Kundalini: The Dawn of a New Science

Kundalini: The Dawn of a New Science

by

Gopi Krishna

Published by:

The Institute for Consciousness Research

and

The Kundalini Research Foundation, Ltd.

Smashwords Edition

Kundalini: The Dawn of a New Science

Copyright © 1979, Gopi Krishna

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com or your favorite retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

First Published in 1978 as The Dawn of A New Science by:

The Kundalini Research & Publication Trust, New Delhi

Reprinted 1979

Reprinted 1999 by:

The Institute for Consciousness Research and

The Kundalini Research Foundation, Ltd.

Published by:

The Institute for Consciousness Research

165 Valley Crescent,

RR #4, Markdale ON,

Canada N0C 1H0

The Kundalini Research Foundation, Ltd.

86 Wallacks Drive

Stamford CT

06902 U.S.A.

International Standards Book Number: 978-0-9921082-5-0

Cover Photo: Courtesy of Daniel Kolos

Table of Contents

1. Mysticism and Evolution

2. The Mystery Behind the Rise and Fall of Civilizations

3. The Story of Krishna: An Ancient Allegory

4. Psychic Phenomena, Insanity and Genius

5. Bio-Energy and Higher Consciousness

References

About the Author

Other Books by Gopi Krishna

Drawings & Illustrations

1. Egyptian and Indian Symbols

2. Vasudeva carrying Krishna across the River Yamuna

3. Krishna vanquishing Kaliya-Naga

4. Krishna stealing the clothes of the Gopis

5. Krishna dancing with the Gopis

6. Vishnu

7. The Dancing Shiva

8. Gopi Krishna

1

Mysticism and Evolution

The world has grown so accustomed to treating ‘mysticism’ as a body of nebulous doctrines and ‘mystics’ as a class of introvert human beings, more interested in a hazy inner than a real outer world, that it has become almost impossible to convince one about the colossal importance of this subject. It is an irony of fate that modern science, while utilizing to the fullest every bit of knowledge and experience gathered throughout the past, should have repudiated that which has been the crowning achievement of the ancient cultures during the thousands of years of their existence. The dimension of this error, in all its naked horror, has already begun to dawn in the more sensitive minds of the race. The complete neglect of this side of human nature has created a situation of extreme uncertainty in the present world. Thus, while the pyramids still stand intact to draw our attention, after thousands of years, it has become doubtful whether our own creations and achievements will survive the end of the current century.

In the light of evidence presented by the history of civilizations up-to-date, we shall have to report, says Arnold Toynbee, that out of 14 clear cases of breakdown we cannot point to one in which the malady of fratricidal warfare had been got rid of by any means less drastic than the elimination of all but one of the war-making states themselves. But in accepting this formidable finding we must not allow ourselves to be discouraged by it . . . the experiences of some fourteen civilizations out of a period of a mere 6,000 years has established no very strong presumption against the possibility that in response to the challenge by which these pioneering civilizations had been worsted, some other representative of this relatively novel form of society might succeed, one day, in opening up some hitherto unknown avenue for unprecedented spiritual advance by finding some less prohibitively costly device than the forcible imposition of a universal state for curing the social disease of fratricidal war. [1]

In the context of the present political setup the forcible imposition of a Universal State presupposes a global war in which one power emerges triumphant to impose a universal rule. The world-condition as it exists today does not encourage the hope that nations would of their own accord agree to enter into a partnership on the basis of equality and fraternity in a global confederation or commonwealth. But what would be the condition of mankind after the third world war, if it is fought, neither Toynbee nor anyone else can predict. The other way to impose a Universal rule of one country can become possible only if the scientists of that state discover a new method to paralyze or petrify the whole population of its rivals or the entire world by means of some hitherto unknown radiation or electronic bombardment ere a war is fought.

