|
|
| so in class last night, i asked the students if they had any requests.. usually i get certain poses they want but last night i got " can we not OM at the start of class" which totally threw me off b/c i love to do that and love to start my class i that way... i asked why- the student said i just dont like it. i proceeded to ask her if he knew the meaning behind it.. he said sort of but i still dont like to do it... i said you dont have to particiapte in it, he said i refer you not to do it... so out of respect for my student i didnt but inside i was annoyed.. was that more my selfishness coming out.. should i have not listened to him and did it anyways??? . . .thoughts? | |
| | |
| <p>I would be just as ticked off. Was this class at a gym? As much as you might not like to hear it, you <em>did</em> open up this can of worms by asking if anyone had any requests. I had a somewhat similar situation happen last week when I only had one student show up for a class, and when I asked if there was something in particular she wanted to work on, she said to me "no talking, just hard stuff" (meaning challenging asana). Some people come to yoga class but aren't looking for Yoga. It's a tough lesson sometimes, but not every student who comes to your class is the right student for what you want to teach. But then again, those very students become <em>your</em> teachers, of your Yoga.</p><p /><p>Even though the experience wasn't pleasant, it was still a learning experience for you, and quite a tough one at that (heh, talk about "hard stuff"). As for what you should actually do the next time this happens, I wouldn't know. Follow your heart, I suppose.  </p> | |
| | |
| You know the old adage that you can't please all of the people all of the time. Extrapolating further, as Rick Nelson sang, "You can't please everyone so you gotta please yourself." | |
| | |
| I think you were angry because you compromised your practice - instead of leading by example - maybe a clear definition of what om means (and that yoga is not just about the hatha) next class and allow your students to not join in if they choose so....It is not selfish to aspire to share a clear example of yoga practice. | |
| | |
| You asked for it. I guess deep down this person doesn't feel comfortable with OM and that could change. In fact just be mentioning that it bothered them might led her/him to a better understanding. There's a Niyama called Satya that I think means truth. This person might not like the way you led OM. They might not feel your voice as a magnet for these sounds. I know I've experienced this. There's also that idea that yoga doesn't have to be spiritual. And some people are not spiritual.
Here's what happened here:
One woman out of the blue during the standing sequence looked at me the other day and spun her hand in a circle overhead because she wanted me to turn the fans on. When I didn't respond, she started to mouth the "turn the fan on." I said I know what you are asking, and I'm thinking about it.....
Luckily I had a smaller fan that I was able to point at her directly 5 minutes later. But I did not want everyone to have the fan on them...so, I did not turn it on.
anyway, I thought you might be interested...
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
 
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | I'm going to be very frank here. I personally do not like chanting OM's in my yoga asana class. I also do not like having that aspect of yoga shoved down my throat by inexperienced yoga teachers and even experienced ones. This is the Western culture. You don't have to do OM's to do yoga asanas and just because you do them, does not mean much either. I think most students here in the West go to yoga class for the asana aspect and is what they expect. Most are not ready for the philosphy of yoga. If you really want to help your students and be a good yoga teacher, you should honor where they are at. The OM's and philosophy's of yoga must be presented "skillfully", otherwise you will most definitely loose your audience.
For what its worth, I do all my chanting at home or in my personal space where I am safe and supported. I also study Vedanta and Yoga philosophy with a guru of my choice and whom I trust is authentic. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
  
| I would have been taken aback as well, I think. With the benefit of sitting here with my coffee and not being expected to give an answer, I think I might as the questions that you did and then give the class a minute or so to sit quietly and do their own inner preparation for the class. | |
| | |
| Meant.. yama... | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | After posting this morning I've been having major after-thoughts about this. I know I've probably disturbed some of you guys....but my point is this....
Sathya Sai Baba has a really nice quote..."A pure thought from pure heart, is better than a mantra". So, having that said....for the western world and these extremely dark times on earth, this is the most important aspect of anything we can do for humanity. IMO, "purity" starts with a simple basic yoga practice. There's so much going on here and so much is at stake. OM's are not as important as establishing a strong foundation for anyone's yoga practice. The rest will fall into place and take care of itself. | |
| | |
| Hello Deb,
You raise two interesting points in your post. The first is the idea of teacher preparation versus student preference. The second is the value of the primordial sound of OM as it relates to Yoga, asana, group practice, and teaching.
When the teacher asks the students about their preferences three things happen: the student is placed in a position for crafting the curriculum, the impression may be given that the teacher does not have one, and an expectation may be created which can place the teacher in a precarious position of choice.
Of these three things there isn't one that I actually find productive. Each of them has their own friction and I don't want to get side-tracked with those three as I think the pitfalls are obvious to see and don't need to be further illustrated.
Thus I don't pose that question you pose except on very rare occasions or in a private session.
The second issue is that of chanting Om or not. And this is a personal decision based on the teacher's practice, studies, and assessment of the class they are teaching. Om and its vibration create a harmony that unifies the work to follow in class. Additionally the sound and vibration, when properly rendered, have tremendous healing powers not to mention significant effects on the central nervous system (they are inter-related).
In addition, OM is one of the ways the teacher holds the energy of the room for the students and the practice (transmission of yoga). A very skilled teacher can omit OM and still hold the room. A less skilled one may not have such a strength. And yet the conundrum is that even with its function of holding the energy it can be "performed (rather than felt) and be almost totally ineffective.
I have found students that do not fancy OM have not been taught its place in yoga and are therefore uncomfortable (or uncomfortable after being taught). And that is fine. Some students come along more slowly in that regard than others. However, when the teacher understands and feels OM in their consciousness I believe that pours out in the teaching. When they do not, it does not.
Edited by purnayoga 2008-09-04 12:26 PM
| |
| | |
| The first few months I went to classes where OM was chanted, I strongly disliked it. Oh, I was already interested in yoga philosophy, and - contrary to purna's suggestion that it had to do with the teacher's intent and spirit behind the chanting - the teacher AND class truly FELT it, even I could tell. But I really disliked being expected to join in, being expected to take part in something that was NOT a part of me, and being subjected to something that really didn't sit well with me.
As you can imagine, I've come around, but, in class, it's more for the other students/teacher, but lovingly given.
I don't do it in my classes, though. Not yet. I may at some point, with some classes. But I think that it's more important to bring in the sutras and philosophy, rather than something that is - quite honestly - less accessible to the average person.
But instances like this make me consider very carefully when I will give my students options and when I won't. Honestly, the first thing that popped to my mind was "what did the other students think". | |
| | |
| nucleareggset - 2008-09-04 10:03 AM
... contrary to purna's suggestion that it had to do with the teacher's intent and spirit behind the chanting - the teacher AND class truly FELT it, even I could tell..
This isn't contrary. When reading what I wrote above please note it merely says that when the teacher feels OM it comes through in the teaching. In this case the student felt that so it's in accord with what I wrote not discord.
At no point did I insinuate a teacher who feels OM therefore has students who OM along comfortably. I'll try to write with more clarity in the future. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | This is interesting, when Satyam and I are together doing pooja, he chants the most beautiful OM's, compared to my "whimpy ones",  Sooo, what I usually do is allow his sound resonate through me...without uttering a single note. It's totally awesome. He grew up in this culture and its bred into him, it's not with me and has not been cultivated in the same way.
Soo, having that said, I guess I'm spoiled with authenticity. Once you've had it, it's kinda hard to go back. You know it and understand its sacredness. I'm speaking about all the sutras...although...I can chant Om Nama Shivya like nobody's business - its my favorite, LOL!!!
I can't tell you how many times I've heard from various other cultures that feel the same way about speaking the English language...they say they are intimidated by it and feel embarrassed to speak English to an English speaking person....mostly due to their lack of confidence. So, here again that word "confidence" keeps coming up. When you are with a teacher who has the lack of confidence in their teachings, it shows on soooo many levels. OTOH, when you hear the OM come from an authentic source or with a person who has confidence, it has an authentic vibration that cannot be disputed...it's just there and you know it..you feel it and it resonates inside you in such a positive inspiring manner.
Oh yea, don't get me started on how my Italia was...it took me forever to be brave enough to say Bounicera and Bounjourno...and still...I think some Italians chuckled a bit with my Southern accent,
Edited by Cyndi 2008-09-04 2:25 PM
| |
| | |
| So, Dear ZE: I have few questions for you, before I can give input:
- What is the meaning of OM and also purpose of OM, as far as your own class is concerned?
- What kind of respect or what respect you have for a student when you decided to exclude the OM chanting from your class?
- What about other students in the class? Did you get their opinion?
- Did you find what troubled you after the OM was excluded?
Namaste
zenergy47 - 2008-09-04 7:25 AM
so in class last night, i asked the students if they had any requests.. usually i get certain poses they want but last night i got " can we not OM at the start of class" which totally threw me off b/c i love to do that and love to start my class i that way... i asked why- the student said i just dont like it. i proceeded to ask her if he knew the meaning behind it.. he said sort of but i still dont like to do it... i said you dont have to particiapte in it, he said i refer you not to do it... so out of respect for my student i didnt but inside i was annoyed.. was that more my selfishness coming out.. should i have not listened to him and did it anyways??? . . .thoughts? | |
| | |
| purnayoga - 2008-09-04 9:22 AM
Om and its vibration create a harmony that unifies the work to follow in class. Additionally the sound and vibration, when properly rendered, have tremendous healing powers not to mention significant effects on the central nervous system (they are inter-related).
Gordon or anyone else who thinks they have an answer,
Please supply explanation and evidence (non-anecdotal). Why is chanting Om three times different than chanting Walmart five times? (Other than the significance that you choose to place on that sound and its intonation.) Also, the sound itself is dependant on the vocal chords of the chanter and where it is focused in the facial and nasal chambers. The vibrations are totally dependant on which pitch is being intoned. If the vibrations of the sound are what does the magic, then either men or women cannot experience/make that magic since they cannot make the same vibrations.
Which, if anything, actually makes any difference and why: the actual word OM, the vocalization, short inhale/long exhale, the number three (numerology is so superstition!), or the class doing it together? OM cannot be a "Primodial sound" because the word did not exist before 1500 BC or so. There are no primodial words because all words were developed by people within their culture inside of known historical times. If OM were a primodial sound, all peoples would have had it and used it from the dawn of time. OM is a Hindu word and a symbol for an idea. There are many such symbols, some older and some much more recent. They are not magic.
Is there something special about making the sound OM or is it simply that the class is breathing/chanting/singing together? How is that different from a church group singing hymns or people saying the "pledge of allegiance" together? Isn't the group being controlled by the leader in each of these examples? May that not be the objection of that student?
I think that it is really time for the yoga community to start asking some hard questions instead of simply repeating what they've heard, much of which is urban legend or simply basic physical laws misunderstood. I think that it is time for all of us to take yoga to the next level; to seperate the actual benefits from the superstition.
If you do not have an understanding of exactly what chanting OM does and why, why are you trying to teach something that you don't yourself understand?
