Meditation practice

I don’t know enough about this area, so I can only give you guidelines.
If it is a practice of any kind, there is no reason to prohibit it, even if the person who conceived it was a worker. I don’t know who invented the pants, but even if he was a worker, it is permissible to wear them. Practice of any kind is not prohibited.
If the work itself has a connection to some idol, then it should be discussed. If it is part of his work, then I think it depends on whether you do it out of a desire to worship him or because of the benefit of the practice. Idolatry is only if you do it out of acceptance in God (see Rambam 37:35-56), meaning that you do it because He commanded and so we worship. If this worship brings medical or psychological benefits, I don’t think it should be prohibited just because there are those who take it in the directions of God.

It should be remembered that the former differ on the essence of the prohibitions of the AZ and their accessories (witchcraft, being innocent, etc.). The Rambam and his group explain that it is a prohibition to be foolish simply because it does not work. In their view, if there is something that works, there is no prohibition in it. According to the Ramban and his group, there is a prohibition to rely on things that work even if they come from the other side (Sitra Achra). This does not mean that the AZ practitioners invented it, but rather that the practice itself required the dark forces (as in Harry Potter). I do not know how to identify the origin of a technique and what powers it uses, and I tend to think that there is no such thing as the dark forces (well, I’m just a simple Muggle).

It seems to me that meditation is now considered a superficial practice, and therefore I don’t think it should be banned. It is worth examining whether it really works or whether it is just idiotic New Age. If so, then perhaps it would be prohibited by the law of the Jewish Law (according to the Maimonides and his followers, the prohibition is to be stupid and believe in things that don’t work).
————————————————————————————————
Asks:
From an initial reading on Wikipedia, it seems that there are many scientific studies that show various types of benefits to meditation (stress relief, increased attention and concentration, etc.). I’m asking specifically about the use of mantras like Om. According to Wikipedia, “Om” denotes the “infinite absolute,” and also according to Hindu belief, even before the world was created, Brahman (who is their creator god) thought; from this thought a vibration was created that sounded like “Om,” meaning Om is the first creation created by Brahman, and when the world was created, Om accompanied him. Therefore, some interpret the word Om as “I am.”
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:

First, is the mantra a necessary part of the practice? If you say “I am” will the result be different? I guess not.
But if “Om” is the infinite absolute or His first word with creation (as in the world, God, your word is established in heaven), there is no reason for this. It is a translation of our tradition (which says the same thing) into the Hindi language. What’s wrong with that? Is it forbidden to speak Hindi?
It reminds me of a movie I once saw about a trance party where people dance ecstatically for two whole days and mumble Indian mantras with names of Indian gods (Shiva, etc.). I guess most of them had no idea what that word meant.
————————————————————————————————
Asks:

The thing is that my instructor wants me to use mantras, and I realized that this is a complex issue, the matter of mantras.
There is a good article on the subject by Rabbi Nathan Ofir:
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/chinuch/darkey/meditatsya-2.htm
But I couldn’t quite understand the bottom line: whether it’s permissible to say mantras or not.

As far as I understand, mantras are names of points on the body, although these names may be used for other things. These mantras are usually said in the heart.

What do you think about this?
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
The article is very superficial (it is a review and therefore does not pretend to go into the subject). There is not even a hint there as to what the halachic problem with mantras is, and therefore you will not be able to find a halachic solution there. Perhaps you should check the sources he refers to (Rabbi Ovadia, Rabbi Halevi), and I will try to look.
————————————————————————————————
Asks:
By the way, I forgot to mention that methods like meditation have benefits in relieving stress that have been proven in scientific studies.
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I see that the sources from Rabbi Ovadia are mainly oral things. There is a response in the “A’isheh Lech Rav Chab” (I have it at home in the Otzar Hochma database, and I can check it when I’m there).
—
I have now seen it, and I am sending you the relevant answer from Rabbi Chaim Halevi .
He does go into detail about the technique but does not do a proper halakhic analysis. He also deals with transcendental meditation and I don’t know if that’s what you’re talking about.
In general, I doubt his conclusion that this is forbidden (and certainly assuming that we have everything and don’t need anything else).
If the practice itself works, then it really doesn’t seem to me to matter what its origin is. This is a medical technique, and why is its origin important?! Regarding mantras, there is indeed a prohibition against mentioning the names of the divine, but I understood that you can choose other (similar?) words. Furthermore, if it works, then it is probably not because of these names specifically (because the word “divine” is not in it). Therefore, the use of the word “divine” is not considered divine.
In any case, if these words are required and if they are indeed pagan names (I’m not sure that’s the case with you), then there is room to discuss whether they are permissible or prohibited.
At least in this case, it might be worth trying to deal with stress first in the conventional way and only if that doesn’t work move on to checking out what’s in the realms of meditation.
————————————————————————————————
Asks:
Regarding the prohibition “It shall not be heard from your mouth,” I have heard many times rabbis mention Jesus by name. Is Jesus considered idolatry for the purposes of this prohibition?
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Great question. It is common to think that the Catholic Jesus – yes (because of the Trinity, and this too should be discussed – is this a myth and is Jesus indeed the name of an idol), but the Protestant Jesus is not. Therefore, in itself, I do not think there is a prohibition in this.
————————————————————————————————
Asks:
Is there a prohibition on saying phrases like: “God of the sun” or “God of the sea,” or is the entire prohibition only in terms of a specific name?
And in addition, is there a prohibition only on saying the name of the Lord with the mouth? Or is there also a prohibition on writing or saying it in the heart?
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I don’t think there is a prohibition in this. And if they say this in the study of history and the like, there is certainly no prohibition. As stated, even if it were shown that this was the only practice that was beneficial, I don’t think there is a prohibition in this (as long as you don’t believe in it).