If with this possibility in mind, Toynbee adds, "we now glance back, once again, at the histories of those civilizations which had trodden the whole length of the via dolorosa from breakdown to final dissolution, we shall observe that at least some of them had caught sight of a saving alternative solution, even though none of them had succeeded in achieving it." [2]

In making this observation Toynbee sounds a note of prophecy. But whether he knows that this avenue does not lie anywhere in the labyrinth of modern thought is a separate matter. Before we try to find out the device by which modern civilization can be saved from a devastating fratricidal war, it is more important to determine the factors responsible for civilization itself. In answering this question Toynbee cites the following lines of Henry Bergson:

We do not believe in the unconscious (factor) in history . . . the great subterranean currents of thought, of which there has been so much talk, only flow in consequence of the fact that masses of men have been carried away by one or more of their own number . . . it is useless to maintain that (social Progress) takes place of itself, bit by bit, by virtue of the spiritual condition of the society at a certain period of its history. It is really a leap forward which is only taken when the society has made up its mind to try an experiment: this means that the society must have allowed itself to be convinced, or at any rate allowed itself to be shaken, and the shake is always given by somebody.

In giving to man a moral confirmation which he required to be a social animal, Bergson continues, Nature has probably done all that she was able to do for the human species. But just as men of genius have been found to push back the bounds of the human intelligence . . . so there have arisen privileged souls who have felt themselves related to all souls, and who, instead of remaining within the limits of this group, and keeping to the (restricted) solidarity which has been established by nature, have addressed themselves to humanity in general in an elan of love. The apparition of each of these souls has been like the creation of a new species composed of one unique individual.

It is obvious that Bergson refers to the two categories that have been responsible for all the progress achieved by mankind from the dawn of reason to the present day, viz, the people of talent and the mystic. It is through the inward development of personality in gifted individuals that they were able to perform these creative acts in the outward field of action that cause the growth of human societies. We know they are not fashioned but come ready made from Nature, by experience and education adapting themselves to the part they have to play to cause the transformation for which they are equipped.

For Bergson, says Toynbee, it is the mystics who are the superhuman creators, par-excellence, and he finds the essence of the creative act in the supreme moment of the mystical experience . . . the creative personality is impelled to transfigure his fellow men into fellow creators by recreating them in his own image.

If we accept Bergson’s version of the causes responsible for civilization and progress, the issue now arises what factors are responsible for the creation of genius and mystical ecstasy. As long as we are not able to determine these factors, it would not be prudent to pin our hopes on this avenue of safety from destructive wars, for the simple reason that, as matters stand at present, there is no guarantee at all that we can have the right type of mystic at the right moment to save us from a threatening self-caused disaster. They cannot be coined at will nor can there be any surety about their performance in a crisis. They might be more prone to ecstatic contemplation and more intent on their own salvation than on the welfare of mankind as a whole. If wedded to a particular religious doctrine, as many of them have been in the past, they could even be instrumental in igniting the very fires which we expect them to quell.

The conditions existing till the first quarter of this century did not demand a reversal of Nature’s order to fashion and depute saviors at her own choice, for no immediate threat to the safety of the race was involved. But now, when in the twinkling of an eye computer-based devices can spring to action any moment to initiate a holocaust, the chances are extremely remote that the catastrophe can be arrested in the nick of time by any single individual however high his spiritual stature might be, unless gifted with unbelievable miraculous powers that can do the impossible.

In making this general assessment the examples in front of Bergson probably were the great founders of religions and other great spiritual luminaries—Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, Guru Nanak, Socrates, Shankara, St. Paul and others. But mystical experience is not confined to these giants of history alone. There have been hundreds, even thousands, of lesser lights in different parts of the old world, and at different times from the dawn of history, who also claimed to have the same elevating experiences, often with minor variations in detail. But many of them were so deeply engrossed in their own affairs and in their own peculiar state of mind that they had no time whatsoever to spare for anything else. They may have been able to create a small circle of influence, their coteries of followers and admirers, or caused a local stir in the church or the contiguous religious community to which they belonged, but the ripples they set in motion did not proceed beyond a limited periphery to cause reactions sufficient to change the course of history.

