Talk:Kundalini/Archive 1

NPOV: Disputed section - Kundalini and psychological distress
The overall tone of the section "Kundalini and psychological distress" veers too much towards the advocacy of kundalini as a verified phenomena (which Western Science hasn't yet realized!!). Rewriting of this section to remove that advocacy is to be desired.


 * The criticism is noted and appreciated. The content of the disputed section is now rewritten in order to give it a more neutral tonality. There also ought to be a section on the particular form of yoga called Kundalini Yoga. I will look into that matter. -Hawol


 * Thank you. It is much better now. As long as things are properly qualified, I'll remove my NPOV objection. As long as it's clear that how similar the similarities seem depends on the standpoint from which one is looking at them. 65.113.254.188 18:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Reply: I agree. Fortunately this kind of quick editing technology gives the contributor the chance to change and refine his contribution with the aid of criticism from other contributors, and within the context of a peer-review. Hawol 193.214.228.98 16:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disputed section - Kundalini in the worlds religions
Funny this anglopocentric web, the only things disputed are non-western, i would rather say non north-european cultural traditions... i found interesting the article, you might as well erase the big bang article (now found to be a galactic local phenomena, the entire sections of pop/commercial culture, products on sale, and why not as all truths are relative the entire wiki (-:) The section "Kundalini in the world's religions" needs to be either completely rewritten or perhaps deleted, especially the first paragraph. It takes the position that kundalini is true and that the mentioned concepts/entities pneuma and Holy Ghost are the same as kundalini. This viewpoint would be disputed by adherents of Christianity. --65.113.254.145 20:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Allthough i did not contribute this section I did take the liberty of editing it to make it more encyclopedic. - Hawol


 * To put a time-stamped signature after your comments, put " ~ ". It makes it easier to follow a discussion. &mdash;wwoods 23:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kundalini is an energy that depending on the level of evolution can be felt differently. In other religions has other names. But this discussion is like fighting regarding who is the real God. Every religion has its own Kundalini. Do not try to label it or define it in such as specific way, we all think and feel differently. I think some of you are wrong, but are you really wrong, of is it that my experience has been different than yours. The kundalini and its definitions come from ancient times. And even back then the definitions did not match. So now, that even more religions and more people are experiencing kundalini, how do you think we can manage to find only one definition. Can you define Love in a way it will make everybody happy, western and eastern worlds, religions and people in general? Lets not get lost in details. some parts I agree with some other I dont and I agree with your point of view, but how can you write all the meaning and expressions of kundalini if there is some many different people and opinions out there. I think we all should write what we know about it without deleting what other have written about it.

Michelle

Regarding deletions and rewrites
It was necessary to delete and rewrite some of the material in this article in order to remove some of the semantic confusion and New-Age hermeneutics surrounding this subject. I hope I have not offended the other contributors in any way, my wish has only been to introduce more clarity and academical scholarship related to the content of this article. --Hawol 10:40, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Problem with recently added statement
It is uncertain whether these claims arise from genuine concerns about safety, or from particular interests professionals may have in retaining their clients.

I have a problem with this statement. It is not unusual for teachers of meditation and other professionals within the general clinical field, or the transpersonal field, to warn about and investigate the possible adverse effects of meditation. Usually the practitioners of a contemplative practice cope nicely but sometimes - if the meditation or contemplative practice has been practised wrongly, or too intensely - serious adverse effects may occur (Shapiro, 1992; Turner;Lukoff; Barnhouse & Lu, 1995; Perez-De-Albeniz & Holmes, 2000). I believe these warnings are motivated by a concern for the welfare of the practitioner and as a precaution against the phenomenon of spiritual emergency (Turner;Lukoff; Barnhouse & Lu, 1995). As a statement outside of such a context the disputed sentence looks more like something out of a discussion group. That is not to say that there doesn't exist important and valuable criticisms of the client/therapist relationship or the teacher/student relationship, there does, but the warning against possible pitfalls of a contemplative path, or technique, is in my belief justified. Could it perhaps be possible to formulate an alternative or different phrasing of the disputed sentence?

References:

Turner, Robert P.; Lukoff, David; Barnhouse, Ruth Tiffany & Lu Francis G. (1995) ''Religious or Spiritual Problem. A Culturally Sensitive Diagnostic Category in the DSM-IV''. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,Vol.183, No. 7 435-444

Perez-De-Albeniz, Alberto & Holmes, Jeremy (2000) Meditation: Concepts, Effects And Uses In Therapy. International Journal of Psychotherapy, March 2000, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p49, 10p

Shapiro DH Jr. (1992) Adverse effects of meditation: a preliminary investigation of long-term meditators. Int J Psychosom. 1992;39(1-4):62-7. PubMed abstract PMID: 1428622

--Hawol 12:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Changes in Bibliography
I have done some editing in the Bibliography section. The references on medical research on Kundalini Yoga is transferred to the Kundalini Yoga article. Two references (Thalbourne and Ring & Rosing) that are not cited in the original Kundalini article are deleted. They might be brought back in if they can be cited in a proper context.

Hawol --193.214.228.98 17:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removing caduceus external link
Listen, I don't want to sound like a person who knows everything about the subject of Kundalini or come of as an editorial dictator, because I don't know everything there is to know about this subject. I am very sympathetic towards new contributions and humbled by new insights, but since this article recently has gone through an editorial change that places it more within the frame of western academia I find that some new entries to the article - like the caduceus external link - are positioned outside of that context. I find this a bit problematic because the subject matter of Kundalini - as presented in this article - leans more towards a western interpretation, taken from the academic disciplines of Religious Studies and Transpersonal and Humanistic Psychology. To introduce reference material that is affiliated with a particular spiritual organization - such as Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi Sahaja Yoga - might be interpreted as a sponorship for that particular organization and that organizations interpretation of Kundalini. Since the subject of Kundalini is already a controversial topic of discussion, and subject to a lot of easy generalizations, laid out by a wide spectrum of commentators across the WWW, I believe that a localization of this article within a western academical understanding is the most healthy approach to the matter. Especially considering the welfare of readers who have not encountered the subject beforehand. To be introduced to a complex contemplative eastern concept via a foreign cultural or spiritual source - such as Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi Sahaja Yoga - might not be beneficial to new readers. I have therefore removed the disputed external link. I hope this has not offended the person that contributed the link as I find the entry about caduceus to be a valid entry.

--Hawol 12:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * seems like excessive editorial anality to me, if the information is accurate, leave it, superfluity is a virtue imho, despite jimbo's various dogmas

Addition to "The Kundalini Syndrome", moved from the main page
Given the personal tone and orientation of this addition (contributed by user user: 60.234.97.222) I believe that it should be removed from the main page and placed in the discussion-section. I don't see it as qualifying as an encyclopedic entry. Since the contributor does not cite any sources in his overview it is difficult to do a source-critical reading. Remember, the Wikipedia main articles are not dicussion-forums. Within the frame and understanding of encyclopedic additions one can not post articles on a main subject, like Kundalini, in the same way that one posts articles in a discussion group. I don't want to sound harsh and critical, new insights are important, but I also believe that the welfare of the reader is important :)

--Hawol 11:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also Cite_your_sources

ADDITION: (Contributed by user: 60.234.97.222)