Given that there is a prohibition, I assume that it is also prohibited in writing, since writing is like speech. A statement in the heart is not a statement, and I do not think it is prohibited.
————————————————————————————————
Asks:
According to this, it follows that it is permissible to use mantras because you are only required to say them in your heart and not out loud, right?
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Don’t they say it in the mouth? So I think so. Isn’t there a possibility of a similar word?
Are the words the names of idols?
————————————————————————————————
Asks:
According to their methods, they claim that certain words should be used. But still, I think it’s better to avoid saying it in your heart because it might come out loud by mistake at some point.
Although it doesn’t seem to me that the mantras refer to the names of the gods, but rather, to the best of my understanding, the mantras are the sounds that represent certain points in the body (called chakras), it’s probably best to avoid them just to be on the safe side.

If you want, there is an expansion on Wikipedia about one of the main mantras (whose name may not even be written based on what has been said here):
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9D_(%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%94)
By the way, when you said earlier that writing is like speaking, did you also mean writing on a computer? Or just writing in reality?
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
This is writing that is not for academic, cultural, or historical purposes. Otherwise, I think it is permissible. Writing on a computer is more lenient, because it is writing that is not preserved.
————————————————————————————————
Asks:
I saw that it says in the Shulchan Arba, Yod, 147, section 1: “It is forbidden to mention her by name, whether necessary or unnecessary.” Doesn’t what you wrote about an academic, cultural, or historical matter fall under the heading of “necessity” and therefore prohibited?
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
In my opinion, no. The fact is that everyone does it. And why don’t they mention its name when learning about Christianity or about idolatry of one kind or another? Even the Gemara speaks of the poer to the pa’er. Apparently, the memorial refers to its significant use.
————————————————————————————————
Asks:
Have a good week Rabbi,
Following this answer, I came across section D of the same sign which says:
It is permissible to mention idolatry written in the Torah, such as the bow of Bel, the broken piece of Nebo (Isaiah 40:2) that the editors of the table cloth (Isaiah 77:11).
This is probably why the Gemara speaks of the Poer as the Peor (since it was mentioned in the Torah). But as for the name of idolatry that was not mentioned in the Torah, perhaps it is forbidden to mention it even for academic purposes, perhaps?

I looked at Beit Yosef and it says:

Beit Yosef Yoreh Deah Mark 17
A. He who vows or swears in the name of idolatry is punished. In the chapter of the Four Deaths (Sanhedrin 60:1), it is stated that he who vows in his name and he who fulfills in his name commits an unrighteous act, explaining that he shall not make mention of other gods, nor shall it be heard from your mouth (Exodus 23:13). And what our Rabbi, who suffered, wrote about this, is also written by the Maimonides in the fifth chapter of the Laws of Idols (10-11), and in my commentary on the book of the Law (Kesef Mishnah, sam.) I wrote the reason for this:
And it is forbidden to even mention it by name in public unnecessarily. There (33:) as it is said, “And you shall not mention the name of other gods, lest a man say to his neighbor, ‘Keep aside for me such and such an idolatry.'” And the Rosh (33) apparently means that in the case of the Gavana, it is forbidden to mention idolatry for a reason, and it seems that in every matter it is forbidden to read a stamma written, and it is not a specific practice, but rather a way of doing things that there is no way to mention it at all unnecessarily, and even if it is necessary, it is forbidden. And our rabbi wrote that it is forbidden to mention it even unnecessarily, and especially not for a reason, and his language is not intended, because it was intended for this purpose, so it is permissible to write according to this language that it is forbidden to mention it by name even in a way that is not necessary, and furthermore, the Rosh explained that it is forbidden to mention it by name even in a way that is not necessary, and further, the Rosh explained that it is forbidden to mention it by name even in a way that is not necessary, that is, because of a certain word that is reserved for me, along with a certain idolatry, and the Sadducees explained that it is not necessary, but for one who does not know in a baraita, it is not necessary to mention it by name that is not necessary, and if so, it was so for our rabbi to write that it is forbidden to mention it by name that is not necessary, whether necessary or unnecessary:

I have a hunch that it is possible that Beit Yosef and the Rosh, by the word “need,” actually mean “useful need” and not an academic need. What do you think?
————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
The explanation sounds reasonable. The bottom line is that they don’t follow this rule today.

As discussed here,
There is a basic exercise in yoga called the Sun Salutation. Below is a brief description I found online at yoga.co.il :
“The practice of the Sun Salutation evolved with the aim of honoring the sun. As a kind of gesture of bowing to the sun and also to connect the inner sun with the cosmic sun. Traditionally, the Sun Salutation is practiced in the morning, facing east, with a sense of devotion and respect for the sun. And in the evening, facing west, with a sense of separation from the outer sun and focusing on the inner sun.”

The exercise consists of a series of stretches and movements. The question is whether it would be permissible to perform this exercise without intending to honor the sun but rather for the sake of physical activity. If not, would it be possible to practice by introducing a slight change, such as changing the order of the stretches and movements?

————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I didn’t understand. Why not honor the sun? It does us a lot of good. What’s the problem with someone wanting to show it a favor? Moses also showed favor to Lior and Leper and left it to Aaron to beat them.
————————————————————————————————
Pine:

Maybe there is a concern that this is one of her ways of working?

————————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I don’t think this is her way of working. After all, if it’s about respect, then it’s not because she’s working. And even if it’s her way of working, there’s a contrary intention here if it’s for the sake of practice. If it’s just respect for the sake of respect, then there’s no practice here and it’s just work without the intention that in her way of working there’s room for prohibition.