Even a cursory study of the life stories of Christian mystics, Indian Yoga-saints and Sufis of the near East is sufficient to show that many of them were too preoccupied with their own inner experiences and the fluctuations in their own consciousness to have much time for the world and its problems. Others, no doubt, like Plotinus, St. Paul, St. Hildegard, St. Catherine of Siena, Dante, Meister Eckhart, St. Augustine, Sadi, Jalal-Uddin, Rumi, Hafiz, Jami, Kabir, Tulsi Das, Abhinava Gupta, the Sikh Gurus, Ramakrishna, and many others, in addition to their mystical ecstasies, contributed to the advancement of knowledge or the betterment of their contemporaries in social, political or cultural fields. Against this historical galaxy of the visionaries, who are still known and revered for their writings or their memorable deeds and achievements, there are perhaps many, many more, both in the East and the West, who only shed their light in the confines of a monastery, ashram, a shelter in a wilderness or even a cave without a single ray to penetrate to the world. There might be even now yogis in India, at an advanced state of ecstasy, who have either totally cut themselves off from the world or live in inaccessible places where no human contact is possible.

It is thus obvious that the temperamental response of an individual to mystical ecstasy is not predictable. He may bloom into a heroic savior, throwing himself heart and soul into the battle of life, a pillar of hope and faith to thousands who follow him, able to create a rippling wave that continues to spread for hundreds, even thousands of years. Or, obsessed by the idea of the infallibility of his own vision, he may, transformed into a fanatic, spread fire and hate in place of love to win universal acceptance for his own doctrines. For others the world may lose all its charm, value and importance and for whom, like St. John of the Cross, the human society may have no interest and the hopes and aspirations of millions of human beings may be no object of concern at all. They may be prepossessed by the infinite to an extent that the finite has absolutely no charm for them. They may even turn their backs upon the multitude, their homes and families, their children and wives, as they often did in India, concerned solely with their own salvation.

Examples of all these types exist even today in different countries and faiths. How can we reconcile these apparent temperamental differences to ensure a homogeneous crop of mystics of our choice? Even among the mystics themselves there is an endless conflict of views about the state to be attained, the way to be followed and the mode of conduct to be observed to achieve meaningful results. Often there is lack of concord even in the basic characteristic of the mystical ecstasy. A great deal of confusion therefore prevails about the real nature of religious experience and scholars are divided in their opinions even about the basic facts. This is the reason why the term ‘mystical’ has come to be a synonym for vagueness, unclearness and nebulosity. Considered from this angle, it is not surprising that some scholars and scientists are not able to make a distinction between mystical ecstasy and the visionary states caused by certain mind-altering drugs.

This lack of clarity and preciseness is amply reflected in the books on mysticism written in recent times. No amount of erudition or literary skill can lend a clear-cut form to what is obscure at the base. In fact, lavish use of words by too many pens, all fumbling in the dark, can make it even more obscure. Beyond the barest rudiments that mystical ecstasy is a form of genius preoccupied with transcendent planes of creation, expressed in different ways by different individuals, we know very little about this extraordinary manifestation of the human mind. What made an unlearned shoemaker, like Jacob Boehme, and a rustic weaver, like Kabir, bloom into spiritual prodigies of their time? What made unvarnished spirits, like Ramakrishna and Maharshi Ramana, untutored in the art of speaking or diction, the source of inspiration to millions in our own day?

According to William James the words ‘mysticism’ and ‘mystical’ are often used as terms of mere reproach to throw at any opinion which we regard as vague and vast and sentimental without a base in either fact or logic. He prescribes four distinguishing marks for a genuine mystical ecstasy. The first is that it should be ineffable, or, in other words, incommunicable. Just as one must have musical ears to know the value of a symphony or been in love oneself to understand a lover’s state of mind, similarly one must have experienced the ecstatic state themselves to understand another’s description of it. The second mark is its poetic quality. By this he refers to states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. There are illuminations, revelations full of significance which must remain inarticulate. The third is transiency as, according to William James, mystical states cannot be sustained for long, except in rare instances, where they can last at the most an hour or two, after which they fade into the light of common day. The fourth mark is passivity. This refers to the feeling experienced by mystics as if their own will were in abeyance or as if it were grasped or held by a superior force. This peculiarity, he believes, connects mystical states with certain definite phenomena of secondary or alternative personality, such as prophetic speech, automatic writing or the mediumistic trance.[3]

According to Evelyn Underhill, the highly developed branches of the human family tend to produce sporadically a curious and definite type of personality. This type refuses to be satisfied with that which other people call experience, and is inclined to deny the world that it may find reality. These individuals are met in the East and the West in the ancient, medieval and modern worlds. Their own passion is to find a ‘way out’ or a ‘way back’ to some desirable state which alone can satisfy their craving for absolute truth. Under whatsoever symbol they objectified their quest they succeeded where others failed in establishing immediate communication between the spirit of man and the Reality—that immaterial and final Being, which some philosophers call the Absolute and most theologians call God.