Edited by jimg 2008-09-04 5:55 PM
| |
| | |
| Too Big To Discuss!
Om ShantiH | |
| | |
| Jim
I could not possibly respond to your Tsunami. And if I could, with a bushel of science, I'd assert, you'd not move an inch anyway:-) | |
| | |
| ah, jimg, the jesuits were not well liked in the catholic church for a very long time. 
I'll answer the bit about the primordial sound thing, as it was addressed in my training. the theory here is that many cultures/religions *do* have similar sound with respect to spirituality - amen, amin, shalom. it's a guttural humming sound, nearly (and the sutras talk about the sound, not the symbol, so I'm not going to talk about the symbol), so it's not hard to imagine a "human" coming across it long ago.
(the vibrational thing? I'm not touching with a 10 foot pole. but, if it's a standard range of human voice, then anyone should be able to make it. (wikipedia claims its ~136Hz, a low C#) now... staying on pitch? heh. not me. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Actually, Jim hit the nail on the head by begging the question..."Why teach something you don't understand". I find this to be true with the Western Yoga realm in general,  If you saw my post in the general yoga section in the thread "back to school", you can see that as a student, I'm actually quite annoyed with this aspect of yoga in the West.
Soo, how do we keep the yoga teachings sacred and with meaning here in the West???? I don't think so it will ever happen - any time soon. I think too many yoga teachers are not ready for teaching. They're still working through their own issues, and at the same time, trying to convert and convey to hungry yoga students that are starving for something sacred, authentic and meaningful in their own lives. It just has a weird vibe that doesn't match and fit what brought me to yoga in the first place - and what I was taught by my authentic teachers. This new western take on yoga is really unfortunate. Its like the blind leading the blind. Until then, there is always going to be this debate about what to do with the Western world...how do you deliver the East to the West, and OMG, how do you convert Christians over to the Hinduism culture...hahahaha, with chanting OM's...very funny, I thought we were doing great just by getting them in the door to do yoga asana's with a little teensy bit of philosophy strewn here and there to shake things up, LOL!! | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | kulkarnn - 2008-09-04 6:29 PM
Too Big To Discuss!
Om ShantiH
Oh come on NB, we've been idle too long now...summer is over, the board is finally getting back to some sense of normalcy.....we need something major to discuss to get this forum going again, LOL!! Besides, we need to wake up those "odderators", 
Cheerios!! | |
| | |
| thank you for all your responses so i agree some i dont, i must be honest i just got havent eaten dinner and am exhausted.. will respond tomorrow.. but many thanks for your input.
namaste
zen | |
| | |
| Thanks Jim. The yoga world needs a myth buster. | |
| | |
| purnayoga - 2008-09-04 5:39 PM
Jim
I could not possibly respond to your Tsunami. And if I could, with a bushel of science, I'd assert, you'd not move an inch anyway:-)
I would love to hear some science. I am not set in my ways here. What I am suggesting is that the only reason to chant OM is as a Hindu religous expression, like making the sign of the cross for a Christian or whatever. If Western yoga teachers want to teach Hinduism, great. Their classes should be advertised as such and they should be competent to teach the Hindu religion. To throw in a little bit of a foreign religion out of context into an exercise class is like saying Hail Mary's before a Pilates class! | |
| | |
| We'll have to agree to disagree, agreeably.
Edited by purnayoga 2008-09-05 1:51 AM
| |
| | |
| that's one of the things that I like about incorporating most of the yoga philosophy - it's not really foreign, even in the west. when you talk about it, think about it, and understand the *message*, it actually makes sense. attachment to things brings pain? well, there's a whole lot to decompress out of that highly efficient little tiny zip file there (hah, I'm using that geek analogy in class!), but after a lot of thought into it, most people get the idea that if you're so attached to having things, when those things break, get lost, get worn, and so on, you get sad. or when you can't get more things, you get sad. hence, your attachment has made you sad. it's only hard because our culture encourages us to think about immediate rewards, not long term pictures. so, sensible, but not our normal thought process.
om, well.. not a thought process.
maybe I'm too logical; it won't be the first time I've been told I'm a little too much in the manomaya, but there ya go. that's my theory. | |
| | |
| Jim:
Without understanding much of the Hindu philosophy, I can come up with at least one other reason to shant OM -- it sounds and feels really cool. Another reason, at least in my experience, is that it gives a kind of connectedness to the people in the class. I find that to be true about almost all group singing. The difference is that with OM, noone needs to have any talent and thus there are very few apprehensions about participating. Even if you were right about all the rest, this would be enough justification for me.
To the original poster, you asked if the students had any requests. It's perfectly possible to deny a request with respect. If I were you, when he asked if you could not chant OM at the beginning of the class, I would have cheerfully agreed, and then put the chants at the end of the class. (That's where they come in the Sivanandra classes I've taken.) Of course, in Bikram, we chant "Lock the knee" instead...
Duffy | |
| | |
| Gee (singnificance?!). I can not disobey CB. She is respectable to me. But, also she gives me honey and other goodies as her brother. As I said it is too big to discuss. But, let me try after eating one spoon of the honey. Let us try bit by bit as possible:
jimg wrote: Gordon or anyone else who thinks they have an answer, Please supply explanation and evidence (non-anecdotal). Why is chanting Om three times different than chanting Walmart five times? (Other than the significance that you choose to place on that sound and its intonation.) Also, the sound itself is dependant on the vocal chords of the chanter and where it is focused in the facial and nasal chambers. The vibrations are totally dependant on which pitch is being intoned. If the vibrations of the sound are what does the magic, then either men or women cannot experience/make that magic since they cannot make the same vibrations.
===> Asking for explanation, and then conditioning with 'other than significance' is not fair. Asking explanation is great. When a Republican utters a word 'America' and the same is done by a Democrat (I already disclaim myself as my knowledge of politics is called ignorance!), there is no difference in the actual geographical location, there is no difference in the spelling and possibly the pronunciation, but there is a big difference in the meaning of the word, and also the significance. Agreed? This happens with the same word uttered by two different parties. What surprise is there then that there is a big difference between chanting OM and chanting Walmart, unless one already decides to keep the difference to be zero which itself shall be more difficult than chanting.
====> Of course, the word OM and the word Walmart, and the word jim, and the word Neel, and Cyndi, and Tourist, all were not invented by us. They came from the past. Agreed? Now, the word OM came to us from the past, I mean past humans of course, not as a place where things are sold like the ones in Walmart. And, the word Walmart did not come to us from the past, as a word to be chanted by Yogis, or by Soldiers in the Army, or by Music Teachers in the schools or universites. These words came to us with certain meaning or significance behind them.
===> Of course, the difference is due to the significance and the meaning. And, the chanting of them has to be done with the significance or the meaning behind them. One should not drink coca cola while assuming that it is pepsi, or vice a versa. And, one should not kiss another lady with the same name as their own wife.
tajjapastadarthabhaavanaM... Patanjali Chapter 1.
OM is to be chanted with its meaning (that is is a representation of Ishwara) in mind.
OM ShantiH.
Cyndi - 2008-09-04 9:51 PM
kulkarnn - 2008-09-04 6:29 PM
Too Big To Discuss!
Om ShantiH
Oh come on NB, we've been idle too long now...summer is over, the board is finally getting back to some sense of normalcy.....we need something major to discuss to get this forum going again, LOL!! Besides, we need to wake up those "odderators",
Cheerios!! | |
| | |
| Duffy Pratt - 2008-09-05 10:11 AM
Jim:
I can come up with at least one other reason to chant OM -- it sounds and feels really cool. Another reason, at least in my experience, is that it gives a kind of connectedness to the people in the class. I find that to be true about almost all group singing.
Duffy
Duffy,
I am glad that you have a practical reason and that you have shared it. I believe that everything we teach as teachers should be understood and have a practical reason right now for this particular group of students. Do you find that breathing together (as in Bikram) has the same effect as chanting together?
Jim | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | kulkarnn - 2008-09-05 1:32 PM
===> Of course, the difference is due to the significance and the meaning. And, the chanting of them has to be done with the significance or the meaning behind them. One should not drink coca cola while assuming that it is pepsi, or vice a versa. And, one should not kiss another lady with the same name as their own wife.
tajjapastadarthabhaavanaM... Patanjali Chapter 1.
OM is to be chanted with its meaning (that is is a representation of Ishwara) in mind.
OM ShantiH.
Excellent NB!! I knew you had the best explanation, | |
| | |
| Neel,
"tajjapastadarthabhaavanaM... Patanjali Chapter 1.
OM is to be chanted with its meaning (that is is a representation of Ishwara) in mind."
Chanting OM in the context of Hindu religous training (Yoga) makes sense. As you pointed out, one needs to have an understanding of what "a representation of Ishwara" means.
Chanting OM in an exercise class (yoga) does not.
We need to be clear about exactly what it is that we are teaching and whether we have the necessary skills/knowledge to be teaching that! We also need to look at our motivation to teach yoga/Yoga. Are we giving a gift? Are we trying to change others? Why? Are we proselytizing? Are we looking for converts? What do we want to convert people to?
Namaste,
Jim
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Jim is also right. Thank you for pointing that out because that is EXACTLY how I feel and you know what...our intention, motivation and dedication is precisely why we do yoga in the first place. | |
| | |
| Jim:
I don't get the same effect from the breathing exercises either at the beginning or the end of the Bikram series. In our studio, the heaters are air blowers, and they tend to drown out the breathing noise in the first exercise. Also, at that point we are told to focus on ourselves and to begin our 90 minute moving meditation. So I'm actively trying to shut out other people, not share noise/music with them. And I don't find much either musical or meditative or shared about the blowing in firm at the end of the series.
In one class, the heaters were off at the start, and then there was a sort of communal music to the first breathing exercise. One of the things I like about the OM chanting is the way a group of people tends to find a harmony in their different approaches to the sound.
I'm approaching this at a very low level. But I think thats where this sort of thing starts anyway. When dealing with matters that are religious or spiritual, I think the most important thing to do at the outset is to inspire a feeling of awe and perhaps reverence for the ritual. Once you instill that, it may then be possible to provide a meaningful explanation -- to put the awe into context. Trying it out the other way, by telling people what a ritual means first, tends to sap the ritual of other meanings and associations it might have, and it also tends to build up resistance to it beforehand.
Duffy | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 1738
Location: right where I'm supposed to be | Great thread!!!
I'll leave my opinion out! | |
| | |
| Dear Jimg (and others). Now, I shall give second comment that includes response to the bottom email from jimg and also second para of his previous post. As I said, it is too big to discuss.
comments on post below: Yes, of course what is being instructed should be kind of understood by the students and well understood by the teacher. Agreed. If the class is specifically defined as Bodily Exercise class, then the chanting may not have much significance. However, even then chanting of OM can be used successfully in a breathing way and also it can definitely be used for focus during the exercise which later can be developed into meditation. Now, if the significance of OM is additionally applied as a Divine Sound (divine meaning by Assumption/Belief/Trust/Whatever as coming from the Past as I explained above) then it shall have additional advantage without any harm. Question of proselytizing or conversion does not come in the subject of OM, because in the Indian Philosophy (wrongly called Hinduism today due to the emergence of religions rather than philosophies) because there is no concept of Conversion there. In short, once the teacher has some definite understanding of OM, definite understanding of how OM relates to his/her class, one can definitely use it with advantage in whatever that class is. Why to use OM and not Walmart has already been discussed by me above.
