Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Indo-Eurasia] Kundalini

Expand Messages
  • Jim Mallinson
    Dear Stewart, Steve et al., Sorry not to reply to this sooner, I ve been out of station at the Kumbh Mela. As Steve suggests, Kuṇḍalinī and other
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 1, 2013
      Dear Stewart, Steve et al.,

      Sorry not to reply to this sooner, I've been "out of station" at the Kumbh Mela.

      As Steve suggests, Kuṇḍalinī and other tantric subtle body concepts are woefully understudied. It's a PhD waiting to be done. Early references to Kuṇḍalinī are listed in the ongoing encyclopedia of tantra called the Tāntrikābhidānakośa (Vol.2 pp.110-112). Her earliest mention is likely to be in the c.8th-century Sārdhatriśatikālottara (12.1).

      Again, as Steve suggests, early concepts of Kuṇḍalinī are by no means uniform. Thus Kuṇḍalinī is also described in Pāñcarātrika works such as the c.10th-century Vimānārcanākalpa, in which rather than the cosmic goddess who rises up the yogin’s central channel, she is a blockage in the way of the rising breath (makes one think of the contraceptive coil).

      Steve is also right to point out that early notions of Kuṇḍalinī are almost entirely located in the subtle body, with very little reference to the gross physical body. But I'd argue that the clash of the gross and the subtle comes earlier than the 19th century. Haṭha yoga as taught in its formative period (11th-14th centuries) is a combination of gross physical techniques which (among other things) assist in the preservation of semen. Onto these physical techniques were overlaid visualisation-based Kuṇḍalinī yoga. I've written a paper on this (to be published later this year but available on my website in a draft: http://www.khecari.com/resources/SaktismHathayogaFinal.pdf).

      Finally, I (and others) think David White is altogether wrong in Kiss of the Yogini when he suggests that cakras and Kuṇḍalinī are an internalisation of the yoginī cult. A colleague has written an unpublished paper that convincingly shows otherwise, but I'm not sure he wants it passed around. On that note, my review article of Sinister Yogis is still yet to be published - the journal it's due in is over two years late (and I'm now looking to get it published elsewhere). If anyone wants a pdf of the latest draft, please write to me off list.

      All the best,

      Jim

      On 20 Feb 2013, at 20:03, Steve Farmer <saf@...> wrote:

      > Dear Stewart,
      >
      > Mark doesn't deal with that topic in _Yoga Body_, which focuses on modern, not premodern, topics.
      >
      > The person on the List who would have the best handle by far on the evolution of Kundalini concepts is Jim Mallinson. He and Mark are currently working together on an anthology of early yogic writings, as many on the List know from previous discussions.
      >
      > David Gordon White's writings are often suggestive, but he is also careless at times on historical issues - and philological topics even more so, as one important review recently points out.
      >
      > There is a sharp division between what is known as "Kundalini Yoga" today, which arose in the 1960s, and the concept of Kundalini in classical medieval yogic texts. I don't know of anyone yet who has traced the evolution of the concept fully. There is no reason to believe -- this is true of almost all medieval concepts -- that there was ever a single unified or consistent view of the Kundalini concept. These concepts changed radically in different textual contexts.
      >
      > Actually, my interest in the topic at present has less to do with its historical roots, which are complicated -- as already suggested, the concept didn't remain stable even in medieval times -- than *possible* links between the idea of "raising Kundalini" and physiological changes that *do* occur in the body when the spine is straightened. These include rapid shifts in neurohormonal flows (including cortisol and testosterone).
      >
      > That said, however, the "channels" through which Kundalini was said to rise can't be associated in medieval times with the spine in any physiological sense. As Mark constantly emphasized, the imaginative mapping of supposed overlaps between the so-called "subtle body" in yoga and human anatomy didn't begin until the 19th century.
      >
      > With that in mind, I want to underline that I'm *not* suggesting that the religious/magical roots of Kundalini in medieval tantric traditions involved any prescient knowledge of how what is known in the modern medical literature today as "Power Posing" (Carney et al., 2010 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20855902 ) and changes neurohormonal levels. In medieval traditions, the whole *family* of ideas we think of as Kundalini concepts were pretty alien from anything modern.
      >
      > That said, there is *something* of interest in these parallels.
      >
      > Best,
      > Steve
      >
      > On Feb 20, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Stewart Felker wrote:
      >
      > > As suggested by Ben, several of David Gordon White's works might have some
      > > good stuff here. Cf. also The Alchemical Body: Siddha Traditions in
      > > Medieval India. I did a search of Diken and Laustsen's recent volume Yoga
      > > in the Modern World, and found some brief comments in Liberman's article
      > > "The Reflexivity of the Authenticity of Haṭha Yoga."
      > >
      > > I also didn't find a whole lot in Singleton's major works that focuses
      > > specifically on Kundalini - although I wouldn't doubt that there's
      > > something, somewhere.
      > >
      > > There's been discussion before about the supposed antiquity of such things.
      > > Try searching the archives for "Early chakra images." I know Steve has a
      > > particular interest in this (and related things).
      > >
      > > A review of Silburn seems to imply that they trace the origin of Kundalini
      > > yoga as far back as the Rgveda (!) - obviously a totally nonsense claim.
      > >
      > > Stewart Felker
      > > University of Memphis
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • kleczekr
      (Please set encoding to UTF-8 if reading in a browser). Referring to the clash of the gross and the subtle - perhaps it could be mentioned that in the
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 1, 2013
        (Please set encoding to UTF-8 if reading in a browser).

