I guess I need an explanation of "move the kidneys"... I'm limited to moving muscles.. and bones. This sounds like an action that originates somewhere well above the kidneys. Maybe some intercostal actions?

.. bg

I have objections to a number of instructions that refer to "actions" of things that cannot act. I also find it bothersome when the actions or their stated effects seem inconsistent with scientific thinking.

For example, I recently bought a book which displays a skeleton doing asanas and illustrates the most significant muscles involved in the asana. Terrific!  But every few pages this book throws in illuminations of chakras (presumably in their anatomically correct positions...).  As a result, it's a book that I'm not really able to discuss with my kids -- I have a firm rule that I will never present to them superstition as fact. Chakras are wonderful metaphors, and I enjoy those metaphors, but they are NOT REAL.

The practice of yoga is not incompatible with facts -- in fact it benefits from facts. Yoga's spiritual dimensions are also essential to it. Balancing the two is an ongoing challenge to both yoga's teachers and yoga's students.

.. bg

Cool, I'd like to see the poster.  And yes, the chakra metaphor has a certain je ne sais quoi.

.. bg

Brother Bruce, I can't quite make out the fine print!  -- Bay Guy

I've taken several classes of what is called Meridian Yoga ("breathwork and movement to strengthen the organs, increase digestion and balance the hormones") at my studio where the teacher has us doing specific Kundalini moves to activate and massage various internal organs and glands (no props, sorry ). Though I'm not sure we've ever been told that those body parts are actually "moved". Might just be semantics, but to me it seems somewhat pointless to move your kidneys, adrenals, etc. but not affect them per se. Am I splitting hairs here? Probably the same effect is being attempted in both your son's class and the Meridian class I've taken. Even more probably most of you think it's all a bunch of hooey, but I'm not going to debate that now!

OM

I printed out the picture and left it out on the counter in the kitchen, and both my kids (ages 12 and 15) were fascinated by it. I've had books and pictures of the chakras out before and they've just picked up the material and looked at it and read it on their own, and believe me, this has not been a mystical house that they've grown up in. When asked, I explained that the chakras weren't real places in the body, just representations of feelings, tendencies, etc., but still real enough to have an effect on your life, and they were totally cool with it. I gave them some basic metaphors to understand these associations, like "open your heart" or "believe it in your gut" and again, they understood the gist of things. I really doubt it's just my kids, so I wouldn't be so afraid to expose such thoughts to children. I believe there's no problem with being open-minded to new or foreign concepts, but there should never be any pressure to accept those views as your own. You take what works for you, leave off the rest.

I'm sorry you had a confusing relationship with these symbols when growing up. And I'm certainly not going to argue their "existence" with you or anyone else. It serves me personally to be aware of the chakras and that's all that matters for me. I don't mean to sound condescending or insensitive, because I really am being sincere about this. All I really mean to say is don't underestimate the ability of children to be discerning individuals. As Bob McAllister used to say, kids are people too!

OM

BTW, what does it mean to have your Chakras "balanced"?

.. bg

In a previous post in this thread you said "I have a firm rule that I will never present to them superstition as fact. Chakras are wonderful metaphors, and I enjoy those metaphors, but they are NOT REAL." So going from that point of view, I'll try to answer what "balancing the chakras" accomplishes (mind you, I'm still learning all this myself).

If you made all your business and life decisions only from a purely practical, logical and pragmatic standpoint, with no regard to your loved ones' feelings, or your feelings either, you could say you were operating purely from your head and not your heart, yes? And if you did the opposite and only made decisions based on love, with no regard to logical consequences, it could be said that you were operating purely from the heart. Very simplistic examples, I know, but this proves the point that the head and the heart need to be balanced for you to live a productive and contented life with full awareness of all you do and experience. This is truly yoga, I believe. Balanced pyschological aspects of the personality will lead to a balanced individual. So far so good, yes?

Somatic psychology says that psychological stresses get stored in the body. This is not superstition. Examples: Your mother yelled at you when you were little, this is tension stored in the shoulders and upper back. You have intimacy and commitment issues, that's in your hips. You feel you don't belong or perform well in society, that's in your belly. You were told as a young child not to go rushing off to hug strangers, that's an eternal tightness in the heart and throat. You get the picture, I'm sure.

The chakras are not "real" entities or organs in the body in that you could have a chakrectomy (outpatient or otherwise), but what they represent is real, and yes, those feelings are physically associated with a location in the body. Backbends open the heart and relieve depression, hip openers release trapped emotional issues, standing poses ground you and help make you feel secure in your place in the world, core work empowers you to give you a healthy sense of self, etc.

So here's the gist of it: if you are feeling unbalanced in any psychological aspects of yourself, perform the asanas that correspond to the chakras that seem out of whack. Better yet, don't even worry about balancing the chakras, balance your own self by using the chakras as a guide to what psychological aspect of yourself they represent. The chakras are as real as feelings are real: not tangible, but real in terms of their manifestation.

I really hope I made some sense here!

OM

I believe a reference to the kidneys is Anusara terminology. "Puffing out the kidneys" is the phrase I've heard. Perhaps that's why it's not making sense being asked here in the Iyengar forum?

OM

I don't think that the point above was that we can only "find value" in that which is proven factually.  It was that we should always be careful to distinguish between things that are factual and things that are metaphorical, spiritual, or magical. While we can enjoy the latter, their nonfactual, unprovable, or unphysical character should lead us to treat them as something less reliable that that which is objectively testable.

For example, bones are real. They can be observed, they have properties that can be measured, and they behave in ways that are generally predictable (e.g., hit one too hard and it breaks; set it properly and it heals; both the breakage and the healing can be measured).  Koshas, on the other hand, are not observable and have no testable properties. Any statement about the behavior or response of a kosha is simply an unprovable assertion. While I might use the image of a kosha as a tool for visualizing mental aspects of my practice, the behavior that I might assign to or "observe" in my own koshas would not be something that could be measured or objectively observed in other people's koshas.

And that bring us to love. Love is an emotion, and it is quite real as a human behavior. Love is a mental state, and we know that mental states have physical effects. Love is a fact in that sense, although as a behavioral and emotional fact is it not as easily defined as, say, velocity or acceleration.

.. bg