Recently, I had the opportunity to test this. I wasn't giving a talk or a presentation on Kundalini; I had been invited to join a community discussion group with five or six other men and I was attending my fifth or sixth session. Discussion usually skirted around cultural and any number of other progressive topics, but it never touched spiritual matters. And I never brought one up.
|Prayer or Practice|
One day, however, one of the participants — I later discovered he was battling cancer — brought up the afterlife question in a way that flowed seamlessly into the existing context. I can't remember word for word what followed, but I did seize the opening to comment on my research into human energy potential and energy cultivation techniques, as well as my findings that death was not to be feared and was only a transition into a new state of being.
Someone asked me if I could prove it. I cited NDE and Kundalini as examples of consciousness existing outside mind and body. I underlined that this hypothesis was the result of research done in the laboratory of my own body, and it was supported by many similar accounts from all over the globe. Some members continued the discussion; the man who'd started it wanted to hear more. But several others began shouting that Kundalini had no scientific value; it was only a cult.
A cult, a religion, a philosophy, a practice, and an exercise regimen. It's been called all of the above, and probably less flattering names as well, I observed. One man kept shouting it's a cult, it's a cult. I spent two minutes trying to explain that Kundalini was a biological process, that I had no religious affiliations, and that kundalini, despite the unfortunate connotations attached to its name, was the driving force behind evolution. I mentioned that my kundalini experience had begun with breathing exercises, and then morphed into profound consciousness experiences I have documented in several books.
I stated that my experience was not the result of any religious practice. In fact, I told them I practiced no religion nor did I hold any position on God.
However, I said Kundalini did trigger many physical, metabolic, mental, psychic, and other effects in my being, right down to the cellular level, on which I could elaborate if the group was interested. I told them these effects had nothing to do with religion. They were the by-product of the biological energy Kundalini produces and they resulted in my becoming immersed in an Energy Continuum, not unlike the Unified Field physicists speak of. My experience inspired me to learn more about higher consciousness, energy cultivation, and the role of Kundalini in evolution. I added that the effects were largely unexpected and showed me that keeping an open mind was paramount if we are interested in the forces behind evolution.
It's not a religion or a cult, I said. You can't be "converted" to Kundalini, any more than you can be converted to a heart attack or an orgasm; they just happen. That's the nature of biological processes; they just happen. Some are triggered by external stimuli or practices, like meditation; others are autonomic or spontaneous.
Needless to say, the discussion ended there and that was the last meeting I attended. What's the point? If a person is so closed-minded he confuses biology with religion, there's little room for dialog.
Nevertheless, of the two most excitable critics, I learned that one was a virulent atheist who could not conceive of any middle ground between belief and non-belief in God and the other had been raised in fundamentalist surroundings and had it up to his chin hairs with religion. Both were college professors.
So how do you explain Kundalini? How do others react to your explanation? Did you learn anything from encounters with people whose minds are closed to any investigation of the hypothesis that biology is an expression of consciousness?