A Buddhist with an awakend Kundalini

[david_obsidian]

Carson said:
How can one ever know that you are understanding something in the "right" way? Hitler probably thought he was seeing things the "right" way, but was he really?

That's the philosophical problem of catastrophic skepticism, isn't it? How do I know I'm not a brain in a vat? What does 'know' mean?  At the end of the day, you have to go with what you think is believe,  but it's good to use the most reliable means of finding out what is true.

It's possible in principal that someone like Hitler would believe through-and-through that he was right.  It so happens though that I doubt that this was the case with the real man. I think Hitler would have had difficulties facing open questioning.  Was Hitler entirely honest?  I doubt it.  All sorts of questions could be asked of him that he probably would not want to answer, or to which he would wish to produce a false answer.

Just as a thought experiment, imagine him on a perfect lie-detector, with the whole country of his time looking on, and you are free to question him.  What questions might you ask him that you think might prove to his people that he wasn't being truthful?  Are there questions you could have asked that would have stopped world war II and the Holocaust?  Are there questiosn that you could have asked that would have stopped world war II and the Holocaust even if you were not allowed to ask him of his plans?

VIL said:
I'd like to hear more about the above, david.

I would be happy to,  but it may take a little while to prepare.  Let's say in a week or two.  Feel free to send me a note if I haven't responded.

[Ananda]

thought your reply would be smthg like this, woof it's good to know that you're joking byt the way dahhh silly me hehehehe.

you are a good person, just check again between the lines and you'll see that i am into selflessness as well but... let's just let go of that for now[].

and i'm not speaking about if the enlightened should be involved in the world or not, which is obvious that they should and we all have the dreams you are dreaming...

just about 45 minutes ago during my deep meditation session which was later than usual this evening due to personal engagements; i saw a vision (one of those which come and go now and then) it was of an african boy whose head was crushed and i felt so much pain accompanied to it and took that with me and released it during samyama.

anyways smthg i always thought about enlightenment and read long ago b4 coming here was the exact words mentioned in this post by yogani:
http://www.aypsite.com/plus-forum/index.php?topic=1502&whichpage=5#19135

quote:Originally posted by yogani

While a person may reach a condition of "Oneness," what we call "Unity" in AYP, this can be regarded as final enlightenment only by those sages who choose to rest on their laurels. Good for them. It is enlightenment in isolation.

No. There is much more. Enlightenment will not be complete until all of humanity (and the entire cosmos) is self-aware in Oneness. A seemingly impossible task, yes? Nevertheless, Oneness cannot truly be Oneness until all have been brought home to That. The urge for this is what drives sages forward. It is the power of divine love, and we see it in all who serve for the benefit of others.

The lonely sage who holds up his or her Oneness as separate from everyone else (contending that nothing else exists) is an incomplete being. Only in giving it all away for the benefit of others can the sage be said to be enlightened. It is only in pouring out divine love that the enlightenment process can continue, encompassing all that exists (apparently) in the field of duality.

This scenario of true enlightenment residing in sacrifice for others does not sit easily with most people, so it doesn't get much press. Who would choose that from an unenlightened point of view? It is directly opposed to our sense of self-preservation. Or is it? For the person who has achieved Oneness, doing for others is self-preservation, and comes naturally. This is why we hold Christ, Buddha and others who gave all they had for the spiritual progress of others as the highest measure of enlightenment. They are the gold standard.

Anyone who is moved from within to aid others on the path is manifesting Oneness. Much better to manifest Oneness than not. Stillness in action!

And where does it end? It never does. Therefore, real enlightenment is an unending continuum of outpouring divine love. It is not something we can take home and lock in the closet.