        Referring to the "clash of the gross and the subtle" - perhaps it could be mentioned that in the Sārdhatriśatikālottara itself channels/vessels (nāḍī), although defined as subtle, are considered to move blood and wind through the body (e.g. 10.9).

        The concept of Kuṇḍalinī in this scripture, though, surprisingly, does not seem to be connected with the mentioned "wheel of channels."

        With best wishes,
        Rafal Kleczek

        --- In Indo-Eurasian_research@yahoogroups.com, Jim Mallinson <jim@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear Stewart, Steve et al.,
        >
        > Sorry not to reply to this sooner, I've been "out of station" at the Kumbh Mela.
        >
        > As Steve suggests, Kuṇḍalinī and other tantric subtle body concepts are woefully understudied. It's a PhD waiting to be done. Early references to Kuṇḍalinī are listed in the ongoing encyclopedia of tantra called the Tāntrikābhidānakośa (Vol.2 pp.110-112). Her earliest mention is likely to be in the c.8th-century Sārdhatriśatikālottara (12.1).
        >
        > Again, as Steve suggests, early concepts of Kuṇḍalinī are by no means uniform. Thus Kuṇḍalinī is also described in Pāñcarātrika works such as the c.10th-century Vimānārcanākalpa, in which rather than the cosmic goddess who rises up the yogin’s central channel, she is a blockage in the way of the rising breath (makes one think of the contraceptive coil).
        >
        > Steve is also right to point out that early notions of Kuṇḍalinī are almost entirely located in the subtle body, with very little reference to the gross physical body. But I'd argue that the clash of the gross and the subtle comes earlier than the 19th century. Haṭha yoga as taught in its formative period (11th-14th centuries) is a combination of gross physical techniques which (among other things) assist in the preservation of semen. Onto these physical techniques were overlaid visualisation-based Kuṇḍalinī yoga. I've written a paper on this (to be published later this year but available on my website in a draft: http://www.khecari.com/resources/SaktismHathayogaFinal.pdf).
        >
        > Finally, I (and others) think David White is altogether wrong in Kiss of the Yogini when he suggests that cakras and Kuṇḍalinī are an internalisation of the yoginī cult. A colleague has written an unpublished paper that convincingly shows otherwise, but I'm not sure he wants it passed around. On that note, my review article of Sinister Yogis is still yet to be published - the journal it's due in is over two years late (and I'm now looking to get it published elsewhere). If anyone wants a pdf of the latest draft, please write to me off list.
        >
        > All the best,
        >
        > Jim
        >
        > On 20 Feb 2013, at 20:03, Steve Farmer <saf@...> wrote:
        >
        > > Dear Stewart,
        > >
        > > Mark doesn't deal with that topic in _Yoga Body_, which focuses on modern, not premodern, topics.
        > >
        > > The person on the List who would have the best handle by far on the evolution of Kundalini concepts is Jim Mallinson. He and Mark are currently working together on an anthology of early yogic writings, as many on the List know from previous discussions.
        > >
        > > David Gordon White's writings are often suggestive, but he is also careless at times on historical issues - and philological topics even more so, as one important review recently points out.
        > >
        > > There is a sharp division between what is known as "Kundalini Yoga" today, which arose in the 1960s, and the concept of Kundalini in classical medieval yogic texts. I don't know of anyone yet who has traced the evolution of the concept fully. There is no reason to believe -- this is true of almost all medieval concepts -- that there was ever a single unified or consistent view of the Kundalini concept. These concepts changed radically in different textual contexts.
        > >
