--- In [email protected], "Ron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No one has yet stated the obvious, and that is that it > > is not necessary to tread the path of "kundalini > > awakening" to become realized. Of course those on such > > a path will claim it is. > > Tanmay: Well peter, I am using one of my posting allotments > dedicated to this because I thought I gave the response from > my camp a number of times about this. Actually, I can throw > in comments from Maharishi, since I just listened to his > commentaries on Kundalini from an old audio tape, also > comments from Swami G because I asked about it, and then > there is a web site from what looks like a legitimate Guru > in California, which is the kundalini path, and there are > also comments about it. > > OK, I asked Swami G - does everyone go through the Kundalini > Journey. I asked because based on my own experience with it, > I can't imagine that it is possible without it.
I think that this is the most accurate and telling statement in your post, Ron, and the one that is most relevant to Fairfield Life and the majority of posts here about spiritual "progress." It's about *personal experience*, which is valid, and about *projection of that experience onto others*, which IMO is not. On this forum we've had people say that because *they* went through a period of anger at some spiritual teacher who disappointed them, everyone who criticizes a spiritual teacher is also feeling anger. We've heard people say that their beliefs and perceptions are *indisputable fact*, and that others who believe and perceive otherwise are WRONG. We've heard umpteen "definitions" of the realization process, and the oh-so-precisely- defined "steps" of that process, again as if these are some kind of cosmic definition that must apply to everyone. Isn't it possible that everyone on this forum (not to mention every "guru" in human history) was just trying to make some sense of a process that was 1) individual, and 2) doesn't make sense? Isn't it possible that no guru in human history knew diddley- squat about anything other than their own experience, and the interpretations of that experience that they had been taught by their tradition or that they had come up with on their own? I'm not saying that this is the reality of the situ- ation (although I suspect it is), or that it's some kind of cosmic Truth. I'm just asking you personally (and anyone else who feels like chiming in) whether it's *possible*. > Swami G answered something like I don't know, I think most > do, most Guru's did. Then it looks like as things continue > in the path here, all indications are that while Swami G > is familiar with the Kundalini path, it looks possible that > other paths get one there as well that don't have the > Kundalini awakening as part of it. > > However, both MMY and this Kundalini Guru in CA are saying > that all are going to go through it beforehand. Hopefully, > someone comes up with the kundalini comments from MMY, and > one can look up this Guru in CA and see what she says about it. > > So, there are the general comments from 3 Gurus- one says yes, > 2 say no-Anyone who has comments about this from these same > 3 Gurus or other ones, by all means, please post them My post is about a topic one level further up the logic tree -- why do you assume that someone is a "guru," and *when* you do, why do you assume that their opinion has any more weight than your own, or anyone else's. That strikes me as a far more interesting subject. Seems to me, from reading your posts, that your definition of "guru" is twofold: 1) people that you consider to be gurus, and 2) people that one of the people you consider a guru have *told* you are gurus. Please explain to us *why* you consider someone a "guru," and *why* someone else should pay any more attention to their opinions than to anyone else's. I'm asking not to put you on the spot personally, Ron (although it does, a little), but because this approach to life and "truth" appears so often on this forum. A great number of posts here can be deconstructed and analyzed as saying, "X is true because guru Y says it's true," or "X is true because scripture Y" says it's true. For those who *make* those kinds of posts, please explain to me "Y" you believe that the Y's you cite have more of a clue as to what constitutes truth than anyone else. :-)
