There are many complementary perspectives for evaluating those experiences we consider to be distinctly religious or spiritual or mystical. I say distinctly in order to give a nod to a holistic approach, which integrates our human experience, biologically, psychologically, spiritually, etc

The complementary perspectives for understanding religious experiences primarily include the philosophical, metaphysical, theological and psychological. Few such perspectives are thoroughly comprehensive, such that they systematically address all of these angles in a manner that is internally coherent and logically consistent, as well as externally congruent with what we might know through science. Few approaches are consilient, to borrow a term from E.O. Wilson, such that they are multidisciplinary.

Jim Arraj, at http://www.innerexplorations.com , has given much thought to Mysticism in just such a consilent approach. He explicates Maritain's three types of contemplation using the philosophy and metaphysics of St. Thomas Aquinas, which Maritain relied on in his theological speculations on contemplation.

Accordingly, he describes a metaphysical contemplation, a mystical contemplation and a mysticism of the self. To me, the epistemological loci seem to be, respectively, philosophical (mostly ontological and cosmological), theological (mostly teleological) and existential (but that's my own mnemonic).

Arraj seems to give much deference to the great Carmelite mystics, especially John of the Cross, and appropriately so, as they are Doctors of the Church. Thus he uses a distinctly Sanjuanist theology of contemplation in a normative manner to evaluate contemplative prayer practices.

His consilient approach is made even more robust by his use of Jungian psychology, especially in the assessment of energy flows and personality typologies. What Jim and Tyra Arraj consider to be their Collected Works is both a story of their personal faith journeys and a truly c/Catholic systematic theology. It is a consistent and coherent structure, perhaps largely due to its reliance on the genius of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross. It is a congruent structure and capable of discourse with modern cosmologies (using the genius of Aristotle as refined by Thomism) and human sciences.

I say all of this by way of recommending this model as the best existing heuristic for understanding Kundalini in the Christian experience and for advancing East-West dialogue. The next natural step in the evolution of this model may be the expansion of the Jungian paradigms by modern day genetics and neuropsychology (or as Arraj might call it biochemical typology of the future) .

I think this future is upon us.

I have discussed elsewhere, that contrary to popular belief, the Enneagram has some clearly observable neurophysiological correlates, especially once viewed from the perspective of Myers-Briggs typologies and Jungian functions. The directionality of the Enneagram may precisely correspond to the contiguity of neuronal pathways within and between brain hemispheres. Our individuation process may require both our journeying along existing, and our creation of novel, neuronal pathways from that brain hempisphere where our lead function resides to that hemisphere where our inferior function resides, which is invariably catercorner. To some extent, this may be a biological correlate for virtue and vice.

There are important studies underway, which are empirically measuring physiological foundations for Jungian functions and typologies. There are equally compelling studies by Andrew Newberg, such as The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience. On the philosophical front, a great resource to complement these other studies is Reality and Mystical Experience by F. Samuel Brainard.

However far we advance, it is good to keep in mind these words of William James as quoted by William A. Dembski William A. Dembski:

quote:

Over a hundred years ago William James saw clearly that science would never resolve the mind�body problem. In his Principles of Psychology he argued that neither empirical evidence nor scientific reasoning would settle this question. Instead, he foresaw an interminable debate between competing philosophies, with no side gaining a clear advantage. The following passage captures the state of cognitive science today:

We are thrown back therefore upon the crude evidences of introspection on the one hand, with all its liabilities to deception, and, on the other hand, upon a priori postulates and probabilities. He who loves to balance nice doubts need be in no hurry to decide the point. Like Mephistopheles to Faust, he can say to himself, "dazu hast du noch eine lange Frist" [for that you�ve got a long wait], for from generation to generation the reasons adduced on both sides will grow more voluminous, and the discussion more refined.

William James was not discouraging research, but very reminiscent of Gopi Krishna, who also encouraged research into underlying biological phenomena, he was sounding a cautionary note.

And so, in closing, our philosophical stances, metaphysical positions, theological speculations, psychological explications, biological investigations and inter-religious dialogue, regarding mystical experience, are very rudimentary and extremely problematic. Increasingly, however, there are very orthodox and very systematic approaches for the modern Catholic to approach such phenomena as kundalini energy in a manner that is consilient but not syncretistic (and this is an important distinction I'd point out to those who would confuse the two approaches, who have a reflexive knee-jerk reaction to anything Eastern, labeling it New Age). Because East-West dialogue is young, despite the life works of William Johnston, Bede Griffiths, Thomas Merton, Tony deMello et al, it is important to remember that although we each can contribute in a manner that is dispositive of these issues (that addresses it or touches upon it), no one has yet claimed to have contributed in a manner that is fully exhuastive (completely explaining) of the issues.

When Thomas Keating and Phil St. Romain say I really don't know this or No one really knows that, even after years of experience and many symposia, well that might be quite the humbling experience for those of us hungry for answers and greedy for explanations

So, Phil, I'm still waiting on your simplifed version of how kundalini fits in to the chain of being per St. Thomas vis a vis created form as a route around pantheism and all Seriously, I'm trying to guage my level of understanding of Arraj re: Kundalini Energy and Christian Spirituality - Discussion

pax,
jb

I share below, some of my notes and commentary taken from Brainard. I think they might better elucidate the differences and similarities between those metaphysical foundations, which undergird various Western & Eastern mysticisms.

I think these notes might more clearly establish the Christian view of transcendence, as I have understood it, (its ontological discontinuity) and of immanence (our radical dependence on primal ground, primal support and primal being).

We can view the Cosmos as space-time-matter-energy but remain in radical relationship to a nonspatial, atemporal, immaterial, nonenergetic realm via a mediating principle, which is mysterious and occulted, ontologically (due to our experience of being able to model system rules but not explain them, due to inaccesibility of ground, due to unachievable meta-frameworks in our hierarchical reality, due to inherent system constraints in transcending to the next level of the great chain of being, or what have you).