Kundalini can be better tackled as the conscious experience of a life force which has many synonyms, like vril, orgone, prana, bharaka, joriki, life force, cosmic energy, ki, mana, breath,prana, od, elan vital, libido, hormic energy, aether, Sufi wine, serpent, divine water or aquavit, fountain of life, plasma, soma, Eros, light as well as recently in science as pseudo magnetism; fifth force; empty waves, radiation energy, tachyon fields, free energy, gravitation field energy, space energy, unified field, emptiness energy, vital magnetism, bio-cosmic energy, Mumia, X-force, N-radiation, ponderomatoric forces, radiation energy, M-field. I cannot find this in a thesaurus, so compiled my own incomplete list. Alchemy is about little else. The Sufi call to awaken is another version. ZEN another one again, so is Kabalah and simpler Amerindian "spirit". Myths are into hardly anything else It is found in all religions and all societies under different names and modelled in different icons, like fi the Tree of life, where the crown symbolises the mind, with a snake wound around the trunk for our spine, and as Hermes with his magic wand or Odin hanging upside down from the tree of life Yggdrasyll. No matter how framed, modelled or pickled in a glyph or icon it is a human universal experience currently widely experienced by many people. It can be sensed as an energy flow up the spine and can be accompanied by both bad and good sensations and take a long or short time, which depends on the prior mindset of the experient and a reaction to such sensations. Gopi Krishna discusses it, but not very well. In an Ideal sense it should be a smooth experience coming soon after the end of one's teenage, which, so to speak, ends the development of our body, although nowadays even children get it. Star children or indigos come equipped with it. A simplest explanation would be that our culture model and mindset insists on a rational and only materialistic, static mindset,concerned with objects, somehow and wrongly derived from Plato, whereas our mind takes in a constant flow of data and experience for which we tend to cut out quite a lot of that. It comes along with an attitude by whuch we feel we MUST DO something ABOUT all that stuff going on whereas it's easier to tackle whatever one needs to act on and take the rest as moving wallpaper, sort of, more interesting than watching telly these days. Our body is survival oriented whereas our mind is not, so one could say it puts us in touch with our real mind, we were originally born with anyhow. It has become attached to esoteric or hermetic or occult knowledge with religious explanations because it includes such things as channeling, being psychic, healing, having mystical experiences and more, which are, in a weird way, all part of this. For that one can divide things up into psychic phenomena versus mystical non-phenomenal, non sensory experience. Most people tend to stop at one or other developmental phase as it gives them something to do and only people like Maharishi, Sri Ramana Maharshi, etc., or the wanderling on internet, develop it to its fuller extent. One can hardly do it justice in a short encyclopedia article, but I hope to have included enough hints for further enquiry. Many books are written about it but the crucial thing is the experience itself, which, in a funny way is self-teaching and can correct our misconceptions if we are willing to learn from it. The curiosity about recent experiences by people today is that the older way to withdraw from life is no longer necessary. My sources are, of course, my own experience and learning for which I could list all too many books consumed. A film of Beethoven shows us he had one of those cosmic experiences. The film "Powder" shows one of those people, as in a way does "Matrix" show us a choice we have and the recent "What the Bleep do we know?" has scientists tell us about it, not to ignore Harry Potter and magic, which is a ritual form for those who like such things. Rudi Rucker in "The Infinite Mind" casually admits to it. Merrell Wolff calls it "Consciousness without an object". Once your mind is attuned to picking up such ideas they crop up all over the place. In short it's nothing special unless you want to make it into something special. If anybody tells you theirs is the ONLY way to get there, just walk off. I would also like to warn people about recent sound tapes that tell us they harmonise left and right brain, but they don't harmonise the whole brain and why pay money for what you can have in your own right? The 17th Patriarch of Zen was held too stupid to learn the sacred knowledge so they put him to gardening and he found it anyhow so he was made a patriarch. The shortest explanation is by St Francis of Assissi who tells us "what we are looking for is what is looking". Altogether it has more variety than any lipstick or nail polish. There's only one way to BE your complete SELF, yours.

Disputed sentence: non-sexual air-gasm
Within the context of meditation Kundalini might also be interpreted as a meditation-induced ecstatic experience, a non-sexual "air-gasm

This information needs to be elaborated, and preferably supported with research-data.

- Hawol

Disputed section: Pathological Kundalini
I have removed parts of the section on Pathological Kundalini because of source-critical reasons and a tendency towards speculative discourse. The information concerning the serial killer Pee Wee Gaskins comes from a random website. Since the rest of the material in this article on Kundalini are from published academic works it would be preferable that this standard is upheld throughout the article. The same source-critical criticism regards the section on Shoko Asahara. I must advise contributors to please give a bibliographical reference so that the reader can do a critical reading. I agree that both sections contain important insights and I would welcome them back if they can be properly documented. The sentence on Nietzsche has speculative tonality and is also not supported by a reference. Please forgive my normative attitude, but I believe that the welfare of the reader is important.

--Hawol 29 June 2005 13:36 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources


 * the literature is rife with warnings re kundalini, but few actual examples of casualties, accidental or intentional, Nietzsche's case seems so obviously an accidental kundalini casualty, it is worth inclusion as an example. Many other examples are cited in the literature on Meher Baba's work with the masts.

Removing sources not cited in the article

 * Irving, Darrel, (1995) Serpent of Fire: A Modern View of Kundalini, York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser, Inc., ISBN 0877288305
 * Swami Muktananda, (1978) Play of Consciousness, San Francisco: Harper and Row, spiritual autobiography
 * Effendi, Irmansyah, (2004) Reiki TUMMO: An Effective Technique for Health and Happiness, Indonesia : Yayasan Padmajaya Press. ISBN 9799852900
 * Jones, Franklin, aka Da Free John and other names, (1973) The Knee of Listening: The Early Life and Radical Spiritual Teachings, Los Angeles: Dawn Horse Press. autobiography
 * Wolfe, W. Thomas, (1978) And the Sun is Up: Kundalini Rises in the West, Red Hook, NY: Academy Hill Press
 * Sivananda, Sri Swami (1971) Kundalini Yoga, Sivanandanagar, UP, India: Divine Life Society.
 * Radha, Swami Sivananda (Sylvia Hellman) (1978) Kundalini: Yoga for the West, Forward by Herbert V. Guenther, Introduction by Stanley Krippner, Spokane: Timeless Books.
 * Saraswati, Paramahans Satyananda (1972) Tantra of Kundalini Yoga, Bihar, India: Bihar School of Yoga.
 * Woodroffe, Sir John, The Serpent Power. an early presentation of Yoga to the West.

________________

I have removed the above sources until further notice. Since none of the sources are cited in the article their content remains unelaborated, and their status as information remains unclear. I am however willing to re-include the sources if they can be integrated in a larger and more comprehensive section on the higly relevant spiritual interpretations of Kundalini. --Hawol 14:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I put Swami Muktananda's Book back to the article. Although it is not cited it is a basic work about kundalini.
 * Well I put it back again here, didn't find out how to modify the main page in an acceptable way. But my intention remains, Muktananda should be on the main page, maybe someone else can do it or I come back later with more knowledge

Exploding head syndrome: statement needs documentation
A roaring noise or other loud auditory hallucination have also been reported, perhaps related to the phenomenon of 'Exploding head syndrome'.

I am removing the information on Exploding head syndrome until we can establish where this symptom has been reported. In other words, we need a reference or a documented study which have reported this symptom in relation to Kundalini- symptomatology. --Hawol 13:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply
I can elaborate on the "roaring noise" phenomenon. I am unwilling to put this information on the main page because it is my own experience and completely unverifiable. The roaring sound is mentioned in the Hathayoga Pradipika as the "bheri nada" (drum sound) The nada sounds (spoken of in the texts as the "unstruck sounds") can be easily confused with tinitus and perhaps are the same thing in essence. The inference I draw from the text is the nada sounds are produced by the body's energy flow. (one related meditation practice is to listen to the nada sound as the means to bring about the arising of kundalini - which from personal experience I found to be correct, although this was not the means of my initial experience)

The roaring noise occurs if the energy makes it past the ajna ckakra but then escapes the sushumna. The accompanying impression is a sense of leaving one's body through the top of the head but this I feel is purely an hallucination. There are different sounds associated with the vishuddi chakra and ajna but both are very pronounced and I believe audible to any one witnessing a kundalini arising in another person. The energy needs to reach the sahasrara and to do so must pierce the final knot which is at the base of the skull at the top of the back of the neck (I believe this is the "granti knot" referred to in the Pradipika)(after putting this information up I did some fact checking and I could not find the relevant text here. My library is no longer extensive and I am working from memory so I fear I am misinforming people here. The closest I could find was a reference to the "Rudra granti" but this is sited in a different part of the body to the one I nominate. There are other texts such as the Gheranda Samhita and the Siva Samhita which I no longer have.). This is where meditation will help greatly because a great deal of body awareness is needed to even notice the subtle internal pressures involved.

One last point. In my opinion I see nothing but bullshit spoken about kundalini. Mostly people seem to draw their ideas from Woodruffe's Serpent Power and they fail to understand that the text (although genuine but of limited value) is not to to be taken literally; in just the same way the Tibetan Kalacakra mandala is not to be taken literally. The diagrams and details of kundalini are schemematic not realistic (for instance people routinely imagine the ajna is a chakra with two petals - rubbish, it is diagrammed that way because it has an oscillating vibration of two and is experienced that way when the energy passes through. Likewise the visuddhi which has a vibration of 16). As I say I am relating personal experience. I have lived with this stuff for 20 years now. The conclusion I draw is this - the arising of kundalini although dramatic in itself does not produce dramatic changes. What I seem to be noticing is a slowly growing capacity, an increasing level of competence. What kundalini is ultimately about I have no idea but my speculation is it is a change of state which might influence the nature of future incarnations. I hope people dont mind me putting all this personal stuff on here.

Reply
Thank you for that elaboration, I don't mind the personal orientation of your reply. I also believe that a clearer differentiation between tinitus and different accoustical phenomena (experienced in meditation) is necessary. Kundalini is indeed a controversial and sometimes, confusing subject, discussed by a wide spectrum of meditators, commentators and theorists. Clinical literature on meditation-related problems has been under way for some years now, but the number of published studies is still a bit low. Another problem concerns the import of yogic and buddhistic terminology to a western setting, how are westerners meant to interpret mediation-related phenomena, considering the the great differences between asian and western socialization and culture. These are indeed challenging questions? --Hawol 13:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply
I would like to make it clear that I in no way advocate the practices contained in the Pradipika. It should be noted that Hindu sacred texts are often the work of multiple authors and can span several centuries. It is unwise to assume they have all shrugged off their cultural superstitions or that they are uniformly sane and ethical. I made my study of the texts after my experiences. Many of the practices suggested in the texts are extreme and some clearly are quite mad. For the record my experience came about (I believe) due to several years of mild practice of anuloma-viloma pranayama (alternating breathing) and a disciplined meditation practice. The necessary formula (if my experience is valid) seems to be one of vitalising the body and making the mind serene. The inference in the text is kundalini has a natural tendency to rise and all that is required are the right conditions. I met in my life one other person who had also experienced a genuine kundalini arising and he also adopted a gentle approach although he was more vigorous with the pranayama.

