Holy Spirit and Kundalini: Are they the same thing?

It’s an oldie but a goodie—not too long-winded, either—for anyone looking to dive deep into Kundalini.

The Primal Power in man or The kundalini Shakti - Swami Narayananand

Sandra Murphy33 said:Maybe you would have been better off skipping the Theosophy crowd altogether, just like Steiner did....

So, you think I'd be better off just studying Martinus on my own?
Why's that?

casualtiger2 said:It’s an oldie but a goodie—not too long-winded, either—for anyone looking to dive deep into Kundalini.

The Primal Power in man or The kundalini Shakti - Swami Narayananand

So, you think I'd be better off just studying Martinus on my own?
Why's that?

True, true—it's excellent, and there are plenty of his books translated into American English as well.

https://yogacenter.com/download/Swami...ini_Shakti.pdf

Thomas Nelson25 said:So, just different flavors of Theosophy?

I guess you could put it that way. We have Steiner's "Anthroposophy," but I'm not entirely sure where OTO fits in. I always pictured them belonging to a slightly later era, though I'm feeling a bit too lazy to go digging through history books right now to check the dates.

Brian Young76 said:I think you're making one fundamental logical error here. You seem to believe that if you haven't had a personal experience with something, then it isn't real and doesn't exist.

The truth is, you haven't personally experienced the merging of science and spirituality, nor have you explored spirituality through experimental scientific methods. That’s fine, I guess, but that doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exist. 😉

Actually, even someone like Stephen Hawking fell into that same basic logical trap. In his final book, he wrote about his belief that God does not exist. It seems to me that simply because he lacked a personal experience of knowing God, he concluded that God wasn't there. It’s quite fascinating, really, how one of the greatest intellects in physics could make such a foundational error in logical reasoning.

What I find even more compelling is how essentially the entire scientific community decided to just ignore Ramanujan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan)—not in terms of his actual theorems, but in terms of his methodology. Without any formal education, this man simply prayed to God (well, his own version of God, regardless), and hundreds or even thousands of mathematical formulas and theorems were revealed to him. He received completed solutions—these theorems—but without the proofs, which was unacceptable to the scientific establishment (and still is). He passed away a century ago, and over the last hundred years, as much of the scientific community has worked to prove his theorems, it turns out that practically everything God showed him through those formulas was correct.

And I wonder, did no one in that scientific community ever stop to ask themselves—could it be that this is actually a valid way for people to engage with science in a methodological sense? Should we perhaps formalize this in our curricula and subjects—not just memorizing formulas from old textbooks (though I suppose that has its place), but actively seeking inspiration for future formulas? You pray to God and seek inspiration (the arrival of the Holy Spirit) and you receive finished solutions. Okay, after that, you would then need to verify that solution and confirm it experimentally, assuming it falls within the natural sciences. But, if one man who prayed (Ramanujan), through divine inspiration, produced more theorems than practically the entire scientific establishment that didn't pray, isn't that a pretty clear indication?

If Hawking actually wrote that he doesn't believe in God—exactly like you said (I haven't read him, and honestly, I don't know enough about his stuff to say if he's even my kind of reading)—then since nobody has ever definitively proven God's existence, his opinion on the matter doesn't need any scientific or logical scrutiny. At the end of the day, Hawking's belief that God doesn't exist carries about as much weight as some lady at a local farmer's market claiming He does.

Joseph Bailey41 said:I guess you could put it that way. We have Steiner's "Anthroposophy," but I'm not entirely sure where OTO fits in. I always pictured them belonging to a slightly later era, though I'm feeling a bit too lazy to go digging through history books right now to check the dates.

Those guys were started by the fantasists—basically the first New Agers in America.
Steiner's whole 'spiritual evolution theory' is pretty out there, kind of a tough one to wrap your head around.

Man, I'm struggling to come up with a cult idea here... 🙄

casualtiger2 said:It’s an oldie but a goodie—not too long-winded, either—for anyone looking to dive deep into Kundalini.

The Primal Power in man or The kundalini Shakti - Swami Narayananand

So, you think I'd be better off just studying Martinus on my own?
Why's that?

I honestly don't know...
At the end of the day, everyone just takes what interests them; there isn't really any other way it works.🙂

Sandra Murphy33 said:I honestly don't know...
At the end of the day, everyone just takes what interests them; there isn't really any other way it works.🙂

It's all just a bit messy, honestly.
Suggest something, then deny it, and just keep going in circles like that.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Those guys were started by the fantasists—basically the first New Agers in America.
Steiner's whole 'spiritual evolution theory' is pretty out there, kind of a tough one to wrap your head around.

Man, I'm struggling to come up with a cult idea here... 🙄

You just don't have that kind of personality. Besides, there's no point in worrying about it because cults are becoming obsolete. With how fast information spreads these days, you just can't keep things exclusive anymore.