Our relationship to the Divine is thus analogical and our ortho-doxology (true glory) is realized in fulfilling our uniquely human potentials based on potencies which inhere at various levels of the great chain of being due to ontological densitites characteristic to each created form (densities which I believe were forever effected and affected by the hypostasis of the Incarnation, that mysterious mediator). Thus, there is no pantheism. The wind is the wind. Rain is rain. You are you. I am I. Kundalini is a creature, a natural energy. The Holy Spirit is God.

Mystical experiences, whether philosophical/metaphysical, mystical or natural mysticism will have neurophysiological correlates (and maybe recursively some "causes") which manifest in an empirically measurable fashion, phenomenologically (or as epiphenomena) and, always, there will be inexplicable and anomalous experiences, too (but those will be the exception and not the rule). Some phenomena we have observed in spiritual emergence dynamics are those brain states associated with unitive experiences and the neuronal pathways and the glucose metabolic activity associated with Jungian functions. The panentheistic implications are that natural human growth and transformative processes can be impinged on by grace and by our cooperation with grace and that we can even predispose our natural faculties to better cooperate with supernatural graces, but the mediating principles are always an encounter with Christ, which remains immersed in mystery and occulted, in principle.

Anything which comes through our sense faculties and through our perceptual filters is mediated . The shutting down of these faculties and discursive brain activities brings a mystical awareness, a unitive experience that is unmediated by our normal faculties of conscious awareness, and though we have sometimes distinguished this as a direct and unmediated numinous experience, actually, it remains an indirect and mediated experience of awareness, just apophatic instead of kataphatic, conjunctive instead of disjunctive, holistic instead of causal, impersonal instead of personal, existential instead of theological, natural and not necessarily supernatural.

From Brainard, I gathered:

1) the importance in Dionysian mysticism of Proclus' triad of mone (remaining, rest), proodos (proceeding, emanation) and epistrophe (rverting, return). This can be used to affirm a creatio ex nihilo with the unknown God ( mone differentiation ) overflowing into differentiation in his effects ( proodos ) and regaining identity by reversion ( epistrophe ).

2) This triad thus accounts for a cosmology, which preserves metaphysical dualism (the cosmos being ultimate proodos) in a polarity with one pole being a source or a creative agency and the other polar reality being that which receives (something Aquinas could affirm but not Luther).

3) This triad is preserved everywhere, even in prayer - apophasis, kataphasis and a mediating principle (I like to call the liminal threshold, where radical construction, deconstruction, reconstruction may occur).

4) While God originates being, His relationship with us remains mediated. It is not direct. Dionysius maintains the metaphysical dualistic divide.

5) Insofar as mystical awareness is concerned, both the disjunctive and conjunctive roles of awareness are nondual to begin with for the East. For Christianity, the dualistic divide presents an apparent problem, which Dionysius overcomes by showing us how to realize that which is beyond ontology and metaphysics (specifically beyond a Christian dualistic metaphysics). He places the Godhead in a realm beyond being (beyond being as either essence or substance) and union, therefore, did not mean a union of substances or entities of one with another , rather the ground of union radically transcended substances and entities.

6) Brainard cites McGinn's comparision of Dionysian logic, he says, in a way reminiscent of Nagarjuna's use of four-cornered logic: a) God is x [true, metaphorically] b) God is not-x [true, anagogically] c) God is neither x nor not-x [true, unitively]. This is a lapse of conventional logic. This is a "technique" for speaking about the ineffable that parallels our brain's use of formal/logical causation and efficient causation , using conjunctive awareness (God as logical cause) and disjunctive awareness ( can't get back to God through an infinite regression of efficient causes, reminiscent of the sorite paradox ). It also parallels D'Aquili and Newberg's description of holistic and causal operators in the brain.

Dionysius preserves dualism through kataphatic affirmations ( markedly different from Advaita-Vedanta Hinduism and Madhyamika Buddhism ) and collapses the dualism with an apophasis (that also preserves the dualism), which, in its own way, increases descriptive accuracy of the Godhead through negations.

7) The metaphysical coherency of Christian metaphysics (the dualistic paradigm) is thus threatened by the very possibility of a "mystical awareness of God", even when the awareness is posited outside of the metaphysical framework. God's involvement may be intimate but it remains mysterious. Brainard clearly states: No metaphysical paradigm seems able to maintain its logical consistency if pushed too far. DARN!
8) Dionysius does not view the Cosmos one-dimensionally (like the Adavaita-Vedanta's cosmos) but two-dimensionally. Dionysius preserves relationality. One doesn't proceed up the great chain of being, in other words, progressing to the highest order of existence. There is no promotion of the individual in the conventional metaphysics up the hierarchy of the great chain of being (no identity with Brahman). In the other dimension, one finds and unites with God through perfection of oneself within the framework of one's own place within the cosmic structure (or might we say, with that ontological density appropriated to one's created form?).

9) What Brainard finally concludes is that no discursively coherent metaphysics is foundationally complete (neither Buddhism, Hindu or Christianity) and they all should push for a rationally consistent orthodoxy. They can only achieve a coherent basis for mystical realities by occulting certain apparently primordial features of our cosmos. No metaphysical orthodoxy seems to account adequately for mystical ultimacy. So, take a rest and we'll solve all of this next year.

The important convergence for Hindu, Buddhist and Christian paradigms is that ultimacy lies beyond. Where dual and nondual paradigms diverge is in where they locate foundational mystery . [Hence, I like to think we're all a tad nonfoundational ).

I think that, in the final analysis, the difference in location of foundational mystery results in pantheism versus panentheism. Either approach, however, still relies on a fugue of pattern and paradox.
10) All of this has a bearing on the modeling power each paradigm has for kundalini energy. Once again, the Thomistic philosophy and metaphysics are found to be congruent with yet another perspective, this one, a pre-modern Dionysian mysticism. The technique of describing the ineffable mystical experience (metaphorical, anagogical, unitive), the paradigm which uses a triad of mone, poodos, epistrophe, and the prayer movements of apophasis, kataphasis and liminality, are all consonant with the Aristotelean model of causation (efficient, formal, material, final and so forth). The occulting of primordial cosmic features by this pre-modern mystagogy is congruent with the occulting by modern cosmologies, bounded as we are by quantum uncertainty, immersed as we are in indeterminacy and limited as we are, on the other extremes (vis a vis our place on the great chain of being) by the constancy of the speed of light.

