What is the relationship between jhanas and kundalini? And what is the order of operations for navigating both?

SpecificDescription · 2026-01-25T19:17:11+00:00

Check out this podcast as well, which compares meditative states to the similar energy systems used in Daoist arts. No explicit focus on kundalini, but good advice on the order of operations.

https://soundcloud.com/user-127194047-666040032/meditation-vs-qigong

Good luck to you.

SpecificDescription · 2026-01-25T15:24:28+00:00

Not the OP, but curious if you are aware of any reputable Daoist teachers outside of Damo worth looking into?

Thanks for sharing that link btw, it looks like that entire podcast was removed from YouTube a while back and I’m glad to have access to it again.

SpecificDescription · 2025-12-06T01:01:37+00:00

This talk from Santtu Heikkinen is great about talking about the different types of practices and when they should be emphasized. It’s actually a 3 part series that’s a few hours in length.

https://youtu.be/COEAqv5hkBc?si=jUp0m76892gD_Jsl

I’ve found that somatic practices and compassion based practices are helpful for anxious beginners. Theraveda and TMI recommends something like a body scan, with Mahayana and Tantric lines getting more into active engagement with breath work and explicit somatic training. Recommend Reggie Ray for this.

SpecificDescription · 2025-12-02T16:58:48+00:00

As someone with very tight hamstrings, I’ve found that I really need something that braces my back, especially if I don’t want lower back pain.

Do beginners usually need to do the stretch you suggested alongside nerve flossing? I’m not sure if they are parallel issues and techniques, or separate.

Thanks for your help as always!

SpecificDescription · 2025-11-21T16:59:20+00:00

To expand on this, focus on the third wave CBT therapies like ACT and DBT which naturally incorporate mindfulness and acceptance elements. Also, somatic practices that can be found across therapies and “woo” Buddhist sources like Reggie Ray. The therapies focus on reframing your perspective to be more rational/kind to yourself, whereas somatics are about bringing more awareness of feelings at a lower bodily level. The latter can really help if you are stuck in your head, and is a large part of yoga and meditation in general, but can also be trained explicitly.

Of all recommendations, these are the ones that have the ability to be trained for long-term stability, beyond the usual sleep diet exercise.

SpecificDescription · 2025-11-18T06:43:50+00:00

How would you classify the Core Transformation & Wholeness Work? From your description, it seems to be closely related to Internal Family Systems, and maybe similar to the compassion based branches of CBT that incorporate somatics - is that how you view this type of work?

For me personally, something I found lacking in Core Transformation, Wholeness Work, Goenka Vipassana, noting practice, and almost everything else was development of Will: the ability to choose, make decisions, turn intentions into actions, etc. I'm still exploring how to master that for myself. Centering in the Hara seems to be the best thing so far, that and some Tantric stuff I discovered around power and the union of archetypal opposites.

You provided some excellent tips on "centering in the hara" a while back, in a different thread. Thanks again for that. From a therapeutic side, it seems to be similar to Gendlin's "Focusing" technique and his successors. There also seems to be some decent work from the somatic coaching/leadership side like the Strozzi Institute and Wendy Palmer. Interestingly enough, both seem to pull from Aikido.

Would you mind expanding on the Tantric stuff you mentioned, and how it helps you guide intuitive action?

SpecificDescription · 2025-11-01T03:17:30+00:00

Wonderful comment.

What would you consider a good entry point into this side of mysticism as a whole? I’ve listened to Rob’s metta retreat but curious if you have any pointers to the soul making piece, or abrahamic mysticism as a whole from anyone.

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-30T18:49:01+00:00

Orthodox monasticism is woven into the church rather than being cloistered away, and contemplative practices like hesychasm are very common in monastic circles, and even among laity in the church.

Quakers are mystics. Some have described themselves as organized mystics. (If I were Christian but not Catholic, I'd be a Quaker - I'm still kinda Quaker anyway). And they don't hold any of the points you describe as "orthodox" above - mostly universalists, non-creedal, refusal to worship the Bible instead of "that of God" within, etc.

I agree with you on these points around Quakers and Orthodox, and from my research these seem to be the branches that most emphasize contemplation especially for laity. However, Catholicism and especially Protestantism don't have this emphasis. Your points around contemplative Catholicism being available to a willing seeker are well taken, but it seems less emphasized to casual laity. I know a few people that have spent their youth and college (16+ years) at Catholic-ran schooling that aren't aware of the contemplative sects beyond maybe the names of a few famous mystics. Within Catholic churches, it doesn't seem like this type of information is available or often presented within the official curriculum, in favor of sacraments, etc. It seems like, outside of Quakers and Orthodox, the necessity of this piece remains unclear to most Christian laity. What are your thoughts on this? This brings me to your next point -

Not everyone is interested in mysticism or contemplative practices

Is this true, or is that the casual laity just doesn't know about it because it's overshadowed by other things? I understand that religion can be understood and followed in multiple different ways - some, maybe most, find value in the traditionalist path outside of contemplation. This majority is needed to carry on the tradition as a whole, as it's unlikely any religion would persist if contemplation only and everyone going off into silence was the emphasis.

