|
|
| 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
|
|
| |
weird request