Comments on para 2 that states: Which, if anything, actually makes any difference and why: the actual word OM, the vocalization, short inhale/long exhale, the number three (numerology is so superstition!), or the class doing it together? OM cannot be a "Primodial sound" because the word did not exist before 1500 BC or so. There are no primodial words because all words were developed by people within their culture inside of known historical times. If OM were a primodial sound, all peoples would have had it and used it from the dawn of time. OM is a Hindu word and a symbol for an idea. There are many such symbols, some older and some much more recent. They are not magic.
===> the actual word OM makes the difference due to the explanation given in my previous post above. the vocalization makes difference because of the melodic/harmonic/whatever nature of that sound when it is chanted with the significance explained earlier and accepted by the chanter. (If it is not accepted by the chanter they can skip it, and that applies to exercises such as Headstand which look much weird some people compared to other exercise such as a forward bend.) Short and Long inhale, of course, gives breathing significance, so does not need any further explanation. As for Numerology, it is superstition in the context of advanced knowledge. For example, the story of three little pigs is superstition for an English Professor in Harvard University. But, for a child of 5 that story can be used with benefit to inculcate good habits, and with definite success as it has already been done. In the same way, the numerology can be used with definite success for certain students. And, these certain students are the average yoga students. Advanced Yogis do NOT need a class. Now, whether the numerology should be used or not, whether non-numerology should be used or not, etc. can be explained by thinking whether the story of 3 little pigs should be used or not, but it has been done for hundreds of years. But, more over, when a story of 3 little pigs is told to a 5 year old, one must NOT tell them that this story is ballony, otherwise the purpose is defeated. For example, when an anthem is admistered on a soldier of American Army or to a new Immigrant, one must NOT emphasize that there is NO such a thing as America, but it is only an artificial boundary created by acts of Coercian and not of benevelance.
Next, primordial! Primordial is a relative term and not an absolute term. Great strength is a relative term and not an absolute. Same with the term 'rich person'. Primordial means extremely old from the times immemorable, etc. 1500 b.c. is a false time line. OM has been stated in works long before 1500 B.C. Long means long long long before. And, that is what primordial means.
It is also false that all people would have used it if it was primordial. Because, primordial itself is undefined and therefore its usage by all is undefined. If OM is a sound, definitely it has been used by many and that is the fact. It does not have to be used by what is called Europe or America today. It has been used by many, and that is enough. It was used in what is called today by the names, Nepal, Indonesia, Tibet, Afganistan, Europe, Persia, india, Sri Lanka, etc..
And, OM is NOT a Hindu symbol or idea. Because, the word or idea of Hinduism came long long long after the symbol OM. The idea of the Hiduism came after Christianity. And, the word Amen in Christianity and Ameen in Islam are some how related to OM. Same with shalom in Judaism. But, that is besides the fact.
OM ShantiH
jimg - 2008-09-05 1:53 PM
Neel,
"tajjapastadarthabhaavanaM... Patanjali Chapter 1.
OM is to be chanted with its meaning (that is is a representation of Ishwara) in mind."
Chanting OM in the context of Hindu religous training (Yoga) makes sense. As you pointed out, one needs to have an understanding of what "a representation of Ishwara" means.
Chanting OM in an exercise class (yoga) does not.
We need to be clear about exactly what it is that we are teaching and whether we have the necessary skills/knowledge to be teaching that! We also need to look at our motivation to teach yoga/Yoga. Are we giving a gift? Are we trying to change others? Why? Are we proselytizing? Are we looking for converts? What do we want to convert people to?
Namaste,
Jim
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Oh Boy, the term, "ask and you shall receive" has taken on a definitive new meaning as Cyndi bows with hands folded together in Namaste` to NB. | |
| | |
| the classes that i t each are meant to be accessable rituals,and therefore must be both ritualized and accessale.
i utilize om, but am happy also to use other techniques to ritualize the class and create sacred space.
the main thing is that the teaching reaches the student. | |
| | |
| Dear CB: I attribute the success of my attempt to the NC mountains honey! Now, I shall attempt my final comment on this thread, as follows.
jimg wrote: Is there something special about making the sound OM or is it simply that the class is breathing/chanting/singing together? How is that different from a church group singing hymns or people saying the "pledge of allegiance" together? Isn't the group being controlled by the leader in each of these examples? May that not be the objection of that student?
===> As long as the teacher explains the meaning of OM and significance of chanting that OM in that particular Teacher's Class (that is the question I asked ZE and she never replied. May be that is the reply!), the 'special about' is answered. Difference of chanting OM in Yoga Class and people singing hymn is church is obvious, unless one is too naive. And, if one is not sure, I suggest they actually experience both of these events only 3 times. It will be as simple as difference between drinking Starbucks Coffee in Starbucks and drinking Soup in a chinese restaurant. As for difference between pledge of allegience and chanting of OM, the first is making you BOUND and the second one is supposed to make it FREE if you understand or believe it that way. The use of word 'control' is wrong. The group is of course led by the leader or teacher, because that is what the group class means. Otherwise, ZE will be fired! Control depends on whether the teacher is forcing the student to chant OM with a threat of depriving necessities based or obeying the command or not.
I think that it is really time for the yoga community to start asking some hard questions instead of simply repeating what they've heard, much of which is urban legend or simply basic physical laws misunderstood. I think that it is time for all of us to take yoga to the next level; to seperate the actual benefits from the superstition.
===> There is no need to ask Hard questions. Just ask questions. Hard question is not better than question in any way, actually it can be worse, and a display of ego or ignorance of a questioner. If you already know the answer, there is no point in asking question. If you do not know the answer, just ask question without assuming that the teacher does not know the answer or the teacher is trying to control, or some such assumption. Whether to repeat what is heard is a prerogative of the student. May be some student likes to repeat and some do not. One who does not like to repeat can not control the one who likes to repeat and vice a versa.
===> One additional problem with such things is that the questioner in these cases should have an experiential understanding of the fact before asking questions. Only intellectual understanding may not be sufficient. Thus, when one is asking questions about OM chanting to a particular teacher in a Hard way, one should first know what the meaning of that OM chanting for that teacher's class is in a NON Hard way, then actually practice that OM Chanting in a way the teacher is telling in a NON Hard way, and then see whether the teacher's statements make sense or not, and then further ask in a NON Hard way.
===> Asking questions in Hard way does not take Yoga to higher levels. Actually, what takes Yoga to higher levels is the Yoga Practice and actually finding the truth of the matter and then demonstrating that fact, and later teaching it to those interested. ETC.
If you do not have an understanding of exactly what chanting OM does and why, why are you trying to teach something that you don't yourself understand?
===> That makes sense. However, understanding in this case does not mean 100 percent understanding. Understanding is a relative term. As long as understanding is above the average class level it is ok for the teacher to teach it. Teacher does not know whether Einstein is attending her class today and she should be scared to talk about Physics. Or, whether brother Nick is attending the class today, and whether she should not by mistake call toes of feet as fingers of feet, as brother Neel did for 5 years! As long as there is some understanding, and that makes sense in the context of today's class, ZE should feel free to use OM to the benefit of herself and her class, with the logic that I gave in the Second Comment, and not worry about one's getting PhD in OM in a gym setting.
===> If one does not have PhD in "Hi", they should feel completely free and happy to say "Hi' to their beloved ones.
OM ShantiH
Cyndi - 2008-09-06 11:05 AM
Oh Boy, the term, "ask and you shall receive" has taken on a definitive new meaning as Cyndi bows with hands folded together in Namaste` to NB. | |
| | |
| Neel,
We are once again getting back to a very basic issue. Your beliefs about OM and many other subjects are religous beliefs based on faith. They are part of a bigger dogma and they probably help make you feel secure. I view getting rid of dogma as the method to free the mind and you view dogma (the path, tradition, holy books etc) as the way to achieve a higher state. I know that this may be difficult for you to agree to, but we may both be right because everything about the mind is subjective, personal and unique. (You and I are both unique, just like everybody else!) My "religous belief" is that everyone should find their own unique truth and find it new every day. I think it is better to find and be yourself, no matter how humble, than to be a follower (which is like being a shadow of the thing followed) of the most exalted. In the end, the only thing that I can be is myself. When I try to copy, it is like a man putting on woman's clothing; the outward appearance is different but the person inside is exactly the same. You may call this egotism, but the desire to be "enlightened" or "realized" is the ulimate in egotism. Who is the entity that seeks this enlightenment or realization? It is you. It is your ego! You, your mind, your body, your ego and your consciousness are all one total entity.
Namaste,
Jim | |
| | |
| The basis of religion is that there is a set of things one must do in order to "meet G-d" and that any departure from this set of things is absolutely prohibiting such attainment or reaching.
While I can't speak for Neel or his "beliefs" what I can say is that Yoga, the broad body of wisdom, makes no such stipulation. And therefore each person can find their own way to the Divine and can do so anew each and every day. In fact this is the very point of the Bhagavad Gita, that Arjuna heed HIS svadharma and not the group think.
There is no requisite to recite Om. No punishment. No promise. Just as there is no promise of a healthy body from asana. While some do wield dogma within the confines or cloak of yoga it is absolutely not yogic to do so. Om is soothing. It is unifying. It is resonant. It is not a promise nor does it beg "faith".
And while I'm at it, just an addition to other information contained in this thread. As I understand it (again because I was not there) Om, in text, comes from the Vedas, specifically from the Upanishads. The dating of the Upanishads (by western scholars) is approximately 600 BC. However yogic thought pre-dates yogic writing as the tradition was orally passed.
When one lives too strongly in the mind, too fully in the intellect, it is scarcely possible to hear the voice of the heart. That voice is not the voice of religion or faith. That voice is the voice of your soul. The voice of the soul does not dwell in the mind. The mind is merely a servant. And it is there, in the intellect that the Ego is fanned (unless it is checked), not in the heart.
But to be clear, yoga is an exploration of the self and if, for you the reader, chanting Walmart brings you closer to the Self, allows you to know your source, your true self, your light, then any sound yogi (or yoga teacher) would encourage such a thing FOR YOU.
Yoga has been systematized but that alone does not make it religion nor does that alone allow it to be defined as dogma. As my friend often says "don't judge this by the people that practice it" :-)
Edited by purnayoga 2008-09-08 5:50 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Interesting conversation. One thing I think that can be agreed upon is that uttered sounds make vibrations and that vibrations have an energetic effect. This supposes that you believe in western scientific "dogma," I suppose, but it is pretty easily shown in basic elementary school science experiments. It isn't too much of a leap to say that certain sounds have a calming effect (ocean waves) while others cause distress (dentist drill). Given those parameters, I think most people would say "om" falls toward the calming side.
