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

Re: About the so-called "dangers" of pranayama

Expand Messages
  • medit8ionsociety
    ... Oh well, since they are senior teachers, I guess there was no lack of expertise, eh? But then again, maybe if they consistantly had negative reactions
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 27, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Nina"
      <murrkis@y...> wrote:
      > > Dear Nina,
      > > When you say "we consistantly had at least 1 person(not the same
      > > person) with an emotional reaction to the exercises in each class."
      > > are you suggesting a "negative" emotional reaction? If so, perhaps
      > > there may be a question about the skill level of the teacher.
      >
      > There is no need to question the skill level of the teacher. These
      > folks were senior level teachers, able to respond to the reactions
      > and help their students into right practice.

      Oh well, since they are "senior" teachers, I guess there was no lack
      of expertise, eh? But then again, maybe if they consistantly had
      negative reactions every class, there should have been "Very senior"
      teachers giving the class!? (he said facetiously:-)
      >
      > While it is possible to view the reactions as
      > 'negative' (weeping, backache, breathlessness, muscle cramps)
      > or 'positive' (buoyancy, clarity, relaxation, easeful tidal
      > expansion), it is also possible to view these reactions as
      > guideposts to fine-tuning a practice.
      >
      > > We always had many students report wonderful emotional, physical,
      > mental,
      > > and spiritual results from what we shared. As a matter of fact, the
      > > 1-4-2 technique is also referred to as the "How to get high without
      > > drugs" technique, and afforded many with a higher high, greater
      > > insights and inner sights than any drug had ever given them. There
      > > also was a possible to label as problematical side effect to this.
      > The
      > > technique works so well that some would become bliss-seekers/ecstacy
      > > junkies of a sort. But even if this problem is a problem worth
      > > mentioning, I know of no evidence anywhere that practicing breath
      > > retention will lead to MS, or any other such consequence.
      >
      > I was not claiming that breath retention causes MS, and neither
      > was Eric Small. I was saying that he was having
      > reactions to using a breath technique that induced heat in his
      > body, a body which was undiagnosed with MS and yet had been
      > displaying the unrecognized symptoms of MS.
      >
      > > And I see no
      > > need or benefit to using this kind of wild claim to discourage the
      > > potential good results experienced by so many for so long of
      > > practicing pranayama.
      >
      > These claims are no more wild than a claim that other than
      > one woman (whose reaction could be dismissed because she
      > was asthmatic and couldn't bear to follow her breath in any
      > form), there have been no reactions in 4000 students.

      Uh, you're saying that our 4000 students didn't have reactions is a
      wild claim is not accurate. As I said, they reported very pleasant,
      beneficial and positive reactions. And that's not so wild, it's what
      is supposed to happen. And BTW, excuse the possible lack of humility,
      but these classes were all in public community sponsered adult
      education programs that were evaluated at the end of each semester by
      the students themselves, as well as by the various schools and
      colleges offering the classes, and our ratings of excellence were as
      good as or better than any of the other hundreds of courses offered by
      the various continuing education programs.

      > I am not arguing for or against. I am arguing for
      > refinement.
      >
      > > BTW, I question the statement that implies that meditators are "so
      > > busy convincing themselves that physical discomfort was all in their
      > > imagination". We have many oncologists, neurologists, cardiologists,
      > > psychiatrists, GP's, etc attending and sending their patients to our
      > > classes, so as to be better able to deal with their physical
      > > discomforts. There is no 'bodily dis-ease is all in the mind'
      > attitude
      > > prevelant in any of our, or in most meditation classes I know of
      >
      >
      > There was in your posts.

      If you read apples when we intended to offer oranges, so be it.