The guru is in you.

you gotta love this guy...

oh and by the way some pure advaitans should go mahasamadhi or live in a cave.

even though they might think they are enlightened bcz they achieved a certain state of being which makes them kind of stubborn on how much right they are.

well this is leading into much hurt and is blocking the way toward enlightenment for a lot of people and leaving them in a world of illusions.

but just too be fair at least some are benefiting (a rare club of evolved souls).

this is my own opinion on the matter, let's just let it go and let the tao, god, whatever you wanna call it take care of it.

oh! and it's good that you're tired of debating, that benefited you spiritually don't worry about it everything happens for a good cause once we are on the path. (zen style[])

i think that you will benefit a lot from these forum discussions like all of us are, especially if you have the intent on becoming a spiritual teacher like David says.

light and love,

Ananda

p.s: i'm not enlightened nor near it anyways any hows, just want to point that out in case some of the lines between my post incline to the fact that i am at a certain stage of spiritual attainment.

[Christi]

Hi TMS

quote:Hi David, I don't take myself seriously. I like to mix things up. We are having a debate. And Christi and I disagree about something. I'm definitely the clown. I don't come from India, I was born in Oregon though. Christi, likes to use what's known as ad hominem attacks rather than addressing specific points. Eh, Christi?

I was under the impression that we were simply discussing specific Sanskrit terms, and the way they are used in yoga! No?

 

quote:
Hi Christi, I think we have peace. Notwithstanding there is no difference between Buddhism and Astanga Yoga, that they are indeed the same path, please explain what is distinct, if any? You are aware that Patanjali wrote 500 years after the Buddha began teaching? Although, it appears that Patanjali transcribed a practice that pre-dates the Buddha, because it appears very much in line with Vedanta and the Upanishads. Whereas, the Buddha introduced new terms like anatta and shunyata.

Yes you are right, Patanjali was following in a long tradition of yoga teaching that pre-dates the Buddha by many hundreds of years.

At the time that the Buddha was born, and in the area where he lived, many people were involved in idol worship. They were worshipping specific gods, and performing puja to these gods. They did not understand that their own nature was divine, and their practices could not bring them that understanding. These people were not practicing yoga, but were engaging in religious practices that did not help them to evolve. The Buddha’s teaching of yoga, was designed to cut through idol worship, and reliance on external forms of worship (puja) as spiritual practices. So he taught in a specific way, using a very different language than had been used before. He stripped away a lot of terminology to get back to the basics. What he did was good, and many people beneffited from it.



 

quote:My understanding was that the Buddha introduced a new method of meditation, supplemented by indoctrinating inductees with the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path and the Precepts. I thought he wanted to align students to the correct view initially, with selflessness as the seed, that way he could introduce selflessness at the beginning and have it flower fully as nirvana.

Selflessness (anata) was not introduced initially by the Buddha to new disciples. It is a more advanced practice with many preliminary practices that need to be undergone first. Still to this day in Asia, it is only taught as an advanced practice, when the student has developed enough inner silence to be able to understand what it is really about. It is only in the west, that selflessness is being taught to new student, and there are many teachers in Asia who do not think this is a good idea. Introducing the teaching too early on can lead to a great deal of confusion and possible mental instability.

It can be the making of fools.

Christi

[Christi]

Hi Gumpi,

 

quote:I agree with TMS about Ishvara. Brahman is the non-dual absolute beyond creation and Ishvara is a personal God or being that created and rules the universe but it is not the same as Brahman. I thought most yoga people knew this as a lot of people are introduced to yoga via swami Vivekananda....

In Patanjali, in the "powers" section, there is a sutra about samyama on something to become omniscient. But since Ishvara (God) is one without a second i don't think Patanjali is saying that a person or yogi can become omniscient because it would mean there would be two omniscient beings, which would cancel each other out.

If Ishwara (God) is one without a second, and Brahman is something different from God, then wouldn't that make two? Ishwara would have to be one with a second.

Maybe Vivekanada didn't work that one out?

Christi

[Ananda]

i think that there is a mistake here between the two words ishta and ishvara which hold 2 different meanings.

[themysticseeker]

quote:Originally posted by Christi

Hi TMS

quote:Hi David, I don't take myself seriously. I like to mix things up. We are having a debate. And Christi and I disagree about something. I'm definitely the clown. I don't come from India, I was born in Oregon though. Christi, likes to use what's known as ad hominem attacks rather than addressing specific points. Eh, Christi?

I was under the impression that we were simply discussing specific Sanskrit terms, and the way they are used in yoga! No?