There is a lapse in consistency when mystical theologians resort to making distinctions between logical/formal causes (in the anagogical realm) and efficient causes (in the metaphorical realm), but it is the same lapse modern cosmologists, particle physicists and biologists experience when pointing to a tacit dimension, a realm of formal causation, as a ploy to gain explanatory adequacy for superluminality, apparent implicate order, nonlocality, morphic resonance and such, even synchronicity. Maybe there are some hints of final causation in some renditions of anthropic principles (telic vs nontelic evolution)?

11) So, again, if we a) combine a Thomistic philosophy and metaphysics, b) maintain both an epistemological and ontological dualism, c) follow a Sanjuanist theology of contemplation as our norm, illuminated by a Dionysian mysticism, d) utilize both Jungian-derived typologies and Jungian-described psychic energy dynamics as informed by cutting edge neurophysiological research, THEN we might leverage our modeling power in describing kundalini within a Christian framework and, at the same time advance our dialogue with the Eastern traditions , especially using the hermeneutical tools described by Samuel Brainard in Reality and Mystical Experience.

12) Brainard's hermeneutical tools well fit a postmodern reconstruction paradigm and a philosophical approach of critical realism. Critical realism helps us answer both the postmodern critique (whether due to the relativizing of Heidigger, Wittgenstein and Derrida) and the Humean critique of the rationalists, but it also might suggest at least a parity in modeling power with anything Nagarjuna or his cohorts might offer when explicating kundalini, for instance. Our ontological undecidability need not lead to epistemic despair but only to epistemological humility, which needn't lead to nihilsm but rather can lead to holism.

Now, of course, I could be all wrong. I hope I have at least better framed up some questions. I know this has not been a contribution for everyone's palate. Don't despair, Phil will translate this in his next book on kundalini.

pax tibi,
jb

p.s. The simple rendition is: We are made to be in relationship to God and one another, not to become God or one another. All of our experiences of God are mediated through Creation via our humanity. Relationship implies, requires even, radical otherness. Kundalini is one of the aspects of human growth and transformation, our soul energy. Like other energies ... well .. you fill in the blanks.

JB, thank you for your contribution. Deo gracias! for the PS rendition at the end because that is the only thing I could understand – I have not read any philosophy and theology you know.

Like you I was extremely impressed with Fr. Thomas Keating’s humility – for me the litmus test for the presence of the Holy Spirit. He took the time to consider the question deeply and gave the only answer he could, admitting his limitation.

Since Phil expressed a desire to continue the discussion on another thread (or so I understood from his last post), I did not want to add anything more on the thread, ‘Kundalini – who/what can help (long)’ opened by Kurt Keutzer.

How I understand religions based on what I understood of Fr. Bede Griffiths writings: Every religion is a revelation of God, but God revealed Himself fully, as a person bringing Grace and Truth in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the perfect Hindu Avatar, who came to break the cycle of births and deaths by paying the price with His blood. While the Hindu and Buddhist needs several lifetimes for purification, liberation/enlightenment, we have access to it through faith in Jesus Christ in one life time. We start with enlightenment because of what Christ did on our behalf and we work towards integrating that enlightenment in our lives for the rest of our lives, because faith without works is dead. So to me, the truth that Jesus Christ revealed about God is the highest.

Was there such clarity about good and evil in early Hinduism? Although both religions have developed a high moral standard when it comes seeking God and Enlightenment, I think neither Hinduism nor Buddhism deals with evil just as Jesus did. Jesus did make it clear that evil was a force to contend with on this side of eternity, that He had to give His life to win victory over it. Although God could always use evil to fulfil His purposes and evil would have absolutely no power on the other side of eternity, Jesus prayed for the safety of His disciples during their struggles here on earth: “I do not ask you to take them out of the world, but I do ask you to keep them safe from the Evil One.” (John 17:15).

I suppose that human beings from the earliest times sensed the presence of the divine in nature and lacking proper knowledge worshipped nature. They could not readily distinguish between good and evil, so they pacified evil by worshipping it and offering it sacrifices – some even offering innocent human blood, which was considered the ultimate sacrifice. So we find in Hinduism many gods, some gods seem to embody evil. The Upanishads and Vedanta (which was the Hindu answer to Buddhism – that is how Shankaracharya won back the Buddhist converts in India) are all high philosophies, in which they don’t take Kundalini into consideration at all. They deal with Kundalini by ignoring it just as the Christian mystic deals with the devil by ignoring it. The Bhagavadgita talks of a personal god and battle between good and evil just like Jesus did.

Sometimes I wonder about some of the non-dualistic utterances of the mystics, in all religions. (I like to think that Jesus knew a little more about God than the mystics did.) The common example used is of the fish in the ocean. We live, move and have our being in God, and our search for God is just like the search of the fish for water. But what if the fish is covered with hardened scales of egoism, illusion and ignorance which keeps it from feeling the water all around it? The work of the fish consists of getting rid of that hardened shell, so that it may get to feel that water fully. When it has reached that stage, which is what enlightenment is all about, does the fish then say : ‘Now that I’m rid of the hardened scales, I can feel the water in the ocean; since I can feel the water, the ocean and I are one and because the ocean and I are one, I’m the ocean!’ Isn’t that essentially some of the non-dualistic philosophies try to interpret their experience of oneness through meditation or whatever spiritual practice? I feel one with God, connected to the Universal Being, therefore I’m God/ the Universal Being? Of course Jesus talked about ‘When that day comes, you will know that I am in my Father and that you are in me, just as I am in you.’ but did that imply we were going to become God? I doubt very much if Jesus meant that.

Doesn’t the Bible say that God reveals to the simple, what He has hidden from the wise? To me it seems all so simple. God is the creator and He is present in all His creation (fully justifying nature worship by some). We are His creatures and in a loving relationship we feel united to Him, as a child feels a part of the mother, a lover unified with their partner. But since we can create nothing, we can never be God, and it is right that we worship God our Creator and Heavenly Father, with all our heart and all our minds and all our strength. Since God can manifest Himself only in a loving relationship, we ought to love ourselves as God’s beloved creatures and love each other to let God’s love manifest itself and flow. Jesus Christ came to tell us all this, remove all hindrances to accepting God as our Father and showed us through the life He lived, how it ought to be done. I think your PS rendition said the same thing, right?

