Re: About the so-called "dangers" of pranayama
- --- In email@example.com, medit8ionsociety
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Nina"same
> <murrkis@y...> wrote:
> > > Dear Nina,
> > > When you say "we consistantly had at least 1 person(not the
> > > person) with an emotional reaction to the exercises in eachclass."
> > > are you suggesting a "negative" emotional reaction? If so,perhaps
> > > there may be a question about the skill level of the teacher.These
> > There is no need to question the skill level of the teacher.
> > folks were senior level teachers, able to respond to thereactions
> > and help their students into right practice.lack
> Oh well, since they are "senior" teachers, I guess there was no
> of expertise, eh? But then again, maybe if they consistantly hadsenior"
> negative reactions every class, there should have been "Very
> 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 asphysical,
> > '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,
> > mental,fact, the
> > > and spiritual results from what we shared. As a matter of
> > > 1-4-2 technique is also referred to as the "How to get highwithout
> > > drugs" technique, and afforded many with a higher high, greaterThere
> > > insights and inner sights than any drug had ever given them.
> > > also was a possible to label as problematical side effect tothis.
> > Theseekers/ecstacy
> > > technique works so well that some would become bliss-
> > > junkies of a sort. But even if this problem is a problem worthbreath
> > > mentioning, I know of no evidence anywhere that practicing
> > > retention will lead to MS, or any other such consequence.the
> > 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
> > > potential good results experienced by so many for so long ofI am saying that what I have to offer by the way
> > > 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.
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,as
> 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
> good as or better than any of the other hundreds of coursesoffered by
> the various continuing education programs.are "so
> > I am not arguing for or against. I am arguing for
> > refinement.
> > > BTW, I question the statement that implies that meditators
> > > busy convincing themselves that physical discomfort was all intheir
> > > imagination". We have many oncologists, neurologists,cardiologists,
> > > psychiatrists, GP's, etc attending and sending their patientsto our
> > > classes, so as to be better able to deal with their physicalof
> > > 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
> >If you intended oranges and wrote apples,
> > There was in your posts.
> If you read apples when we intended to offer oranges, so be it.
should I accept responsibility for miscommunication?
By the way, who is "we"?
> > > (such as those given by the Integral Yoga org or thebring
> > > 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
> > > peace to so many, and hope that what we do here on this groupis
> > > helping make these concepts and methods available to those whoseek
> > > this knowledge.Sure, as long as it is fitting.
> > 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.
- --- In email@example.com, "Nina"
> > > > BTW, I question the statement that implies that meditatorsNina:
> are "so
> > > > busy convincing themselves that physical discomfort was all in
> > > > imagination". We have many oncologists, neurologists,
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > 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,snip
> should I accept responsibility for miscommunication?
> By the way, who is "we"?
> > >Nina, FYI, this was one of the much loved and recently departed Bob
> > > Nina
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,
> Nina, FYI, this was one of the much loved and recently departed BobLOL, you say defensive, I say dismissive,
> 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,
you say facetious, I say 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,