ripeness, meditation, purification and self-inquiry. Early on, he even renounced the world to seek the secret of immortality. Here is just one quote that explains the depth of his knowledge, from “I Am That:” “Ecstasies come and go, necessarily, for the human brain cannot stand the tension for a long time. A prolonged ecstasy will burn out your brain, unless it is extremely pure and subtle.”
Eckart Tolle Too? How about his famous quote: “Spiritual practices that involve the physical body, such as t’ai chi, qigong, and yoga, are also increasingly being embraced in the Western world. These practices do not create a separation between body and spirit and are helpful in weakening the pain-body. They will play an important role in the global awakening.” Quoted from ‘A New Earth’ by Eckhart Tolle p 158 – 9"
This is a far cry from claiming ‘they have nothing about ecstasy.’
You mention the Vedas, Upanishads, but what of Tantric texts like those of Abhinava Gupta and Swami Lakshmanjoo, all of which have kundalini as a central aspect of the path. Would those be less of an ‘ultimate authority?’ I have seen a simple translation of a passage in the Vedas (Yoga Chudamani Upanishad, part of the Sama Veda) describing many of the very same energy practices already used in AYP, including a detailed description of Kundalini: “The Kundalani power which is above the mooladhara, in its eight studded form would always be covering the mouth of Sushumna which is the gate of Brahman. 36.” - http://www.vedarahasya.net/yogachudamani.htm
There is evidence for or against something. What constitutes proof is an attitude, a ‘best estimate’ theory, model, or law that is subject to revision based on new evidence.
What is common to the Vedas, Upanishads, Tantric texts? A common denominator, the human nervous system, in all of its depth. This much is clear in the lessons, and from Sri Patanjali.
One could call that speculation as well. Let’s not be so quick to denounce the faculties of the mind and philosophical systems which have grown out of it. There is evidence, and that much is enough to tread any path, be it of grace, tantra, advaita-vedanta, eclectic, etc.
Hi Aum,
The point of this discussion is not whether there is an energetic component or not. It is about claiming superiority of one “path” over another. Nobody here is disagreeing that there is an energetic component, as all our posts above relay.
The teachers you mention above - Ramana, Nisargadatta, Tolle do NOT prescribe ecstasy as a means to enlightenment. That was the point I was making. You are right - they all acknowledge the energetic component of awakening, but cultivating ecstasy is not their teaching. The Vedas (and Upanishads which are part of the Vedas) pre-date the Tantric texts that you mention and are the most widely accepted authoritative texts on the subject of Brahman. Nowhere did I say the tantric texts are not valid. Of course they are! But are they the only valid paths? That was my point - these particular teachers and teachings don’t follow the path that might be yours or mine. Can we be ok with that? There are countless approaches to the Divine. And they are all valid.
Besides, none of the above is the point of all this.
This discussion is about tolerance. It is about letting teachers teach what they are called upon to teach. It is about seeing that each of our paths is unique and we will be drawn to teachers and teachings exactly as it is supposed to unfold. God/Divine is allowing these teachings already, so who are we to critique them?
Does this world need any more “us vs. them”?? If we can’t live and let live, our yoga is yet to bear fruit.
Can we know the truth in its entirety? The only thing I can know for sure is what is verified in my direct experience. Beyond that it is indeed all hearsay and speculation.
Best,
kami
According to George Feuerstein, Tantra influenced many traditions, including Vedanta. He goes on to explain differences in philosophy, including a dialogue between the two traditions. Vedanta (end of the Vedas) follows and in some respects modifies Vedantic teachings (ex. removing excessive emphasis on ritualism). Therefore, as time moves on, points of emphasis change, which some attribute to the Yugas (ages), that in some translations (J Woodroffe) equals vast spans of time.
I was particular about the context in which you made clear statements, and re-framing your position does not suddenly cast my understanding of them invalid.