Has anyone read the book Putting on the Mind of Christ , by Jim Marion and Ken Wilber ? Please, please do write a detailed review somewhere here. I look forward eagerly to reading it.

I think it was Fr. Basil Pennington who wrote that the best way to test if our spiritual path is going along the right path is to keep a check on whether it is making us more humane, more compassionate, more loving and more giving. If it is not, then whatever our spiritual path, it has nothing to do with God. There is a perfect example of such comparison of two monks, both of whom spent long hours in prayer, (for one it became a self-centred pre-occupation and for the other the means to love everyone with detachment), in Dostojewskij’ s novel, The Brothers Karamasov . Similarly for us lay persons, that is the only real test of where our spiritual journey is headed, with or without Kundalini. Like Ram Dass, those seeking cure for Kundalini imbalance – doing everything as if the cure depended on them and leaving the results in God’s hands, in loving trust, as if all the cure depended on Him – may then be able to say ‘Even if I’m not cured, I’m definitely healed’, the path to healing having become their goal and eternity will find them, cured or not cured, having reached the goal that they had been seeking all along – union with God who is love. Didn't you mention the same thing, about God filling in the remainder of our incomplete/imperfect attempts? Amen.

PS: 'Frist = time limit'

JB and SJ, I'm wondering if you guys have taken writing lessons from someone named thalo? (irrlevant side note to see if Brad Nelson reads this forum).

-----------

Seriously, I read through the most recent posts above and followed along with interest, but not always familiarity with some of the works being cited and the approaches taken. Thank you both for continuing to explore the philosophical and theological implications of the kundalini process.

I've mentioned in other threads that my capacity for intense, focused, prolonged conceptual reflection has diminished during the past few years, and so that limitation prohibits the kinds of thoughtful, detailed replies that your posts deserve. I can only offer apologies for this.

I do much better with specific questions about specific topics (even philosophical and theological) than providing feedback on paradigmatic issues. It's not that I think them unimportant; only my mind seems to have no energy for it any more. I read through and follow, then when I'm done, it's as though I've just read the phone book. Years ago, my mind would have been clicking away as my own conceptual paradigm interacted with what I was reading. That doesn't happen any more.

For a few years after my kundalini awakening, Jim Arraj and I exchanged many letters and had numerous phone discussions and even personal visits about its relation to Christian theology, philosopy, psychology and so forth. My mind was then very hungry for understanding such, and Jim was very helpful unto this end, especially inasmuch as he, too, seemed very eager to find more clarity about the source and purpose of this phenomenon. So, JB, when you ask: So, Phil, I'm still waiting on your simplifed version of how kundalini fits in to the chain of being per St. Thomas vis a vis created form as a route around pantheism and all,, the best I can do is share with you what Jim and I came up with as the fruit of those dialogues, which is expressed so well on the innerexploration.com web site. The links at the top of the page provide good summaries of our strongest intuitions, which should by no means be considered final, of course. I think the one on a Christian Philosophical discussion would relate to the chain of being connection you're seeking. BTW, all this material is also present on this forum as threads, and it's all included in the new revised version of my online book.

What's happened during the past 12 years or so is that, instead of finding in myself an intellectual curiosity on how to conceptualize the distinction between creature and Creator and similar metaphysical issues, the impetus has been to learn of this through direct, experiential investigation. As a fruit of this search, I can say with great confidence that "I am," that "I am not my wife," nor my cat, nor a tree, etc. And "I am not God" either, but neither am I separate from God. I have a distinct sense that the awareness by means of which "I" see IS GOD, but that the form in and through which God sees is "me." I don't just think or believe this, but actually know it experientially. Maybe my mind got what it needed sometime back? I don't know.

Now how to express this conceptually? Analogies like the fish and the ocean are what mystical types have always used. But part of the problem, here, is that once these experiences begin to become clarified, conceptualization about them becomes much less interesting, not to mention difficult. It's almost as though the mind itself must give up a certain amount of its conceptualizing powers for these to take place. In my case, I think that was a good thing, for I was far too inclined to live "in my head," and was therefore constantly filtering things through my conceptual paradigm, which kept me at a safe distance from contact with Reality. I don't want to go back to that; I'm not even sure I can without breaking something in my brain.

So, here's another thalo-esque contribution to this forum.

Shalom! Phil

SJ wrote: Is the emotional numbing and disruption/mental distress or disruption/dark night of the soul experienced by those with Kundalini imbalance similar to that experienced/described by Christian mystics? In what way are they similar and in what way do they differ?

SJ, here is a possible kundalini case history:

quote:

A few months after she enrolled she began to have constant headaches. Three months later as she prepared for bed one evening, she began to shiver uncontrollably. These spells continued for a week and were uninfluenced by any treatment. She had no fever and once the shivering was over, it never returned.

A few weeks later she was stricken with a "strange m�lange of hallucinations, comas and convulsions". She appeared to be in delirium, crying out against unseen and terrifying creatures. She tossed violently in bed hitting her head on the bedboards some strange force were assailing her. These "convulsions", which sometimes resembled the actions of a gymnast, were occasionally so violent that she would be thrown out of bed. There were rotary or tumbling movements of her whole body of which she was incapable when she was well. For example, she would spring from her knees and stand on her head without using her hands.

Later, while at Mass, she had a more severe attack which terminated upon her praying earnestly. In all, this whole illness lasted less than two months. Later, two more incidents occurred; fainting and rigidity which lasted for only a few moments. Throughout all this, she said she never lost awareness, even during the "fainting", but that she had no control over her actions.

She was attended regularly by a competent physician who was unable to help her and frankly admitted to being confused by her symptoms. He was very firm in his statement that "it was not hysteria".

And here is one possible interpretation:

quote:

Tissues are torn, blood vessels severed, blood spilled, much fluid is lost; the heart races and the blood pressure soars. There is moaning, crying, and screaming. A severe injury? No, only a relatively normal human birth. The description sounds pathological because the symptoms were not understood in relation to the outcome: a new human being.

