Chanting, Mantras and Other Forms of Vocal Expression

Plus, chanting is often limited to a few chants. Even if you list 50 or 100 chants, singing in one's native language includes tens of thousands of optional songs spanning the complete range of emotions, thoughts and perhaps as important, consonants. Learning all those in a foreign language would take decades. That, to me, makes it very impractical.

Is chanting spiritual? Definitely. That is I believe where it has its strongest benefit. It can transform and expand one's consciousness to way beyond one's present state of mind and limitations. But so can singing. That is why I belong to my church's choir.

Is chanting practical? Many chants are easy to learn but not always. But that in no way means I believe chanting or toning is not extremely valuable. One needs to understand the relevant strengths and limitations and then choose for themselves. Chanting may be perfect for you, right now. Maybe not. Try it and see how you feel. You should feel GREAT. If so, then why not? But do not discount singing as an equal or even sometimes faster road to bliss.

To have to learn a foreign language takes longer for most so as to integrate thoughts and new ways of being with the speed, depth and range that singing or speaking in one's mother tongue can.

For instance, one can say that the phonetics of Sanskrit are cross cultural. But I have to wonder how much longer it takes for a person to change languages in an meaningful enough way from their mother language to that with a Sanskrit origin before the person gets lasting benefits that are clearly integrated with their culture.

Are chanting's advocates saying that any culture might be better off with the insights of chanting? If so, then I probably agree. But I STILL maintain that singing in one's mother tongue is more conducive to deeper real life insight, meaningful and faster then dealing with a foreign tongue whose meanings must be interpreted into whatever culture it is trying to present itself. Most people believe they cannot sing or at least sing well, but this is just not true if one knows how to develop the breathing rapidly and accurately. So that leaves a bias against the idea of singing in the first place. Of course, the chanting can sometimes bypass this prejudice, but that does not make it superior to the ease of what could have been with the mother-tongued the approach to singing been fast and accurate.

The main point I want to make is that if I were to work on those with Sanskrit-based language or any other language, they would, if they knew how to breathe right, learn to chant better in less time and would enjoy it much that more as well.

Reciting the rosary in Latin may be good for Catholics' health, as well as their faith, some might say.

Formulaic expression of Ave Maria's helps harmonize speakers' breathing cycles with involuntary rhythmic fluctuations in their blood pressure to an optimum six breaths per minute.

Repeating a yoga mantra "om-mani-padme-hum" seems to have a similar effect, according to doctors from Florence and Pavia in Italy and Peter Sleight, of the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford, writing in the British Medical Journal.

They monitored the blood pressure, heart rate and breathing of 23 healthy men and women and found their respiration rate slowed down from an average 14 breaths a minute when they were not seeking to control it, to seven when they were talking rather than chanting, and to about six when they were deliberately controlling their breathing or reciting the prayer or the mantra.

Most slower breathing improves heart and lung function as well as bringing calm unless it stems from holding back one's breath which is mostly stressful. Sometimes it can be helpful to increase the CO2 levels and cause vasodilation.

I suspect the rosary may have evolved because it synchronized with inherent cardiovascular rhythms and may have given a feeling of well-being and perhaps an increased responsiveness to the religious message.

The similar success of the yoga mantra may not be coincidence. I've read that the rosary was introduced to Europe by the crusaders, who took it from the Arabs, who adopted it from Tibetan monks and the yoga masters of India. Click here to develop your breathing, singing, speaking, chanting or all three.

Dear Mike:

For years, I've given my patients kiddie bubbles as a part of their homework.

I tell them to blow slowly, lots of bubbles per dip, and to blow into the bubbles everything that is bothering them and watch it float away. Bye-bye!! I tell them to blow bubbles until everything is hilarious.

The physiological correlate to this, as you may know, is the blowing off of CO2 and throwing them into a mild state of respiratory alkalosis, which relaxes muscles and improves outlook, at least temporarily. It never occurred to me that it may also be related to reducing the number of breaths as well.

I enjoy your newsletter very much. I've told several people about it. I'm getting a new job and plan to get some tapes.

-- Nancy Adams, Rebirther

From Mike:
Learning all those Sanskrit aspects in a foreign language would take decades. That, to me, makes it very impractical.

The American Sanskrit Institute can teach an average person to chant/read the Sanskrit alphabet with proper pronunciation in one weekend, making it very practical. The youngest participants in their programs are 7 and 8 years old.

From Mike:
I was in both training weekends with these kids. It is actually a very practical program that uses the Yogic model to present the basics of Sanskrit. You don't need to be a scholar, Yoga student, linguist -- just an average person with a desire to learn. But do not discount singing as an equal or even sometimes faster road to bliss.

