Even though breathwork has become fairly popular in recent years, I’m not a fan–and here’s why:

1. To begin with, we need to understand that pranayama, at its best, is one “limb” that’s naturally placed in a bona fide progressive spiritual path consisting of many limbs. In my interpretation, Patanjali’s eight limbs of yoga, for instance, allows one to deeply explore (1) the doer and enjoyer (yamas and niyamas), (2) the body and senses (asana, pranayama, and pratyahara), and the mind and beyond (dharana, dhyana, and samadhi). Notice that pranayama is properly situated within a broader context and, as such, is part of a larger, indeed comprehensive study.

2. Once breathwork is “plucked” from a viable tradition and regarded, as it is in the West, as a standalone practice, it fails. Why?

3. The reasons are very clear: (a) A breathwork session will induce a state of mental calm. Afterward, thanks to samskaras/vasanas, the mind will return to its ordinary course of suffering. That is, the ego tendencies will rise up again, and again, and again. Hence, this entire structure is just more samsara. Or: a temporary salve is not a permanent solve. (b) As is implied in (a): you’re not actually investigating the mind or, indeed, the roots of dis-ease (dukkha) and thus you are bound by your presumptions. (c) Indeed, you’re also not investigating what’s beyond the mind, which is, of course, the Self.

4. The points raised in (a) – (c) are similar to those that Sri Ramana Maharshi often made when others asked about pranayama. He’d say that so long as you are keen to know who you are, you might as well begin and end with atma vichara (Self-inquiry). For atma vichara is precisely the mode of inquiry that starts, as it were, right near the finish.

5. A notable exception: if pranayama is taught within a tradition and if it fits within a neatly laid-out path, then it’s a perfectly fine practice to engage in for a time. In fact, for a couple of years, my wife and I assiduously engaged in a form of Zen pranayama (susokan): extended outbreath practice. However, even then, it should be noted, this daily practice included a natural koan, which would be equivalent to: “Who is it that is breathing?”

6. One should not be content with any practice, modality, or psychotechnology that leaves one exactly where it found one. I would argue that only nondual inquiry–of the sort found in Ramana Maharshi and Sri Atmananda or in Zen–go right to the heart of the matter because from the first the ultimate or final question has been put front and center. This is one case where it makes perfectly good sense to skip to the front of the line–if you’re ready.