      >
      > > (such as those given by the Integral Yoga org or the
      > > Sivananda ashrams). In
      > > any event, I do value pranayama greatly, as I do visualization,
      > > mantra, self-enquiry, Raja yoga, and all the other things that bring
      > > peace to so many, and hope that what we do here on this group is
      > > helping make these concepts and methods available to those who seek
      > > this knowledge.
      >
      > Good.
      >
      > Nina

      Yes, the aim of selflessly and freely sharing things of consciousness
      evolving potential is "Good", and I know that's what you also intend.
      Peace and blessings,
      Bob
    • Nina
      ... same ... class. ... perhaps ... These ... reactions ... lack ... senior ... They are senior teachers because they have a certain level of expertise,
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 27, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety
        <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Nina"
        > <murrkis@y...> wrote:
        > > > Dear Nina,
        > > > When you say "we consistantly had at least 1 person(not the
        same
        > > > person) with an emotional reaction to the exercises in each
        class."
        > > > are you suggesting a "negative" emotional reaction? If so,
        perhaps
        > > > there may be a question about the skill level of the teacher.
        > >
        > > There is no need to question the skill level of the teacher.
        These
        > > folks were senior level teachers, able to respond to the
        reactions
        > > and help their students into right practice.
        >
        > Oh well, since they are "senior" teachers, I guess there was no
        lack
        > of expertise, eh? But then again, maybe if they consistantly had
        > negative reactions every class, there should have been "Very
        senior"
        > teachers giving the class!? (he said facetiously:-)

        They are senior teachers because they have a certain
        level of expertise, which encompasses the ability to teach
        various forms of pranayama to teacher trainees with a
        recognizable degree of skill.

        Reactions typically do not fall into binary slots, as in:
        good reaction/bad reaction, a reaction/no reaction. It can
        pretty much be assumed there will be a 'reaction' to any
        input into a system as responsive as a human physiology,
        *whether or not the human physiology consciously recognizes
        it*. These reactions will be qualitative, moreso than
        quantitative. The qualitative nature of these reactions
        are what allow adjustments to be made. Usually, it takes
        a bit of tinkering if you are 'going it alone' in new
        territory... expertise is usually recognized by the
        ability to 'hit the mark' with the adjustments.

        Keep in mind, that whether or not a student reports a
        reaction has as much to do with the environmental
        constraints/supports to this reportage as with the
        fact of a reaction. If a student doesn't share that
        she had a reaction, does this mean she had no reaction?

        > > While it is possible to view the reactions as
        > > 'negative' (weeping, backache, breathlessness, muscle cramps)
        > > or 'positive' (buoyancy, clarity, relaxation, easeful tidal
        > > expansion), it is also possible to view these reactions as
        > > guideposts to fine-tuning a practice.
        > >
        > > > We always had many students report wonderful emotional,
        physical,
        > > mental,
        > > > and spiritual results from what we shared. As a matter of
        fact, the
        > > > 1-4-2 technique is also referred to as the "How to get high
        without
        > > > drugs" technique, and afforded many with a higher high, greater
        > > > insights and inner sights than any drug had ever given them.
        There
        > > > also was a possible to label as problematical side effect to
        this.
        > > The
        > > > technique works so well that some would become bliss-
        seekers/ecstacy
        > > > junkies of a sort. But even if this problem is a problem worth
        > > > mentioning, I know of no evidence anywhere that practicing
        breath
        > > > retention will lead to MS, or any other such consequence.
        > >
        > > I was not claiming that breath retention causes MS, and neither
        > > was Eric Small. I was saying that he was having
        > > reactions to using a breath technique that induced heat in his
        > > body, a body which was undiagnosed with MS and yet had been
        > > displaying the unrecognized symptoms of MS.
        > >
        > > > And I see no
        > > > need or benefit to using this kind of wild claim to discourage
        the
        > > > potential good results experienced by so many for so long of
        > > > practicing pranayama.
        > >
        > > These claims are no more wild than a claim that other than
        > > one woman (whose reaction could be dismissed because she
        > > was asthmatic and couldn't bear to follow her breath in any
        > > form), there have been no reactions in 4000 students.
        >
        > Uh, you're saying that our 4000 students didn't have reactions is a
        > wild claim is not accurate. As I said, they reported very pleasant,
        > beneficial and positive reactions. And that's not so wild, it's
        > what is supposed to happen.

        I am saying that what I have to offer by the way
        of anecdote is no more wild than what you have shared. The
        only possible difference being that what I have observed is
        a greater array of reactions to more advanced forms (or, if you
        prefer, more interventive forms) of pranayama practice.
        This difference in degree of intervention in respiration
        may account for the differences in outcome, btw. Nonetheless,
        both perspectives are anecdotal, and therefore, pretty even
        in reliability as far as evidence goes.