 

quote:
Hi Christi, I think we have peace. Notwithstanding there is no difference between Buddhism and Astanga Yoga, that they are indeed the same path, please explain what is distinct, if any? You are aware that Patanjali wrote 500 years after the Buddha began teaching? Although, it appears that Patanjali transcribed a practice that pre-dates the Buddha, because it appears very much in line with Vedanta and the Upanishads. Whereas, the Buddha introduced new terms like anatta and shunyata.

Yes you are right, Patanjali was following in a long tradition of yoga teaching that pre-dates the Buddha by many hundreds of years.

At the time that the Buddha was born, and in the area where he lived, many people were involved in idol worship. They were worshipping specific gods, and performing puja to these gods. They did not understand that their own nature was divine, and their practices could not bring them that understanding. These people were not practicing yoga, but were engaging in religious practices that did not help them to evolve. The Buddha’s teaching of yoga, was designed to cut through idol worship, and reliance on external forms of worship (puja) as spiritual practices. So he taught in a specific way, using a very different language than had been used before. He stripped away a lot of terminology to get back to the basics. What he did was good, and many people beneffited from it.



 

quote:My understanding was that the Buddha introduced a new method of meditation, supplemented by indoctrinating inductees with the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path and the Precepts. I thought he wanted to align students to the correct view initially, with selflessness as the seed, that way he could introduce selflessness at the beginning and have it flower fully as nirvana.

Selflessness (anata) was not introduced initially by the Buddha to new disciples. It is a more advanced practice with many preliminary practices that need to be undergone first. Still to this day in Asia, it is only taught as an advanced practice, when the student has developed enough inner silence to be able to understand what it is really about. It is only in the west, that selflessness is being taught to new student, and there are many teachers in Asia who do not think this is a good idea. Introducing the teaching too early on can lead to a great deal of confusion and possible mental instability.

It can be the making of fools.

Christi

That's odd because selflessness is also the highest moral calling and is synonymous with love. I didn't think it was an advanced notion to be kept away from the uninitiated. I would have thought it was an important goal for everyone.

Can't say I would rely on your history there, Christi. How do you know the Buddha kept anatta from all but his advanced disciples? It's clearly stated in the Pali Canon.

WE ARE THE COSMOS!

TMS

[themysticseeker]

quote:Originally posted by Christi

Hi Gumpi,

 

quote:I agree with TMS about Ishvara. Brahman is the non-dual absolute beyond creation and Ishvara is a personal God or being that created and rules the universe but it is not the same as Brahman. I thought most yoga people knew this as a lot of people are introduced to yoga via swami Vivekananda....

In Patanjali, in the "powers" section, there is a sutra about samyama on something to become omniscient. But since Ishvara (God) is one without a second i don't think Patanjali is saying that a person or yogi can become omniscient because it would mean there would be two omniscient beings, which would cancel each other out.

If Ishwara (God) is one without a second, and Brahman is something different from God, then wouldn't that make two? Ishwara would have to be one with a second.

Maybe Vivekanada didn't work that one out?

Christi

The Vendantan view is that GOD as immanent permeates all creation as Brahman, and GOD as transcendent being see outside of Creation as Ishvara. It's the old mind-soul duality in another form. Brahman is GOD as spirit, and Ishvara is GOD as personality.

WE ARE THE COSMOS!

TMS

[Christi]

Hi TMS,

 

quote:That's odd because selflessness is also the highest moral calling and is synonymous with love. I didn't think it was an advanced notion to be kept away from the uninitiated. I would have thought it was an important goal for everyone.

Can't say I would rely on your history there, Christi. How do you know the Buddha kept anatta from all but his advanced disciples? It's clearly stated in the Pali Canon.

Selflessness is a goal in the path, but we don't start out at the goal, we start out at the beginning, and walk the path taking things one step at a time. Even advaitins have to do this, even if they believe they don't.

Many practices are recorded in the Pali cannon. Some are practices suitable for beginners, and others are practices suitable for more advanced practitioners.

This is why it is important to have a teacher who can guide you through the practices in the correct order. It is not safe to simply pick practices out of the Pali Cannon and apply them to your sadhana. Buddhism is an oral transmission system, where teachings are passed from teacher to disciple. Many aspects of the tradition are still only available through this form of transmission.

