Kundalini not mentioned in any ancient Upanishads ! ?

[Sampath Kumar]

Dear friends ;some one posted like this

But the psychic energy was recognized by the seers of the Upani ​shads  ​ and expressed its feature and nature in symbolic language.  Please see Chandogya, 8.6.3, B.rhadaara.nyaka, 2.1.19, Pra"sna, 3.12.  ​ i searched and verified those lines those are like this-​ ​1-​ Chandogya, 8.6.3, ​see this , where is the clue for Kundalini???​   ​8-6-​ 3: Therefore when one is thus sound sleep, composed, serene so that he knows no dreams, then he enters into (the Akasa of the heart through) these arteries. Then no evil touches him for then he is filled with the light of the sun ​2-​ Br u​ hadaaranyaka, 2.1.19,see this , where is the clue for Kundalini???​ अथ ​ यदा सुषुप्तो भवति ,यदा न कस्यचन वॆद ,हिता नाम नाड्यॊ द्विसप्ततिः सहस्राणि हृदयात् पुरीततमभि प्रतिष्टन्तॆ, ताभिः प्रत्यवसृप्य पुरीतति शेते; स यथा कुमारो वा महाराजो वामहाब्राह्मणॊ वाअतिध्नीमानंदस्य गत्वा शयीत, एवमेवैष एतत् शेते॥  II-i-19: Again when it becomes fast asleep – when it does not know anything – it comes back along the seventy-two thousand nerves called Hita, which extend from the heart to the pericardium (the whole body), and remains in the body. As a baby, or an emperor, or a noble Brahmana lives, having attained the acme of bliss, so does it remain. ​3-​ Prasn ​opanishad​ , 3.12.  ​- ​see this , where is the clue for Kundalini???​ ​ उत्पत्तिं आयतिस्थानं, विभुत्वं ​ चैव पञ्चधा ​ ।​ अध्यात्मं चैव  प्राणस्य विञायामृतमश्नुते॥ Here nothing is symbolic, its meaning is only the 5 winds ​प्राण and  अपान etc,,, and  five forms called Apāna, Vyāna,Udāna, Samāna etc. and performs various functions in the body.  There are nadis (subtle channels of energy) in the heart in which  Prana in the form of Udāna circulates. Through one of the nadis,  Udāna carries life to heaven during death,  if man has done punya (good deeds), and to Naraka (Hell)  if he has done pāpa (sin), and to earth (human world)  if both pāpa and punya are present. Being in the form of sun,  Prana gives light to eye for seeing, thus he supports outer world by assuming form of Sun. Sankara bhashya also conferms this. ​4-​ S ​h​ atc ​h​ akra-nirupana  ​- this not ancient text;​ ("Description of and Investigation into the Six Bodily Centres") of Purnananda ​[​ 1550 ​ ​ A ​.​ D  ​.​ ​]​ ​  ok Goodluck​   ​5- Lalitha  sahasranama mentioned "Kundalini"  but  Lalita sahsra namam [L.S] not written by Vyasa-maharshi.  Because ​,​ 1-L.S not found in any of the Brahmanda Purana manuscripts either southern or northern recensions.  Brahmanda Purana  belongs to the period of​  350–950  ​A.D​ According to Pargiter,[the "original Purana" may date to the time of the final redaction of the Vedas. Gavin Flood connects the rise of the written Purana historically with the rise of devotional cults centering upon a particular deity in the Gupta era: the Puranic corpus is a complex body of materials that advance the views of various competing cults. Wendy Doniger, based on her study of indologists, assigns approximate dates to the various Puranas.  ​ Brahmanda Purana to 350–950  ​A.D. ​ Sampath Kumar Medavarapu Ahmedabad 09998344758     ​

 

​             

​

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Please look at the verse from Yogakundalini Upanishad belonging to Veda :

Sunil KB

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Hnbhat B.R.]

I could not see the image. Hence I have taken a snapshot from the pdf file:

​

​From the ​योगकुण्डलिन्युपनिषत् describing कुण्डलिनी as the शक्ति. Etymologically, it is the feminine gender of कुण्डलिन् which means one having कुण्डल or bracelet or ring, in other words coiled one, or collection of it कुण्डलानां समूहः,  is used an epithet of serpent as per Amara:

 कुण्डली गूढपाच्चक्षुःश्रवाः काकोदरः फणी ।।१-८-७।।

 and hence it seems it is called as serpent power.