        > > Actually, my interest in the topic at present has less to do with its historical roots, which are complicated -- as already suggested, the concept didn't remain stable even in medieval times -- than *possible* links between the idea of "raising Kundalini" and physiological changes that *do* occur in the body when the spine is straightened. These include rapid shifts in neurohormonal flows (including cortisol and testosterone).
        > >
        > > That said, however, the "channels" through which Kundalini was said to rise can't be associated in medieval times with the spine in any physiological sense. As Mark constantly emphasized, the imaginative mapping of supposed overlaps between the so-called "subtle body" in yoga and human anatomy didn't begin until the 19th century.
        > >
        > > With that in mind, I want to underline that I'm *not* suggesting that the religious/magical roots of Kundalini in medieval tantric traditions involved any prescient knowledge of how what is known in the modern medical literature today as "Power Posing" (Carney et al., 2010 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20855902 ) and changes neurohormonal levels. In medieval traditions, the whole *family* of ideas we think of as Kundalini concepts were pretty alien from anything modern.
        > >
        > > That said, there is *something* of interest in these parallels.
        > >
        > > Best,
        > > Steve
        > >
        > > On Feb 20, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Stewart Felker wrote:
        > >
        > > > As suggested by Ben, several of David Gordon White's works might have some
        > > > good stuff here. Cf. also The Alchemical Body: Siddha Traditions in
        > > > Medieval India. I did a search of Diken and Laustsen's recent volume Yoga
        > > > in the Modern World, and found some brief comments in Liberman's article
        > > > "The Reflexivity of the Authenticity of Haá¹­ha Yoga."
        > > >
        > > > I also didn't find a whole lot in Singleton's major works that focuses
        > > > specifically on Kundalini - although I wouldn't doubt that there's
        > > > something, somewhere.
        > > >
        > > > There's been discussion before about the supposed antiquity of such things.
        > > > Try searching the archives for "Early chakra images." I know Steve has a
        > > > particular interest in this (and related things).
        > > >
        > > > A review of Silburn seems to imply that they trace the origin of Kundalini
        > > > yoga as far back as the Rgveda (!) - obviously a totally nonsense claim.
        > > >
        > > > Stewart Felker
        > > > University of Memphis
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • rodo pfister
        (Please set encoding to UTF-8 if reading in a browser). Dear Jim and Rafal, dear list members Could you specify for non-Indologists but keeping up the detail
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 2, 2013
          (Please set encoding to UTF-8 if reading in a browser).

          Dear Jim and Rafal, dear list members

          Could you specify for non-Indologists but keeping up the detail of
          previous messages, just how the subtle and the gross body were
          diffentiated?

          (What makes, say vessels "gross", what "subtle"? Is there a
          (systematic?) difference between more narrowly "medical" sources and
          more "religious" sources??)

          Was there a discussion in the sources where one would discuss
          gross/subtle entities as alternatives of the same thing? (Like some
          'vessel' has both a gross and a subtle version?)

          "Clash" means that the views of groups using such body descriptions
          opposed each other, and denied for example the existence of the others'
          assumptions about subtle entities?
          Or does "clash" represent a back-projecting of current discussion and
          has nothing to do with the discussion you find in the sources themselves?