A specific example: “His teachings, as you know, have nothing about ecstasy. Neither do teachings of Papaji, Nisargadatta, Balsekar, Spira, Lucille, etc. Modern popular teachers like Tolle and Katie don’t talk about Kundalini at all. Can we take up an issue with all their methods?” Your perspective is that all of those do not. I can only comment on the ones that I did read and ponder on, such as Nisargadatta, and it was apparent to me that he did in fact stress an ‘energetic’ component, which to me is a unique position for an otherwise quasi-traditional advaita-vedantic teacher to do. He was also part of the Nath lineage. Therefore, my perspective differs from yours, obviously, and my intent is to encourage readers to engage the remaining teachings and dialogues with him from an unbiased perspective as to arrive at their own conclusion (regarding the emphasis or lack thereof of kundalini).
In the same sentence, you say “The point of this discussion is not whether there is an energetic component or not…Nobody here is disagreeing that there is an energetic component” and at the same time you also say “there is no pre-set prerequisite for awakening.” For the sake of clarity, could you qualify which is true for you? My understanding of your perspective is vague at best, since it does not seem to have a stationary foothold.
“It is about claiming superiority of one “path” over another.”
I am unsure who, if anyone, is claiming superiority in the above discussions. “How ridiculous to claim this or that way is the only way!” however does force one to adopt an inferior/superior judgment call, especially with regard to someone’s living experience they are voluntarily deciding to share for the benefit of all? Furthermore, it is a valid argument to claim from personal experience (not my own, here) one disagrees with some given teacher’s methods (in this case, details about their active regard/disregard for ecstatic conductivity) in favor of alternatives that are contrary to what they are prescribing.
“There is no ONE way” is also a perspective that contrasts with those holding a conviction with a sufficient level of certainty about their chosen path as being most appropriate and effective to them and to others they regard as having a shared interest.
The propositions go both ways, where you are forced to claim ‘no teacher can ever promote their perspective for others to consider, since that would lead to the all-embracing ‘one-way’ fallacy.’ The evidence, with respect to the role of ecstatic conductivity, is that it does play a role, and one can trace this back to Da Mo (Bodhidharma), founder of Ch’an Buddhism, who prescribed practices (xi sui jing) likely resembling those used to purify and awaken kundalini. That is my learned understanding, and to me it causes no cognitive dissonance embracing multiple paths (die-hard advaita, contemporary non-dualism, trika) even if in theory they are forced to take seemingly conflicting philosophical stances for the sake of integrity. It also isn’t the first time a theory had a hard time grasping the breath of the natural world; Taoism for one struggled to make the five elements conform to such a great span of observed phenomena without coming to some definitive resolution.
“they all acknowledge the energetic component of awakening, but cultivating ecstasy is not their teaching.”
In this case, ecstatic conductivity is not at odds with their teachings in the least, to the point where one could even expect them to begin teachin it, which is the complete opposite of stating such things have no role whatsoever.
“Nowhere did I say the tantric texts are not valid. Of course they are!” Again, they stress kundalini Shakti in all of its/Her manifestations/refinements, which is at opposite ends of claiming it having no role.
“Can we be ok with that?”
Certainly, and by all means.
“It is about letting teachers teach what they are called upon to teach.” If someone’s living experience contrasts that of a given teacher, a constructive dialogue can only be helpful to everyone. In the same way, just because someone adopts a given method does not render it infallible or beyond its own ability to change, a point already made earlier.
To put my stance (maybe bias) on the table, I also see the nervous system as the pivot-point of everything else, and so to me there is meaning in the words “effective” and “safe,” which inevitably demands some means as less-than-effective and potentially dangerous/inert in the wrong hands. I am ok to disagree on this as well.
Many thanks to the insightful personal experiences shared. The same goes for the learned and verified insights, because when spoken from one’s perspective says more than the bare facts and propositions alone.
Hi Aum,
Which of the Upanishads have you actually read? I have not read George Feurgstein, so I cannot comment.