On a purely physical level, chanting om requires the chanter to breath in a controlled way. This has also been shown by western science to reduce stress. Chanting om three times at the start of class/practice is a ritual. Rituals as diverse as complex religious rites or as pragmatic as a baseball player hefting a bat and spitting on his hands (do they still do that these days?) are also shown to be calming, centering and generally "good" for the person performing them.
Without any further explanation than this, it appears that chanting om is beneficial. But if you would rather heft a bat and spit on your hands before you start practice, be my guest.  Mayeb leave out the spitting part if you are in my class though, ok? | |
| | |
| Dear Jim: I hope you have seen my posts on this thread in a sequence. The first was in response to the original post. Unfortunately, the original poster (ZE) never responded to my questions. If you see my original posts, your statements about me which are in the bottom post shall become false, and that is the fact.
Now, my other statements are in response to your statements and you are free to discuss or counter argue my statements if you wish.
Now, let me give my comments on the following post of yours, using ===> mark.
jimg - 2008-09-08 2:10 PM
Neel,
We are once again getting back to a very basic issue.
===> All issues are ultimately basic issues.
Your beliefs about OM and many other subjects are religous beliefs based on faith. They are part of a bigger dogma and they probably help make you feel secure.
===> I am amazed at your usage of the word 'Religion' when I am using the word Philosophy. In the religion, the rules are forced, in the Philosophy logic is provied and rules are derived, but never forced. There is NO force to use OM and I am not advising one to use OM. But, I am stating that usage of OM is beneficial to the one who uses it and this fact has been proven. So, there can not be any question about whether it is useful or not. Whether the usefulness is due to belief, or due to own truth finding or whatever, there is usefulness. Whether one goes to a place driving oneself or one sits in a car driven by another person, they can still reach that place.
===> Your are making a judgement that it makes me feel secure. Thanks for such a wonderful compliment. Because, today, USA has formed a department of HomeLand Security. Still they are not feeling Secure.
I view getting rid of dogma as the method to free the mind and you view dogma (the path, tradition, holy books etc) as the way to achieve a higher state. I know that this may be difficult for you to agree to, but we may both be right because everything about the mind is subjective, personal and unique. (You and I are both unique, just like everybody else!)
===> I have NO problems in your getting rid of Dogma. But, you can not get rid of Dogma in each person's case, because that shall be forming another Dogma of Removing other Dogmas. You can however be free to remove whatever you think or feel Dogma is and whichever you choose to remove. Whether you achieve Freedom or Higher State using your method will be first known to you, but if you wish others to imbibe or agree that method, you shall need to demonstrate that freedom and/or convince others. I wish you all the best in your attempt.
My "religous belief" is that everyone should find their own unique truth and find it new every day. I think it is better to find and be yourself, no matter how humble, than to be a follower (which is like being a shadow of the thing followed) of the most exalted. In the end, the only thing that I can be is myself.
===> That is FANTASTIC. But, for yourself, as you are Unique, as you yourself stated.
When I try to copy, it is like a man putting on woman's clothing; the outward appearance is different but the person inside is exactly the same. You may call this egotism, but the desire to be "enlightened" or "realized" is the ulimate in egotism. Who is the entity that seeks this enlightenment or realization? It is you. It is your ego! You, your mind, your body, your ego and your consciousness are all one total entity.
===> There is difference between Ego-ism and Ego-tism. What you wrote here is a matter of symantics. Also, what you wrote here is your view and there is no problem as long as you are not pushing it on others.
====> However, the teacher is supposed to teach. And, teach what that teacher knows and feels secure with or correct with. And, ZE has already chosen to teach OM. I did not ask her to teach OM, as she is not my student. But, since I am responding to her post, I am giving my view, as a Yoga Teacher with what I know and what I am secure with, and what I know to be right. And, also what I am sure I have experienced.
Namaste,
Jim | |
| | |
| Neel,
Please understand that I am neither for or against chanting OM. It may be exactly the right thing for one particular group at one particular time and it may also be exactly the wrong thing for another group at another time. I am only asking that other yoga teachers think about what they are doing and why. I think that this is good for yoga teachers everywhere. We are all part of the future of yoga. I am not interested in winning others over to any particluar belief or path. I would like to encourage everyone to question themselves, their "knowledge" and their beliefs as it will lead to growth, no matter which path (or lack of) that they have chosen. When you question yourself (or accepted yoga "beliefs" or scientific "beliefs") you are cleaning your house. You are getting rid of what is no longer usefull and giving rightful place to that which is. We yoga teachers need to seperate what is superstition, myth, basic misunderstanding of the universe, and truely useful right now. This will differ from person to person and from time to time.
Namaste,
Jim | |
| | |
| Chanting is something that is personal and a person may either chant or not chant. I dont think other people chanting in class impinges on any of your fundamental rights in class.
Whether you chant or not, someone who calls themself a yoga teacher has the obligation to place HaTa yoga in its larger context.
As someone who has thought about this quite a bit, I had initially thought I would only teach people a strict set of exercises and give them what they want.
However I came to the conclusion that this was wrong because of the following reasons
1) If you call it a yoga class (including a HaTa yoga) class you have an obligation to talk about the larger context. The HaTa Yoga Pradipika states in the very beginning that the practice of HaTa Yoga is only for the overall practice of Raja Yoga and not by itself.
2) A kindergarten teacher, teaches the children the alphabet even if they find it tedious. One day they may grow up and realise the value of it. And whether they do or do not, the teacher has done his/her duty to the best of their ability. If we have teachers saying "oh they just want to play" or even worse "well some of them just want to play" so I will not teach anyone, then we'll soon be an illiterate society.
3) As someone who started doing HaTa yoga purely for a physical reason and got curious from teacher chants and through other material introduced by the teacher, I can say I would personally have been at a great loss if the teacher had decided to just show me how to tone my abs. | |
| | |
| zoebird - 2008-09-07 1:03 PM
the main thing is that the teaching reaches the student.
EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!! | |
| | |
| I am a beginning student of yoga learning and practicing meditation & asana. Meditating and chanting “Om” brings me closer to Purush (Self). For me, equating chanting “Om” & “Wal-Mart” to have the same result is Avidya, Non-knowing and a total ignorance of the Self.
Imho, when quieting mind, I hear earth’s vibration, it is “Om”, the sound of the universe. This is one good way to tune-in to the vibration and merge with nature, and move towards achieving Samaadhi.
Namaste | |
| | |
| Dear Jim:
This does not apply to only Yoga Teachers. It applies to Yoga Students and non Yoga people equally. And, that is already in place. Most of the human beings, depending on their ability, already question what they are doing and what they want from it. Almost no one joins the gym, paying annual contract fees, without planning to become fit. Same way, no one invests in chanting OM for long time, without questiiong what it shall give in return. However, they may not question it moment to moment, just like you do not question a Dental Surgeon that is currently operating on your teeth. They have accepted a particular surgeon, and in this case a lot of people have accepted one surgeon. And, you call that Religion or Belief.
The people what stated what you call Religion or Belief were neither stupid, nor the persons who never questioned. You can not assume that they came up with their ideas without questioning them.
Now, those who are not able to question, due to limited ability, or limited time, accept other's ideas and go with it. For example, a person who wants only chanting class should NOT go to Gym where exercises are taught. And, similarly, a person who wants only fitness exercise, and do not want 3 time (even) chanting of OM should not go to ZE's class, if ZE decides to include it as a part of her class.
Now, if ZE is told by the management to exclude her chanting, she has two options, which you already know.
There is no problem with your asking yoga students and teachers to question as you stated in the last post, below. But, that is NOT what you are saying in the posts before that. I mean that is what I find when I question.
OM ShantiH
jimg - 2008-09-08 7:26 PM
Neel,
Please understand that I am neither for or against chanting OM. It may be exactly the right thing for one particular group at one particular time and it may also be exactly the wrong thing for another group at another time. I am only asking that other yoga teachers think about what they are doing and why. I think that this is good for yoga teachers everywhere. We are all part of the future of yoga. I am not interested in winning others over to any particluar belief or path. I would like to encourage everyone to question themselves, their "knowledge" and their beliefs as it will lead to growth, no matter which path (or lack of) that they have chosen. When you question yourself (or accepted yoga "beliefs" or scientific "beliefs") you are cleaning your house. You are getting rid of what is no longer usefull and giving rightful place to that which is. We yoga teachers need to seperate what is superstition, myth, basic misunderstanding of the universe, and truely useful right now. This will differ from person to person and from time to time.
Namaste,
Jim | |
| | |
| Let me give you a typical example of what should be questioned and why. In Bikram's book "Bikram's Beginning Yoga Class" he states (and many people repeat): "In this book, you will learn the Hatha Yoga asanas (postures) as set down by Patanjali over 4,000 years ago."
The consensus among Sanskrit scholars is that Patanjali was the compiler not the author of the "Yoga Sutras" and that he lived some time between 400 and 100 BCE. That is about 2000 NOT 4000 years ago. Patanjali used the term asana to mean "sitting" NOT exercising, especially not with a bunch of sweaty people (especially including women) in a heated room and wearing only sports bras, shorts and speedos. He did NOT set down any postures.
The first known reference to the word Hatha Yoga is from the "Hatha Yoga Pradipika", which was compiled some time between the 12th and the 15th centuries CE. That makes it less than one thousand years old.
These kinds of factual errors simply make everything that that person says suspect. When they then say to elongate your neck in a pose, are they just repeating an urban legend or is there both a historical and modern scientific basis for that request? How can you trust someone that says things that are not true? We have a duty as yoga teachers to speak the truth. If we do not know it, we should limit ourselves to what we do know.
That amen and shalom have anything to do with OM is also a myth. Amen and shalom are Semetic words and are totally unrelated to OM (Sanskrit) which is an Indo-European language. Amen has no sound similiarity and shalom only has a similiar ending. This is like saying that the Roman Catholics were saying the primodal OM because they named their city Rome. (Of course it is called Roma (Italian/Latin) not Rome (English) and it was named centuries before the birth of Christ.) Another example could be that the English were also making the primodal OM sound and therefore named the little statues in their gardens Gnomes.
Just for the record: If the Yoga Sutras, the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads are holy in any way (as they are considered by millions of people), their content is religion. The works of Aristotle, Plato, Kant or Nietzsche are not considered sacred because they are philosophy.
The best way to teach philosophy is by your example and by discourse. The best way to teach religion is by authority, dogma, sacred words, ritual, sacred books and especially promises of bliss or heaven or eternal life. Yes, we yoga teachers really do need to be clear about what we are teaching. If we are teaching philosophy, then exactly what philosophy are we teaching and do we know enough about it to be teaching it? If we are teaching religion, then we need to have a deep understanding of that religion and practice it on a daily basis. (Neel, I in no way fault your teaching religion as I believe that you are honest about what you are doing and seem to have a deep understanding of what you present.)