          Thank you for your clarifications.
          rodo

          Am 02.03.13 08:14, wrote Rafal Kleczek:
          > Referring to the "clash of the gross and the subtle" - perhaps it
          > could be mentioned that in the Sārdhatriśatikālottara itself
          > channels/vessels (nāḍī), although defined as subtle, are considered to
          > move blood and wind through the body (e.g. 10.9).
          >
          > The concept of Kuṇḍalinī in this scripture, though, surprisingly, does
          > not seem to be connected with the mentioned "wheel of channels."
          >
          (...)
          >
          > --- In Indo-Eurasian_research@yahoogroups.com
          > <mailto:Indo-Eurasian_research%40yahoogroups.com>, Jim Mallinson wrote:
          >
          (...)
          >
          > As Steve suggests, Kuṇḍalinī and other tantric subtle body concepts
          > are woefully understudied. It's a PhD waiting to be done. Early
          > references to Kuṇḍalinī are listed in the ongoing encyclopedia of
          > tantra called the Tāntrikābhidānakośa (Vol.2 pp.110-112). Her earliest
          > mention is likely to be in the c.8th-century Sārdhatriśatikālottara
          > (12.1).
          >
          > Again, as Steve suggests, early concepts of Kuṇḍalinī are by no means
          > uniform. Thus Kuṇḍalinī is also described in Pāñcarātrika works such
          > as the c.10th-century Vimānārcanākalpa, in which rather than the
          > cosmic goddess who rises up the yogin’s central channel, she is a
          > blockage in the way of the rising breath (makes one think of the
          > contraceptive coil).
          >
          > Steve is also right to point out that early notions of Kuṇḍalinī are
          > almost entirely located in the subtle body, with very little reference
          > to the gross physical body. But I'd argue that the clash of the gross
          > and the subtle comes earlier than the 19th century. Haṭha yoga as
          > taught in its formative period (11th-14th centuries) is a combination
          > of gross physical techniques which (among other things) assist in the
          > preservation of semen. Onto these physical techniques were overlaid
          > visualisation-based Kuṇḍalinī yoga. I've written a paper on this (to
          > be published later this year but available on my website in a draft:
          > http://www.khecari.com/resources/SaktismHathayogaFinal.pdf).
        • kleczekr
          Dear Rodo, I m not really a specialist in Tantric subtle physiology, even less in Indian medical tradition. To sum up a while of research: The concept of
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 5, 2013
            Dear Rodo,

            I'm not really a specialist in Tantric subtle physiology, even less in Indian medical tradition. To sum up a while of research:

            The concept of "nadi", i.e. "veins", "channels" or "passages", seems to be quite common both in medical tradition (e.g. Carakasamhita), where it denotes physical organs - most obviously veins - and in texts widely associated with the development of Hindu religion, esp. in Tantric Saiva scriptures, where it seems to denote subtle organs. It is worth mentioning, though, that the concept of the "veins of the heart", into which the soul enters during sleep, is mentioned already in ChandogyaupanisadS (ca. 6.-7. BC according to Olivelle).

            Sardhatrisatikalottara, when describing the "wheel of channels" (nadi-cakra), seems to refer to the medical tradition. The fact that the channels are located around the navel sounds like based on Cāraka (e.g. 6.23.2), that source of inspiration could also explain why the author of the Kālottara associates the channels with physical functions (mentioned passage of bodily fluids) although he describes these structures as "subtle" (suksma) (STKa 10.1).

            What ¦aiva texts have, and what the medical treatises seem to lack, are the three channels: ida, pingala and susumna, running parallel to the spine. These are already mentioned in the STKa 10.3, although there their exact location is not specified. Perhaps it is possible that defining suṣumnā as the passage through which Kundalini ultimately flows appears only in later tradition - I am no authority here, though.

            Since I have a chance, a short question to Jim Mallinson: you mentioned the date of Sardhatrisatikalottara to be around 8th cent. CE. It sounds very probable, but I have not yet come across any serious discussion on the subject of dating this text. Could you mention reason for this dating or suggest any bibliographical reference?

            With best wishes,
            Rafal Kleczek

            (Data gathered mainly using the Digital Corpus of Sanskrit: Oliver Hellwig: DCS - The Digital Corpus of Sanskrit. Heidelberg, 2010-2012.)