If you want to practice in the Theravadan Buddhist tradition, and you don't have a knowledgeable teacher who can guide you through the system, you would do well to find one. Otherwise you may become very lost.



Christi

[Christi]

Hi TMS.

 

quote:The Vendantan view is that GOD as immanent permeates all creation as Brahman, and GOD as transcendent being see outside of Creation as Ishvara. It's the old mind-soul duality in another form. Brahman is GOD as spirit, and Ishvara is GOD as personality.

And yet it also says: Sarvam Brahma... all is Brahman alone. Brahman is both immanent and manifest simultaneously. The seeming duality becomes unified, which is of course the purpose of yoga.

Another divine paradox (as Yogani would say).  This is why we cannot rely on the mind alone to guide us. The mind is a useful tool, but it is not a capable instrument for understanding the deeper mysteries of life. Effective spiritual practices which develop inner silence, can take you beyond the mind into direct perception of reality.

Christi

[CarsonZi]

Hi David,

quote:Originally posted by david_obsidian

Carson said:
How can one ever know that you are understanding something in the "right" way? Hitler probably thought he was seeing things the "right" way, but was he really?

That's the philosophical problem of catastrophic skepticism, isn't it? How do I know I'm not a brain in a vat? What does 'know' mean?  At the end of the day, you have to go with what you think is believe,  but it's good to use the most reliable means of finding out what is true.

It's possible in principal that someone like Hitler would believe through-and-through that he was right.  It so happens though that I doubt that this was the case with the real man. I think Hitler would have had difficulties facing open questioning.  Was Hitler entirely honest?  I doubt it.  All sorts of questions could be asked of him that he probably would not want to answer, or to which he would wish to produce a false answer.

Just as a thought experiment, imagine him on a perfect lie-detector, with the whole country of his time looking on, and you are free to question him.  What questions might you ask him that you think might prove to his people that he wasn't being truthful?  Are there questions you could have asked that would have stopped world war II and the Holocaust?  Are there questiosn that you could have asked that would have stopped world war II and the Holocaust even if you were not allowed to ask him of his plans?

I was just using Hitler as an example, and maybe he wasn't a very good one.

Love,
Carson[^]

[contemplative]

A few core issues in his thread need to be addressed.

1) pAtaJjali can not be used to define what yoga is or isn’t. The yoga tradition greatly predates pAtaJjali. Indeed, scholars almost universally agree that the SaDaGgayoga predates pAtaJjali's aSTAGgayoga. It is the SaDaGgayoga tradition that is preserved in Buddhist sources *not* pAtaJjali's aSTAGgayoga. Moreover, the methods used in AYP are derived mostly from then yoga of the nAthasampradAya. The nAthasampradAya likewise emphasizes the SaDaGgayoga not pAtaJjali's aSTAGgayoga. The SaDaGgayoga of the maitrAyaNIyopaniSad and especially the amRtanAdopaniSad are both closer to the SaDaGgayoga of vajrAyAna than pAtaJjali’s aSTAGgayoga. Indeed, the vast majority of Buddhist and Saivite yoga texts which are chronologically later than pAtaJjali exhibit no discernable influence from him. He was a "flash in the pan" of Indic yoga so far as I can tell. For these reasons pAtaJjali is largely irrelevant to any discussion of kuNDalinI in Buddhism here on the AYP forum.
   
2) Nobody knows what the historical Buddha really said. The nikAya-s are regarded by many scholars as the earliest Buddhist scriptures, but even they were written long after the Buddha’s death.
           
3) TMS doesn’t get to define what Buddhism is or is not. Even if he had some supernatural ability to know what the “words of the Buddha” actually were, it wouldn’t matter. A religious tradition does not stop evolving and adapting when the founder dies. The theravAda, mahAyAna, and vajrAyAna traditions are all fully legitimate expressions of Buddhism (whether or not TMS wants them to be).
         