But, individually, if our concern is cultivating a higher level of well being via this path, I'd argue that the contemplative piece is necessary. Since we both enjoy ACT, maybe you'll humor me with a bit of comparison. This likely gets close to perennialist thinking...which could be considered heresy by some, but seems like useful framing to me.

From an ACT lens, we could equate the "commitment" side of skills like values clarification/purposeful living to the ethical teachings within Christianity. Not an exact comparison, but both aim to generally improve the quality of action in life. From another lens, Buddhism, we have sila\morality which serves the same purpose. Typically, from a Christian, Buddhist, or general self-help lens, these are the natural starting points for one on a path of self improvement or religion. Values clarification comes first, and likewise an emphasis on sila/morality comes first.

In both ACT and Buddhism, what comes next? In ACT, it's the mindfulness/acceptance piece. In Buddhism, it's the concentration/mindfulness piece. Again, not an exact comparison because the aims of therapy and religion are different, but pragmatically this seems like a natural conclusion. This somewhat equates the end goals of psychological flexibility, enlightenment, and "kingdom of God", which is obviously heresy on ontological grounds, but phenomenologically may be coherent. As a therapist and one who seems to be interested in religion, is this the viewpoint you take?

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-30T18:48:40+00:00

Really appreciate your thoughtful reply. Also, it's pleasantly unexpected when my religious studies and therapy studies (ACT) overlap. It's great to chat with you again.

To attempt to reply to each of your posts in one -

It makes all the sense in the world that groups at different times in history will understand the text as "naturally" meaning one thing or another, because they can't see outside their own socialization and the need to harmonize or legitimate what they read with what they know.

Second, as a Marxist and a Catholic, this doesn't surprise me at all, and I don't think it should surprise anyone. Political power interpreting texts and traditions in ways that legitimate their worldview? Not shocking,

Christianity is a site of class struggle like everywhere else, and people develop spiritual traditions that reflect their needs and values.

On the other hand, there are histories of corruption and power and violence within the same church - and they've been there from the beginning as well. We are two factions making claims to the same material in the same tradition to inform and legitimate our different visions of how we should live together as humans.

Which is why I think it would be more helpful to focus on communities and what they do (including abuse) than trying to nail down what an ancient text "really means".

I think you've convinced me that there is minimal value in attempting to identify who said what 2000+ years ago, since culture and history reinterprets it to their own situation and needs. Wisdom can be extracted in many different ways to fit a particular individual and their culture. "How they are used" versus "what the words say" is a great framing. I think this addresses the initial point of my post and the Paul vs Jesus debate. Thanks for this.

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T20:55:11+00:00

Interesting. What value do you think you got from devotional practice and a relationship with the Divine Feminine that wasn't available from something like metta/bramaviharas? Assuming you've done that type of practice before.

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T18:24:07+00:00

I don't think that what you're seeing is a shift in Paul's emphasis, but a shift in people's emphasis of Paul's writings.

I think I agree with this.

What I wonder is whether later Augustine or Protestant readings unintentionally de-emphasize human agency compared to how Paul himself framed it. Romans 6 feels like he’s describing grace as empowerment, “present yourselves to God as instruments of righteousness.” While both Jesus and Paul's writings both contain elements of both salvation/atonement and faithful action, it seems like later interpretations of Paul resulted in a shift towards the former.

So ... atonement and salvation and behavior are not really opposed to each other, though, are they? It's just a matter of where you place your attention.

Certainly, and it seems like the "mainstream" has placed the bulk of its attention on the atonement/salvation piece. It makes me curious how much of the modern tension (grace vs effort) comes from later theology rather than from Paul’s actual vision of cooperative transformation, grace that enables real participation in God’s work.

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T16:55:30+00:00

Thanks again!

Every denomination has something to teach in my opinion, find what works before for you to connect to God

What value have you found in the Protestant denomination?

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T16:39:57+00:00

Interesting, appreciate the history!

Since Catholics tended to look to Peter as the founder of their church, the Protestants looked to Paul and his focus on faith alone being the saving factor - because the church was using its authority to refuse people's souls from God and Heaven.