 कुण्डली गूढपाच्चक्षुःश्रवाः काकोदरः फणी ।।१-८-७।।

and depicted as serpent such in the above description descriptions, referring to hood फणा, and पुच्छ which makes the concept clear.

​As said in the earlier post, it belongs to कृष्णयजुर्वेद.​

Here is the English Translation of the Text: YOGAKUṆDALĪ -UPANISHAḌ

OF KṚSHṆA-YAJURVEḌA

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/tmu/tmu32.htm

Source: Thirty Minor Upanishads, tr. by K. Narayanasvami Aiyar, [1914], at sacred-texts.com.

​From the title, it seems, it is named as कुण्डली, and कुण्डलिनी when referring to शक्ति which is feminine gender. ​

The date of this Upanishad is debatable for those who seek historicity of this concept. I have just cited the usages of the words in the above Upanishad-s.

It is possible कुण्डल-s refer to the Six Chakra-s, and the शक्ति conceived of consisting them, is properly called कुण्डलिनी, or कुण्डली (in masculine gender generally used for serpent).

​

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

To go back to the basic question raised by Sri Sampath Kumar:

 

When studying the history of religious concepts and terminology, one has to distinguish between the thing and the name given to the thing. The word kuNDalinI is not to be found in the prinicipal upanishat texts (such as bRhadAraNyaka, taittirIya, chAndogya etc). However, all this indicates is that word kuNDalinI may not be chAndasa in origin. It does not mean that one should necessarily deny an upanishadic basis for the content of the meditative practices associated with what is today called kuNDalinI yoga.

 

If you ask what kuNDalinI really is, the dominant views among most practitioners is that it is a name for prANa, conceived of as a power, a Sakti, or that it is a name for cit, consciousness itself. There are other views about what kuNDalinI means, but all those variants talk of the concept of prANa/cit being felt along the spine and being concentrated upon by yogis, at different spots in the body. As for prANa itself, the word can mean more than the breath that we inhale and exhale. For example, all the senses are often clubbed together and collectively called prANa-s, in the vedAnta texts.

 

Therefore, the reference by Sankara in the gItAbhAshya 8.10, about the prANa rising upward through a central nADI (which occurs in many other places as well, especially in dicussions of krama mukti), being held in concentration between the eyebrows etc. needs to be analyzed carefully. This is about a deliberate meditative practice (manasA acalena - indicating an active control of the mind), not about how the jIva travels in the nADI-s during svapna or rests in sushupti. Similarly with the reference to an upward rising nADI in the taittirIya commentary. And when the upanishads say, tayordhvam Ayann amRtatvam eti, that also points to something deliberate in the quest for immortality. It is not an accidental "spiritual feeling" or merely an anatomical event.

 

Whatever these meditative practices were in the time of Sankara or are today, they certainly had a pre-Sankaran vedAntic past. Could there have been texts that used the word kuNDalinI, dating to before Sankara? I don't think we can know for sure. Yet, there had to have been pre-Sankaran texts that constituted "yogaSAstra" for Sankara, from where the references to sushumnA etc were prasiddha in his time. There had to have been more than the pAtanjala yogasUtra and its bhAshya available to him. Nevertheless, the dominant tendency within academic scholarship is that whenever descriptions of nADI-s and cakra-s are found in a text, a date not much earlier than the 10th century is assigned, the text is classified as belonging to tantra/Agama and perhaps reluctantly aligned with yoga, while any connection with anything vedAntic is either categorically denied or prematurely judged as "post-Sankaran."

 

Often, it seems to me me that "tAntrika" is merely a catch-all phrase to describe the "other" (like the category of "Dravidian" for some Sanskritists). It is a safety valve through which unexamined assumptions can pass off as if they were carefully considered conclusions. It is this dogma within academic scholarship that I challenge. And I would not bother to challenge it if it were something minor, but in reality, this attitude has far-reaching implications for the vast majority of academic studies on what we call Hinduism today, from the ancient Upanishads, Saivagamas and Pancaratra, right down to Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Swami Vivekananda, along the way making numerous unwarranted judgements about the Sankara mathas, the Srivaishnava and Madhva traditions, Kashmir Saivism, south Indian Saiva Siddhanta etc.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:36:59 AM UTC-4, sampathkumar wrote:

Dear friends ;some one posted like this

But the psychic energy was recognized by the seers of the Upani ​shads  ​ and expressed its feature and nature in symbolic language.  Please see Chandogya, 8.6.3, B.rhadaara.nyaka, 2.1.19, Pra"sna, 3.12.  ​

 

​             

​

[rniyengar]

I largely agree with the points brought out by Sri Sundaresan, which adds to the overall discussion. However I wish the first poster had described if not defined what is the 'KunDalinI' (K) concept for which he is seeking the historical origin or roots. This is so because K is an esoteric 'concept' which is at the intersection of the physical, the psychic and the spiritual. Is K  the sensation one feels at the tip of the coccyx? or is it the just the TEXTUAL figure and description of a triangle with a coiled serpent etc at the base of a human being? If it is the latter it is better to make the stand crystal clear. This is so because many 'textual concepts' have come out of the 'revelations or experiences' of others who are not necessarily the authors of the texts. I had seen an article that Aryasamajins though being Vedics do not beleive in K becasue their founder could not find the chakras in a dissected body (I am writing from memory. If I am wrong I may be corrected & no offence meant). The thrust of my argument is if one has to search for the concept of 'K'  in our tradition in the texts, no simplistic approach would suffice. We have to first collect all such (out-of) beyond-the-body concepts in the antecedent literature together and analyze the relations among them. Naturally this is an arduous task and I do not know whether this has been done already. If historicity has to be further superposed on the resulting lnkages one has to order or at least agree for a chronology starting from the R.gveda. The dichotomy that exists in our cultural history is that a time line can be worked out from Buddha, Mahavira (c 500 BC) onwards to arrange the later texts and concepts (I know some will not agree with this!). But many such concepts could have originated in the pre-Buddhist oral tradition texts namely the Vedas and the Vedangas. 

Specific to the point under discussion namely 'K', my understanding is the phraseology is late but not the concept. After all Muulaadhara is one of the six (some texts seven) chakras. The Taittiriya AraNyaka in the well known Narayanopanishad already states three of them except they were synchronized with the upper part of the body. 

अधो निष्ठ्या वितस्त्यान्ते नाभ्याम् उपरि तिष्ठति | ज्वालामालाकुलं भाती विश्वस्यायतनं महत् || Below the Adams apple, at a distance of a span, and above the navel (i.e., the heart which is the relative seat of the manifestation of Pure Consciousness in the human being), effulges the Great Abode of the universe, as if adorned with garlands of flames

This is of course too well known for me to labour on. Vishuddha, anaahata and MaNipura (or Nabhi) are attested here as esoteric SPACES. The language here is not symbolic, it is quite specific with even a length measure- Vitasti being mentioned. It appears as is common with tripartite division of GuNas: Satva, Rajas and Tamas, the Vedic-upasans appear to be stressing the Satvic-chakras (at least that is preserved). Later historical texts in line with the diffusion of secret Vedic concepts into the common populace have further diversified to explore and map out the Rajasic and the Tamasic (Svadhishthana & Mulaadhaara) parts of the human anatomy in tune with the Cosmic Order. I sincerely feel, any one searching for historicity of Hindu cultural/philosophical/mystical concepts should not stop at 100 AD or 100 BC. I  request Sri Sampatkumar to first state clearly the dimension of 'K' for which he is searching the historical roots. I may seem to be naive, but I do not see how any one could have suddenly come out with the 'K' concept without an intellectual understanding (if not experiential) of the fundamental concept of Chidaakaasha and the Baahyaakaasha being connected if not seamlessly merging.

iti praNamya

RN Iyengar

[Vinay Jha]

Namaste,

It is interesting to note that "Kundalini" is not found in Vedic literature by Sampat Ji. May I ask what is the aim of such a pursuit ? If Kundalini is a non-Vedic invention, what does it prove ? Here I list some conclusions which may be drawn from this discussion :

(1) Vedic rishis had no knowledge of Kundilini and were quite deficient in this field of knowledge.

(2)Vedic culture evolved in time, from inferior to superior states.

(3)Kundalini-related Tantra may be quite different in origins from the Vedic texts, perhaps non-Aryan.

(4)Western scholars are authorities in Vedic knowledge.

(5)Eagerness to discard texts like Markandeya Purana, which mention Kundalini, on the basis of their supposed later dating as concluded by Western "indologists" is in tune with above conclusions.

(6)In same spirit, evidences of Kundalini in Upanishadic literature is also discarded. For instance, Prashnopanishad ( प्रश्नोपनिषद् ) was discussed and discarded. 