4) Discussions of theism vs. non-theism and other purely philosophical issues are essentially unrelated to kuNDalinIyoga, which concerns a set of reproducible psycho-physiological processes. The kuNDalinI energy exists within all of us regardless of religious affiliation or philosophical outlook. It makes about as much sense to say that kuNDalinI is non-Buddhist as it does to say that your kidneys are non-Buddhist.

The bottom line is that  Buddhism has a highly sophisticated type of kuNDalinIyoga (whether TMS wants it to or not). This yoga is called caNDAlIyoga (or “gtum mo rnal ‘byor” in Tibetan)

Buddhism also has a well-developed system of physical yoga similar to haThayoga called nADivAyuyantra, a system of which is discussed at length in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Yantra-Yoga-Tibetan-Movement/dp/1559393084/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228444692&sr=8-1


Some books describing the *Buddhist* practice of kuNDalinIyoga are listed below.

http://www.amazon.com/Tsongkhapas-Yogas-Naropa-Tson-Kha-Pa-Blo-Bzan-Grags-Pa/dp/1559390581/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Readings-Yogas-Naropa-Glenn-Mullin/dp/1559390743/ref=cm_lmf_tit_2_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Bliss-Inner-Fire-Practice-Naropa/dp/086171136X/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3_rysdsd0
 
http://www.amazon.com/Six-Yogas-Naropa-Teachings-Mahamudra/dp/0937938335/ref=cm_lmf_tit_4_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Yoga-Secret-Doctrines-Dawa-Samdups/dp/0195133145/ref=cm_lmf_tit_5_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Clear-Light-Bliss-Mahamudra-Vajrayana/dp/0948006218/ref=cm_lmf_tit_6_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Selected-Works-Dalai-Lama-Teachings/dp/0937938289/ref=cm_lmf_tit_7_rysdsd0

[themysticseeker]

quote:Originally posted by Christi

Hi TMS.

 

quote:The Vendantan view is that GOD as immanent permeates all creation as Brahman, and GOD as transcendent being see outside of Creation as Ishvara. It's the old mind-soul duality in another form. Brahman is GOD as spirit, and Ishvara is GOD as personality.

And yet it also says: Sarvam Brahma... all is Brahman alone. Brahman is both immanent and manifest simultaneously. The seeming duality becomes unified, which is of course the purpose of yoga.

Another divine paradox (as Yogani would say).  This is why we cannot rely on the mind alone to guide us. The mind is a useful tool, but it is not a capable instrument for understanding the deeper mysteries of life. Effective spiritual practices which develop inner silence, can take you beyond the mind into direct perception of reality.

Christi

That is so. I don't believe in God. I've seen it.

HA!

TMS

[themysticseeker]

quote:Originally posted by contemplative

A few core issues in his thread need to be addressed.

1) pAtaJjali can not be used to define what yoga is or isn’t. The yoga tradition greatly predates pAtaJjali. Indeed, scholars almost universally agree that the SaDaGgayoga predates pAtaJjali's aSTAGgayoga. It is the SaDaGgayoga tradition that is preserved in Buddhist sources *not* pAtaJjali's aSTAGgayoga. Moreover, the methods used in AYP are derived mostly from then yoga of the nAthasampradAya. The nAthasampradAya likewise emphasizes the SaDaGgayoga not pAtaJjali's aSTAGgayoga. The SaDaGgayoga of the maitrAyaNIyopaniSad and especially the amRtanAdopaniSad are both closer to the SaDaGgayoga of vajrAyAna than pAtaJjali’s aSTAGgayoga. Indeed, the vast majority of Buddhist and Saivite yoga texts which are chronologically later than pAtaJjali exhibit no discernable influence from him. He was a "flash in the pan" of Indic yoga so far as I can tell. For these reasons pAtaJjali is largely irrelevant to any discussion of kuNDalinI in Buddhism here on the AYP forum.
   
2) Nobody knows what the historical Buddha really said. The nikAya-s are regarded by many scholars as the earliest Buddhist scriptures, but even they were written long after the Buddha’s death.
           