In a darkened room a man sits alone. His body is swept by muscular spasms. Indescribable sensations and sharp pains run from his feet up his legs and over his back and neck. His skull feels as it will burst. Inside his head he hears roaring sounds and high-pitched whistling. Then suddenly a sunburst floods his inner being. His hands burn. He feels his body tearing within. Then he laughs and is overcome with bliss.

A psychotic episode? No, this is a psycho-physiological transformation, a rebirth process as natural as physical birth. It seems pathological only because the symptoms are not understood in relation to the outcome: an enlightened human being.

When allowed to progress to completion this process culminates in deep psychological balance, strength, and maturity. Its initial stages, however, often share the violence, helplessness, and imbalance that attend the start of human infancy.

Whom are we talking about?

Lee Sanella MD, in his book KUNDALINI: PSYCHOSIS OR TRANSCENDENCE? , opened that first quotation with: Saint Therese of Lisieux (1873-1897) is reported to have undergone sufferings similar to those we have observed (Rohrback, 1963). She was from a middle class French family with happily married parents and four sisters. When she was ten she became a student at a nearby Carmelite convent.

So, yes, SJ, energy upheavals can occur in all traditions and, assuredly, The Little Flower was on a path toward becoming more humane, more compassionate, more loving and more giving. You say you have not read any philosophy, but you quote from and speak rather intelligently about some of the "high philosophies" of the East. You wrote: The Upanishads and Vedanta (which was the Hindu answer to Buddhism � that is how Shankaracharya won back the Buddhist converts in India) are all high philosophies, in which they don�t take Kundalini into consideration at all. They deal with Kundalini by ignoring it just as the Christian mystic deals with the devil by ignoring it. The Bhagavadgita talks of a personal god and battle between good and evil just like Jesus did.

Thomas Keating had written: For most Christians on the spiritual journey that I know, the kundalini energy evolves unnoticeably and manifests more in interior stages of prayer such as the dark nights, than in external manifestations. Is there not an implicit acknowledgement, in this quote, of this soul energy, kundalini, evolving in people of all traditions? And certainly, in all traditions, the work of spiritual transformation and psychological individuation manifests both interiorly and externally, just rarely in pronounced degrees.

Whether this or that philosophy takes kundalini (or the Holy Spirit, for that matter) into consideration or not, is neither dispositive of the issue of whether or not they exist, nor a normative guideline for how to deal with the manifold and multiform difficulties they might manifest.

The suggestion that either kundalini, an impersonal force or soul energy, on one hand, or the devil, a personal force and evil spirit, on the other, are to be dealt with by being ignored, may have a kernel of truth, but discovering it would require a very extensive process of teasing out of nuances and a very specific contextualizing. Unnuanced, it would be my position that just the opposite is true.

There are many, many physiological, psychological and spiritual events that accompany our human journey of transformation and I think we are called to look at them all with a certain amount of loving interest, tempered by a certain measure of gentle detachment. I made up a little aphorism: To be engaged but not obsessed, inspired but not driven, spontaneous but not compulsive, at play in the fields of the Lord rather than at work on my own agenda.

I think it is a misinterpretation of our great mystical traditions, in general, and of John of the Cross and Ignatius, in particular, to call for too severe an asceticism toward spiritual consolations and desolations, toward other phenomena and epiphenomena of the spiritual path, whether dreams (and dreamwork), interior locutions, apparitions, visions, numinous experiences, enlightenment processes, etc or their counterparts such as dark nights, evil oppression, energy imbalances or what have you. Perhaps, the truth in what you have advocated lies in the sanjuanist and ignatian prescriptions of ordinancy, John talking of disordered appetites, Inigo talking of inordinate attachments, but that's very elemental, almost platitudinal, to one advanced on the journey at all. We soon enough learn not to cling to our miserable little consolations or not to despair over our various desolations and we learn the proper discernment of such movements following the Ignatian rules (for discernment) or the sanjuanist rubric (for whether we are being called to infused contemplation).

I think the authentic mystical path calls, not for ignoring such as kundalini, but for discerning it within our Christian model, in community with those of informed perspectives, then availing oneself of the therapies prescribed, all being Divine. This would equate with: those seeking cure for Kundalini imbalance � doing everything as if the cure depended on them and leaving the results in God�s hands ? if I heard you correctly?

re: the nondualistic utterances of the mystics, you might find this edifying: Phil's dialogue with Judith Blackstone

Peace, friends
jb

For a few years after my kundalini awakening, Jim Arraj and I exchanged many letters and had numerous phone discussions and even personal visits about its relation to Christian theology, philosopy, psychology and so forth. My mind was then very hungry for understanding such, and Jim was very helpful unto this end, especially inasmuch as he, too, seemed very eager to find more clarity about the source and purpose of this phenomenon. So, JB, when you ask: So, Phil, I'm still waiting on your simplifed version of how kundalini fits in to the chain of being per St. Thomas vis a vis created form as a route around pantheism and all,, the best I can do is share with you what Jim and I came up with as the fruit of those dialogues, which is expressed so well on the innerexploration.com web site. The links at the top of the page provide good summaries of our strongest intuitions, which should by no means be considered final, of course.

As far as the created form discussion, well, that came to a successful closure in the related thread, by use of yet another much older thread. Even my syllogistic interchange of Holy Spirit and kundalini, between the bible and Gopi Krishna's writings, was a differtent version of something I had posted on another thread, months ago. You know, I was thinking last night to suggest that SJ (and others) change their default settings for this forum to be sure they show all posts (and not just those from the last 20, 75 or 100 days or what have you). This would truly advance anyone's self-study in an FAQ sort of way, so forum moderators and other contributors can move on to less hackneyed topics.

