Practicing the yoga of judgement
One of the ongoing themes or threads (*cough* sutras *cough*) here has been what I’ll tongue-in-cheekingly call “the yoga of judgement.”
We’ve judged other forms of yoga (maybe a lot). We’ve talked about judging others’ Ashtanga practices. We — and commenters — have touched on whether practicing yoga’s supposed to make you less judgmental.
We, and not a few of those commenters, have come down on the side of: there’s nothing, really, in yoga’s tradition to suggest you vacate your right to being judgmental, or in this case a better word: discriminating.
Kailsasa Parampara, via himalayanacademy.com
In fact, practicing yoga — and focusing your mind and regulating your breathing and controlling your senses — ought to make you more discriminating (in the “I can tell a good wine from a bad one” not “I discriminate against person A, B or C”). And being discriminating has all sorts of benefits, such as not being suckered in by a wayward guru, an ineffective yoga (asana) practice or any other fly-by-night operations.
It seems to me that fundamental to this discriminating perspective when it comes to the practice of yoga — at least as my discriminating perspective tells me — is a core of tradition, a clear parampara, a rooting in the classic yoga texts, thinkers and practitioners. That tradition gives you something against which to judge, to discriminate (even if you are reacting against that tradition).
If I can put it bluntly, I’m talking about the difference between Ashtanga and a flow class.
Often, the yoga styles we’ve judged around here, I think, take their lumps because they seem to toss out that tradition in favor of … oh, I don’t know, a rootlessness? Some kind of postmodern scoffing at the nature of tradition? (I’m certainly guilty of that perspective in my life.) Or perhaps just a marketing strategy that values new over old, free-of-Indian-influence over the burden of a religion (yoga without the Om, and thus without even a tradition to react against ultimately).
I’ve been thinking about this for two reasons:
- The founders of 3D Yoga in the past week found and commented on our mostly lighthearted post about their particular form of very non-Ashtanga yoga. They added much depth to the discussion, and I appreciate their taking the time to comment.
- On Sunday, I attended a kirtan workshop with the Sangita Yoga folk (who will be leading kirtan at the 2013 Confluence). There is a tremendous focus on the tradition of kirtan and sacred music, of bringing us from the West to the Indian practice of singing as opposed to bringing the Indian practice of singing to the West. (More on that experience this week.)
For Bobbie and me, the grounding in tradition is critical (as our Yatra with Namarupa ought to suggest). That isn’t to say it isn’t without trouble, without inner conflict, without … our discriminating about what works, what doesn’t, what feels right, what doesn’t, what we value and what we don’t.
We aren’t blindly following a tradition for tradition’s sake, in other words. But we are following a tradition.
And because the tradition I’m talking about is Ashtanga, what has been leaping to my mind as I think about this are the teachers (and students, but teachers especially) who at one point practiced Ashtanga but then went on to develop their own, often Ashtanga-based forms of yoga.
I suppose I can name them, because it isn’t any big secret: Shiva Rea, Bryan Kest, Seane Corn, among others.
Now, this is where you think I’m going to bash them. But I’m not. What I wonder — because my experience is so much the opposite — is why they got a taste of Ashtanga (and other forms of yoga, too) and then went a different direction, especially a direction of their own creation and refinement.
I wonder what was and is different about the experience that the senior teachers of Ashtanga compared to the experience of those who took aspects to Ashtanga and then made something new. Why did one stick with tradition and one not?
More generally, I wonder what is different between the experiences of those who root themselves in a more clearly defined yoga tradition and those who develop a newer form. Or about people leading kirtan with only traditional Indian instruments versus those who bring in electric guitars, rock drum sets, etc.
Of course, I recognize that yoga — and Hinduism as a broad umbrella term describing the religion of India — has a fluidity to it that allows for new strands to crop up, for gurus to have inspiration and set off to teach (and they succeed or fail based on how much their message resonates). The harmonium, after all, is pretty new to India and Indian music.
Things change. No doubt. No argument.
But whether those changes are good, are meaningful, whether they fit within a tradition or run against (for good reason or not), those are questions for …
The discriminating mind.
