Re: lucid dreaming, pavlani's question and yoga
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "melodyande"
> >Hi, Melody,
> > What a hilarious thing, to see the workings of two minds
> > together, and how they 'just don't get each other', despite
> > 'reason'. Hehe...
> > Nina
> It's a hilarity that could be easily extended to
> the responses to Sandeep's posting of
> Pavlani's question.
> Mind tended to respond with concerns of:
> >canniness deciphering through canniness,
> >true compassion versus shame,
> >needing a context to reply to a kid ....
> For me, it would be interesting to put the
> above display in context of some
> of the very interesting dialogues
> from these past few days:
> "To be totally attentive to the body means that you are
> interested in the body and in the movement. 'Interest' in
> Latin, as we said before, means 'to be inside'. It is the
> moment of being inter-ested, being 'inside' the movement
> or the posture as the posture unfolds that makes it complete.
> There is no future reward and no retreating involved, but it
> is only the moment as it is there. So the body is completely
> filled with the mind. The mind fills the body completely
> from the bone structure to the skin structure, while as long
> as there is a future reward the mind is very small within the
> skin and so there is a lot of empty space in the body."
> as well as:
> "Lisa Clark is particularly adept at explaining how one meets the
> earth, engaging it, by "yielding" (language in quotes is from
> the BMC vocabulary). This is a sattvic state, the balance within
> contact. When one 'befriends' gravity and does not attempt to
> "prop" (rajasic resistance) against gravity or "collapse"
> (tamasic release) into gravity, then there may be felt a
> rebound of energy upwards through the body."
Yes, it is interesting.
What are the parameters of your analogies? I think that's the
trick - that each of us might construct that analogy differently.
It is the same with yoga. You hone in on what is 'just right'
for you, but only through practice, and only later in the game
does it dawn on you how elusive 'just right' really is.
Last year when Lisa Clark was in town, we did an exercise where
we paired off to explore the dynamics of push, pull, reach, and
yield. We did this while standing, facing our partners, and
touching the palms together. Though my partner and I were both
experimenting with the same "action", we found that we had
very different approaches and comfort levels. What felt like a
'normal push' for one person might feel like a threat to her
partner. Every one of the 30 people who took part in that
exercise experienced different reactions to those 4 actions,
in giving them and receiving them. Strangely, as I had come
to know these people fairly well during our training, how
they described their experiences with that exercise were not
surprises - they reflected how each person interacts in general.
(Btw, there is a theory that the way we give and take these
4 different actions is very deeply rooted in our early development -
if you don't get 'push' at some critical stage in your infant/
toddler development, then 'push' will be difficult for you until,
or unless, you get a chance to develop that action.)
It is possible to understand the Pallavi discussion as
regards yield, push, reach, and pull. One might say that
one person was pushing, but another person might feel it
as yielding. Who can say for sure?