        > And BTW, excuse the possible lack of humility,
        > but these classes were all in public community sponsered adult
        > education programs that were evaluated at the end of each semester
        > bythe students themselves, as well as by the various schools and
        > colleges offering the classes, and our ratings of excellence were
        as
        > good as or better than any of the other hundreds of courses
        offered by
        > the various continuing education programs.
        >
        > > I am not arguing for or against. I am arguing for
        > > refinement.
        > >
        > > > BTW, I question the statement that implies that meditators
        are "so
        > > > busy convincing themselves that physical discomfort was all in
        their
        > > > imagination". We have many oncologists, neurologists,
        cardiologists,
        > > > psychiatrists, GP's, etc attending and sending their patients
        to our
        > > > classes, so as to be better able to deal with their physical
        > > > discomforts. There is no 'bodily dis-ease is all in the mind'
        > > attitude
        > > > prevelant in any of our, or in most meditation classes I know
        of
        > >
        > >
        > > There was in your posts.
        >
        > If you read apples when we intended to offer oranges, so be it.

        If you intended oranges and wrote apples,
        should I accept responsibility for miscommunication?

        By the way, who is "we"?

        > > > (such as those given by the Integral Yoga org or the
        > > > Sivananda ashrams). In
        > > > any event, I do value pranayama greatly, as I do visualization,
        > > > mantra, self-enquiry, Raja yoga, and all the other things that
        bring
        > > > peace to so many, and hope that what we do here on this group
        is
        > > > helping make these concepts and methods available to those who
        seek
        > > > this knowledge.
        > >
        > > Good.
        > >
        > > Nina
        >
        > Yes, the aim of selflessly and freely sharing things of
        > consciousness evolving potential is "Good", and I know
        > that's what you also intend.

        Sure, as long as it is fitting.

        Nina
      • medit8ionsociety
        ... snip ... snip ... Nina, FYI, this was one of the much loved and recently departed Bob Eck s favorite sayings, IE: Hey, we re talking apples here, and
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 27, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Nina"
          <murrkis@y...> wrote:
          >
          snip
          Bob wrote:
          > > > > BTW, I question the statement that implies that meditators
          > are "so
          > > > > busy convincing themselves that physical discomfort was all in
          > their
          > > > > imagination". We have many oncologists, neurologists,
          > cardiologists,
          > > > > psychiatrists, GP's, etc attending and sending their patients
          > to our
          > > > > classes, so as to be better able to deal with their physical
          > > > > discomforts. There is no 'bodily dis-ease is all in the mind'
          > > > attitude
          > > > > prevelant in any of our, or in most meditation classes I know
          > of
          > > >
          Nina:
          > > > There was in your posts.
          Bob:
          > > If you read apples when we intended to offer oranges, so be it.
          Nina:
          > If you intended oranges and wrote apples,
          > should I accept responsibility for miscommunication?
          >
          > By the way, who is "we"?
          >
          snip
          > > >
          > > > Nina

          Nina, FYI, this was one of the much loved and recently departed Bob
          Eck's favorite sayings, IE:
          "Hey, we're talking apples here, and you're hearing oranges!" Maybe
          this saying is just a Philly cliche, but unfortunatly, your
          defensiveness is universal.
          Peace and blessings,
          Bob
        • Nina
          ... LOL, you say defensive, I say dismissive, you say facetious, I say capricious, defensive, dismissive, facetious, capricious, let s call the whole thing
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 27, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            > Nina, FYI, this was one of the much loved and recently departed Bob
            > Eck's favorite sayings, IE:
            > "Hey, we're talking apples here, and you're hearing oranges!" Maybe
            > this saying is just a Philly cliche, but unfortunatly, your
            > defensiveness is universal.
            > Peace and blessings,
            > Bob

            LOL, you say defensive, I say dismissive,
            you say facetious, I say capricious,
            defensive, dismissive,
            facetious, capricious,
            let's call the whole thing off!

            Or something like that. Maybe they were saying tomatoes
            instead of apples or oranges. It's still all fruit to me.

            well-versed in the art of name-calling,
            Nina
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.