I enjoy listening to the teacher who calls herself Maharishikaa. She’s an iconoclast who claims to offer a new teaching that is better in some ways than traditional ones: surrender (“bend down”) to the soul. The soul, she says, is the inner “impulse” that tells us what we should do.
I don’t know if this is really a new teaching but I’ve never run across this exact idea before. That inner “impulse” — I think I know what she means, I often rely on it to tell me whether something I just said is true or false — but I don’t recall ever having heard anyone describe it before. She has put it at the center of her sadhana.
That “impulse” is easy to surrender to because it’s a tangible thing, and it’s an effective thing to surrender to because it’s holy.
(Here’s a pretentious thought: Perhaps the mind has partial access to attributes of the Self through particular phenomena. For example, it glimpses ananda through love. And perhaps it glimpses the conative aspect through this “soul” that Maharishikaa points to. Many realizers would probably deny that the Self has a conative aspect but is this true?)
I’m writing about Maharishikaa today because I want to link to a satsang conversation of hers about Kundalini problems.
In this talk she says (I paraphrase), “Surrender to Kundalini. Don’t try to wake her. She’s already awake. She knows better than you what to do. You don’t have to stir her up. You are likely to annoy her and cause problems.”
I did the exact opposite of what she recommends with wonderful results, and friends of mine have done the same. And yet, in a general way, I find myself agreeing with her. This is not as paradoxical as it sounds because I did the opposite of what she recommends only once, and I think I did it under divine guidance. After that I simply noticed and watched and waited. Which I suppose is a kind of surrender.
Anybody want to comment?