            --- In Indo-Eurasian_research@yahoogroups.com, rodo pfister <rodoX@...> wrote:
            >
            > (Please set encoding to UTF-8 if reading in a browser).
            >
            > Dear Jim and Rafal, dear list members
            >
            > Could you specify for non-Indologists but keeping up the detail of
            > previous messages, just how the subtle and the gross body were
            > diffentiated?
            >
            > (What makes, say vessels "gross", what "subtle"? Is there a
            > (systematic?) difference between more narrowly "medical" sources and
            > more "religious" sources??)
            >
            > Was there a discussion in the sources where one would discuss
            > gross/subtle entities as alternatives of the same thing? (Like some
            > 'vessel' has both a gross and a subtle version?)
            >
            > "Clash" means that the views of groups using such body descriptions
            > opposed each other, and denied for example the existence of the others'
            > assumptions about subtle entities?
            > Or does "clash" represent a back-projecting of current discussion and
            > has nothing to do with the discussion you find in the sources themselves?
            >
            > Thank you for your clarifications.
            > rodo
            >
            > Am 02.03.13 08:14, wrote Rafal Kleczek:
            > > Referring to the "clash of the gross and the subtle" - perhaps it
            > > could be mentioned that in the Sārdhatriśatikālottara itself
            > > channels/vessels (nāḍī), although defined as subtle, are considered to
            > > move blood and wind through the body (e.g. 10.9).
            > >
            > > The concept of Kuṇḍalinī in this scripture, though, surprisingly, does
            > > not seem to be connected with the mentioned "wheel of channels."
            > >
            > (...)
            > >
            > > --- In Indo-Eurasian_research@yahoogroups.com
            > > <mailto:Indo-Eurasian_research%40yahoogroups.com>, Jim Mallinson wrote:
            > >
            > (...)
            > >
            > > As Steve suggests, Kuṇḍalinī and other tantric subtle body concepts
            > > are woefully understudied. It's a PhD waiting to be done. Early
            > > references to Kuṇḍalinī are listed in the ongoing encyclopedia of
            > > tantra called the Tāntrikābhidānakośa (Vol.2 pp.110-112). Her earliest
            > > mention is likely to be in the c.8th-century Sārdhatriśatikālottara
            > > (12.1).
            > >
            > > Again, as Steve suggests, early concepts of Kuṇḍalinī are by no means
            > > uniform. Thus Kuṇḍalinī is also described in Pāñcarātrika works such
            > > as the c.10th-century Vimānārcanākalpa, in which rather than the
            > > cosmic goddess who rises up the yogin’s central channel, she is a
            > > blockage in the way of the rising breath (makes one think of the
            > > contraceptive coil).
            > >
            > > Steve is also right to point out that early notions of Kuṇḍalinī are
            > > almost entirely located in the subtle body, with very little reference
            > > to the gross physical body. But I'd argue that the clash of the gross
            > > and the subtle comes earlier than the 19th century. Haá¹­ha yoga as
            > > taught in its formative period (11th-14th centuries) is a combination
            > > of gross physical techniques which (among other things) assist in the
            > > preservation of semen. Onto these physical techniques were overlaid
            > > visualisation-based Kuṇḍalinī yoga. I've written a paper on this (to
            > > be published later this year but available on my website in a draft:
            > > http://www.khecari.com/resources/SaktismHathayogaFinal.pdf).
            >
          • Jim Mallinson
            Dear Rodo, Rafal et al., Perhaps clash was too strong a word and a back-projection, since, as you suggest, there is no recognition of discordance within the
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 6, 2013
              Dear Rodo, Rafal et al.,

              Perhaps "clash" was too strong a word and a back-projection, since, as you suggest, there is no recognition of discordance within the texts themselves. But the different ontological status of various elements does make for some confusing teachings. Thus the Haṭhapradīpikā gives two aims of khecarīmudrā: the gross one, in which the tongue is put above the palate in order to stop bindu from dripping down and the more subtle one in which putting the tongue there causes amṛta to flood the body.

              As Rafal's example shows, the subtle and the gross are not clearly differentiated within the texts: in the context of khecarīmudrā, the gross bindu and subtle amṛta come to be conflated. But differentiating them certainly helps me understand what the texts are doing. Dayananda Saraswati didn't do so, which is why he (perhaps apocryphally) threw his haṭha texts in the Ganga after dissecting a corpse and not finding any cakras.

              I think Rafal is right about the idea of Kuṇḍalinī flowing through Suṣumnā being late. In many ways she takes the place of the rising breath in earlier yogic teachings (e.g. Kiraṇatantra). By the way, the very early Niśvāsa (c.6th century) has the Suṣumnā and Iḍā flanking a central space, and no central channel (or Piṅgalā). A comprehensive survey of all these teachings would be very useful indeed.