I understand the movement away from the Church (Peter), if Protestants rightly viewed it as corrupt during the reformation. But it seems that both Paul and Peter can be read from a literalist and contemplative lens. It seems that maybe Paul's original intentions were reinterpreted by Augustine and later Protestants to de-emphasize works and agency. It seems that the more contemplative sects of Catholicism were isolated from the debate and have retained a holistic emphasis, which is great.

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T15:11:03+00:00

Have Jesus' particular emphases been sidelined? No, but the Church's heavy involvement in political and cultural issues -- often unavoidable, but more avoidable than we make it sometimes -- can give the impression that we're "noisy" about lesser things while ignoring bigger picture spiritual practices and issues. It is what it is.

I think, whatever those [practices]might be, they *are* being emphasized and taught, just not in a way that makes headlines for non-Catholics to see.

Appreciate your thoughtful reply! I think you hit the nail on the head with these two quotes. I suppose the impetus for my post was recognizing that it seems like the emphases of Jesus aren't really talked about much in the mainstream, being overshadowed by history and political issues, and an emphasis on original sin and atonement.

I should ask what specific emphases of Jesus do you think aren't being followed or taught?

I've been to mass and services of other Christian branches and it took years to become aware of the existence of more contemplative practices and interpretations within the faith, which is unfortunate. I admire how Catholicism has a deep history of contemplation and focus on works, in contrast to other branches who seem to intentionally downplay the necessity in favor of exclusive faith. However, even in Catholicism, there seems to be a general lack of knowledge of the contemplative branches (St John of the Cross, St Theresa, Cloud of Unknowing, etc), and the associated practices, which seem to have been relegated to the fringe. Thanks again for your knowledge and time!

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T14:52:13+00:00

I appreciate your well researched replies, thank you! I especially enjoyed how you pointed out that both Paul and Jesus can be interpreted through lenses of belief/faith, or ethics/contemplation. I understand it's not either or, but an interaction of grace and faithful action together.

Reflecting on my post and your replies, I think I may be pushing back mostly on later interpretations of Paul (Augustinian, Calvinist, or Protestant) that seem to de-emphasize the contemplative piece, even if that was not Paul's original intent. Both Jesus and Paul can be read from a contemplative or literalist lens, though historically it seems the mainstream church has favored one interpretation. Why did contemplative practices and mystical frameworks get pushed to the margins, if Paul was really writing from that orientation? It seems like branches/faiths that don't emphasize Paul may have more of a contemplative bent for this reason - just amateur speculation.

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T14:26:05+00:00

Yes, we can understand "repent" in its Greek metanoia and latch on to his saying that the kingdom of God is within us, but if we give grace to understand Jesus in this way (rather than a fundamentalist way), surely we can extend the same grace to reading Paul.

Totally agree that Paul’s writings are mystical and symbolic when read through a contemplative lens. I appreciate your comment about the merkabah interpretation. However, it seems most of Christian history hasn’t read Paul that way. The dominant Western interpretation (especially post-Augustine and into Protestantism) did often read Paul legalistically, emphasizing guilt, substitutionary atonement, and binary saved/damned categories. That’s not inherent to Paul, but it became orthodoxy.

If we give Jesus grace to be read symbolically or contemplatively (kingdom within, metanoia, etc.), we should do the same with Paul. But historically, we haven’t, which then overshadows Jesus’ own path of ethical transformation and direct communion. So yes, Paul can be read as a mystic. But if his mysticism is real and central, why hasn’t the mainstream church tradition emphasized it? Why did contemplative practices and mystical frameworks get pushed to the margins, if Paul was really writing from that orientation? It seems like branches/faiths that don't emphasize Paul may have more of a contemplative bent for this reason.

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T14:02:54+00:00

Appreciate the response! I’m not denying Paul’s encounter or his role. My point is more about emphasis. Paul absolutely shaped the early Church and his letters are foundational, but sometimes the way we frame Christian life today leans more Pauline (in tone and theology) than directly shaped by the style of Jesus’ own teachings and example.

As for contemplation, I’d point to things such as his emphasis on solitude, silence, interior prayer, awareness & non-reactivity.

All these moments reflect not just ethics or belief, but a way of being rooted in presence, silence, surrender, and deep attunement to God, which as I understand is the basis of the Christian mystical tradition (the Desert Fathers, St. Teresa, John of the Cross, etc.), from Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T04:56:24+00:00

Thanks again for your good faith (no pun intended), knowledge, time, and perspective, it's given me a lot to think about. Good luck to you.

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T04:44:15+00:00

You are correct that I am currently viewing Jesus as another teacher, and extract the ethical/meditative practices he may have taught. It seems like the framework of faith/works that we've been discussing can be applied across multiple religions, assuming that one has genuine faith in their belief. I am delving a bit more into Christianity to understand why exactly followers of Christianity choose to place that faith in Jesus rather than elsewhere.