Posted by Steve
At the end of the day, maybe you just have to go with whats right for you at a particular point in time and if you develop as a being, then your practice has done what its meant to do. It may not have the same effect on another for whatever reason. I know in Ashtanga circles, we tend to say that Ashtanga is for everyone (except lazy people) but who really knows especially if you consider that maybe less than 10% of the world practices yoga and of that 10%, maybe 10% practice Ashtanga………thats 1%……..does that mean 99% are lazy? Maybe it wouldn’t work for them! Or even more ego shattering, maybe they just don’t need it…….and we do!!
Someone (I think it was Lucas Rockwood) explained what you describe (teachers moving away from a particular tradition/style) in a way that was interesting. He said sometimes you get a musically gifted child who plays piano particularly well. The child gets better and better because they practice hours and hours every single week under established teachers playing traditional classical music. Pretty soon, they are better than a lot of adults. Flash forward a few decades…….the child is now 40 or so, but guess what, they no longer play classical music! They jam together with other talented individuals (or on their own) and create something really beautiful which resonates with a lot of people. Some even say its better than the original classics! They could never have done this without the work put in during childhood. So it can be with yoga. Guruji….Iyengar….and others practiced the traditional classics and created their own styles later. Now others are doing the same with those styles.
I guess the problem is some may think that they can create their own styles after very little experience of the roots from which they are derived and that makes them either deluded……..or visionaries! Which is it? Only discrimination….and time will tell!!
I agree with what you’ve written (although I’ll yet you take the heat for comparing Ashtangis to the 1%), and I think your last point is distilling what I’m talking about. Obviously, Pattabhi Jois among others built on the tradition they learned in and developed from there (the old “does Ashtanga change” question). But because they have learned so much from the tradition, they are able to do it in a way that adds a new and valuable layer onto the tradition — much like the gifted child playing new music.
S
I feel like you are confusing asana with parampara- lineage. I have a teacher who has a teacher who had a teacher who inspired so many that communities were built around him and even now that he has left his body those communities still flourish. Asana is part of our tradition but it does not include a set sequence. The shakti in our tradition is transferred from teacher to student through the sound vibration of mantra meditation. The tradition has a strong connection to ancient texts like YS, HYP and Gita- it includes asana, pranayama, meditation, kriya, bhavana, ritual like agni hotra, gemology, herbology, jyotish and Ayurveda. asana practice is based on constitution- we practice asana in a way so that individually I get what I need specifically- it may be very athletic or very gentle. I practiced Ashtanga Vinyasa in the tradition of P Jois but ultimately left that tradition because I was drawn to a lineage that was, in my mind, bigger. Instead of a set asana sequence I wanted a set meditation practice and to learn the fire ceremony and to still do handstands in my asana practice.
I don’t think I’m confusing asana with parampara — I’m just rooting my comments in asana because that’s our main focus. But even still, if Pattabhi Jois said the point of Ashtanga was to see God in all things (or “not two, only one”) then I think one can trace the lineage pretty well versus an asana practice that focuses on having a great ass. And, hopefully it is obvious, we’d hold the former in greater regard.
S
I think the beauty of ashtanga is the 5 elements (David Swenson) – seems to me flow focuses on vinyasa, Iyengar (which I consider very valuable) on asana – others on meditaion/pranayama (incorporating one or all of the last 3: breath, bandhas, drishti). As I tell my students, in ashtanga we get it all – vinyasa, static holds, breathwork, corework and an inward turning meditative attitude(accentuated by drishti and the 3 lotuses). Think how singers, musicians, athletes prepare and train – running scales or drills – basically using a set series of something to keep it all in shape. The problems come in focussing on only one of these elements instead of all of them. I have practiced yoga for almost 20 years and my return to ashtanga yoga in the last 3+ has allowed me to “advance” more in the last 3 years than I did int he first 17. ‘Nuff said! But as yogi’s and teachers we need to offer yoga to the wider world – not infight within ourselves about who’s “right” – if it works it works. However, new students with very limited experience tend to think the little they know is the right way and others are wrong – they can be VERY judgemental (in a bad way). Plus you can’t deny that in the West, yoga can be a popularity contest unfortunately. That’s where tradition and community are important – knowing this style has been researched and it’s results confirmed. Not many Ashtangi’s in WV, so I thrive on attending Ashtanga events with others like me. And in reading this blog – thank you!!!