There is a distinction between chanting and singing, and they are not quite the same thing. Chanting is an aspect of Bhakti Yoga, and is to be founded in devotion. It does not matter what the quality of voice, or ability of the chanter, only that they chant from the heart.

From Mike:
From a purely somatic perspective, many have no idea what that is. They cannot feel it or embody it. So it is too often an overused, trite idea with no embodied reality. What I learned from my many visits to the Sydha (sp)ashram in Oakland was that if the person does it often enough, it is going to sink in; Wonderful people by and large. I really like that aspect but I have met too many chanters that do not "walk their talk." To me, the teacher is the key, not the chanting. The primary need, to me, is for the proper integration/marriage of ideas and chanting energy. That is also why I counsel people to choose songs that have clean, clear positive foundations to them lest the embodiment be negative, confusing or harmful. Sing the blues and you can become the blues, etc.

To have to learn a foreign language takes longer for most so as to integrate thoughts and new ways of being with the speed, depth and range that singing or speaking in one's mother tongue can. For instance, one can say that the phonetics of Sanskrit are cross-cultural. But I have to wonder how much longer it takes for a person to change languages in an enough of a meaningful way from their mother language to that with a Sanskrit origin before the person gets lasting benefits that are clearly integrated with their culture.

The phonetics of Sanskrit are the foundation for ALL sound. The beauty of this language is that it was not originally intended to be translated; therefore, there is no real need to 'learn' another language. Sanskrit was constructed in a manner that focuses more on the vibrations produced by combining different sound forms.

In fact, the language was spoken (actually chanted) for a couple of thousand years before a written script was constructed. This is why the Vedas have been perfectly preserved -- they were passed from teacher to student, mouth to ear with correct pronunciation and meter.

From Mike:
Sounds nice but has little meaning in the real world to me. Too abstract, esoteric. Requires much more than the masses have to muster. They need a gateway to this. Optimal Breathing may be such a gateway for some. That is one of its functions.

I STILL maintain that singing in one's mother tongue is more conducive to deeper real life insight, meaningful and faster then dealing with a foreign tongue whose meanings must be interpreted into whatever culture it is trying to present itself. (Most people believe they cannot sing or at least sing well, but this is just not true if one knows how to develop the breathing rapidly and accurately. So, that leaves a bias against the idea of singing in the first place.)

Again, in working with Sanskrit, it is not about translation, rather vibration. Too often, we have connections to certain thoughts and experiences with words in the mother tongue, that may invoke certain psychological reactions or stimulate past mental conditioning, whereas when we work with a 'new' language, we have no preconceived connections to the words, and can begin with a clean slate.

From Mike:
I like that a lot.

Of course, the chanting can sometimes bypass this prejudice, but that does not make it superior to the ease of what could have been with the mother-tongued the approach to singing been fast and accurate.

Here, again, I make a distinction between chanting and singing. With chanting, the key is in repetition, which allows regular breathing patterns to emerge easily and quickly, whereas with singing phrasing often changes, also changing the breathing patterns.

From Mike:
Yes, as does real living. So in the beginning there is stability or continuity. Very important. But after a while, anything you do with the breath repeatedly will eventually restrict its ability to respond in an other-than fashion. Restriction and locked-in patterns develop restricted thoughts, attitudes, emotions and states of being. That is one example where "blind obedience to the Guru" isms begin. One is no longer breathing free. May be good or bad. To me, it is mostly bad because breathing "patterns" will eventually drive the nervous system and distort thoughts without the knowledge of the breather. This is a too often unconsciousness and rote reaction. The key, to me, is variety and continuity. That is why spiritual communities can be so great. That is also why they do not grow to cities and countries because they too often eventually limit one's natural sense of freedom. This is a basis of many dogmatic psychosocial paradigms.

I also have to (personally) disagree with you in that chanting in Sanskrit is superior to anything we have in any other language. In the mid 80's NASA research center made the startling discovery that Sanskrit is the only unambiguous language known on the planet -- even more astounding is the fact that it is the only natural language suited for use in artificial intelligence. (AI Magazine Spring '85) There is a small, but growing movement in India and the U.S. for Sanskritam to become a universal language because it crosses all boundaries culturally and intellectually. But it must be taught as a living language with the emphasis on pronunciation, which unfortunately is the aspect left out in most university and college Sanskrit programs.

From Mike:
Again an impractical and esoteric approach that may have deep superiority (would love to see artificial intelligence in state-of-the-art levels) given several unattainable circumstances and remains unreachable to the masses.

As I said before, learning all those Sanskrit aspects...would take decades. That to me makes it very impractical. Not impossible, not improbable, just impractical.

I really like the way you present this material. You are, to me, a dedicated and great teacher.

I would like to meet you some day. mgw

The Optimal Breathing Chanting Program