On the asana (exercise) level as well, let's stop simply repeating things without any basis. Modern anatomy and modern science (especially molecular biology and neuro-secience) can be a big help in further refining and improving this wonderful art of yoga. We really don't need to injure ourselves or our students and the poses all have almost infinite possibilities. Let's not be stuck in some murky past, let's stand on the shoulders of the past a see new vistas that have yet to be seen. Let's honor the past, but start using it as a starting point, NOT the end goal!
Edited by jimg 2008-09-09 8:32 PM
| |
| | |
| I think that we *can* teach the philosophy that is in the yoga sutras without it being a religion. (My understanding is that the sutras are contemporate with the Gita, not that they are also religious texts. I could be wrong, I'm far from an expert!) It's very commiserate with the moral philosophy that I follow.
And, after all this discussion, maybe I'll start chanting "Gnome's at Walmart" in class. | |
| | |
| Please understand that I am NOT pushing a philosophy or religion, or lack of either here. I am stating facts that most of the educated modern world would agree with. I am NOT advocating for the inclusion or omission of any practice. I am advocating for a higher level of integrity and a much broader amount of knowledge for yoga teachers. Why? Because we are all making the future of yoga.
Per Wikipedia:
Philosophy is the study of general problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, justice, beauty, validity, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.
A religion is a set of tenets and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.
Which one fits the Yoga Sutras best?? | |
| | |
| As I suspected, this was going to be too big a discussion. Let me give my final input considering the above few posts.
1. I am amazed to see that someone wrote Patanjali wrote asanas 4000 years ago. ha ha ha.
2. The word Philosophy in the context of Yoga Phiosophy does not mean the same as in Dictionary or Wikepedia or Encyclopedia. The word philosophy in the Indian Philosophical context means: tattva-jnaana. tatva - means principle. Such as the material universe has 5 tatvas, earth, water, air, space and fire. ETC.
Whatever, that is not what we are discussing. The one tatva from which all these came is Prakruti. And, that is material representation of a formless tatva called Brahman. ETC. In that sense, Yoga is associated with Philosophy.
3. Religion gives set of rules to follow. But, Yoga Philosophy gives structure of these rules, not rigid rules. For example, it will allow you to meditate upon flower, Buddha, Jesus, Your Mother, Shree Krishna, whatever. So, the structural rule is to meditate on something. ETC. In that sense, it is NOT a religion.
4. It is not necessary for a Yoga teacher to discard OM if they do not know everything about it. See my explanation before on this. However, Yoga Teacher should have some definite idea and purpose in his/her teaching OM chanting in the class. And, it should relate to the class in a positive way.
5. Also, I agree more than enough that Philosophy should be taught in Philosophy class, Meditation in Meditation class, etc. and NOT in exercise class. But, chanting of OM 3 times is not very objectionable in exercise class. However, a particular student should feel to not participate in that chanting.
6. I am not able to give my input on Sutras and ShreemadBhagavadgita here, as that would be a thread that shall go for 1 or more years.
7. It is impossible to prove that Amen is NOT at all related to OM. It is possible that they are not related at all. It is known that OM and Amen are used in a very similar way by two different communities. Even Shalom is used in the context of Peace, similar to salaam in Islam. And OM shantih is the word in my almost all above posts.
8. I also know for sure, that OM word has been used beneficially by many thousands in the olden times and in the recent times, whatever is the meaning of OM or whatever religion it belongs to, etc. So, if they wish to use it that way and benefit from it, I can not stop them.
OM ShantiH
Edited by kulkarnn 2008-09-10 9:30 AM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Jim - I definitely agree that yoga teachers should not mindlessly spout "philosophy" without having some understanding. It is that touchy-feely, neo-New Ageism that puts a LOT of people off yoga. Cyndi was mentioning the class she went to where the young teacher was mixing Tibetan Buddhism with yoga - that is the sort of thing I can't stand. The "lets all chant Om together and bring world peace" sort of stuff, accompanied by scented candles and elevator music. But I also agree with Neel that knowledge does not have to be perfect and we can discuss ideas and risk some mistakes in our exploration because this is the way we learn. And we can disagree, as well. For example, Neel has often told us that ahimsa is not meant to apply to the individual not harming him/her self in practice or class. That may not be the classical intention of that particular yama, but it is a useful beginning place for students completely unaware of yoga philosophy. So I feel that western teachers are doing the right thing by putting this idea in student's heads - as long as they follow it up with a fuller explanation at the appropriate time. | |
| | |
| tourist - 2008-09-10 7:18 AM
knowledge does not have to be perfect and we can discuss ideas and risk some mistakes in our exploration because this is the way we learn. And we can disagree, as well.
We all make mistakes and all of our "knowledge" is incomplete at best. BUT, when you are a teacher and you are relating "facts" to your students, you really do have an obligation to use a bit of due diligence to make sure that there really is a basis for what you are saying This includes doing research and consulting a variety of sources (yogic and scientific) as opposed to simply repeating what someone said that sounded good. Otherwise yoga teachers are simply people who lead exercise classes and talk a bunch of nonsense during the class, not teachers. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Well. although I agree that we all should be studying this stuff, it does seem a trifle inefficient if nothing else, to each research each piece of information to the ends of the earth. We don't each have to calculate the value of pi for several years to discover it is infinite - we take our math teacher's word for it. One thing I will do for myself if there are things I don't yet fully understand or cannot easily explain to my students is to preface some "facts" with "the yogis tell us" or "the ancients believed". Then the students have the information, but can judge for themselves whether this is a thing they should believe or not. I have to admit though, so many of the claims of the benefits of yoga asana (for example) have been proved by western science to be true, I am now more biased toward believing them than not. | |
| | |
| Changed my mind.
Edited by purnayoga 2008-09-10 9:15 PM
| |
| | |
| tourist - 2008-09-10 4:07 PM
Well. although I agree that we all should be studying this stuff, it does seem a trifle inefficient if nothing else, to each research each piece of information to the ends of the earth. We don't each have to calculate the value of pi for several years to discover it is infinite - we take our math teacher's word for it. One thing I will do for myself if there are things I don't yet fully understand or cannot easily explain to my students is to preface some "facts" with "the yogis tell us" or "the ancients believed". Then the students have the information, but can judge for themselves whether this is a thing they should believe or not. I have to admit though, so many of the claims of the benefits of yoga asana (for example) have been proved by western science to be true, I am now more biased toward believing them than not.
Since yoga is such a beneficial practice, we don't need to say things like "this pose will massage your pancreas and bring oxygenated blood to it" and other such nonsense when there are so many ACTUAL benefits that we can and should be talking about. Examples being: yoga's effect on the balance between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems and what that means for our health, happiness and longevity or the effects of yogic breathing on asthma and stress related illness among the many many possibilities.
If you are not reasonably sure that something is true, there really are plenty of other things that you can say where you are a lot more certain. If you don't anatomically understand how and why a pose can "massage your pancreas and bring oxygenated blood to it" you should not say it. (FYI You cannot massage your pancreas in any significant way and the oxygen carrying capacity of blood is determined by the amount of hemoglobin present in the blood (which doesn't change significantly short-term), not how briskly you have been exercising, the temperature of the room or whatever.)
Isn't it better to talk about things like how after about age 20, there is no longer any blood supply to your disks that separate your vertebra? The only way they can receive nourishment and waste materials can be released is by moving your spine and the pressure from that movement. This is very important as people age as many of the painful and debilitating back problems people encounter in middle or old age are a result a disks drying out and becoming brittle. Yoga is probably the best method of disk health!
A word on the sympathetic (fight or flight) nervous system and the para-sympathetic (rest and digest) nervous system. When the sympathetic nervous system is stimulated, your eyes dilate and your vision becomes more acute, your brain impulses speed up, your digestive, reproductive and immune systems turn off, your heart rate increases, your blood pressure increases, your muscles tense up, you produce more adrenaline and you get ready to fight for your life or run for your life. Many modern people are in this state most of the time. When the para-sympathetic nervous system is stimulated, you relax and all of those other results are reversed and your body starts to relax, digest and build for the longer term future. There is a dynamic balance between these two systems. They are like the accelerator and the brake. Primitive man sat around resting and digesting until there was a crisis and then fought or ran and if he won or got away, went back to resting and digesting. Modern man stays far too much in the fight or flight mode. Yoga is a wonderful and very effective way to balance this. The health effects of bringing these two systems into balance are enormous.
Since there is so much totally valid information that we can and should be sharing, we really don't need to be repeating things that we don't actually understand.
tourist,
Like you, in situations like the supposed benefits of shoulderstand on the thyroid function, I simply say that yogic tradition says this, but there has not yet been medical or scientific validation. This leaves it up to each student to decide. I also think that that is the most honest approach.
Edited by jimg 2008-09-10 10:51 PM
| |
| | |
| Otherwise, we shall suffer from a disease called 'Analysis' that shall lead to Paralysis of Practice.
It can be clearly seen from the last post of jimg that the examples he has given are more on the physical side where the scientific and medical research can be or has been done. However, to say that we are going to chant OM three times and that is from Yogic Tradition, and there is not Medical and Scientific Research has been done is like saying:
- we are now going to advise love between husband and wife, and there is no medical and scientific research done.
I can safely make the following statement: What is called Medical and Scientific Research today is quite useful in many a ways, but in general, it is a Failure when it comes to Wellbeing. And, therefore, one should not believe things based on M and S research.
Actually, believing things in physical arena on M and S research is very similar to believing things in Mental or Spiritual arena based on Scriptures.
pratyakshaanugaamaaH pramaNani -- patanjali chapter 1.
OM ShantiH
tourist - 2008-09-10 7:07 PM
Well. although I agree that we all should be studying this stuff, it does seem a trifle inefficient if nothing else, to each research each piece of information to the ends of the earth. We don't each have to calculate the value of pi. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Jim - I agree! In Iyengar yoga we tend not to talk about "massaging the pancreas" etc. and teach to the skeleton, the muscles etc. particularly in the early stages. BKS often talks about "wringing and rinsing" the internal organs - the liver in particular. I did ask a physician friend (an Iyengar student) once if that was a valid claim and he said it was, though I could tell by how he phrased it that it is somewhat of a poetic and not exactly an anatomically perfect concept.
kulkarnn - 2008-09-11 3:29 AMI can safely make the following statement: What is called Medical and Scientific Research today is quite useful in many a ways, but in general, it is a Failure when it comes to Wellbeing. And, therefore, one should not believe things based on M and S research.