I’d love to go off on a somewhat tangent about yoga as popularity — that’s such a ripe topic. I’ll suggest, though, that throughout history — in India, the Middle East, Europe, Asia, South America — that often the winners (the teachers who thrive, the religions that expand, even the civilizations that carried on) won “popularity contests.”
Of course, in some of those cases there may have been a little bit of conquering that helped. Perhaps that has evolved into today’s marketing and PR?
S
I mean popularity like in the junior high school girl way – very superficial and judgemental. When I first started studying yoga, you didn’t have this wide selection of teachers – you had very few – and you went to them because they had yoga knowledge – not because they wear lululemon clothing, drive a Prius, all organic everything – whatever. I’m a old hippie freak (funny – just like David Williams, Danny Paradise, David Swenson) and I KNOW lots of folks look at my no makeup, low end clothes and dreadlocks and instantly write me off. I was very surprised to find this attitude in yoga. And saddened. But that’s why I love events like the Mela – that let me know I am sooooo similar to these great teachers and I am on the right path – no matter what anyone else thinks – such joy! Practice and all is coming – gonna do that right now!
Oh, Steve…you know this is a topic so near and dear to my heart. Here are some thoughts in passing.
First, I don’t think we should confuse changes in technology with a change in systems. So, for instance, your mention of the harmonium might fall into this category. Kirtan existed for centuries prior to the advent of the harmonium, let alone its introduction in Indian society and culture. The Indians and kirtan adopted it, but this in now way transformed the principles, or tradition, upon which the practice is and was predicated. One might think about the sticky mat in the same connection. Yoga existed long before the sticky mat, and no one, (or at least very, very few people) advocate the rejection of the sticky mat. It’s a technology that does not in any way interfere with the principles of the practice.
The same cannot be said for those who create their own systems. The creation of one’s own personal yoga system demonstrates a complete ignorance of the science and tradition of yoga. In fact, I would go so far as to claim that those who create their own systems fail to appreciate the fact that they are in fact dealing with an ancient science of self-realization. (http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/08/yoga-is-science-thaddeus-haas/) Understanding that yoga is a science makes the creation of a new system absurd. Shiva Rea’s “Prana Flow” is essentially taking the principles of mathematics and deciding that you want “2+2=5.” And the reason, plain and simple, for this desire is just that desire. Desire to be seen as special, to be a rockstar, or in the words of The Babarazzi a “yogalebrity.” (http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/08/r-i-p-humility-a-eulogy-thaddeus-haas/)
Now, of course, we are all free to pursue our destiny, but the debate must come down to something more than “if it works…” or “it makes you feel good…” This is nothing more than cultural appropriation. Yoga is about controlling the mind in order to access the self, not strutting around with a trident and a cowboy hat, or even being happy.
Yoga has existed and will continue to exist long after we are all dead and gone. It’s eternal after all. Create your own system, but have the decency to call it something other than yoga, because regardless of how postmodern you want to be, words and terms have referents and there isn’t a postmodern theorist who will argue that it boils down to us simply making up definitions engineered to fit our needs. This reveals as much misunderstanding of postmodern theories as does calling what Shiva Rea does yoga. Yoga is rooted in a specific epistemology and culture with foundational principles and what is occurring in America is far more dangerous and dis-ingenious than using a calculator to add and subtract.
Hi Thad.
Of course I’m trying to push some folks’ button here.
With the harmonium (and the sticky mat), I’m thinking more of how change can happen and evolution can happen. Rather than say that the harmonium in no way transformed kirtan, I’ll — following the Sangita Yoga idea — argue that it did by making kirtan more accessible. (I know there’s an argument that you could just *sing* but the harmonium is an accessible and relatively easy instrument that has broadened kirtan’s reach.
Other than that, as we know — we agree! One should think critically and be, shall we say, a master, before inventing new systems. (Although I opt to counter myself with Blake: I must create my own system or else be enslaved by another man’s. But what’s the context of that, etc. etc. etc.) I suppose there is the possibility of “divine intervention” but, as I think we’re speaking largely of asana-based systems here (since that’s really the only one easy to create willy-nilly, right?), the trouble is that these new forms of yoga as exercise are just that — exercise, with perhaps some nice social manners tossed in for good effect.