3) TMS doesn’t get to define what Buddhism is or is not. Even if he had some supernatural ability to know what the “words of the Buddha” actually were, it wouldn’t matter. A religious tradition does not stop evolving and adapting when the founder dies. The theravAda, mahAyAna, and vajrAyAna traditions are all fully legitimate expressions of Buddhism (whether or not TMS wants them to be).
         
4) Discussions of theism vs. non-theism and other purely philosophical issues are essentially unrelated to kuNDalinIyoga, which concerns a set of reproducible psycho-physiological processes. The kuNDalinI energy exists within all of us regardless of religious affiliation or philosophical outlook. It makes about as much sense to say that kuNDalinI is non-Buddhist as it does to say that your kidneys are non-Buddhist.

The bottom line is that  Buddhism has a highly sophisticated type of kuNDalinIyoga (whether TMS wants it to or not). This yoga is called caNDAlIyoga (or “gtum mo rnal ‘byor” in Tibetan)

Buddhism also has a well-developed system of physical yoga similar to haThayoga called nADivAyuyantra, a system of which is discussed at length in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Yantra-Yoga-Tibetan-Movement/dp/1559393084/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228444692&sr=8-1


Some books describing the *Buddhist* practice of kuNDalinIyoga are listed below.

http://www.amazon.com/Tsongkhapas-Yogas-Naropa-Tson-Kha-Pa-Blo-Bzan-Grags-Pa/dp/1559390581/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Readings-Yogas-Naropa-Glenn-Mullin/dp/1559390743/ref=cm_lmf_tit_2_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Bliss-Inner-Fire-Practice-Naropa/dp/086171136X/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3_rysdsd0
 
http://www.amazon.com/Six-Yogas-Naropa-Teachings-Mahamudra/dp/0937938335/ref=cm_lmf_tit_4_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Yoga-Secret-Doctrines-Dawa-Samdups/dp/0195133145/ref=cm_lmf_tit_5_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Clear-Light-Bliss-Mahamudra-Vajrayana/dp/0948006218/ref=cm_lmf_tit_6_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Selected-Works-Dalai-Lama-Teachings/dp/0937938289/ref=cm_lmf_tit_7_rysdsd0

Hi Contemplative, I was wondering when a himalaya lova was gonna set me straight! I like how you type. It shows a very intimate understanding of annunciation. Correct pronunciation is very impotant ya know wat I'm sayin'?

I have a few of these books. I might have even read one of them. I have a lot of books that I don't read. Somehow, when I look at them, all the information goes into my head. Who said you can't judge a book by it's cover? Perhaps, by the cover art.

I like Kundalini Yoga too. I don't think the Buddha knew about Tibetan Candalini. Maybe he did. He was omniscient. Tibetans like to talk about "the historical Buddha" like the "boring real Buddha." Guru Padmasambhava is a more exciting figure. Sexy.

So this discussion got onto pAtaJjali, because of the emphasis in yoga on divinity. My ignorant and misinformed stupid guy stick in the mud argument was what divinity is a hindrance to enlightenment, not divinity as divinity, but divinity as an idea and a feeling. Divinity is most harped on in the Yoga Sutras. Hell, it's harped on in the Tibetan practices, too. Not putting down the Tibetans. Believe me. I spend a lot of time at the Tibetan monasteries around here, and there are a lot of them.

For me, the Tibetan and the Yogas are a little much. Too much to learn. I'm not that smart. Not only that, but I'm crazy. Who's going to teach me? No one can stand me, certainly no monk or guru.

I had to figure it out myself. I spent a long time looking. I spend a lot of time alone. It's amazing what sitting will do for  guy. So I had my own big experience in meditation. It was too big for my mind. I couldn't describe it. So I looked here and there trying to find who the smart people are that can describe it. I went through everyone.

I found the "historical Buddha's" discourses to be most apt. I was like, "that's right on man!" For little lame me, the Tibetan tantras are a little over the top. But I incorporate many things from tantra. Mantras are fun. Can you do the deep throat voices? Those vibrate the chest and make it feel all quivery. That's fun too.

Love ya,

TMS

[stevenbhow]

"The kuNDalinI energy exists within all of us regardless of religious affiliation or philosophical outlook. It makes about as much sense to say that kuNDalinI is non-Buddhist as it does to say that your kidneys are non-Buddhist."