You refer to meditation related problems. Most of these problems are exacerbated by poor teachers. Many people harbour deep psychological stress which needs to be patiently addressed in meditation practise. Kundalini experience in itself will definitely alter a persons world concept and takes not a little time to integrate. It is complicated greatly if a whole lot of unresolved emotional trauma is unleashed simultaneously.

Lastly I think it is wise to take a grain of salt with eastern traditions. The high point for this stuff was about two and a half thousand years ago, I have given up trying to have sensible discussion with Buddhists and yoga practitioners. They all insist on staying within the narrow confines of their particular beliefs and feel threatened if confronted with the internal contradictions of their various traditions. (Buddhism for instance suffered greatly as a result of Asoka making it a state religion) There is much to be gained by making a comparative study of the topic as it has arisen in India and China and to a lesser extent in most other cultures.

Reply
Yes, I agree with many of your observations, and I feel that these matters raise many challenging questions, especially concerning the reading of eastern traditions. At this point in Kundalini-research I believe it is fair to say that the concept of Kundalini, or it's related expressions (pranic imbalance, pranic disorder, pranotthana) can be recognized as a meditation-related phenomenon that appears with some degree of consistency and regularity in subcultural settings that include meditation, yoga or other kinds of body work. Not to forget the work of Greyson, which points to the observation of Kundalini-symptomatology among Near-Death experiencers. This means that the concept of Kundalini can be studied with the tools of phenomenology. The main contributions to this phenomenological study have, so far, come from the schools of Transpersonal psychology and Humanistic psychology. The response from mainstream medicine (with the exception of Le Fanu, 2002, See references) has been very modest. Allthough the Transpersonal and Humanistic studies are highly relevant, they do give the impression that Kundalini-phenomenology is something that is discussed in the periphery of the academic world, and in the outskirts of western culture. This is not surprising considering the association of Kundalini-terminology with the semantics of new age and occultism, with mythological hindu religion or with supersitition. These associations have clearly diminished the credibility of the concept. Allthough the traditional understanding of the concept includes such mythological and religious features, it also includes important experiental and transpersonal components that can not automatically be reduced to mythology or religion. Turner et.al's (1995) article from the "Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease" (see references) might therefore be interpreted as a meeting point between medical and humanistic/transpersonal discourse, and as a possible step toward a rehabilitation of the concept of kundalini as a functional, or descriptive category in psychiatric nosology. That is, as an instrument to detect a particular meditation-related problem, or phenomenon. This is especially relevant in the cases where kundalini-phenomenology is understood to lead to serious mental imbalance or distress. Notice also that a phenomenological understanding of kundalini has the opportunity to remain fairly silent about the ontology of Kundalini (i.e questions concerning how it does exist?.. or why it does exist?). --Hawol 12:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Meher Baba
''Eye contact during satsang with the guru is also supposed to cause this experience. Within the context of spiritual literature inadvertent kundalini experiences have also been reported to take place when subjects physically contacted powerful gurus, such as Meher Baba, by accident.''

I am removing this passage until we can establish documentation for such meetings between practitioners and gurus. --Hawol 12:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Pathological Kundalini: Nietzsche and Hakuin
I have removed the following passage:

Among those thought to have been victims of a pathological kundalini awakening are the philosopher Nietzsche, and the Zen master Hakuin.

Please provide a reference for this information. --Hawol 07:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Pathological Kundalini Awakening
This same phenomenon happens in Qi Gong. Sources on-line point to too many sessions in a compact time frame as the cause. But those sites still claim the existence of Universal Life Forces.

This problem can be understood but only if you have studied design and Systems Furniture.

The phenomenon that can cause a sudden dissociative or psychotic episode was accidentally discovered when knowledge workers using the first close-spaced office workstations began having mental breaks, 1960's. Psychologists determined that Subliminal Sight and Peripheral Vision Reflexes operating in the special circumstances created by those too-close workstations had produced the episodes. The Cubicle became the industry standard to stop the mental breaks.

When either Qi Gong or Kundalini Yoga is performed in groups the meditation and eyes-open concentration create the same level of mental investment that knowledge workers must use to plan, design, perform math calculations, or work with a computer (reading for comprehension).

When performed in groups the subliminal detection of threat movement due to the movement of others near by supply the same movement in peripheral vision that office staff walking beside a concentrating unprotected worker does.

When a threshold of exposure in a compact time frame is reached the same mental break happens in all those cases.

The original publication of papers on this would have been done between about 1964 and 1968/69. Volunteers searching the APA database have been unable to separate papers about Peripheral Vision Reflexes.

Understanding the cause allows Yogis to plan sessions to limit exposure to safe levels. Other exposure can occur in homes, dorms, classrooms, and small business offices that do not provide Cubicle Level Protection.

We all have exposure to Subliminal Distraction every day. Most of it is harmless until we engage an activity that provides the extra exposure, which will lead to the mental break.

The noise phenomenon is "hearing voices."

If you wish to help you can reach me by clicking any email link at VisionAndPsychosis.Net.

L K Tucker 05:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC) http://VisionAndPsychosis.net or http://visionandpsychosis.net/Kundalini_Yoga_Psychotic_Episode.htm


 * As mentioned by Greyson (1993; see main article) the relationship between Kundalini-symptomatology and psychosis remains controversial. Although the presence of Kundalini-symptomatology might lead to considerable emotional and psychological distress, the research of Greyson (ibid.) implies that many of these problems have a non-pathological component, and that it is possible to differentiate kundalini from mental illness. --Hawol 16:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing Reiki Tummo link
Reiki Tummo - Explaination about Kundalini and shakitipat technique for instant and safe Kundalini awakening

Although the link has informational value I believe that it is best to reserve external links for academic references. Especially considering the present confusion surrounding spiritual techniques, and the post-modern interpretations of these techniques. Also, according to different spiritual traditions, and the school of transpersonal psychology, the safety of a particular kundalini or shaktipat technique depends largely on the cultural context of the technique, how well-prepared the student is, and whether the student has access to a credible teacher or guide. If these conditions are not satisfied the safety of any such technique might be disputed. And lastly, the actual Reiki Tummo site contains commercial discourse. --Hawol 09:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

More comments on External Links
Considering the present confusion surrounding spiritual terminology and the post-modern interpretation of this terminology, including the adaptation of eastern concepts such as Kundalini to a western context, I believe it is best to reserve the section for external links to academic sources. By this I do not mean to downgrade or trivialize the insights on Kundalini provided by spiritual organizations and websites, but only to suggest that in this confusing time a western frame of interpretation (provided by western scholars) might be most sensitive to the welfare of the reader. --Hawol 11:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Why do you assume the reader is Western? GangofOne 12:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, for several reasons:


 * 1) The article is written from a western point of view.
 * 2) It is part of the english Wikipedia.
 * 3) The scholars cited in the text (with a few exceptions) are dominantly western scholars.
 * 4) The yogic terminology that is used in the text are filtered through the lenses of western schools of psychology (e.g transpersonal, humanistic, near-death).


 * That said, the possible readers might of course not be western, but given that the subject of Kundalini is still controversial I believe that it is wise to consider the welfare of the reader and to assume that the reader is unfamiliar with yogic terminology. However, this must not be intepreted as an ethnocentric attitude on my part. It only means that the article is written for the type of person that has no prior knowledge of yogic terminology or eastern concepts of development, and this person might more often be characterized as western than as eastern. Further, this does not mean that I do not appreciate the insights of eastern traditions on the subject of Kundalini (after all, the term has originated from eastern traditions). I will welcome an improved version of this article that elaborates upon the eastern view of Kundalini as long as it is based in sound scholarship. In the end the current version of article does not present an ideal solution, only a pragmatic solution. -Hawol 16:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason why I try to keep the external link section as slim as possible is because the concept of Kundalini attracts all kinds commentators and spiritial organizations. If there are no gatekeeping criteria (e.g a preference for academical information) for this section, I suspect that it will soon be overflooded with a broad sortiment of links. I do not think that this gatekeeping is unproblematic, but considering the present confusion surrounding spiritual matters, and the welfare of the reader, I believe that it is a reasonable solution. --Hawol 17:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Links Moved From the Main Article
I have added this section because I believe it more appropriate to move links deemed inappropriate for the main article to this, the talk page, rather than deleting them entirely. Hawol, I understand your focus on the academic context, but that does not mean that non-academic links are entirely without value, particularly for people seeking opinions outside both the limited Western academic interpretations of Kundalini and the traditional Eastern interpretations. Perhaps after some discussion a separate external links section in the main article could be created for them. Ironwolf 21:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Non-academic links are not without value, I agree, but they can be problematic for the uninformed reader. Therefore I can agree with all of your main points, and I have no problems with moving problematic links to the talk page while we await a better solution. --Hawol 13:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, links which contain commercial language or product information will be removed from the main page. --Hawol 09:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