Phil, one thing that has been very validating, for me, has been the fact that I have taken a very different path toward accomplishing my own metaphysical syntheses, of kundalini and other spiritual phenomena, and my intuitions, once I could articulate them and compare them to your and Jim's syntheses, proved to match those y'all have pretty much systematically fleshed out. You might understand that appreciating Maritain and Jung and John of the Cross requires a journey, both intellectual and existential, no one else can take for you. I haven't experienced that state of consciousness, which you seem to describe as almost permanent, and which positively eschews paradigmatic conceptualizations, except temporarily. That is, I alternate between having great energy (throat chakra-ish, I know) for creative flourishes and the achievement of syntheses and then longing for deep quietude and abiding contemplative awareness. I think much of the difference in our approaches comes from energies acting through different typological forms. Individuation processes, don't, after all, produce Cosmic Christic Clones, even for one whose gone full circle enneagramatically, for instance, but stay grounded in our lead and auxilliary Jungian functions. I have enjoyed many breakthroughs lately, in dreamwork, and in metaphysical synthesis, but, as usual, the pendulum swings, the flourish dries up and my energies flow down different neuronal pathways.

You wrote: It's almost as though the mind itself must give up a certain amount of its conceptualizing powers for these to take place. In my case, I think that was a good thing, for I was far too inclined to live "in my head," and was therefore constantly filtering things through my conceptual paradigm, which kept me at a safe distance from contact with Reality. I don't want to go back to that; I'm not even sure I can without breaking something in my brain.

Yes, you could move into a severe type falsification , with your brain literally burning hot and consuming as much as 100X the amount of energy it ususally requires! Giving up conceptualizing power is precisely what the neurophysiologists claim is required to induce the unitive experience, too, by the way (but St. John of the Cross beat them to the punch insofar as that observation is concerned ). The Oneness, however relational, being experienced within as it is, seems well-described as God being the means by which you see, for in Him we truly live and move and have our being and Inigo would have us see ourselves as God sees us -- and everyone and everything else, as well. I'll qualify your metaphysic, therefore, as panentheistic (not that it would trouble me terribly if you were a heretic ).

I'm feeling ya, buddy, as my kids like to say. I'm just a slow learner and have been tending to other matters for 20 years. I'm ready to relax. Let's do something relaxing. I think I'll take a shower and dream of far away lands.

namaste, my Hindu siblings
namaste, my Sufi brothers et al
namaste, my Buddhist sisters et al
pax tibi, all
jb

p.s. re: God as being the means , I rather like the notion of our relating to God as a Ways and Means Committee, our ways and His means ... hopefully moving toward His ways

Phil, one thing that has been very validating, for me, has been the fact that I have taken a very different path toward accomplishing my own metaphysical syntheses, of kundalini and other spiritual phenomena, and my intuitions, once I could articulate them and compare them to your and Jim's syntheses, proved to match those y'all have pretty much systematically fleshed out.

I think that's where the role of a common religious tradition figures significantly. Ultimately, that's the paradigm which configures other sub-systems of conceptualization.

You might understand that appreciating Maritain and Jung and John of the Cross requires a journey, both intellectual and existential, no one else can take for you.

Yes, for sure!

I haven't experienced that state of consciousness, which you seem to describe as almost permanent, and which positively eschews paradigmatic conceptualizations, except temporarily. That is, I alternate between having great energy (throat chakra-ish, I know) for creative flourishes and the achievement of syntheses and then longing for deep quietude and abiding contemplative awareness.

Yes! I understand. There are times when I long for the days of being able to entertain and stimulate myself through reading, writing, musing, and what-not. Then I remind myself of what some of the down sides of that can be and am more grateful for the way things are now--a state which I'm sure many would find excessively arid and boring, but which has become an "acquired taste."

I think much of the difference in our approaches comes from energies acting through different typological forms. Individuation processes, don't, after all, produce Cosmic Christic Clones, even for one whose gone full circle enneagramatically, for instance, but stay grounded in our lead and auxilliary Jungian functions. I have enjoyed many breakthroughs lately, in dreamwork, and in metaphysical synthesis, but, as usual, the pendulum swings, the flourish dries up and my energies flow down different neuronal pathways.

I'm sure there's much truth there, but I'd really not be comfortable overly associating contemplative experience or even kundalini awakening with any particular MBTI or Enneagram type. I've seen too many examples of all kinds of types being drawn to these experiences.

One is where one is on the journey, ever-striving to give oneself and one's life more fully to God. What happens after that seems unpredictable, for the most part.

Got to go. Good posts!

Phil

re: I'm sure there's much truth there, but I'd really not be comfortable overly associating contemplative experience or even kundalini awakening with any particular MBTI or Enneagram type. I've seen too many examples of all kinds of types being drawn to these experiences.

Excellent qualification, Phil. My use of the term "typological forms" was a tad ambiguous. There's another conceptualization that I'm sure would have been more appropriate, more affirming of the profound depth dimension of our Selves (oh, yeah, I recall, the The PSR Memenome Project !

As I strolled through the woods-canefields tonight (the cane is beautiful but worried about Gulf storms), I was meditating on the etymological roots of the words symbolic and diabolic in terms of bringing head and heart together, God and wo/man together (or tearing them apart). All the truth in the world without the caring and feeling is somehow no longer true. All the caring and feeling in the world without the truth is somehow no longer love. The Word was thus made flesh and dwelt among us. I thought of the Incarnation and how it was an exemplary exercise in redemptive listening to Job, to Creation:

23 "Oh, that my words were recorded,
that they were written on a scroll,
24 that they were inscribed with an iron tool on [2] lead,
or engraved in rock forever!
25 I know that my Redeemer [3] lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. [4]
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet [5] in [6] my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes-I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

Sounds like a prophesy, uttered out of the worst imaginable circumstances. What faith! May it be ours ...

I pray,
jb

JB -
Speaking of "oneness," I just received a thank you note from the NDE woman I described earlier, since I'd sent her a copy of Ned Doughtery's book, Celestial Encounters, (I think that's the title) also NDE, lapsed Catholic, similar. His story really made news, was published March 2001, because he was warned in his NDE, which happened in the mid-1980s, that there might be serious terrorist attacks on NYC and Washington, D.C. that would change our way of life in this country.

Anyway, her piece of mail back to me which she'd handwritten, was so loaded with the Holy Spirit/ eletrical energy, that the K energy jumped around in my back. I had to put the note down for a moment. That's unification, God as one within us, through our core. That's how the world will change through K awakenings, one person at a time changing the energy of everything around them as led by the Holy Spirit. She's living proof, and that piece of mail must carry the same kind of energy as a holy artifact.

re: That's how the world will change through K awakenings, one person at a time changing the energy of everything around them as led by the Holy Spirit

Linda, truly we invoke because we have been convoked and, indeed, I believe that we are being washed safely ashore, one person at a time, even as we are also all being swept along by an immense tidal movement.