But I also agree with Neel on this point. There are so many things that western medicine is frightfully unhelpful with that we might as well try to treat some things with yoga, even if we are taking it a bit on faith that it will work. Back pain, many headaches, gastrointestinal things such as IBS - things that the medical community, though they try and help, often cannot treat or they treat it so badly the patient ends up worse than before. And, as you say, these things are often the result of stress and the inactivity of modern living, so yoga can be very helpful there. I think we are essentially on the same page with this!  | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 1738
Location: right where I'm supposed to be | tourist - 2008-09-10 10:18 AM
Jim - I definitely agree that yoga teachers should not mindlessly spout "philosophy" without having some understanding. It is that touchy-feely, neo-New Ageism that puts a LOT of people off yoga. Cyndi was mentioning the class she went to where the young teacher was mixing Tibetan Buddhism with yoga - that is the sort of thing I can't stand. The "lets all chant Om together and bring world peace" sort of stuff, accompanied by scented candles and elevator music.
First I want to say Hi to Jim and dig your knowledge base of the body. I like to teach in a very similar fashion. My years in the fitness industry has given me the experience and knowledge of the human body. With continuous education I have been increasing knowledge for over 24 years with no end in sight.
I enjoyed your post a couple above mine.
Hiya Neel. Haven't been on a lot. Just killing time since my boy is back in school (my oldest one left for college. I miss him terribly).
OK, Tibetan Buddhism????? I am a Rahini Yoga Teacher. Our practice is influenced immensely by Tibetan Buddhism. I can not and will not discuss my personal practice but I can state plainly that music, chanting OM or candles is not related at all to Tibetan Buddhism.
It is too rich in history and a very disciplined practice. Quite honestly it's not for the beginner yogi or even a physical yogi, not that the practice is not demanding and challenging. It's just challenging (always) on the mental level, mix that with physical and either you love it or hate it.
I only teach a true Tahini formatted class with students that are with me 3+ years consistently.
Sorry I just had to defend Tibetan Buddhism. It's a philosophy, some would say a religion. Tibetan yoga is different than Tibetan Buddhism. Not many teachers are familiar with Tibetan yogic practices. Maybe a Tantric practitioner could grasp it better.
Ok, I've said my share.......
NO Dissing TB
Edited by mishoga 2008-09-11 10:42 AM
| |
| | |
| Many of the points brought forth in this thread are valid, relevant, important.
And while there are some things, some disciplines that rely primarily or entirely on statistics, study, science, "proof" et al I don't believe that capital Y yoga is one of them.
However, as Neel has already mentioned, modern science (those studies which are properly managed, follow protocols, and are published in peer-reviewed journals) absolutely should be folded in to yoga practice and teaching. Yoga has to grow but it is more a question of managing the growth than having it or not having it. I said "managing" not "controlling".
The wisdom of yoga IS science. It's just not the brand some people ascribe to. It has told us "Hey, look at me. I've got some great things to offer you. Embrace me in whatever way you can". Some people can simply do that, others need someone to tell them to do it, and still others need the New England Journal of Medicine in order to do it. Yoga's offerings will continue to be "proven". And maybe someday people will look at it in the bigger picture it presents. Yoga is actually guiding science. Doubt it? Ask Tim McCall, Mehmet Oz, Gary Kraftsow, the National Institutes for Health, or I.K. Taimni.
What science has proven about the human body is marvelous but it has only scratched the surface.
If I waited for science how polluted would my lungs be from cigarettes? Science has its issues. Number one, some things are very difficult to test, prove, see, or determine. Number two, there's a great deal of money involved in science in a consume economy. And where there's a great deal of money to be made it is easy to dilute the pool. Look at the selling of yoga or organic foods.
Of course I'd share the things Jim has mentioned. I do it already. And I fully strive to share only those things I have a LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING of with students. I'll never fully understand and I'll never know everything, or anything for that matter. Which is why the teacher merely opens themselves up as a conduit through which yoga passes to the student. I am not yoga nor do I own yoga. I am merely a vessel for conducting it.
The issue of teacher dialogue has also come up. And it's incredibly relevant to the progress of yoga that teachers be well trained so that they can share from a level of authenticity rather than just repeating monologues. Sadly, not everyone who is teaching yoga is doing so from a place of having identified their life purpose. And so in our own midst we surely have teachers who don't care deeply about their impact on students as long as they have a lot of them and they are "liked" by them. Trainings often do not offer enough and trainers often are not skilled at either teaching or training.
In this respect I agree with Jim in philosophy but not application. I would not however take something from the end of a continuum and use it as a baseline for proving a point about the continuum itself. Therefore the use of Bikram (or Wikipedia for that matter) to me would not represent a centered position as it relates to yoga.
I would also advocate care in confusing the terms religion and sacred. Etymology is also a nice science but it is incredibly short-sighted to use ONLY a dictionary definition for a word. It demonstrates a certain lack of understanding - though it can be a good beginning to an understanding.
My home is sacred.
My mat is sacred.
My relationships, sacred.
None of them are religion.
Edited by purnayoga 2008-09-11 1:04 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | mishoga - 2008-09-11 10:30 AM
Sorry I just had to defend Tibetan Buddhism. It's a philosophy, some would say a religion. Tibetan yoga is different than Tibetan Buddhism. Not many teachers are familiar with Tibetan yogic practices. Maybe a Tantric practitioner could grasp it better.
Ok, I've said my share.......
NO Dissing TB | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | mishoga - 2008-09-11 10:30 AM
Sorry I just had to defend Tibetan Buddhism. It's a philosophy, some would say a religion. Tibetan yoga is different than Tibetan Buddhism. Not many teachers are familiar with Tibetan yogic practices. Maybe a Tantric practitioner could grasp it better.
Ok, I've said my share.......
NO Dissing TB
Actually, Tibetan Buddhism/Tibetan Yoga came from Hindu culture. There is really no difference except that it is richly filled with Tibetan culture, and came from the Shakyamuni Buddha, or aka Guatama Buddha.
The historical Buddha, Shakyamuni or Gautama Buddha, lived about 2,500 years ago in India. However, he was not the first Buddha, and will not be the last either. He taught that during this eon (very long time period, maybe comparable to the life-time of the universe as we know it), there would be 1,000 fully enlightened Buddhas who would introduce Buddhism (after it has been totally forgotten). The numbers one to three in this eon are Krakucchanda, Kanakamuni, Kashyapa, then comes Shakyamuni (the historical Buddha some 2,500 years ago), and the next Buddha will be called Maitreya.
This is another topic all together...which I think we've discussed here many many moons ago, LOL!!
Yoga is a philosophy and a way of life. Just like Hindu and Tibetan culture support this yoga and way of life. It is not a religion, although some could say it was their religion...I do,
Edited by Cyndi 2008-09-11 1:15 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | mishoga - 2008-09-11 10:30 AM
Sorry I just had to defend Tibetan Buddhism. It's a philosophy, some would say a religion. Tibetan yoga is different than Tibetan Buddhism. Not many teachers are familiar with Tibetan yogic practices. Maybe a Tantric practitioner could grasp it better.
Ok, I've said my share.......
NO Dissing TB
Actually, Tibetan | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | mishoga - 2008-09-11 10:30 AM
Sorry I just had to defend Tibetan Buddhism. It's a philosophy, some would say a religion. Tibetan yoga is different than Tibetan Buddhism. Not many teachers are familiar with Tibetan yogic practices. Maybe a Tantric practitioner could grasp it better.
Ok, I've said my share.......
NO Dissing TB
Actually, Tibetan Buddhism - T | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | mishoga - 2008-09-11 10:30 AM
Sorry I just had to defend Tibetan Buddhism. It's a philosophy, some would say a religion. Tibetan yoga is different than Tibetan Buddhism. Not many teachers are familiar with Tibetan yogic practices. Maybe a Tantric practitioner could grasp it better.
Ok, I've said my share.......
NO Dissing TB
Actually, Tibetan Buddhism - Tibetan | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | mishoga - 2008-09-11 10:30 AM
Sorry I just had to defend Tibetan Buddhism. It's a philosophy, some would say a religion. Tibetan yoga is different than Tibetan Buddhism. Not many teachers are familiar with Tibetan yogic practices. Maybe a Tantric practitioner could grasp it better.
Ok, I've said my share.......
NO Dissing TB
Actually, Tibetan Buddhism - Tibetan Yoga c | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | mishoga - 2008-09-11 10:30 AM
Sorry I just had to defend Tibetan Buddhism. It's a philosophy, some would say a religion. Tibetan yoga is different than Tibetan Buddhism. Not many teachers are familiar with Tibetan yogic practices. Maybe a Tantric practitioner could grasp it better.
Ok, I've said my share.......
NO Dissing TB
Actually, Tibetan Buddhism - Tibetan Yoga came | |
| | |
| I think it's important to tell students, when you're sharing philosophy, where it comes from ("this is from the yoga sutras") and your relation to it ("I know this one will be a life long labor of love for me!", <laugh>). Not only does it give situational context, but it gives personal context. In this sense, I don't see myself as a "teacher" the way my philosophy teacher was a teacher. Maybe if I got my PhD in eastern philosophy and sutra studies... but I didn't. Instead, I'm sharing something I've studied/continue to study, something I try to practice, and something I find important enough to want to share. That's all I can offer, and it's important for my students to know that I am a student too. Grad students teach undergrads, or seniors tutoring freshman - and a lot of us are in the same position. If we're clear about it, and make sure to not set up too great of expectations, or imply that we know more than we do, I think it's alright - we're just encouraging a conversation, and have a good idea of some insightful questions to ask. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 1738
Location: right where I'm supposed to be | Cyndi, firstly HI How's the Bees? How's your candles doing? You should sell them on Etsy.
Were those puter and system errors or you trying to tell me somethin?
You're Good. Yes, Nada Brahma yogini mitraH
But there are some, not many, who are actually teaching tibetan yoga postures without knowledge of why they are performed. But I guess that happens in many areas of life.
We have discussed this topic many moons ago. Might have to chat more. You can reinforce what is so hard for my brain to retain (I'm a poet)
Metta
Mishy
Edited by mishoga 2008-09-11 3:54 PM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Hey Mish,
Geez, I have not at a clue about that last post (ings) of mine...I'm horrified, 
I think we came to the conclusion that this was Western Yoga. Or maybe...just maybe we're all little Shakyamuni's running around around here in the Western world....spreading the gospel of Yoga, | |
| | |
| Let me say that I am somewhat of an atheist and grew up with a strong belief in science. However the more I delve into a lot of scientific theories, the more I see how the biases and beliefs of the individual scientists and their culture color these theories. This is also true when I see people who have not done any research but just quote what they read from some yoga journal article as fact. For example Jim states that the earliest known reference on yoga poses is in the HaTa Yoga Pradipika of the 12th to 15th century and uses this to state that yoga is no older than that.
Firstly this is not true. In my limited knowledge I can point to atleast one work in my mother tongue the Thirumandiram that has a section on Yoga including a description of 7 or 8 poses that is ascribed to atleast the 900s or earlier according to even Western scientists.
Secondly accepting the theories of Max Muellar and other 19th century missionary Indologists is like accepting a Saudi Imam's theory on Christianity. Even these so called Indophiles in their own letters indicate an ardent desire to establish the preeminence of Christianity.