Thanks Contemplative. That is exactly what I was hoping to learn. And thanks for the links. I will definitely look into them.

[themysticseeker]

quote:Originally posted by contemplative

A few core issues in his thread need to be addressed.

1) pAtaJjali can not be used to define what yoga is or isn’t. The yoga tradition greatly predates pAtaJjali. Indeed, scholars almost universally agree that the SaDaGgayoga predates pAtaJjali's aSTAGgayoga. It is the SaDaGgayoga tradition that is preserved in Buddhist sources *not* pAtaJjali's aSTAGgayoga. Moreover, the methods used in AYP are derived mostly from then yoga of the nAthasampradAya. The nAthasampradAya likewise emphasizes the SaDaGgayoga not pAtaJjali's aSTAGgayoga. The SaDaGgayoga of the maitrAyaNIyopaniSad and especially the amRtanAdopaniSad are both closer to the SaDaGgayoga of vajrAyAna than pAtaJjali’s aSTAGgayoga. Indeed, the vast majority of Buddhist and Saivite yoga texts which are chronologically later than pAtaJjali exhibit no discernable influence from him. He was a "flash in the pan" of Indic yoga so far as I can tell. For these reasons pAtaJjali is largely irrelevant to any discussion of kuNDalinI in Buddhism here on the AYP forum.
   
2) Nobody knows what the historical Buddha really said. The nikAya-s are regarded by many scholars as the earliest Buddhist scriptures, but even they were written long after the Buddha’s death.
           
3) TMS doesn’t get to define what Buddhism is or is not. Even if he had some supernatural ability to know what the “words of the Buddha” actually were, it wouldn’t matter. A religious tradition does not stop evolving and adapting when the founder dies. The theravAda, mahAyAna, and vajrAyAna traditions are all fully legitimate expressions of Buddhism (whether or not TMS wants them to be).
         
4) Discussions of theism vs. non-theism and other purely philosophical issues are essentially unrelated to kuNDalinIyoga, which concerns a set of reproducible psycho-physiological processes. The kuNDalinI energy exists within all of us regardless of religious affiliation or philosophical outlook. It makes about as much sense to say that kuNDalinI is non-Buddhist as it does to say that your kidneys are non-Buddhist.

The bottom line is that  Buddhism has a highly sophisticated type of kuNDalinIyoga (whether TMS wants it to or not). This yoga is called caNDAlIyoga (or “gtum mo rnal ‘byor” in Tibetan)

Buddhism also has a well-developed system of physical yoga similar to haThayoga called nADivAyuyantra, a system of which is discussed at length in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Yantra-Yoga-Tibetan-Movement/dp/1559393084/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228444692&sr=8-1


Some books describing the *Buddhist* practice of kuNDalinIyoga are listed below.

http://www.amazon.com/Tsongkhapas-Yogas-Naropa-Tson-Kha-Pa-Blo-Bzan-Grags-Pa/dp/1559390581/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Readings-Yogas-Naropa-Glenn-Mullin/dp/1559390743/ref=cm_lmf_tit_2_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Bliss-Inner-Fire-Practice-Naropa/dp/086171136X/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3_rysdsd0
 
http://www.amazon.com/Six-Yogas-Naropa-Teachings-Mahamudra/dp/0937938335/ref=cm_lmf_tit_4_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Tibetan-Yoga-Secret-Doctrines-Dawa-Samdups/dp/0195133145/ref=cm_lmf_tit_5_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Clear-Light-Bliss-Mahamudra-Vajrayana/dp/0948006218/ref=cm_lmf_tit_6_rysdsd0

http://www.amazon.com/Selected-Works-Dalai-Lama-Teachings/dp/0937938289/ref=cm_lmf_tit_7_rysdsd0

Hi Contemplative, perhaps you can help me. Why do the Vajra people, like Lama Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, say that the Sutra people misunderstand enlightenment to mean gross consciousness aware of emptiness? According to Gyatso, and other Vajra lamas, the only way to enlightenment is through them. Do you agree with that?

Thanks,

TMS