“Vedanta” has two meanings - “Veda” (the Vedas) + “anta” (the end). The obvious meaning is what you are referring to - based on the fact that the Upanishads are placed at the “end” of the three part Vedas, (of which rituals are one). Shankaracharya’s “bhashya” or commentary of the Upanishads takes Vedanta to be literally, the “end of all rituals” (including spiritual practices) to merge into the Divine. The Upanishads are pure description of Brahman. There is not much emphasis on energy (or for that matter, any) practices.
Regarding Nisargadatta - where does he talk about energy practices or cultivation of ecstasy? None of the material I’ve read of his has cultivation of ecstasy as a practice or prerequisite. I’d be interested to read what you’re referring to.
When I say there is an energetic component to awakening I mean that awakening is associated with energy opening/ecstasy, not necessarily that ecstasy is a prerequisite to awakening. Plenty of examples, even among the teachers named here.
My own path is similar to others who have posted here - cultivation of ecstatic conductivity being important. But, many among my circle of seeker friends differ in that this is not their path. Yet, the awakening is happening, beautiful openings everywhere. I don’t feel the slightest need to impose my views/path on them.
Regarding what the disagreement here was, please refer to this 3-page thread. Not necessary to recap at this point.
No two persons’ awakening or experiences will be identical. It is great to share one’s unique experience, and what works for them. That approach may work for some others. It can be presumptuous to say that approach works for all. In this thread, the issue was that Adya was not doing something right. If someone feels that way (which is their birthright), there is no need to give Adya (or his lot) the time of day. To have a fixed point of view that he needs to change his game because it not congruous with our approach does not seem to be constructive.
Anyways, I think I’ve made my point clear. And there is no more to say on this topic, even for posterity’s sake. Will bow out now.
Peaceful coexistence is the critical first step towards unity.
Namaste.
[quote=“Christi”]
Hi Chas,
I wrote in my post above to Jeff about the relationship between responsibility and love. So whether it is seen as a sense of duty, or a sense of responsibility or a sense of compassion or love, whatever it is, the bottom line is that if a spiritual teacher does not teach their students about the energetic aspect of awakening and how to deal with it when it arises then they are not doing their job properly. It would be like an athletics coach training people how to run, but not warning them that they could sprain an ankle or tear a ligament if they don’t train properly.
Yes, I was paraphrasing, but not paraphrasing one single interaction (so please don’t go looking for it), but rather paraphrasing a certain approach to teaching which is fairly common in the more advaitic approaches to spirituality.
This seems to be bothering you somewhat, so I will try and explain in detail what I meant by that.
I’ll talk you through one case study, which is a true story and is happening to a friend of mine. Maybe you will be able to see from that what I meant by my comment about Adyashanti and the way the energetic aspect of awakening can sometimes be dealt with as an afterthought.
My friend went to see an Advaita teacher (not Adyashanti) and the teacher taught her to rest in her own awareness and to continually bring herself back to the sense of her True self. She went to see him every day, and every day he said the same thing: "We are the pure self, just rest in that etc. etc. ". So she practised continuously and one day had a very beautiful awakening. That lasted for a few weeks, and then things started to go wrong. Her nervous system was trying to catch up, but was not yet ready to handle the voltage of energy rushing through her body. She basically became unable to walk for much of the time, unable to think and unable to care for her son.
She went back to the teacher and told him what had happened and he said: “yes, there is an energetic aspect to awakening, don’t resist it and continue with your inquiry”. It was many years before she was mostly recovered and able to function normally again.
So my question to you would be: "how is Adyashanti working to avoid that scenario from happening? How does he avoid it from happening to people coming on retreat? Or to people attending his satsangs? Or to people who watch his youtube videos? Or to people who read his books, or who listen to his tapes? Where is the support structure for people who are not ready on an energetic level? ".
As a teacher, that is something that Adyashanti should certainly be thinking about. Adyashanti does address the energetic aspect of awakening, but then so did my friend’s teacher. The problem was that my friend’s teacher addressed it after the fact, rather than before and that caused a great deal of suffering in her case. So does Adya address it after the fact, or before, or at all in the cases of the people who bought is early books?