List of links moved from the main page:


 * Kundalini Survival & Support, Information and Forums
 * Experience the awakening of Kundalini(Self Realization)
 * The Experience of Gopi Krishna - The Sage of the Kundalini Energy
 * Kundalini faq by Kurt Keutzer
 * Hoshinbudo
 * Dossier of the Ascension: A Practical Guide to Chakra Activation and Kundalini Awakening (Moved from main article by --Hawol 17:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC))
 * Kundalini Awakening and Yogic cure (Moved from main article by --Hawol 09:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Removing the pain of death through Kundalini Yoga (Moved from main article by --Hawol 11:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Articles On Kundalini (Moved from main article by --Hawol 19:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
 * More articles on Kundalini (Moved from main article by --Hawol 19:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Lee Sannella's The Visionary Life (Moved from main article by --Hawol 10:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Work with Kundalini — Chapter from the book Ecology of Human Being in Multidimensional Space by Dr Vladimir Antonov. (Moved from main article by --Hawol 10:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC))
 * The Kundalini Support Network (Moved from main article by --Hawol 10:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Kundalini seminars in German language (Moved from main article by --Hawol 10:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Kundalini - Our Reason for Living:Steve Gibson (Moved from main article by --Hawol 09:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Vethathiri Maharishi's Simplified Kundalini Yoga(Moved from main article by --Hawol 10:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC))

More on Exploding head syndrome
One commentator (see Revision as of 15:21, 18 May 2006; now removed by another user) has implied that my reply to the discussion concerning Exploding head syndrome was rather pedantic, and that it can be understood to explain away the roaring sound feature of kundalini-symptomatology. If my reply is understood to be pedantic, then I must apologize for the tone, and the academic dryness, of the above reply. My intention was not to kill the topic (as the commentator implies) or to provide an exhaustive, or authoritative explanation, for the symptoms of kundalini. I do consider such accoustical phenomena to be phenomenological entities that must be taken seriously in any investigation of Kundalini-symptomatology.--Hawol 12:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Corrected some minor stuff
The section on Historial part said the first book was Hatha Yoga Pradpika. Actually Siva Sutras also mention it. Also, the first Westerner to popularise Kundalini was Sir John Woodroffe, whose books are even now read. Surprised nobody knew that.

3rdly, Kundalini in Hinduism is related to Tantra. I have already written a section on in it the Hindu portion of Tantra. Instead of copy pasting it, I have just given a link to it. Shiva bakta 10:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Shiva_bakta

Wikify
Just my 2 cents, a lot of the citations in this article need to be changed into Wikipedia footnotes. TheRingess 04:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Renga the Kundalini Guy :: Well, this is my very first Edit & also contribution in Wikipedia. I am a practicioner of Kundalini Yoga or mediatation from 1984. I find kundalini is a very simple and natural thing existing in all living things. Actually you feel it normally. It is the senation which is felt by the running of the blood fluid through the veins. Some time you can even experience a heightened sensation say after running some distance. You fell your blood vessels throbbing and you can feel the blood running. It is the same sensation. I do not know who has made all these kind of estoric terms and meanings but if you practice kundalini meditation you find it quite a normal sensation. You can feel it very well between in your forehead and if you observe it intently you can even perceive it in the tip of your hand or in the top of the head. Where ever you find you have your blood vessels you can find this sensation happening.

True to my self and my mediatation, I have not found any chakras or serpents etc in my last 21 years. I too rread a number of books on this subject and I found they are basically descriptions of the phenomena occuring in your body. But I do respect the knowledge of various people who wrote these books and treatises. But what they really mean is not a 'Chakra' or a serpent but some principle may be. Like when you teach magnetism you say magnetic rays pass thru iron. In fact there is no such thing as a magnetic line. But I am sure if you do not make this assumption you cannot teach magentism to the student.

I think this is what happened with all the names and things assocaited with kundalini. More I find if I take good and nutritious food with some good sweets the Kundalini sansation becomes better in the fore head. I find my sexual interests are also gets very well streamlined and I am able to perform my duties as a husband very effectively. In fact four years after my kundalini initiation I got married and in the fifth year I got my baby daughter. At times I get amused by the words saying with Kundalini power you sex power increases - it just does not. At fifty, your sexual prowness decreases - with or without kundalini. But after kunalini meditation, you find you are some how in control of your mind and it obeys what you say. In fact after some time you do not even see the difference - the mind seems to be same as my intelligence or what ever you may call it. But if I see a porn movie, yes , I cannot control at times - it all depends in waht mood you are. But if I find sex troubling me, then I indulge in sex rather than use Kundalini et al. It is easier and simpler - besides joyful.

Kundalini gives you better health no doubt, but you will become obsese if you over eat. But after a good mediataion I have good hunger and even If I over eat it gets digested. I also do some exercise to keep me fit.

But true to the saying - you an understand all the religious books and poetry much better after you undertake Kundalini initiation. The meanigs etc become different.

My request to all the readers of this note is this - try this yoga after a good initiation from a good master. I feel, you must have the xperience and write. Most of the time all of us try to write to please others or to show our knowledge or to convince the world that we know a lot and have tons of knowledge. But my point is this - rather than writing an essay on how sweet sugar or honey is, you can taste the same in your mouth. I am sure you cannot describe your experience sufficiently in words.

Most of what is written here seems to be normal - I am happy to see that some body is removing the religious crap out of this. I also do not mind my passage getting edited or shortened in some form but I would be only happy if all the readers practice Kundalini. It is quite an ordinary thing which we all have - not at all mystical !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Footnotes and Further Reading
Basically I replaced all of the citations in the article of the form (Author, Date) with footnotes. The references are now all listed in the "Notes" section. I think this makes the article a little easier to read. I changed the "References" section to "Further Reading" since those listings were not actually used as references in the article. TheRingess 18:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you loook a bit closer you will see that most of the references now placed under the section called further reading are actually used as references in the article, so we should probably try to integrate them under the new footnote-section. Otherwise, nice work! --Hawol 09:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Mantak Chia
concerning "side effects": the kundalini syndrom is commonly known among buddhists doing zen meditatio. It can be healed rapidly by taoist methods, which are explained by Mantak. The trick is to bring down the energy from the brain to the lower chakras. It's easy if u know how to. I can't find that in the article. I like Burke&#39;s Peerage 12:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What are User:Hawol's Credentials to be the dictator of this article?
User:Hawol seems to have made numerous and repeated excisions of various subjects in this article without evidencing much knowledge about the subject he is butchering. It seems to me his excessive, if not downright obsessive, fussiness is doing the article and its readers a disservice.

i completely agree. this article has been been overly constricted and academic-ized to the point of complete lack of clarity. a look at other spiritual, 'alternative medical' and philosophical concepts entries that don't suffer this sort of deep constriction would be fruitful. the framing of kundalini within a very modern, western academic and psychological framework, which i assume is the work mostly of User Hawol, is in itself very subjective and POV. subsections on all known interpretations and uses of the concept of kundalini should be here. i came to wikipedia looking for information on something and once again i find that overzealous editors have pretty much ruined the article...seems to be a systemic problem which, if left un-checked, will unravel wikipedia from within...bummer. 63.105.19.244 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

kundalini syndrom repair idea
thank you Mantak Chia for the way to fix the kundalini syndrom "The trick is to bring down the energy from the brain to the lower chakras."

I have been having problems with this for years, I found that doing as you said helped only if I run the energy down the front of my body, if the energy is sent along the spine it really messes me up.