The hypothetical linkages of NDE's and kundalini phenomena, I believe, are well founded. Because there are relatively few who have experienced full blown kundalini awakenings per se in our Western traditions, NDE's, because they are apparently more widespread and very well studied, may help further our understanding of soul energy and its effect on consciousness, while we wait for more "conventional" emergences to occur and to be studied (and I'm sure they will as we move into a new age, in every nonpejorative sense). Eastern spiritual technologies will, more and more, be practiced in Western traditions, for many reasons (whole other thread). I suppose it would be fair to say that some folks actually experience very profound and permanent epistemological shifts, both as a result of kundalini and of NDE's? and with lasting beneficial results for them as well as others.

We live in interesting times (even if there is a joke that claims that May you live in interesting times is actually an ancient Chinese curse). We are blessed and burdened, too.

pax,
jb

Also, speaking of Oneness, I wonder at how many places there are in the Bible where there are references to what God will accomplish in us? or through us? etc There must be dozens, maybe more. As far as discontinuity goes, it just shows how limited our western vocabulary is, at times. A true panentheistic vocabulary would be faithful to dyadic speech: not two-not one, not continuous-not discontinuous, etc in a fugue of pattern and paradox, conjunctive and disjunctive ... OKAY, I'm going to have to cut that out!

Phil

Apropos Thalo and phone-book: Well if I had taken writing lessons from that guru, I would not have needed a thousand words to express what could well be said in 50 words or better still left unsaid. No wonder you read it with about as much interest as a phone book. It is only Shalomplace Caf� Philosophy after all; you have the unenviable job of making sense of it.

JB

I was serious when I wrote that I have read no philosophy or theology. (I don't write essays, articles, leave alone books on these topics like the rest of you.) Just read my posts in the thread 'Kundalini - who/what can help (long) and you'll notice that I have only quoted other sources and referred to them on this thread. I would be guilty of plagiarism if I claimed credit for any of it. As to the musings about Jesus, mysticism, evil etc. you know only too well that almost every Christian has one thought or the other about these things, anyone may say anything and there'll still be room for new interpretations for a million years.

I'm still interested in the comparison of experiences of Christian mystics and the Kundalini impaired. One interpretation is that Kundalini imbalance is like ending up with broken bones while attempting to climb Mount Everest, without undergoing the rigorous training in base camp as rules demand. Any opinions about that?

Taking St. Theresa of Lisieux as an example of Kundalini like experiences is somewhat absurd because she is the one who lived a very uneventful life, unlike St. Theresa of Avila. She joined the convent at age 15 and died at 24 of tuberculosis. She did nothing miraculous in her life, had no special experiences, nor left any grand philosophy except the philosophy of the small way - the concept of a simple life of holiness for those who are not called to do great things in life. It is precisely because it is so extraordinary in its ordinariness that she is considered the ideal role model for the average person. Her life was marked by simple piety and great devotion and the eagerness to please God in all things, big and small, enduring suffering big and small. But you know all of that. Do you think then it was appropriate to use her as an example of Kundalini like experiences?

The closing hymn at the Mass I attended is still ringing in my ears, so I wanted to share it with all of you in closing.

Amazing Grace

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind but now I see.

‘Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved;
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed!

The Lord has promised good to me,
His word my hope secures;
He will my shield and portion be
As long as life endures.

Through many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
‘Tis grace has brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.

When we’ve been there ten thousand years,
Bright shining as the sun,
We’ve no less days to sing God’s praise
Than when we’d first begun.

SJ wrote: Taking St. Theresa of Lisieux as an example of Kundalini like experiences is somewhat absurd because she is the one who lived a very uneventful life, unlike St. Theresa of Avila. [snip snip by jb] Do you think then it was appropriate to use her as an example of Kundalini like experiences?

SJ, I'll take your second question first and, even before I address your question pertaining to the Little Flower, in particular, let me make a clarifying comment about "kundalini like exeriences", in general.

I think kundalini like experiences are ubiquitous insofar as it is my position that everybody has a natural soul energy, which God gave us toward the end of realizing our fullest human potential. That's all. I would imagine that everybody experiences energy imbalances, throughout their lives, of manifold and multiform types, including those due to kundalini, but some experience full blown imbalances and, when they do, usually they are unbidden, as are kundalini symptoms, which occur without full arousal.

The question seems to persist regarding which therapies might be prescribed.

If others will pardon this reification, let me rethread the theme of therapy. In order to answer questions put to me by friends who want to study such therapies as Reiki (universal life energy), for instance, or any other alternative healing approaches, I have investigated from time to time, which Eastern approaches are being studied and/or practiced by major Catholic hospitals and which approaches are being researched as funded by the National Institute of Health. The NIH funds research and clinical trials for such treatments as related to Acupressure, Acupuncture, Distant Healing, Guided Imagery, Hypnosis, Massage, Meditation, Mind-Body, Mindfulness, Qi Gong, Reiki, Tai Chi, Touch and Yoga.

Note the strong Eastern influence.

Now, where I was headed is that I'm certain the mystics would have availed themselves of our modern therapies, both conventional and alternative-complementary, for either medical maladies, such as cancer or tuberculosis, or energy imbalances, whether psychic or kundalini. I'm sure they could have solved the Genjo Koan to realize that the wind is everywhere and that the master, fanning himself, is an embodiment of that principle and not, rather, a contradiction thereof.

At any rate, in the above list, you'll find some of the therapies suggested by Phil and I'm sure you'll find some of these discussed by others such as in Bob Boyd's Kundalini Survival & Support Forums � Kundalini Management: What Works? . SJ, I think Bob Boyd, like Phil, has a holistic approach, which is well summarized here. I think you may resonate with both his and Phil's rather keep it simple approaches, which include surrender to Amazing Grace (btw, thanks for the morning meditation, beautiful fruit of your Eucharist ). I think the recurrent theme is to take a holistic approach to healing and transformation, no matter what our malady is or why it arose. There is no dichotomy between surrendering to one's spiritual tradition, for grounding, and sitting against trees for grounding (of a different nature ) and using Chi Kung practices.

