The Studio Owner's Marketing Request

Several are in play, and they don't all point the same direction - that's the work.

• Asteya (non-stealing). Using the visiting teacher's name to sell seats implies an endorsement she has not given. That is the clearest taking here. The sequence itself is more arguable - postural compositions circulate and no one owns warrior two - so be precise about what is actually being taken.
• Satya (truthfulness). "Detoxifies the liver and cures lower back pain" is a claim you cannot make true. So is presenting the series as hers.
• Aparigraha (non-grasping). The $600 is doing quiet work on your reasoning. Name it before you argue, or you'll rationalize.
• Ahimsa (non-harming). A cure claim can lead someone with real pathology to wait, or to skip care. That harm is invisible but real.
• The tradition's own norm: teach what you have digested, and credit what you did not invent.

Reasoning: asteya may be arguable about the shapes; it is not arguable about the name and the implied endorsement. Separating "borrowed sequence" from "borrowed credibility" is what turns a vague discomfort into a decision.

Lead with the shared interest, then draw the line where it actually is.

"I'll build the four weeks - gladly. Two changes. First, I'll credit her as an influence: 'inspired by a workshop with ___' is true and it still sells. What I can't do is use her name as an endorsement or copy her handout - if she isn't involved, her name is a promise we can't keep, and it's the kind of thing that gets a studio a reputation.

Second, the health claims. I can say it builds strength and mobility through the spine and that people often feel better in their backs. I can't say it detoxifies the liver or cures back pain - those aren't true, and if someone with a disc issue takes them seriously, that's on us."

Then offer a path, not just a no:

• Email the visiting teacher asking about licensing or permission to adapt.
• Or invite her to co-teach one module - that makes her name honest.

Then check yourself: am I arguing this hard because it's right, or because I want the $600? Aparigraha cuts both ways.

And decide in advance: if she insists on the claims, what will I do? Knowing the answer before the meeting is the actual ethical act.

Go with her premise, then refine it.

"You're right that nobody invented warrior two. Shapes are shared, lineages are shared, and if we had to trace every sequence back to an original author we'd all be stuck. So I'm not going to pretend a flow can be patented.

What I do care about is two narrower things. One: if I take someone's specific composition and their handout and sell it as mine, I'm misrepresenting where it came from - that's a truthfulness problem, not a property problem. Two: if I use their name in my marketing, I'm implying they taught here or endorse this, and they didn't.

The cooking version: anyone can make pasta. You don't get to put someone else's restaurant name on the menu.

And crediting is cheap. Saying 'I learned this from ___' costs me nothing and it makes the community bigger instead of smaller. So it's less about purity and more about not lying about what you're handing someone."

Why this framing: she's asking a fair question, and a rules-first answer will bounce off. Conceding the part that's true keeps her listening for the part that isn't.