I hope this information helps someone. I am worried about editing the main page, my grammer is not so good. if anyone wants more details from me, my email is adam at spacecase0.com

Kundalini Intro
I have included the name/concept Kundalini Shakti in the intro since kundalini is offen known as kundalini shakti....the divine mother aspect. Chiron.main 23:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Grammar
Please note that when using American English, there is no such term as "Brahmans", per the article as it stands, currently. Standard spelling for the priestly caste within the Sanatana Dharma (aka "Hinduism") is "Brahmin" with an "i". This spelling helps to avoid confusion, per Brahman, the Absolute, and the distinct (and different from Brahman) "Brahma", the creator deity, who, along with Vishnu and Shiva, comprise the trinity within the Sanatana Dharma. I did not make any edits, however, not being sure if some other form of English (i.e. British English) might consider "Brahmans" to be standard spelling. If this is not the case, I would recommend changing "Brahmans" to "Brahmins", for the sake of clarity. 24.178.118.206 23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Anonymous User, March 27, 2007
 * I agree, the standard in Wikipedia is Brahmin as the priestly caste and Brahman as the thing that doesn't fit so well into words. --Calibas 05:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Confusing tag necessary?
Is there any reason for the confusing tag to be in the Kundalini Rising section anymore? I don't think it is confusing, but if you think so then please explain why, otherwise I will remove it within a few days. Thank you. Anton H 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed NPOV tag
I removed the NPOV tag because I think that the article is NPOV, it presents different viewpoints without laying too much weight on any side. IMHO of course, so if you disagree feel free to re-add it and post an explanation here. Anton H 17:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I restored the tag because the problem I see in the article is that except for the opening section which mentions Hindu sources, all of the rest of the page actually presents Western New Age thinking in an uncritical manner. Much of that material has nothing to do with the original concept.  A similar organizational problem exists on the article for Chakras which recently has at least had a few sources added which clarify that the "standard" model of 7 chakras and thinking of kundalini as some sort of physical thing is a New Age view.  Both articles need to be revised to step back from their own views and put the recent Western models into better perspective.  In attempting to add some of the Hindu citations I have noticed that some of the Western concepts are so embedded that people have difficultly accepting the original concepts, such as systems in which there different numbers of chakras or different conceptual models of what Kundalini represents.  Buddhipriya 18:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see what you mean and I agree... Anton H 10:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Added totallydisputed tag
This article heavily violates wikipedia's policy on verifiability, pseudoscience and Undue weight. Kundalini doesn't have a shred of evidence in modern scientific peer-reviewed journals. The majority of the scientific community believes that this is a pseudoscience.

The article is also filled with Original research, such as

"The body then becomes an effective antenna for the 7.5 Hz frequency, which is one of the resonant frequencies of the ionosphere. In layman's terms, you then pick up information from the air. This might account for repeated descriptions of heightened senses as a result of rising Kundalini, e.g. as described by Yogananda: "The whole vicinity lay bare before me. My ordinary frontal vision was now changed to a vast spherical sight, simultaneously all-perceptive. Through the back of my head I saw men strolling far down Rai Ghat Lane...""

That is a completely false scientific explanation.

59.92.50.34 11:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The part you mention above should probably be taken out. Provide references and we'll mention the modern scientific viewpoint in the article. --Calibas 03:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

research on genius and illuminati
Please reconsider the part "research on genius and illuminati" it is important to the kundalini article because gopi krishna was the fist to propose this research. The rest of the part is not about mr krishna at all, but on the research (however small) has already been made, so it is not biographical. If you have a suggestion on rewording, I am open for remarks. Teardrop onthefire 08:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest inserting something along the lines of: "Based on the writings of Gopi Krishna, the Institute for Consciousness Research suggests that many historical figures experienced Kundalini awakening. These include Victor Hugo, Johannes Brahms, Thomas Jefferson, Jiddu Krishnamurti and Mohandas Gandhi."
 * I don't think the Institute for Consciousness Research merits it's own section in the Kundalini page but it should have it's own article. I'd put something along the lines of what I suggested in the western interpretation section and if you want to add more info put it in another article. Also, I wouldn't use the word Illuminati. Most people, in the U.S. at least, associate Illuminati with a secret organization trying to control the world, not an enlightened person. --Calibas 04:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I like your wordings, with your permission I will use it. Good idea for the new page. Teardrop onthefire 11:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to. --Calibas 05:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of web sites that cite no reliable sources
I have removed the following material that is sourced by a web site that is not a WP:RS in that it cites no reliable sources. (http://www.icrcanada.org) The claims need to be evaluated as WP:FRINGE statements, which require some sort of WP:RS, not a web site for a particular fringe group. Also see WP:EL which would rule out the use of this fringe web site if it were suggested in External Links. Can someone cite a book published by a recognized academic publishing house in support of these claims?

"Based on the writings of Gopi Krishna, the Institute for Consciousness Research suggests that many historical figures experienced Kundalini awakening. These include Victor Hugo, Johannes Brahms, Thomas Jefferson, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Maximilian Voloshin and Mohandas Gandhi.(referenced by: Institute for Consciousness Research" Buddhipriya 23:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As stated in WP:RS In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.. The institute is proposing scientific research and is not claiming any correctness. the Institute for Consciousness Research suggests that many historical figures experienced Kundalini awakening. In the near future I will be able to state from the biography of Gopi Krishna, he is however no scientist. Non of these persons claim to be correct, they all insist on scientific research and will not claim correctness until proven. So the stated suggestions are views, as stated in WP:NPOV: ''To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense presented here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents''. Did you actually read the articles about the historical persons? I have already tried including them with ref tags in the kundalini article but was denied.: http://www.icrcanada.org/gandhi.html, http://www.icrcanada.org/hugo.html, http://www.icrcanada.org/brahms.html, http://www.icrcanada.org/jefferso.html, http://www.icrcanada.org/krishnam.html, http://www.icrcanada.org/nl.html. Or their proposal for scientific research? : http://www.icrcanada.org/resprop.html. Please reconsider this edit, as it may be valuable to the article Teardrop onthefire 08:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

All questions of reliable sources aside, I think that a neutrality argument is not really relevant here. For example, if there are differing viewpoints about the symptoms of kundalini awakening, then those should be included. If there are differing viewpoints about how kundalini is awakened, then those differing viewpoints should be included. Ditto for other questions such as: why is kundalini asleep? why is awakening the kundalini desirable/undesirable?, etc.

The statement as written is not about kundalini per se, but more about historical personages whose kundalini might have been awake. The statement says more about the ICR than it does about kundalini.

In other words the statement would be rewritten along the lines of:

"The following historical personages, might have experienced a kundalini awakening...." and then use the ICR as a source.

I also don't like using the word many in the sentence. It's vague and the sentence only lists 6 people.

Even so, I'm not sure that the ICR serves as a reliable source even with the rewrite.

At best the sentence adds vague information.

I'm leaning towards leaving it out.

TheRingess (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do believe this has to do with NPOV, one view is : we believe kundalini is a nice religious concept, but no more true than any other belief and never proved. An other view is, we believe kundalini is really working in the body but we didn't really care since it is not directly empirical provable, but it should be investigated. Just my two cents, I will no longer push this matter since there is no support, I also have no other sources to verify this claim, if there are people who can verify this please do. Teardrop onthefire 08:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree. The sentence, as written, is more about the ICR and those personages than it is about kundalini.  It does not represent a view about kundalini, therefore it is neither neutral nor non-neutral about kundalini.  Here's an analogy I think is appropriate.  Wikipedia has an article about happiness. Let's say I decide to add the following line:  "Dr. So and So of the Institute for Happiness Studies, suggests that Genghis Khan was a very happy person."  Is that statement about happiness or is it about Genghis Khan?  Is it neutral/non-neutral or does the question of neutrality apply to that sentence? If the institute were real, and Dr. So and So existed, does it belong on the happiness page or on Genghis' page or neither?  Is it informative/encyclopedic?  Wouldn't I also include the statement that Genghis might not have been happy? My point is that the ICR statement, as written is too vague and does not really belong in this article. Neutrality has nothing to do with the statement as written.TheRingess (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can someone cite a book published by a recognized academic publishing house in support of these claims? The web site appears to be a WP:FRINGE source and I would not support using it to cite anything except claims about the organization itself. If these claims are notable, they will have been examined by some reliable academic source. If they are not mentioned by any reliable academic source, they are not notable and should be excluded on that basis.  It is time to raise the bar on source quality for this article. Buddhipriya 02:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Standardization of reference formats
Currently the article is poorly referenced, and references are done in multiple ways. One way to improve the quality of the article would be to standardize on the reference structure according to Guide to layout, which provides for use of the References section as a list of works cited. Once a work is listed there, it can be cited in brief form, eg., "Smith, p. 34." Would standardizing the references and use of the Notes and References section in this way be acceptable? If so, a copyedit can be done simply to get the references fully clear. Buddhipriya 02:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully support this and while you're at it I think we should combine the Reference works on Hindu sources and Other works sections as they're all based on Hindu sources. --Calibas 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since at least one editor supports this, I will start by adding the standard Notes and References sections. I just reverted one well-intentioned edit that you made because it changed a sourced statement to a WP:RS (Flood), but the change was understandable as a clear quotation format was not used.  I will double check the reference to see if the point about minor nadis is in Flood.  If not, I can find another reference in the Hindu sources mentioning them.  Is that the point you wanted to make?


 * My main concern is that the original Hindu souces not be mixed casually with much later Western materials. In the footnote apparatus and References, there will be one list of works cited.  At that point the suggestion you make about combining the lists will occur automatically in References.  Once there are a decent number of references (books) in the References section, which is a list of works cited, the need for the Further Reading section becomes unclear, because if a work is important to the topic you would expect to see it used in a footnote.  The problem with this article, as with many articles, is that nothing has inline citations, and there is a reading list at the bottom which may or may not have anything to do with the content of the article.  There is also a problem with forking between this article an other articles such as Chakra.  If you are interested in this topic and support the idea of strong sourcing, I urge you to put other related articles on your watch list so the group of articles can be examined for consistency.