Thirdly, anyone with any reasonable knowledge of Indian culture knows that knowledge and teaching are passed from teacher to disciple orally. The Vedas are a prime example of that and they were never written down till a few centuries ago. Even with such an immense body of content there is still no way to determine a date for it with reasonable certainity. Max Muellar who to be fair did a lot to spread knowledge about Indian culture stated "Whether the Vedas were composed in 1500BC or 15000BC no power on earth shall ever be able to determine".
Finally, most ancient cultures are extinct and hence Westerners are used to accepting unquestioned their own interpretations of those civilizations with no one to correct them.
Thus when a still extant civilization encounters what it considers are biased interpretations one should be ready to hear some pushback and try to think about it objectively, though it may hard for someone who comes from an entirely different culture. Otherwise this wouldnt be too different from Western portraits of the east in the 17th century where everyone east of the Mediterannean was depicted as a flying on a carpet and eating live snakes.
| |
| | |
| karthik - 2008-09-11 3:10 PM
For example Jim states that the earliest known reference on yoga poses is in the HaTa Yoga Pradipika of the 12th to 15th century and uses this to state that yoga is no older than that.
Firstly this is not true. In my limited knowledge I can point to atleast one work in my mother tongue the Thirumandiram that has a section on Yoga including a description of 7 or 8 poses that is ascribed to atleast the 900s or earlier according to even Western scientists.
Secondly accepting the theories of Max Muellar and other 19th century missionary Indologists is like accepting a Saudi Imam's theory on Christianity.
The first known reference to Hatha, NOT to poses. Poses of all types have been done by many cultures throughout history for a variety of purposes. Why is it important that yoga is many thousands of years old instead of only just very old? If it isn't working for you right now, it doesn't matter how old it is and if it is working for you right now, it doesn't matter how old it is!!!
I do not accept the theories of Max Mueller, although he did introduce much of the East to the Western world. There is a lot of research being done on the history of India and its culture in most of the major universities throughout the world. There are Sanskrit scholars, linguists and historians throughout the world who all have different points of view, but who nonetheless review and discuss each other's work. Most of these people use the actual source documents, NOT what 19th and 20th century Europeans had to say (or modern gurus). To me, the international historical, scientific or academic consensus seems a more likely source of accurate facts than the theories of self-appointed authority figures whose "facts" are not held under any type of scrutiny.
Yoga is NOT somehow the opposite of science!!! Yoga was developed in the first place as part of a scientific study of the mind and body. Unfortunately, that open minded inquiring has often become dogma. What a wonderful gift we modern folks have; we have both yoga and science!!
| |
| | |
| Well I think we might be talking past each other somewhat. I agree one must constantly evaluate anything including yoga to see how it applies to current conditions and what we know now.
I just think you have an overly idealistic opinion of the scientific world. From my experience having published papers in the broad scientific community I have seen that these themselves are very political (what papers get published/ what theories get supported etc. are all subject to a lot of political and interpersonal factors). Infact any place where there is a large group of people becomes subject to politics.Even places full of so called yogis are subject to the same level of politics as other groups.
It is important to know that yoga has been developed over thousands of years because the poses have been developed by each generation of yogis experimenting on themselves and passing the results on to future generations. While it is subject to the same politics as other fields, the method itself is superior in some ways to western scientific methods which are based on proposing a theory to explain an occurence and then conducting a study with 100s or thousands of people over a few months or a few years at most to verify the theory.
I know of no western scientific study carried over a lifetime, let alone over many generations.
Thus if someone can gain no 'measurable' benefit within a few months or weeks then it would be thrown into the trash heap. Also though many yoga studies have shown measurable short term benefits you can imagine the natural bias of a medical journal editorial board full of doctors dependent for their livelihood on the treatment of trauma cases and diseases (as opposed to increasing the physical and mental well being of a normal human being) against accepting and propogating such studies. It is like expecting a real estate agent to tell you that it is a bad market! They will among the very last people to admit it.
| |
| | |
| karthik - 2008-09-11 9:11 PM
I just think you have an overly idealistic opinion of the scientific world.
I do not have an idealistic opinion of people in the scientific world nor the yogic world. They are all people with all the flaws that people (including myself) seem to have. To say otherwise is like saying that Baptists are better people than Methodists, Hindus are better people than Buddhists or Americans are better people than Danes.
I do have an idealistic opinion of the scientific process. To observe ourselves and our universe with an open mind and then try to make sense of those observations in a logical, repeatable way is the scientific method and also the yogic method as I understand it. This also includes subjecting our conclusions to rigorous testing and re-evaluation whenever new information comes to light. There are just as many "sacred cows" in science as there are in yoga or any other field. As I said before, we need to clean house and keep what is useful and discard what is no longer useful or true at this time.
To me, yoga and science are both processes, not fixed things. The thing that we call life, as well as consciousness, are also processes. A fixed thing is a dead thing, a thing of the past. That which is alive is a process that is happening right now. | |
| | |
| Are we done yet? LOL | |
| | |
| I think that's why the part of yoga philosophy I like to teach the best are the process ones. The first five limbs of yoga, all the way up to pratyahara are - to me - really are varieties of execution of self-study in a myriad of ways, and self-study is nothing but a process.
I wouldn't really want to throw anything out, myself, because I don't know what my students would relate to and find useful that I don't. The whole idea of surrender to Ishvara as a path to enlightenment - sorry, doesn't ring my meditative bell. (That was an attempt at humor. Fail? ) But for others, I can at least see how it would help. So, would a "house cleaning" remove things that speak to those whose internal "processsing" is different than ours? I don't know. Maybe? Anyway, one of the reasons I like to keep it open, so something can capture an imagination. | |
| | |
| I am waiting for the launch of New Sutra which gives clear instructions of how to house-clean the Yoga Sutra. It shall be next best seller! | |
| | |
| Actually, I think the next best selling yoga book will be about housecleaning the unsubstantiated claims and pseudo intellectual yammering of yogis in the pop culture yoga world. This is a great thread and hope this is bantered about a bit longer. | |
| | |
| <p> purnayoga - 2008-09-08 5:43 PM too strongly in the mind, too fully in the intellect, it is scarcely possible to hear the voice of the heart. That voice is not the voice of religion or faith. That voice is the voice of your soul. The voice of the soul does not dwell in the mind. The mind is merely a servant. </p><p><font size="3">Have to say I love this! Especially as one who can get stuck in the mind... </font></p><p>My personal choice is to chant 'OM' at the beginning & end of class. I give students an option or an invitation to join in. </p><p>The vibration of the sound is delicious and has a centering effect for me. I know this because I was first introduced to 'OM' in yoga class many years ago. Then I learned more about it based on self study and my yoga journey. </p><p>This seems a good time to recall the experiential nature of the science of yoga. There is much information and yogis encourage that we test and experience aspects of the practice before making a judgement. </p><p>I don't claim to have the 'right answer' only the best answer that I can determine based on experience, study and reflection. </p><p /> | |
| | |
| Thank you Jennifer.
I believe though that this board requires bbcode for formatting rather than strict html which may be why your tags are visible above :-)
Ommmmmmmm.
| |
| | |
| what a GREAT OPPORTUNITY for growth and insight you have been given! as this happened some time ago i would be interested in your thoughts about it in retrospect????
one thing i would say is this: it is nice to "take requests" occassionally. HOWEVER, as a teacher, maybe come up with what it is that your students need and teach that. often they do not know what they most need. that is why they are coming to a teacher | |
| | |
| purnayoga - 2008-09-08 2:43 PM
When one lives too strongly in the mind, too fully in the intellect, it is scarcely possible to hear the voice of the heart. That voice is not the voice of religion or faith. That voice is the voice of your soul.
I trust that this is an expression of a metaphoric or poetic sentiment.
I think we all need to be careful to distinguish between the poetic or metaphor and the direct reality.
On a direct reality level, the only voice that you can hear is your mind and your heart is simply a muscle that pumps blood. The existence of a soul is a matter of faith and is a religious belief. It is something that your mind has constructed.
If the meaning here is that we are too wrapped up in the words in our head (which are about 70% old tapes that we keep replaying) and need to focus more on living a much more integrated life in the present, I'm all for it. If the meaning is that the "heart" (feeling/intuition functions of the mind) is allowed a more important role and integrated more with intellectual functions of the mind, I'm all for that too. As far as the voice of your soul goes, that is simply the voice of your mind, which your mind chooses to call your soul, as all perception takes place in the mind. I personally don't understand how using your mind to divide your mind into opposing components helps integrate how it functions. This may work well for people with brains that are wired in certain ways, who view life from a different paradigm, but it seems contradictory to me.
Edited by jimg 2009-02-27 1:14 PM
| |
| | |
| Dear ystan: I apologize. I could not quite understand your question. R U saying House-cleaning (noun or qualification) sutras OR house-clean (verb) the Sutras.
Anyway, I wanted to say this regardless of your query, that:
- one has to appreciate that Yoga Sutras of Patanjali were composed around 300 B.C. when the method of passing knowledge was by word of mouth and memorization.
- The sage patanjali has comprehended essential Yoga Practice knowledge in approx 200 lines a fantastic way.
- They are still useful in their original form as standard for Yoga Practice of the Classical Kind.
- There is definitely a literary side of them. I am writing this because I derived a tune for and memorized them in a very short period of time when I first saw and read them. The sage Patanjali has a deeper knowledge of Sanskrit terminology and grammer and also a way to put that knowledge which makes it very effective.
ystan - 2008-09-12 1:48 AM
I am waiting for the launch of New Sutra which gives clear instructions of how to house-clean the Yoga Sutra. It shall be next best seller! | |
| | |
| jimg - 2009-02-27 10:11 AM
purnayoga - 2008-09-08 2:43 PM
On a direct reality level, the only voice that you can hear is your mind and your heart is simply a muscle that pumps blood. The existence of a soul is a matter of faith and is a religious belief. It is something that your mind has constructed.
To those still reading this thread AND interested in my reply - though from experience I do not fantasize that would be Jim :-)
Consider reading Joseph Chilton Pearce. When read with an open mind, one may discover some things about the heart that minimize a position asserting it is "merely a muscle that pumps blood".
Or this if you're needing direction.
Edited by purnayoga 2009-02-28 2:39 AM
| |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| Jim - I do sincerely appreciate your pragmatic and down-to-earth responses. We get a lot of people here who feel that they are so in touch with their heart and apparently foolproof intuition that I wonder why they come to ask our help at all.
But I am also glad that you allow for the possibility of deeper layers of the "mind" that may be unclouded by the static and chatter that typically buzzes around there. How many of us have made decisions based on what we thought were clear thinking, only to discover that we were dead wrong. And what's more, KNEW was dead wrong on a deeper level all along? | |
| | |
| tourist - 2009-02-28 7:18 AM
How many of us have made decisions based on what we thought were clear thinking, only to discover that we were dead wrong. And what's more, KNEW was dead wrong on a deeper level all along?