It is doubtful, says Underhill, whether any two selves have offered themselves the same image of the truth outside their gates, for a living metaphysics, like a living religion, is at bottom a strictly personal affair—a matter, as William James reminded us, of vision rather than of argument. Nevertheless, such a living metaphysics may—and, if sound generally does, escape the stigma of subjectivism by outwardly attaching itself to a traditional school, as personal reunion may and should outwardly attach itself to a traditional church. [4]

We shall discuss the ‘personal affair’ aspect of mystical experience, to which both Underhill and James seem to lend their agreement, in more detail elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to point out that if mystical experience is at bottom ‘a strictly personal affair’ then how can it fall in the category of valid experiences, shareable by all? How can we then distinguish it from dreams and hallucinations which have the same characteristics and are distinct for each individual in the same way that they propose to associate with mystical ecstasy?

According to Dean Inge, mysticism has its origin in that which is the raw material of all religions, and perhaps of all philosophy and art as well, namely that dim consciousness of the beyond, which is part of our nature as human beings. People have given different names to these obstinate questionings of sense and outward things. He writes:

They can be called a sort of higher instinct, an anticipation of the evolutionary process or an extension of the frontier of consciousness or, in religious language, the voice of God speaking to us. Religious mysticism may be defined to realize the presence of the living God in the soul and in Nature, or more generally, as the attempt to realize, in thought and feelings, the immanence of the temporal in the eternal, and of the eternal in the temporal. [5]

There are others who take a broader view of mystical experience. Thus, according to Marghanita Laski, the two distinguishing marks of ineffability and poetic quality applied by William James to genuine mystical experience do not cover all the cases. There are, she holds, other states he would accept as mystical which do not show these characteristics.[6] According to the opinion expressed by Laski, cited by her, Any experience taken by the experiencer to be a contact (not through the sense, but immediate, intuitive) or union of the self with a larger-than-self, be it called the world-Spirit, God, the Absolute, or otherwise, is a mystical experience. In the view of Paulain, the real difference between ordinary prayer and the mystical state is that in the latter God makes us feel that we really enter into communion with Him.

Marghanita Laski uses the word ‘ecstasy’ to denote those conditions, that range of experiences which is characterized by being ‘joyful’, transitory, unexpected, rare, valued and extraordinary to the point of often seeming as if derived from a preternatural source. This would not include ecstasies that have a saddening effect or are of a trivial and worthless nature following from known causes.

Extraordinary to the point of often seeming as if derived from a preternatural source, she says, is essential to this concept of ecstasy. One might attain a joyful experience in many ways similar from, say, drink or drugs, but the cause being understood, I think one would name such an experience euphoria rather than ecstasy or say that it was like ecstasy. Ecstasy is, it seems to me, applied to experiences that are different from those we could expect in the normal course of events and different in seeming to lie outside the normal course of events. [7]

She divides genuine ecstatic experience into two categories: the religious and the secular. From an analysis of the recorded experiences of a number of ecstatics, falling in the religious group, she draws the conclusion that:

. . . all the people in the religious group believed that they knew the explanation of their experiences, and that this explanation was that their experiences had been given them by God: none of them found this experience inconsonant with his previous beliefs. Practically all of them knew by hearsay of such experiences, even if they had not previously encountered them themselves, and knew, too, an accepted vocabulary of description for such experiences. [8]

I am dwelling on this issue at some length because there is a general misconception about the nature of mystical experience or ecstasy by whatever name we choose to call it. For instance, in a BBC television discussion in 1957, alluded to by Laski, "one speaker assumed that the states discussed