              Re the date of the STK, I've searched about and am not sure where I got that from. It may have been verbally from Alexis Sanderson. There are lots of refs to it being an early Saiddhāntika tantra but nothing specifying the date (although see below from Sanderson's Śaivism, Society and the State, (unpublished, I think, this is p.30 of the draft I have)). I'll ask Alexis next time I see him.

              "The Siddhānta's earliest major scriptures, surviving complete or incomplete in manuscripts, are the Niśvāsa, the Pārameśvara, also called Paus.kara[pārameśvara], the Svāyambhuvasūtrasam. graha and the Rauravasūtrasam. graha, followed by the Kālottara in several recensions, of which the earliest is probably the Sārdhatriśatikālottara (in 350 verses), the Sarvajñānottara, the Matan ̇ga[pārameśvara], the Kiran.a, and, yet later but before the second half of the tenth century, by the Mr.gendra and the Parākhya."

              All the best,

              Jim


              On 2 Mar 2013, at 21:30, rodo pfister <rodoX@...> wrote:

              > (Please set encoding to UTF-8 if reading in a browser).
              >
              > Dear Jim and Rafal, dear list members
              >
              > Could you specify for non-Indologists but keeping up the detail of
              > previous messages, just how the subtle and the gross body were
              > diffentiated?
              >
              > (What makes, say vessels "gross", what "subtle"? Is there a
              > (systematic?) difference between more narrowly "medical" sources and
              > more "religious" sources??)
              >
              > Was there a discussion in the sources where one would discuss
              > gross/subtle entities as alternatives of the same thing? (Like some
              > 'vessel' has both a gross and a subtle version?)
              >
              > "Clash" means that the views of groups using such body descriptions
              > opposed each other, and denied for example the existence of the others'
              > assumptions about subtle entities?
              > Or does "clash" represent a back-projecting of current discussion and
              > has nothing to do with the discussion you find in the sources themselves?
              >
              > Thank you for your clarifications.
              > rodo
              >
              > Am 02.03.13 08:14, wrote Rafal Kleczek:
              > > Referring to the "clash of the gross and the subtle" - perhaps it
              > > could be mentioned that in the Sārdhatriśatikālottara itself
              > > channels/vessels (nāḍī), although defined as subtle, are considered to
              > > move blood and wind through the body (e.g. 10.9).
              > >
              > > The concept of Kuṇḍalinī in this scripture, though, surprisingly, does
              > > not seem to be connected with the mentioned "wheel of channels."
              > >
              > (...)
              > >
              > > --- In Indo-Eurasian_research@yahoogroups.com
              > > , Jim Mallinson wrote:
              > >
              > (...)
              > >
              > > As Steve suggests, Kuṇḍalinī and other tantric subtle body concepts
              > > are woefully understudied. It's a PhD waiting to be done. Early
              > > references to Kuṇḍalinī are listed in the ongoing encyclopedia of
              > > tantra called the Tāntrikābhidānakośa (Vol.2 pp.110-112). Her earliest
              > > mention is likely to be in the c.8th-century Sārdhatriśatikālottara
              > > (12.1).
              > >
              > > Again, as Steve suggests, early concepts of Kuṇḍalinī are by no means
              > > uniform. Thus Kuṇḍalinī is also described in Pāñcarātrika works such
              > > as the c.10th-century Vimānārcanākalpa, in which rather than the
              > > cosmic goddess who rises up the yogin’s central channel, she is a
              > > blockage in the way of the rising breath (makes one think of the
              > > contraceptive coil).
              > >
              > > Steve is also right to point out that early notions of Kuṇḍalinī are
              > > almost entirely located in the subtle body, with very little reference
              > > to the gross physical body. But I'd argue that the clash of the gross
              > > and the subtle comes earlier than the 19th century. Haṭha yoga as
              > > taught in its formative period (11th-14th centuries) is a combination
              > > of gross physical techniques which (among other things) assist in the
              > > preservation of semen. Onto these physical techniques were overlaid
              > > visualisation-based Kuṇḍalinī yoga. I've written a paper on this (to
              > > be published later this year but available on my website in a draft:
              > > http://www.khecari.com/resources/SaktismHathayogaFinal.pdf).
              >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.