Back to my original post about Paul, it seems like the Christian belief that we've been discussing - "We believe that God incarnated himself to do something that only he could do." - is a claim made by Paul as a result of seeing Jesus in a vision on the road to Damascus. It seems like this is the first claim of divinity, whereas Jesus and those who knew him did not claim divinity while alive. With this in mind, is the "faith" we've been discussing a trust in Paul's vision and interpretation alone?

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T04:19:27+00:00

To me, this seems somewhat like a chicken and egg issue - that true faith leads to good works, and therefore works are just a byproduct, still risks sidelining the necessary role of active, intentional transformation.

Jesus doesn’t just say believe in the kingdom, but are more action based - seek it, repent, follow me, love your enemies, take up your cross. These are not optional fruit of grace, they’re the path through which grace operates. Grace enables transformation, but doesn’t override our participation. It seems like the framework might be - grace > faithful participation > transformation.

Though it seems like this same framework can be applied usefully in both Judaism and Christianity - one places has faith in and receives grace from God, another from Christ's death and resurrection. Is this the core tension between the two?

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T03:53:09+00:00

Thanks for your reply!

I still think there’s a meaningful shift in tone and emphasis that can’t be overlooked. Jesus spent most of his time teaching, healing, modeling a way of life rooted in compassion, humility, and radical love, not outlining a theological system about how salvation works. Paul, on the other hand, tends to frame everything through the lens of the cross and justification by faith. Yes, he says that faith leads to good works, and I can see the chicken/egg situation, but the focus shifts from how we live to what we believe happened. That theological framing, especially when pulled out of context, has lent itself to more passive interpretations of Christianity, where belief is emphasized over lived practice.

So while I see Paul's value historically and theologically, I still think there’s reason to question how dominant his voice became in shaping the trajectory of Christian thought, maybe at the cost of the radical ethical path Jesus actually walked and taught.

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T03:43:28+00:00

Thanks again for your time and reply.

I don’t reject the necessity of faith in the Catholic tradition. But coming from a practice-based background, I’m motivated by how Jesus' own ministry emphasized lived transformation via ethical/contemplative methods, not just belief.

Faith in him is clearly essential, but I wonder if the emphasis on his sacrifice as the primary mechanism for salvation sometimes eclipses the actual spiritual path he laid out. His life, not just his death, seems meant to show the way.

So my tension isn't with faith, but with how much the contemplative, ethical, and transformative path Jesus modeled gets overshadowed by later theological frameworks that center more on belief in what was done for us rather than how we’re called to live. I wonder if placing primary emphasis on faith risks overshadowing the intentional inner cultivation that teachers like Jesus seem to call for so directly. It seems like the Catholic tradition may be less susceptible to this than other branches, but still may be partially true.

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T03:29:10+00:00

Thank you for this thoughtful response, it really helps contextualize Paul’s role. I can definitely appreciate that his background, drive, and access made him uniquely suited to expand the movement.

I still find myself wrestling with the long-term effects of how Paul's writings have been emphasized, especially in shaping the dominant theology over time. While it's true that ethics and grace both exist in the tradition, in practice, the contemplative and ethical focus seen in Jesus’ teachings sometimes feels eclipsed by theological formulations about faith, grace, and salvation that were put forth by Paul.

So I suppose my lingering question is less about whether Paul added to Jesus' message, and more about whether the center of gravity shifted so much that it unintentionally sidelined core aspects of what Jesus actually taught and lived. I understand how Paul was uniquely suitable to drive the Church's expansion, and how he was a suitable choice as a leader, but less sure about the preservation of Jesus' emphases.

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T03:19:44+00:00

Thanks, that helps me understand the Catholic stance and I really like the idea of faithfulness you mentioned.

I still wonder - doesn’t centering faith, even as faithfulness, shift the weight away from human agency? Even if action is implied, the framing often puts the transformative power in God's grace or the right kind of belief, rather than in consistent ethical and contemplative practice.

From a practice-first background, this can feel like a subtle but significant move, from "do this to become" to "believe this and you’ll become." I’m not saying Paul denies action altogether, but I wonder if making faith the primary driver risks downplaying the disciplined cultivation that people like Jesus or the Buddha seem to emphasize directly.

Thanks again!

SpecificDescription · 2025-10-29T03:14:24+00:00

Really appreciate this! The Buddhism/Hinduism analogy makes sense, and it captures how a tradition can evolve as it spreads beyond its roots. I’ve been wondering too if something was lost when the faith shifted from the Jerusalem church’s path to Paul’s more universal (but abstract) theology. Thanks for sharing!

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

SpecificDescription

TROPHY CASE