Just because something is not common, does not mean that it should not become common, and Adyashanti seems to be one of those teachers who is leading the way in making it more common for zen teachers to address the energetics of awakening. So that is a good thing and something that I would encourage him to do more of and I hope other teachers who maybe try to avoid dealing with that aspect of awakening will follow suit.
All the best,
Christi
The elephant in the room would seem to be a planet in spiritual distress. Specifically the issue of kundalini awakenings - both spontaneous and cultivated. Regardless of the causes that precipitated this phenomena - it is what it is. We must deal with it as best we can.
In my opinion, kundalini awakening is akin to shamanic initiation. Energy is liberated and what we do with it is the test. We are supposed to help ourselves and each other. The teacher’s role may be one of compassionate observation. It seems that, for many of them, the ones who know exactly what we are going through, their chosen position is to remain silent (or to speak little on the matter). They support us primarily through the cultivation of inner silence. They are addressing the energy component but are doing it in a very subtle way.
It is in this peace and inner silence that the teacher exerts his or her most powerful support and guidance. The k experience, the energetic component of awakening, serves to restructure the ego identity framework. To make it more fluid, flexible and resilient. The ego, our self concept, is torn down and rebuilt multiple times as we learn to master the steps of this dance.
But the dance is very private, personal and unique to each individual. Like a teacher watching over a class of students, who are taking an examination to test the development of their skills and expertise…In a similar way, the spiritual teacher may watch over us as we undergo the energetic activation. They are chaperones and many of them choose non-interference. The students must find their own way, forge their own spiritual identities.
My personal preference would be for spiritual teachers to give a ton of explicit guidance regarding the energy component of enlightenment. However, I have found enormous comfort and inspiration from people who have shared their experiences. These people have not made themselves known as spiritual teachers yet it is through the sharing of their direct experience that maybe the most valuable guidance and insight is obtained.
May we all be enfolded in love
I am familiar with the Ashtavakra Gita.
Here is a shorter selection of direct quotes that directly and indirectly hint at energy practices and the cultivation of ecstatic conductivity:
I am familiar with the content of this thread. No recap was requested.
I do understand your points better, and the angles from which you approach them.
Superb. I should get this tattooed on my chest. In AA, we would say: first things first. One step at a time. Thank you.
Hi guys,
I don’t think many teachers would deny that there is an energetic aspect to awakening, it is just that some teachers emphasize it more, and others less. You would have to look pretty hard at Nisargadatta’s teachings to find mention of the energetic aspect of awakening, but it can be found even if it is not abundant. The same would be true with a few other teachers.
I think the real issue here is the question of which comes first, the realization of the unity of all things (everythingness in Adyashanti’s termnology), or the energetic awakening. So it is a chicken and egg problem.
It is a sensitive issue (as we have seen in this thread) because if the energetic aspect of awakening necessarily comes first then it can be seen to be invalidating a pure advaitic (non-dual) approach to realization. If the realization of unity comes first followed by the energetic awakening then it can be seen to invalidate the path of hatha yoga.
In my experience either can be the case so it isn’t actually a question of one or the other. In the video that I linked to at the start of this thread, Adyashanti describes how he experienced a kundalini awakening and then later on experienced oneness (unity). In my own case, even though I was doing very similar Buddhist practices to Adya I first experienced a state of oneness at the age of about 21 and later went through a kundalini awakening.
So in fact two people following the same path can come to oneness in different ways, as can people following different paths. So it is not (at least for me) a question of one path being superior to another path.
Christi
Sorry, I didn’t delve into the argument above. Too much reading!
I’ve read quite a few of the people mentioned above, and my feeling is that they are teaching from their own genuine experience. I wouldn’t want a teacher who does otherwise! And I wouldn’t expect experiences to be the same for all these people, even though the teachings all point in the same direction.
I find Adyashanti’s work to be useful, and I’m so glad you had the opportunity to go to the retreat, Kami!
Love!
–Liz
Thank you Liz! Couldn’t agree more with you.
Much love. 