Here, I cite one example from the same text (प्रश्नोपनिषद्):

अथेमे अन्य उ परे विचक्षणे सप्तचक्रे षडर आहुरर्पितमिति 

Can any horse or bullock driven vehicle have seven wheels ? Such vehicles need even number of wheels, not odd numbers. Or should we suppose seven-wheeler like modern three-wheelers ? The context is spirituality, pertaining to praana and the Supreme. In same upanishad, we are told that there is one extra Naadi besides the 100 Naadis with branches and sub-branches, and through this extra Naadi the Jeeva leaves this body. Kathopanishad reinforces this : there are 101 Naadis coming out of Hridaya, through 100 naadis the Jeeva leaves to get into various yonis but the extra naadi is for emancipation from the cycle of rebirths. Is that extra naadi different from sushumnaa of tantric literature ? Why is this naadi mentioned separately from the others, and why it is different from the rest ? Because it is dormant for all those Jeevas who do not deserve Moksha. In other words, Kundalini sleeps in such persons. Mundakopanishad puts the entire Vedic knowledge (related to karmakaanda) in the category of "aparaa vidyaa", and pursuit of the Ultimate Being is classed under "paraa" vidyaa. The saptachakra of Prashnopanishad should be related to the "सप्त प्राणाः प्रभवन्ति तस्मात् ..." verse of Mundakopanishad which describes seven praanas (two more than five famous praanas), seven agnis, seven samidhaas, seven homas, seven lokas, in which the praanaas roam inside the ("guhaa" (of hridaya) where "sapta-sapta" entities reside. Each entity divides into seven in the seven chakras. Mundakopanishad describes ("अरा इव रथनाभौ ...") the multitudes of naadis collected in the navel-like location (hridaya) where the Supreme Being resides. Shvetaashvataropanishad describes the  Shakti of Deva ("ते ध्यानयोगानुगत अपश्यन्   देवात्मशक्तिं स्वगुणैर्निगूढाम्") in the language of geometric symbolism found in tantric literature : तमेकनेमीम् त्रिवृतम् षोडशांतम् शतार्धारम्  विंशतिप्रत्यराभिः। अष्टकैः षडभिर्विश्वरूपैकपाशम् त्रिमार्गभेदम् द्विनिमित्ततैकमोहम्।।४।।  Throughh misapplication of logic, we can deduce any meanings we want out of these statements, but these upanishads forbid us from applying logic in this field : Nachiketa is told by Lord of Death in Kathopanishada "नैषा तर्केण मतिरापनेया" (such an intellect as yours cannot be obtained through logic). At the end of Aitareya upanishad, we are told twice : परोक्षप्रियाः इव ही देवाः परोक्षप्रियाः इव ही देवाः(gods like indirect allusions). Mundakopanishad describes the requisite qualities of an aspirant of Brahmavidyaa (क्रियावन्तः श्रोत्रिया ब्रह्मनिष्ठाः ....). taittiriyopanishad describes the upper end of Sushumnaa naadi under the label Indrayoni (the gayeway to Supreme Being, Brahmarandhra at Keshaanta) : अन्तरेण तालुके। य एष स्तन इवावलंबते। सेन्द्रयोनिः। यत्रासौ केशान्तो विवर्तते। व्यपोह्य शीर्षकपाले। ... (Indra is Supreme Being or the Saakshi Bird who perceives only and does not participate in the carnival of sense organs, see the "परोक्षप्रियाः इव..." verse cited above).

In this context I want to highlight a neglected aspect of Vedic knowledge. Take the case of Dhanurveda, an upaveda of YV. After discussing 'shastras', Vasishtha Dhanurveda says in the context of  'astras' :

Brahmaastra needs japa of savitri in reverse order ("सावित्रीं विपरीताम् जपेत्"). Brahmadanda also uses reverse saavitri but not in reverse ordering of syllables as in Braahmaastra, but in reverse ordering of words as follows :