 * I made a pass to set up the list of works cited but may have missed some of the books. The journal articles probably would not appear in the References section, but only appear as detail in Notes.  Once an item is in References it can be cited in short form by author name, so another pass can be done to work on cleaning up the notes, unless of course this change is reverted.  In doing this I noticed that apparently some of the citations to Hindu sources that I recall putting in are not locatable now, so either I am misremembering, or there has been article drift with loss of citations, which happens often.  Please comment on whether or not we can live with this new setup for citations.  If so, next step would be to start pushing for better sourcing. Buddhipriya 07:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was trying to clear up the common misconception that there are only 7 chakras. There are THOUSANDS of chakras and THOUSANDS of nadis connecting them. The reason for the different systems is differing opinions on which ones are the most important. --Calibas 00:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with the content of your remark. However we can't use the Flood citation to make the very good point that there are many additional ones in some of the systems.  I am mainly concerned with the process of referencing used in the article, which is currently very poor.  If you have access to WP:RS that make the point you feel needs to be included, by all means let's get additional material added using more solid WP:CITE methods.  Buddhipriya 04:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Better to have correct information than something misleading, sourced or not. Ignore all rules. I'll look for a citation though. --Calibas 05:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Verifiability says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Citing_sources says that "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." I do not support the inclusion of unsourced material that is challenged. Such material may be moved to a talk page pending location of a WP:RS.  It is possible that some statements in the article should also be treated as WP:FRINGE material and subjected to much closer scrutiny.  Buddhipriya 07:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You can quote all the policy pages you want but you wont convince me that conforming to Wiki's rules is more important than correct information. And yes I am a hypocrite because I'm actually conforming to the most enlightened rule of Wikipedia, Ignore all rules. --Calibas 01:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Verifiability, which is an official policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Buddhipriya 02:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, you may wish to look at WT:IAR yourself, but there's a body of intpretive essays which in general seem to find that IAR is not for use during disputes and if you IAR, especially IAR, you may find that product and process and consensus are more important than policy, which in a way sort of supports what you're saying, but not really in the way you're saying it. Think of IAR as a rule that serves to remind you that consensus is one of the most important things, and so is the final product. But please don't use IAR to get your own way. The idea of consensus in Wikipedia is trying to compromise and satisfy everyone's reasonable criticisms. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 02:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it turns out that IAR is not a free pass to ignore the defining policies of this project. If you're posting information that isn't verifiable, then you're not even working on this encyclopedia but on some other project, because Wikipedia is defined as a collection of verifiable information.  You'll find that simply repeating "IAR" won't stop unverified information from being removed if it's disputed. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I regret ever mentioning IAR. --Calibas 03:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it has that effect on some people. We've been discussing over there how to maybe reword it so people don't get the wrong idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh heh heh. I was going to comment on this page earlier. IAR Talk Page Squadron attack! Rock star  ( T/C ) 04:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since there seem to be no further objections to use of standard references, I will adjust some of the existing footnotes to use the list of works cited. See: WP:CITE This will be a formatting pass only, not to affect content. to get the ball rolling I adjusted all of the references to Sovatsky, which uncovered the fact that none of them have page references, hence are difficult to verify.  It may also have uncovered a strong reliance on that source.  Does anyone have the book available so page references can be checked? Buddhipriya 04:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have the book but I'm not having much trouble finding the references through the Google book search. I'll add the references I can find. --Calibas 04:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of further reading section
What is the reasoning behind deleting the entire further reading section? It was noted that it was deleted because there was too much spam, but why get rid of the whole section instead of just deleting the spam? There were plenty of excellent books in the section. --Calibas 00:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The further reading section is probably not necessary, given the current brevity of the article. If those books have material that can be summarized and included in this article, then we should go ahead and include that material, using those books as references.  This article is barely more than a stub, and has too many problems right now to have a further reading section.  That's just my opinion. TheRingess (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If the books are excellent they should be used as footnoted sources. Items that appear in footnotes go into the References section, which is a "list of works cited".  The further reading section in articles gives a vague impression that they were somehow consulted in writing the article, which is unlikely in the case of this article which is soo poor.  Best approach is to have a bulletproof list of citation, which will create a very solid References section.  At present the article is filled with dubious material and the first step should be to purge it of anything that is marginal. Buddhipriya 00:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Samael Aun Weor
I would like to add something by Samael Aun Weor, since his view on Kundalini is different on two points.

1. He says that Kundalini only can be awakened through sexual magic, and not through simply meditating. Those who claim to have awakened it without sexual magic is confusing Kundalini with other phenomena.

2. He says that it is not dangerous to awaken Kundalini since it only awakens according to one's moral purity and that one is helped in the process; it cannot be awakened by accident. What do you think? Anton H 08:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This sounds like WP:FRINGE to me. Why is this person's viewpoint significant? TheRingess (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have read through the Fringe guideline and I guess that even though there are schools all over the world which follow his teachings and he is very well known in Spanish-speaking countries, he is probably not notable enough to be included in the article. I don't know of any author in the subject (tantra) who would be considered notable and who have written about him or his viewpoint. Why I thought that his viewpoint should have been included was that it was in contrast with the mainstream theory that Kundalini could be awakened through meditation, and I thought that it could be an interesting alternative. But I see now that Wikipedia should only reflect mainstream opinion, so... Have I understood this right? Anton H 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No you have not.TheRingess (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * His material is clearly WP:FRINGE as that author is not cited by any other WP:RS that I know of. I will object to any material sourced from weak sources of this type. Buddhipriya 00:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if I haven't understood it right, would you care to explain what I have misunderstood? Anton H 07:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

capitalization of kundalini
I do not think that the term kundalini should be capitalized. It is generally not capitalized in the sources I have at hand. Is there some basis for the recent changes that capitalized it? Note that in cases where it is mentioned in quotations or footnotes citing sources, the capitalization or lack of it should not be changed per the original source. Buddhipriya 00:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since, at least the Hindu sources equate Kundalini with the goddess Shakti. --Calibas 01:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... most of the Indian newspapers I checked capitalize it, but some don't. --Calibas 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure that there is variation in how it is done. The issue is not what we prefer, but what usage is standard in the majority of the WP:RS that we are going to cite.  Regardless of which approach the article adopts as a standard, if a citation such as an article title or quotation is made, the capitalization and spelling need to be kept as in the original source.  If we start to watch for this in WP:RS as we go over the notes, we may find a pattern.  I am betting that the new age materials may capitalize it, but the Hindu sources will not, but that is just a guess. Buddhipriya 01:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Hindu sources don't capitalize it, there's no capital letters in Sanskrit. I'm of the opinion that we should use the same format throughout, capital or not, but I'm not going to push it if nobody agrees with me. --Calibas 05:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A self-published source being used as a reference
One of the footnotes currently cites the following self-published paper which seems to fail the test of WP:RS : Dr. Udo Szekulics; Mala Rao-Szekulics. The Truth About Kundalini (PDF). Retrieved on 2007-04-16. Unless some reason can be shown why this is a WP:RS I think that it should be removed, and the statement sourced by it should be removed. We need to raise the bar on reference quality. Buddhipriya 01:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No one has objected to the removal of this self-published paper, so I will remove it. It fails the tests of WP:RS and WP:EL. Buddhipriya 18:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What is kundalini?
I think we need a better definition than "corporeal energy". I've discovered an interesting thing when researching for this article, seems that nearly everyone has a different definition of Kundalini. Here's a few of them.

"the legendary serpent power considered to be the index of spiritual awakening"

"the serpent power or mystic fire, is the primordial energy that lies in a dormant state within the human body at the base of the spinal chord. It is also the cosmic power in individual bodies but has no form" 

"energy (could be cerebrospinal fluid) which is coiled like a female serpent, lying dormant at the base of the spinal cord"

"pure consciousness" 

"force that rises up and travels through each chakra  to help a human being go through evolution is the Kundalini Force. Kundalini is pure power or Shakti, which resides in each one of us in a dormant form in the lowest  chakra" 

"the cosmic energy that is believed to lie within everyone, pictured as a coiled serpent lying at the base of the spine"

"literally means 'the curl of the lock of hair of the beloved.' It is a metaphor used to describe the flow of energy and consciousness that already exists within each one of us. Kundalini also refers to the serpent energy in the spine, which, once awakened, can lead to a euphoric state." 