Isn't that one of the major benefits from the practice of yoga? Being more aware of the deeper as well as the more superficial aspects of the mind?
| |
| | |
| purnayoga - 2009-02-27 11:34 PM
jimg - 2009-02-27 10:11 AM
purnayoga - 2008-09-08 2:43 PM
On a direct reality level, the only voice that you can hear is your mind and your heart is simply a muscle that pumps blood. The existence of a soul is a matter of faith and is a religious belief. It is something that your mind has constructed.
To those still reading this thread AND interested in my reply - though from experience I do not fantasize that would be Jim :- )
Consider reading Joseph Chilton Pearce. When read with an open mind, one may discover some things about the heart that minimize a position asserting it is "merely a muscle that pumps blood".
Or this if you're needing direction.
Gordon,
I am always interested in your replies as they are always interesting. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I don't, but since we are on separate paths, too much agreement would probably mean a lack of integrity more than a lack of understanding. I looked up Joseph Chilton Pearce and although I don't totally discount the possibility that he could be correct, he is waaaaaaay outside what all the leading minds in neurology (actual scientists) for the last 20 years have been saying, based on thousands of actual experiments and world wide peer review. Personally, I give his theories a highly improbable, but possible rating. You may be enamored with his theories because they agree with your other ideas more than that they make sense.
Jim | |
| | |
| I only share with others what I have to share. I'm uninterested in debate. Some will take it and some will not. Those with further interest can look AND feel for themselves - starting here.
I take "science" as PART of the picture, not the entire picture. Yoga (for me) is a process of balance. That balance must be holistic and allopathic, in the lab and in the body, with emotion but not overly emotional, with rationality though not overly rational.
If someone's path works for them and requires a double-blind study published in a peer-reviewed journal, so be it. Fine - for them.
A mindful yoga practice that cultivates deeper awareness and sensitivities should actually lead science, not wait for it. We provide the fodder for the studies of tomorrow.
Edited by purnayoga 2009-03-01 3:45 AM
| |
| | |
| Here's the way I see it.
If you grasp the idea that intelligence is fundamentally held in each cell at the atomic level. i.e. that the cell is where intelligence is stored, at an atomic holographic level.
Then because you have a more dense concentration of cells in the brain then you might get the illusion that thoughts form in the brain primarily.
But the whole nervous system will have response to stimuli so you can say that you could think from the heart or stomach, depending on where your attention is.
Deepak Chopra is a big advocate of this approach to the mind if you want to read more on this?
| |
| | |
| purnayoga - 2009-03-01 12:38 AM
A mindful yoga practice that cultivates deeper awareness and sensitivities should actually lead science, not wait for it.
I wholeheartedly agree. It only becomes problematic when the internal perceptions of yoga and the external perceptions of science are at odds with one another. I do not believe that one approach trumps the other, but subjective internal perceptions can be as far off as faulty "scientific" conclusions because it is always the subjective mind that is drawing the conclusions. At least the scientific method has "objective" peer review, which is a reality check that subjective internal perceptions do not have. As you say, we need a balanced approach. This balanced approach does not use science to prove our theories, it uses science as an independent test of reality, without preconceptions. Otherwise, the testing and the results are both prejudiced before you start.
I think that at this point in history, this planet needs a lot more rational "scientific" study (yoga included) than all the superstition that is causing suffering, chaos and the possible demise of our planet.
| |
| | |
| Phil - 2009-03-01 4:52 AM
Here's the way I see it.
If you grasp the idea that intelligence is fundamentally held in each cell at the atomic level. i.e. that the cell is where intelligence is stored, at an atomic holographic level.
Then because you have a more dense concentration of cells in the brain then you might get the illusion that thoughts form in the brain primarily.
But the whole nervous system will have response to stimuli so you can say that you could think from the heart or stomach, depending on where your attention is.
Deepak Chopra is a big advocate of this approach to the mind if you want to read more on this?
I grasp the idea, I just think that it is a very far-fetched theory that has more to do with marketing that reality. It has no anatomical, biochemical or bio electrical basis outside of pop "spiritual" culture and is science fiction or pseudo-science, not science (like astrology, alchemy, numerology etc). (Yes, I've read a number of Deepak Chopra's books. My wife even went to one of his meditation training's, which was a total sham.)
Yes, our entire bodies are interactive, but if you injure certain parts of the brain, no thought can occur. You can injure every other part of the body and still have thought. You still have thoughts and feelings with an artificial heart. An injury to certain parts of the brain can stop the ability to experience emotions, the ability to perceive one side of your body, the ability to see even though your eyes are working perfectly, the ability to understand language, the ability to have memory or consciousness etc etc. There are many fine books about neuroscience. If you are really interested, get one. Wider Than the Sky: The Phenomenal Gift of Consciousness-Gerald Edelman, In search of Memory:The Emergence of a New Science of Mind-Eric Kandel, Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain-Antonio Damasio. These are serious works by Nobel prize winning neuroscientists written for a wider audience. I'm not trying to be elitist here, but if you really want to understand how something works, ask the leaders in that field, not pop culture sales and marketing pros.
As far as I'm concerned, Deepak Chopra is a big advocate of making lots of money off the gullible with feel-good theories that have no basis. | |
| | |
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | You guys are analysing way too much. As an observer of this thread, all points are well taken as something useful...but, definitley nothing to be grasping around about, LOL!! Sorry guys for popping in...couldn't help myself, | |
| | |
Location: London, England | Hi Jim,
Go Jim Go!! Unfortunately, yogis love pseudoscience, and not well-thought argument and reason-so blood-suckers like Chopra swarm in on the yoga commmunity. Phil, shame on you
http://www.rickross.com/groups/deepakchopra.html
Go to the site above for details of Chopra's shenanigans-don't know how he has time for all of it plus ripping off the public and convincing them of his grandeur. I spend all my time studying the subject I love, he must have extra hours coming from somewhere Once he's on the scent of money, there's no stopping this bloodhound
For those of you interested, I read Jim's book, which I did as a scientist-it was the first book on yoga postures which I have ever read which outlines a yoga practice which is therapeutic-every other book is so badly rationalized, they don't come close-including Coulter's useless tome which has become required reading on so many yoga teaching courses, plus many other books purporting to have scientific basis as a foundation.
It is a regular occurrence to see me cringing and wincing when I read yoga books, so it made a refreshing change, thank you Jim-hope you don't mind me bringing that up.
Nick | |
| | |
| Hi Guy's
Of course that idea is not in the realm of actual science (being testable).
It's more meta physics, so who really knows?
Is Chopra really so evil  ?
But others like Rupert Sheldrake and Robert Anton Wilson play with this idea.
Jim's book sounds interesting for Nick to big it up so much.
| |
| | |
Location: London, England | Hi Phil,
Well, now it's mid-morning and I'm not so cranky, I'm not sure if I would regard him as evil-but this person quoted below would probably say he is:
"Yes, DEEPAK CHOPRA IS A HYPOCRITE. This is classified information–this is why I am posting it on the INTERNET! Every time a friend of mine mentions him, I have to tell them the truth about Deepak Chopra. I used to work in a law firm and he used our services to try to fight someone in a case. When he knew he was losing the case, he came into our building and brandished a gun, threatening to murder the attorney working on his case. The security guards had to protect the attorney, until things settled down with Deepak. Until this day, it still makes everyone in the workplace CRINGE to hear his name! Just because he has a “foreign name” and rips off of Buddha (or tries to) doesn’t mean he’s an Englightened Being. He’s far from it."
I get a bit sick of all these people sticking some initials after their name to peddle their wares, and others who turn proof on its head in order to prove their own point. Chopra uses science and discredits it at the same time, a tactic which is commonly used by diet gurus all over the world (he peddles ayuvedic medicines).
Nick | |
| | |
Location: London, England | CHOPRA: "You know, I think it shows such a lot of arrogance, such a lot arrogance and no humility whatsoever to assume that this multiple universes that are right now exploding and dissolving into singularities and all the workings of nature are accidental. It's like a hurricane blew through your junkyard and it left and now you have a Boeing 747 and it's all accidental. It shows tremendous arrogance, Larry."
That's a quote from the Larry King show. it's the first time I've seen the Boeing 747 argument-creationists and proponents of intelligent design have been using it for a number of years, so I was quite pleased to see it being used, rather than derided. As it would be in the literature that I read.
Nick
Edited by Nick 2009-03-02 8:08 AM
| |
| | |
| Ok I get it you don't like Chopra!
I'll have to remove all my books before you visit next time, otherwise you might start burning them on the living room floor.
In fact I've probably got a lot of other stuff you'll hate as well.
You could get a nice blaze started with the Osho shelf.
Phil.
Hey this is Juliet now, Phil's lady, getting in on the act. Just wanted to say, after reading Nick's quote about Deepak from the internet 'bout him with a gun etc... You know you can find alot of stuff about alot of people on the internet, that really doesn't make it even closely true!
I've read quite alot of Deepak's books, sometimes I've found them really uplifting and helpful, and sometimes I haven't been able to engage with them, but I've never felt exploited by them or harmed by them in any way. | |
| | |
| eh, like cyndi often says, it's all learning.
here's the truth as i see it: a lot of pseudo science things do exist in some helpful way. that is, chakras may not be 'scientifically' proven, but i find them to be useful tools and i do believe that they exist. i feel similarly, btw, about acupuncture, qi, and meridian theory/energy body in general--again, no way to "scientifically" prove them by western, modern standards, and yet thousands of years of work on the subject with discernable benefits to large communities over time, plus one's own experience of working with energy for healing purposes MIGHT just convince someone that these things 'exist.'
and i'm not in that for the money...but anyway.
this thread is hella-old. LOL and so is that phrase.
y | |
| | |
Location: London, England | Oh no, together they're formidable, actually Juliette's formidable all by herself . That's true, Juliette, could well be malicious and completely untrue-but there does seem to be an incredibly large and vocal opposition to him. Not that it guides me, my dislike of his ways is all my own Phil, I already noticed your chopra, I'm going to cut out all the pages and fill your books with Richard Dawkin's works.
Seriously though, I think what Chopra has done is to take theories such as quantum mechanics and use them to justify vast tracts on the human condition, and how to improve it. He has taken parts of the theory which embellish his purpose, and then made up the rest to form a coherent argument, albeit flawed.
If this sounds arrogant on my part, I'm sorry,but the arrogance of a amn who claims that because he has the answer, i.e. God, then it is I, who has not discovered the whole truth with regards to how the universe is formed, who must justify my stupidity for not seeing that there must be a creator.
Nick | |
| | |
| Hey Nick, you know i love you! you do believe in love don't you?
Truely, thanks for throwing some doubt and questions out there, it's never a bad thing to question things.
Sometimes, I get low, and find it all hard, and finding something to read, that has a positive message, and lifts me up, even momentarily, is a welcome friend, with love JU* | |
| | |
Location: London, England | Hi Ju,
Yeah sure I do-it's one of the only things I do believe in Weird isn't it?Love you too Juliette
Nick | |
| |
|
weird request