ब्रह्मदण्डं प्रवक्ष्यामि प्रणवं पूर्वमुच्चरत्

ततः प्रचोदयाज्-ज्ञेयं ततो नो यो धियः क्रमात्

ततो धीमहि देवस्य ततो भर्गो वरेण्यं

सवितुस्तच्च योक्तव्यममुकशत्रुं तथैव च ।।85।।

ततो ह्न ह्न हुं फट् जप्त्वा पूर्वं द्विलक्षकम्

अभिमन्त्र्य शरम् तद्वत प्रक्षिपेच्छत्रुषु स्फुटं ।।86।।

नश्यन्ति  शत्रवः सर्वे यमतुल्या अपि ध्रुवं

एतदेव विपर्य्यस्तम् जपेत् संहारसिद्धये  ।।87।।

The tantric beeja  ह्न ह्न हुं फट्  is used just before unleasing the  'astra'. Should we suppose Vasishtha rishi was a Vaamamaargi tantric ? Eurocentric Indologists and their followers will discard Vasishtha Dhanurveda as a spurious text composed in mediaeval or modern era by some fraud. But what about other texts which support Vasishtha Dhanurveda ? For instance, Vishvaamitra Smriti, which goes a step further and describes the method and number of praanaayamas during which the japa of aforementioned mantras of seven divyaastras should be performed. Vishvaamitra is the rishi of Gaayatri and its variations, and is the ultimate authority of divyaastras. Even Vasishtha rishi sent his disciples to learn divyaastras from Vishvaamitra rishi. There are many other texts describing the reverse japa of Vedic mantras for siddhis. It is not easy to discard all these texts as spurious, because divyaastras are mentioned countless of times in ancient literature, and all the ancients believed in their reality, unlike the moderners who are unfit for divyaastras.

Under the guidance of my spiritual Guru Ji, I had performed exactly the same type of praanaayaama five hours a day for many years as mentioned in Vishvaamitra Smriti &c, but not in reverse savitri-japa because my aim was not divyaastra but self-purification.  Kundalini-awakening must never be discussed publicly. What I want to state is that without Kundalini-jaagarana, no Vedic mantra can be properly used, either in yajna by a brahmin priest or in war by a kshatriya warrior. Vedic mantras are not for indological surgery by mlechchhas (here, the term "mlechchha" does denotes not any particular race or nation in modern world, but those persons who do not possess the samskaaras needed for using Vedic mantras ; hence no insult is intended here for any particular community). Dakshina-maargi use of Vedic mantras, as I did, is for spiritual gains. Vaama-maargi use of Vedic mantras, as cited above, is for attaining worldly siddhis such as divyaastras. During Kaliyuga, Vaamamaargi use of Vedic mantras went out of use due to lack of deserving users, and only the anti-Vedic Vaamamaargi Tantra has survived with vestiges of Vedic Vaamamaarga in it. Here is one example :

Gita says :

आब्रह्मभुवनाल्लोकाः  पुनरावर्तिनो-अर्जुन ।

मामुपेत्य तू कौन्तेय पुनर्जन्म न विद्यते ।।8.16।।

Kularnava-Tantra says :

पीत्वा पीत्वा पुनर्पीत्वा यावत् पतति भूतले ।

पुनरुत्थानं वै  पीत्वा पुनर्जन्म न विद्यते ।।

Last words (पुनर्जन्म न विद्यते) are same. It means emancipation from the cycle of rebirths is attained through attaining the Supreme Being according to Gita, but the same goal is attained by means of the tantric ritual of drinking (wine, one of the panch makaaras). Some tantriks say here wine is some special type of elixir. Whatever be the explanation, Vedic Tantra is quite different Non-Vedic Tantra, and both were co-existent from Time Immemorial.

I hope the "experts" would throw some light on the grammatical explanation and meaning of reverse japa of mantras like saavitri. It is noteworthy that many ancient scholars held that Vedic "mantras" have no meaning at all in the human / linguistic / grammatical sense (mantras are different from rchaa, yajur or saama ; gaayatri mantra is not same as gaayatri rchaa). Mantras are for Prayoga, not for scholarly dissection. Similarly, Kundalini is for awakening through well guarded saadhanaa and not for surgical operation on a public platform.

Sampath Kumar Medavarapu Ji writes : "Brahmanda Purana  belongs to the period of​ 350–950 ​A.D​​". On what basis ? Just because some linguistic novices of Europe wrote so, whose ancestors learnt grammar only in modern era, unlike Indians ? Please discuss the foundations of Indo-Europeanism here before accepting their chronology.

I hope my words will be taken positively and not as personal affronts. I do not intend to belittle any individual, my targets are some ideas which have no solid foundations but are in the air due to political-economic reasons during past two centuries.

-Vinay Jha

================================== ======