I will end my contributions to what works by recommending Bob Boyd and Phil's strategies, both because they make sense within my Catholic-informed worldview and because Phil's advice very much helped me to cope with certain experiences of mine, which needed integration even if not at all unpleasant, in and of themselves, for the most part, even as powerful as my upheavals were. Bob says it best:

quote:

Pray to God, but tie down your camel.

You, or someone else, recently said something similar about acting as if the cure depended entirely on you and praying as if the cure depended entirely on God? Truly, good advice.

Now, to segue back, perhaps I am advocating a bumper sticker = energy imbalances happen and there are convergences and divergences in both the manner of their arousal and in their treatment approach. These are natural processes. I think most everyone agrees on the general advice regarding how to avoid them (at least those authors I've read in my own tradition) and the advice for how to manage them from folks like Bob Boyd and Phil seems sage.

So, I fleshed this out some more to clarify my contributions to the therapy issue and to also paint a picture of how I think energy disruptions and therapies are ubiquitous. Not all are profoundly disruptive and not all arise from precisely the same circumstances, but they happened, in my opinion, to the saints and mystics, just like they happen to modern wo/man.

That's why I can affirm Lee Sanella's use of the Little Flower. I used that because I figured everyone was even more familiar with the other great Carmelites, John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila, and the more obvious comparisons, which can be made between their mystical experiences and kundalini arousal. It is important to remember that there is a natural mysticism and a mystical contemplation, that there are natural and supernatural growth processes, and they complement one another. Which leads to your next question:

I'm still interested in the comparison of experiences of Christian mystics and the Kundalini impaired. One interpretation is that Kundalini imbalance is like ending up with broken bones while attempting to climb Mount Everest, without undergoing the rigorous training in base camp as rules demand. Any opinions about that?

Yes. That is very reminiscent of a metaphor I have used for my own journey, whereby an eagle swoops down and places its talons in my chest and excruciatingly painfully I am drug off and dropped on a new mountain vista, bloodied, broken, dusty and thirsty. I eventually catch my breath, get up, dust myself off and take in the magnificent scence before me, from a height I could have never scaled on my own. [I wrote something like that years ago].

Using your metaphor, I think it would be a mistake to think that following the rules and undergoing training, alone, are going to prevent broken bones when scaling Mt. Carmel. I believe very much in the rulebooks and the training exercises, but the analogy fails me insofar as it resembles a rather common misunderstanding of soteriology, that being that our transformation more takes place in a meritocracy*** rather than via pure unmerited mercy. I think the testimony of those who have moved through their Interior Castles and who have gone on to scale Mt. Carmel or Seven Storied Mountains makes clears that lost balance and broken bones are almost guaranteed along the way. There are long dark nights and blinding blizzards and eagles with readied talons. We do what we can and Amazing Grace does the rest, so often inspite of us and not because of us. That's the message of the song. That's the experience of the mystics. Try the search syntax +kundalini +"christian mystics" on Google and you'll get over 240 hits, or +kundalini +mystics and you'll get over 2,400 hits. You'll find oodles of pages replete with comparisons. Some even consider St. Paul's experience to have involved a spontaneous kundalini arousal, brought on, no doubt, by Amazing Grace.

Well, I'll defer back to the forum leaders now.

May His power working in us, which can accomplish infinitely more than we could ever ask or imagine, be merciful to you today,
jb

***footnote: Another way to view energy imbalances is like any other form of poverty, that is, a Gospel-defined poverty, which is a much larger concept than economic poverty inasmuch as it includes spiritual as well as material poverty (and in oh so many forms, most commonly called crosses). The transforming grace, which lifts us out of this or that poverty, which heals this or that brokenness, operates independently of whether or not the poor or ill person is culpable for their poverty or illness. It's confounding, blessedly so. Hospitals are generally that way, too, though I suppose some oncologists might resign a patient relationship if the patient keeps smoking. Thankfully, the Divine Physician is also the Hound of Heaven and stays on our case (to capitalize on both metaphors) and, if He must, will drag us, kicking and screaming, into the Banquet Hall where the banner over us is love! and, if She must, will remain the seductress until we're finally enticed into the Bridal Chamber! It's an apokatastatic phenomenon Brad once labeled: "You're lambed if you do and you're lambed if you don't." I follow the rules because of fidelity to Right Speech and, being in love, mostly for ad majorem Dei gloriam, not because, as Job's counselors suggest, they will bring orthodoxology (true glory) in the form of either material comforts or spiritual consolations, comforts and consolations which often eluded our mystics, this despite their ecstatic moments and numinous experiences. Rather, following the rules/commandments/proverbs has intrinsic rewards. I have never been able to infallibly associate them with precisely how one's spiritual journey is going to unfold or has unfolded ---too much paradox there and not enough pattern ! The only pattern seems to be Romans 8 --- all things eventually working for the good, felix culpa-wise. Only heretical prosperity myths predict more pattern than paradox on our journeys and their predictions don't square with my experience of reality, which requires Crucifixion theology always in tandem with Resurrection theology, although, to be sure not one of His bones was broken.

quote:

Originally posted by SJ Thaikattil:
[QB]Phil

Apropos Thalo and phone-book: Well if I had taken writing lessons from that guru, I would not have needed a thousand words to express what could well be said in 50 words or better still left unsaid. No wonder you read it with about as much interest as a phone book. It is only Shalomplace Caf� Philosophy after all; you have the unenviable job of making sense of it.

Oh, I hope you didn't take that the wrong way. The thalo thing was a tease to see if I could lure Brad in, and the phone book issue is about my own limitation, not the quality of the contributions, which are excellent.

re: I would not have needed a thousand words to express what could well be said in 50 words or better still left unsaid.

I can relate to that. Well said, by the way

Hey, y'all, I was reflecting, during my canefield walk today, on something Maya Angelou supposedly said:

quote:

Easy reading is damn hard writing.

Ain't that the truth! [Not that it's anything I've ever attempted ... ]

grins and cheerio,
jb