"kundalini or serpent energy, understood as a manifestation of the goddess in the form of sakti" 

Serpent power, primordial energy, cosmic power, Shakti, consciousness, metaphor. Now comes the hard part of working these into a cohesive whole. To me this says that Kundalini can refer to two separate but related things, the "pure power or Shakti" and the manifest "corporeal energy", though I doubt Swamis see it as separate since Tantra views reality as a manifestation of pure consciousness. This is going to be difficult. --Calibas 02:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How about adding a section just to explore variations in definitions, citing multiple WP:RS. Note that some of the web sites mentioned above are not WP:RS.  Regarding source quality, unless we can get some agreement on what is a WP:RS and what is not, much fringe material will continue to creep in.  Personally I would like to see the definitions restricted to books published by recognized academic publishing houses, e.g., university-affiliated publishers. I can provide several variant ciations that qualify in that way. Buddhipriya 02:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Which ones aren't reliable sources? They're all major newspapers or books from major publishers. Personally, I'd like to rely mostly on Campbell's From Id to Ego in the Orient: Kundalini Yoga, Part I and From Psychology to Spirituality: Kundalini Yoga, Part II. Of course, we should add plenty of other sources where opinions differ but Campbell's explanation covers most of the basics(snake energy at the base of the spine etc). Campbell also goes much deeper and, I believe, has a much deeper understanding of the philosophy behind Kundalini. We should have a bit of Jung also though I don't own any of his stuff on Kundalini. --Calibas 04:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Newspapers are not reliable sources for religious or philosophical material. I think part of the problem with the article now is that there has not been any discussion among editors on standards for what constitutes a reliable source.  A book published by Joseph Campbell, who is a recognize expert on mythology, would be a reliable source on mythology.  A book published by Carl Jung would be a reliable source on psychology.  So I would support use of either of those two sources.  "Major publishers" is not a good enough category, because it may be difficult to define which authors would be considered reliable for this topic.  All discussion of reliability must be tied to a topic.  Joseph Campbell would be considered a WP:RS for mythology, but he would not be a WP:RS for astrophysics.  Carl Jung would be a WP:RS for Jungian psychology, but would not be a WP:RS for beekeeping. Many debates on article content stem from disagreements about sourcing, and I am trying to get that issue on the table very directly.


 * We also need to deal with WP:FRINGE policy and the basic statement in WP:RS that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". For example, there are various medical claims in the article, but not a single medical text is cited in support of them.  I think that the medical claims are completely unsupported by WP:RS if for purposes of medicine, medical sources are to be used.  I just did a search of the U. S. FDA web site (www.fda.gov) and cannot find anything at all there related to "Kundalini Syndrome", etc.  I think it is all bogus until proved otherwise. Buddhipriya 04:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So who do you plan on using as a source? --Calibas 04:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The sources that I would use are mainly academic texts which focus on Hinduism. An example of this type of material would be N. N. Bhattacharyya's History of the Tantric Religion, which is a reference work on the subject.  One way to evaluate source quality is whether or not a work is cited by other works of known source quality.  That is, one can look at the bibliographies of works and see who quotes whom.  This type of source quality verification can help establish usage of a source (and usage may be one index of notability) but not necessarily characterization of a souce.  A weak source may be cited in order to dismiss it, for example.  N. N. Bhattacharyya is an example of what I would consider a prominent author who has multiple published works, which show up in other academic citations as a Hindu source.  Among Western academics, people like Douglas Renfrew Brooks are currently publishing works like The Secret of the Three Cities: An Introduction to Hindu  Tantrism and his work is referenced elsewhere, etc.  Another type of evidence for Western academics is the type of publishing house.  Brooks, for example, is published by The University of Chicago Press, which is a known academic house.  If a source is contested, some basis for why a work would be used or not used needs to be articulated. Then the discussion is about source quality, not personal opinions.  If sources are vetted and make it into the References, then editors who want to get in the game can always order the books and independently verify anything in the footnotes. Both Bhattacharyya and Brooks have helpful Glossaries in the back which define common terms, which is why I thought of those two first. Buddhipriya 04:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a good one Offering Flowers, Feeding Skulls Popular Goddess Worship in West Bengal by June McDaniel ISBN 0195167902. --Calibas 07:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the books published by major universities should be the crux of the introduction and parts on Hindu sources I completely disagree with your opinion on Campbell and Jung. Campbell is an expert on mythology. Being an expert on mythology he says Kundalini has something to do with mythology. The whole mention of Shiva and Shakti doesn't make much sense without the mythological aspect, so obviously Kundalini has something to do with mythology. Jung, being an expert on psychology, says Kundalini has something to do with psychology, this alone merits at least a passing reference in this article. As already quoted in the article: "Jung's seminar on Kundalini yoga, ... has been widely regarded as a milestone in the psychological understanding of Eastern thought and of the symbolic transformations of inner experience. Kundalini yoga presented Jung with a model for the developmental phases of higher consciousness, and he interpreted its symbols in terms of the process of individuation"  and this is from a book published by Princeton, though I haven't personally verified it. There's even an entire field of psychology, Transpersonal psychology, that deals with spiritual aspects of psychology. As for the medical claims, no human dissection, that I'm aware of, has ever revealed a snake curled around the base of the spine. --Calibas 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I was not clear regarding Campbell. I think Campbell is a reliable source who can be cited in this article.  He is a WP:RS for mythology.  He would not be a reliable source for medical claims.  I agree that Jung is a reliable source who can be quoted in this article.  He is a WP:RS for psychology and probably for history of symbolism.  I am not sure what I said that you disagree with.  I raised a point regarding WP:RS being domain-specific.  Is that the issue you wish to explore? Can you say it another way? Buddhipriya 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying we shouldn't use Campbell and Jung in the article at all. --Calibas 21:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that Offering Flowers, Feeding Skulls Popular Goddess Worship in West Bengal by June McDaniel (Oxford University Press, 2006, ISBN 0195167910) would be a WP:RS. For Bengali material another I would suggest would be Tantra In Bengal: A Study in its Origins, Development and Influence by S. C. Banerji (Manohar Publications: Second revised edition 1992) ISBN 81-85425-63-9.  He is a Hindu academic.  In looking at the Hindu academic materials, many will be published by publishing houses in India.  Simply because something is written by a Hindu does not make it a WP:RS, of course, and in evaluating the Indian sources an evaluation of their academic worth needs to be done.  Simply quoting some self-proclaimed Swami will not do the job. Buddhipriya 19:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How about sources like Gopi Krishna and Swami Sivananda? --Calibas 21:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In looking at the various religious figures, I think the key issue would be verification of Notability. Independent methods of verifying notability for individuals might include mentions of them in established academic works, or verifiable claims related to the extent of religious organizations founded by them.  On these bases I think Sivananda would clearly be notable, chiefly as the founder of the Divine Life Society which is not disputed to be a large organization.  I am less sure about Gopi Krishna, about whom I know nothing other than what is in the Wikipedia article about him.  Wikipedia is not a WP:RS, of course.  But so far I have been unable to find any mentions of Gopi Krishna in the books I have at hand that I have looked in.  In all cases where a religious figure is cited, they may be a WP:RS for a particular sect, but of course they would need to be characterized fairly.  They would not be reliable sources for what Western psychology has to say on the subject, medical claims, etc. What do you think about Gopi Krishna? Buddhipriya 22:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He merits at least a passing reference. His book Kundalini: The Evolutionary Energy in Man (1970) is part of what made Kundalini, for better or worse, a popular term in the west. His book is a personal account of Kundalini awakening, not an academic description of what Kundalini is. Though I don't think we should present it as solid fact, I think we should include some of his description of a Kundalini awakening. He's a fairly recent figure, which may explain why he's not in most of the academic sources. Offering Flowers, Feeding Skulls Popular Goddess Worship in West Bengal pg. 280 mentions a bit about him, "Western interest at the popular level in kundalini yoga was probably most influenced by the writings of Gopi Krishna, in which kundalini was redefined as chaotic and spontaneous religious experience." it then goes on to directly quote his account of kundalini awakening. --Calibas 22:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work on tracking him down in McDanel. Since I would accept her as a WP:RS her mention of him seems to establish that he is notable, particularly since she characterizes him clearly.  I think the citation to her that you have cited would be a worthwhile addition to the article as part of an effort to clarify how the concept came to popular attention in the West, and eventually reached "pop" status.  I have a copy of McDaniel on order but have not seen it yet, thank you for adding it to the mix. Buddhipriya 23:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, so please forgive any errors. I have some suggestions for the definition of kundalini and Kundalini Yoga.  First I want to suggest contacting the Kundalini Research Institute (KRI) for information on Kundalini Yoga and kundalini energy.  KRI is doing very up-to-date research on this very topic.  I agree that Joseph Campbell is a very reliable source for mythology and symbolism and citing him in a section on the symbolism or mythology of kundalini is wise, but as far as I can tell he is not the most reliable source for practical information on kundalini energy.   In other words kundalini energy is not just a mystical and archaic phenomena.  There are many yogis across the country teaching the sacred science of Kundalini Yoga and showing people the tools within themselves to make the dormant kundalini energy  rise, allowing those people to experience their full human potential.  Yogi Bhajan, PhD and Master of Kundalini Yoga, is an amazing source for factual and up-to-date information on kundalini energy.  Yogi Bhajan openly taught the science of Kundalini Yoga and created many wise teachers across the globe.   His main purpose was to create teachers and deliver the technology of Kundalini Yoga to the west.  He wrote many books which can be obtained through KRI.   As far as the definition of kundalini goes, I think it is important to distinguish the history and mythology of kundalini from the facts and modern understanding (KRI can help with this).  As an ancient eastern symbol, the serpent represents energy, awareness, rejuvenation and the play of the spirit.  In the past the process of raising this energy was called the science of the serpent power (kundalini-shakti).   But today modern practitioners of Kundalini Yoga do not emphasize the “serpent” nature or history of kundalini.  Instead it has less to do with the energy itself and more to do with the awareness that energy produces.  Kundalini comes from the word kundal which means, as stated above, the curl of the hair of the beloved.  This is an energy that is coiled at the base of the spine and lies dormant in many people.  Through the practice of yoga this energy can be released.  It travels up the spine and once it is uncoiled the goal becomes to keep the energy moving freely through the body.  Yoga is not the only way to unlock this energy, but it is a proven method, yoga’s roots date back 80,000-100,000 years.  Kundalini Yoga is a very fast, effective and, when practiced properly, safe way, to unlock the kundalini energy.  Kundalini Yoga has its own history and it wasn’t until Yogi Bhajan (1929-2004) began teaching this yoga and creating teachers that it was taught openly.  Previous to Yogi Bhajan teaching it openly, the science of Kundalini Yoga was held in secret and only passed on through an initiation process.  Yogi Bhajan didn’t create Kundalini Yoga, he simply mastered it and taught it openly and clearly, anticipating people would need a fast, efficient and powerful science for handling stress and the demands of the Information Age and the changes that will take place during the Aquarian Age.  Kundalini Yoga is the yoga of awareness and it is something that needs to be experienced because it is based on the individual, the individual’s experience of himself his relationship to infinity.  It is a system of postures, breathing exercises, meditations and mantra (Shabd Guru, the science of sound current), that allows a human to fully experience their life and purpose and to live a happy, healthy and spiritually whole life .  It is also important to mention that there is a great deal of misinformation out there about kundalini and Kundalini Yoga.  With a topic such as this great care should be taken to cite true experts in the field.  I cannot emphasize enough the importance of experience, until a person has experienced kundalini energy or Kundalini Yoga all they really have is information.  That information is valuable but it may or may not be accurate.  It may also be clouded with other emotions such as fear or pride.  With a technology as sacred and as powerful as Kundalini Yoga it important to use wisdom, which is knowledge plus experience.  And nothing beats personal experience, that is the way to truly understand something, trusting in your own senses and intuition.  A note on documentation: all of the information I have provided here comes from my study of Kundalini Yoga having gone through the certification process to become an instructor of Kundalini Yoga.  One of the most amazing and practical books written on this subject is “The Aquarian Teacher” by Yogi Bhajan.  The Aquarian Teacher is the teacher training textbook fro a level one instructor of Kundalini Yoga.  It can be acquired from KRI. Sat Karam Kaur 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)SKK


