Breath: The New Science of a Lost Art https://www.amazon.com/Breath-New-Science-Lost-Art/dp/073521...
and
Altered Traits: Science Reveals How Meditation Changes Your Brain https://www.amazon.com/Altered-Traits-Science-Reveals-Medita...
Breath: The New Science of a Lost Art https://www.amazon.com/Breath-New-Science-Lost-Art/dp/073521...
and
Altered Traits: Science Reveals How Meditation Changes Your Brain https://www.amazon.com/Altered-Traits-Science-Reveals-Medita...
Linden was emphatic about how science requires a mechanism of action, and that when people refer to this potential effect against cancer as due to “alignment of chakras” or whatever, it is “bullshit” to use his word.
I get where he’s coming from, but on the flip side, the benefits of meditative practice were arrived at long before science took any note of them. In fact for many years, the scientific perspective on it was that it was entirely bullshit. Meanwhile the people who were (admittedly incorrectly) talking about chakras were delivering real benefits to their followers. As such it seems to me that more respect is warranted, and perhaps even more caution. What do you think?
1 https://hubermanlab.com/dr-david-linden-life-death-and-the-n...
0: https://www.amazon.in/Kundalini-untold-story-Om-Swami/dp/818... 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6910041
The chakras thing, or any other mystical model, is only a low-resolution model. It's useful to point you to a correct belief, but we have to be careful not to get too invested in wrong reasoning. Or else you end up with a system of beliefs which may be mostly wrong - ie, "If my X chakra does this for me, I am sure my Y chakra does that for me," - when what you may be looking for is a completely different phenomenon.
More importantly, they served their purpose continuing knowledge as both a practice and oral tradition such that they have survived millennia. This in spite of libraries burning down and the limited access to/absence of text, etc. I think in this lens, it's not right to condescend, or be confounded or annoyed that the mechanism still works today. Further to that, I think in absence of this instinct in the scientific community to condescend, the valuable knowledge preserved in mystical practices could be understood sooner
It is relatively easy to feel some of your chakras, I've done it, it took about a week of effort via a hodgepodge of breathwork, stretching, yoga, and "somatic" meditation facilitated by THC. You try to awaken muscles all over the body, "unblocking" points of tension, and eventually you start to have this impression of "energy"/"heat" flowing in loops from points on the spine, out along muscles and back again; in my case "unblocking" some of these caused buried emotions to pour out, and temporarily gave me near-perfect posture. It's interesting: these are clearly a description of something real.
You are not exercising when meditating, ergo your CO2 levels will drop.
I'd love to put a top meditator in a hyperbaric chamber and change the gas levels to something like CO2 @ 600ppm and then see how relaxed they are, unless they have high levels of myoglobin.
The higher the CO2 levels the more stimulated the body becomes. Its why some athlete's take a heaped teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate for asoda boost that has a stimulating effect on the body. Sodium causes the release of calcium from the bones which is stimulating, alters the metal profile in the blood, and the bicarbonate is double the CO2 which also stimulates the body and immune system. People who have trouble breathing used to be told to breath into a paper bag, as this increased the CO2 they rebreathed, which was useful when coal use was high.
So yes meditating can be relaxing, mainly because they are increasing oxygen levels in the body which is less stimulating than CO2 levels from running around.
The vagus nerve runs all the way down to the rectum in many animals, so be careful about stimulating it. One might have to suddenly evacuate in more ways than one, and this article seems like someone's idea of a joke, on the unprepared.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2952396/ Effects of autonomic nerve stimulation on colorectal motility in rats
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15074355/ The role of the rectal branches of pelvic plexus in defecation and colonic motility in a canine model
Sodium/potassium kinase pump. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537088/
Sodium - releases calcium, increases a chance of a heart attack. FYI! https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2158146/#:~:text=In%20respon....
CO2 levels. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/co...
This is what you are referring to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6544001/
There are other mechanisms, like the effect sodium has on adrenal gland.
Scientific reasoning is a relatively new phenomenon on top of the old way.
Interestingly, scientific reasoning is getting so prevalent that people don't imagine the old way existed...
I don't think this is correct. Science is based on empiricism. Of course we'd like to understand the mechanism of action, but it's not strictly required for scientific description of some aspect of reality. For example, Kepler's laws were derived from the observed paths of the planets — it was only later that these same laws could be explained with recourse to the theory of gravity.
To speak of a "mechanism of action" is necessarily to speak about a model of Nature that you, an observer, have created.
Natural phenomena exist empirically and logically prior to any such model, thus is is metaphysically redundant to say that Nature as such requires a mechanism of action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Grof
https://www.amazon.com/Holotropic-Breathwork-Self-Exploratio...
I'm a bit surprised that we don't have more criticism of this book. It was less of a pop science book, and more of an anecdotal gonzo journalism.