 * We've had some problems with this page in the past, so we're being rather strict about what gets added. Mainly, you just need good references and Yogi Bhajan certainly seems to fit. I wouldn't worry about making mistakes or stepping on toes too much, most Wiki editors will be very quick to tell you when you do. The first paragraph could use a bit of work in clearing up exactly what kundalini is other than a "corporeal energy". The rest of the article needs plenty of work but I think a good introduction is most important right now. Nice to have someone more intimately involved with kundalini working on this page, happy editing. --Calibas 00:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible quack reference?
The article currently has a footnote to the following publication: Strassman, Rick, DMT: The Spirit Molecule: A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences, Rochester, VT: Park Street Press, ISBN 0-89281-927-8. This sounds like quackery. Can someone justify why this is a WP:RS? If it cannot be defended I think it should be removed. The reviews of the book at Amazon.com make it clear that this book is about a psychedelic drug, so I don't see how it is relevant to the article even if the book is found to be reliable on the topic of psychedelics. Buddhipriya 20:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * DMT is not a regular psychedelic but a naturally occurring chemical in the brain and has been linked to mystical experiences. The idea that it comes from the pineal gland or has anything to do with Kundalini is pure theory at this point. This reference should be removed. --Calibas 22:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am moving the disputed reference to here in case anyone wants to discuss it further:

One speculation is that the traditional practices have formalized a method for stimulating the endocrine glands to work in a different mode, causing physiological changes that facilitate altered states of consciousness. These changes are perhaps ultimately effected by stimulating the release of DMT by the pineal gland, which may be analogous to the 'pineal chakra'. Buddhipriya 23:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read Strassman's book, and it's a fun, interesting read, but it doesn't support the above statement. Strassman speculates on the relationship between DMT and mystical experiences, but using it as a reference in this article is definitely original research and fringe material.TheRingess (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Tags at the top of page
Can someone be a little more specific as to what the

tag is referring to? Seems redundant anyway with the totally disputed tag. I'm gonna remove it if nobody gives any reasons, the article already has 42 citations, more than most articles this size. Calibas 01:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal Stories not shown
Everone's experience with Kundalini is different once it has awakened. The end points of sat-cit-ananda may be similar when Kundalini has integrated as a unifying force but until then the manifestations differ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.15.239.2 (talk) 04:56, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

lead needs work
"according to various teachings": this is too vague: mention what teachings exactly, please. if there are "a number" of english translations, why only mention one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.68.231 (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mucalinda
Is Buddha's Mucalinda same as kundalini? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N33 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

'Esoteric Christianity And The Kabbalah'
I suggest the ideas in the section named above be put into a new section called '[Other] Eastern Interpretation' since Christianity originated in West Asia, which is still Eastern. Also, Kundalini exoterically has nothing to do with Christianity, though esoterically it does (see the article 'Christian Mysticism and Kundalini' by Mineda J. McCleave) in ways that this section contradicts. Also, this section implies the caduceus is Christian, but it is Hermetic. Of course, esoterically it has to do with it, but Shekhinah (Shakti) on the tree of life has more to with Kundalini-Shakti in Judeo-Christian mysticism (Quabalah) than the caduceus, except maybe some Gnostic Christianity would use both equally. Of course there are great similarities between the tree of life and caduceus. I put 'citation needed' in this section because much of it seems to be opinion with some misconceptions and not of great relevance to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchmelik (talk • contribs) 07:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed the section, it was original research.TheRingess (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Holy Spirit and kundalini
I have read some people had made links between the two notions/beliefs. The article should maybe look into that. 69.157.239.212 (talk)


 * It seems you may not have read the rest of this page, but the article may have mentioned Holy Spirit--at least the article mentioned Judeo-Christian philosophy. However, for the reasons I stated, TheRingess removed it.  Feel free to look at the article history, and my idea for a citation, and return and better explain and cite the information.  The article I mentioned is difficult, but another source is "The Work of The Chariot," but we should maybe really 1st use an explanation from a Hindu/Indian author, rather than Western ones.--Dchmelik (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yogis and Tantric reference
I would like to see a citation/reference specifically for the statement "Yogis tend to attempt this alone, Tantrics in couples, both usually under the instruction of a guru." The statement is false, and should be removed if none is provided. Bandawg (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Kundalini Tantra
I would like to add some content to this article from Kundalini Tantra by Swami Satyananda Saraswati, Yoga Publications Trust, Mungar, Bihar, India, 1984, reprinted 2003.

Rather than try to rewrite or edit the present article, I will submit some proposed content for others to read and assimilate:

Kundalini is a biological substance that exists within the framework of the body. Its awakening generates electrical impulses throughout the whole body and these impulses can be detected by modern scientific instruments and machines. KT page 12

Kundalini is the name of a sleeping dormant potential force in the human organism and it is situated at the root of the spinal column. KT page 13

Methods of Awakening

There are ten ways of awakening kundalini:

1. By a favourable birth. KT page 37 2. By regular practice of mantra. KT page 39 3. By tapasya, performance of austerities. KT page 39 4. By use of specific herbs. KT page 41 5. By the use of raja yoga. KT page 43 6. Through pranayama. KT page 43 7. By the use of kriya yoga. KT page 44 8. By secret initiation. KT page 45 9. By awakening by the guru. KT page 46 10. By the path of self-surrender. KT page 47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spingym (talk • contribs) 19:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The "new-age"
You should not include the new-age teachers in the article,like Osho and Gurdjieff,it is not academic.But only in additional section,if you have to.The "new-age" become dangerous,because it is modern conceptions in the form of ancient teachings.84.109.46.142 (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is anti new-age POV. K2709 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? It's not academic to include current information? Do we have to wait 100 years or so to include them? This is ridiculous, Kundalini has as much, or more, to do with modern times than the past. Wikipedia isn't some dusty old textbook, it's a living encyclopedia. Who cares if historians want to live in the past, it's now and what happens now is far more important. --Calibas (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As It Stands, A Poor Article
Actually, it's worse than bad. The unnecessary enlargements contained in the first section alone are proof enough. I'm going to delete the tangential spiritual mumbo-jumbo where it sounds proselytizing and is manifestly unrelated to the point in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.106.137 (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As It Stands, A Poor Article
Actually, it's worse than bad. The unnecessary enlargements contained in the first section alone are proof enough. I'm going to delete the tangential spiritual mumbo-jumbo where it sounds proselytizing and is manifestly unrelated to the point in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.106.137 (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)