There my “judgmental nature” comes out.
What are some other analogies we could make?
Sticking people with needles and calling it Acupunctuation?
Drawing up herbs of your own choosing (a special hello to our five-leafed friend, I’m guessing) and saying you are an Aruherba expert?
Those wouldn’t fly, right, because people would say, “Whoa, hey — there’s all this learning and science and study needed.” But they don’t say that about yoga, right?
Is that the crux?
S
Exactly.
People don’t say that because they don’t understand the context within which yoga exists. And that largely because the people who assert to the contrary have wasted their valuable time lauding the “authority” and experience of those invested in the new-agey paradigm of “I’m okay, You’re okay.” The very ones who overwhelmingly create new systems. It’s marketing 101.
Regarding the harmonium…I’m not buying the idea that it made kirtan more accessible, unless you’re speaking about access to the western world. Kirtan existed for centuries with mrdanga and kartals and before that clapping hands. If anyone or anything is responsible for making kirtan more accessible to the general population the world over, it is Lord Caitanya. Lord Caitanya broke down the caste established rules and delivered the congregational chanting of the Holy Names to the masses. This was long before British and their squeeze boxes.
I think, re: the harmonium, we’re talking mainly about its ability to spread beyond India (its being kirtan). It’s a nice middle path between something perhaps to simple for most people to really enjoy (just cymbals?) and something way to difficult. It’s something a lot of people can pick up (and something that allows for group kirtans) that bridges the differences between East and West.
I think that’s the gist. Again, I’m probably poorly translating what I was told on Sunday.
Yeah. I buy that.
The ashtanga lineage traces back to Krishnamacharya- P Jois’ guru -yet at the end of their lives they were teaching asana differently. For me that’s not a big deal because asana is the least impactful of the techniques. Iyengar, Indra Devi, and TKV Desikachar with P Jois all trace their parampara back to Krishnamacharya and all practiced, practice, taught and teach asana in different ways. It is very common to share a lineage but practice asana differently. (Sivananda and Satchidananda are other examples from our modern yoga history).
Asana least impactful – how so – I feel quite the opposite. Isn’t that why Primary series is called Yoga Therapy – using asana to get the physical body in shape so we can experience what David William’s calls the “cheap thrills” of yoga? Seems to me these start to come along about the time you are ready to start exploring 2nd series(and only grow from there through asana and other practices). And as Beryl Bender Birch says – you have to start with the physical work. I love what she said about folks who come to her and want to levitate or be psychic or see auras. “I ask them if they can touch their toes. They don’t generally like that” BBB, Power Yoga, p.34
The idea is like Einsteins quote that a problem cannot be solved at the same level of existence that it was created in- subtlety is the way of power. Problems at the physical level have their root and cause in the subtle energetic realm- the pranic body. Pranic techniques like pranayama, meditation, chanting and bandha most effectively heal the physical body. Heal the root cause at the energy level and heal the negative symptom already created by the energetic imbalance at the physical level. In the Hatha Yoga Pradipika we are taught that mind has the capacity to control the body, prana has the capacity to control mind and nada, psychic sound, has the capacity to control prana. By trickle down effect, the more subtle a technique, the more powerful it is.
My teachers who left Ashtanga (and tried to market themselves differently) seemed to have done so as a result of being (badly?) injured in the practice by a strong (inappropriate?) adjustment (one of them in Mysore). Maybe also as a result of trying to carve out a niche and make a living in our competitive and capitalist society, as westerners are wont to do.
That, and people’s personalities (some don’t like to follow rules/tradition, some are not so driven to learn/progress, some will feel uncomfortable with the religious/Indian basis of yoga, some won’t like the perceived rigidity/schedules) probably led to a lot of people leaving Ashtanga for easier, feel-good, candy-coated yoga-lite.
I guess you can tell where I stand on this issue
I really need to get me some of that easier, feel-good, candy-coated yoga-lite!
Thanks for the comments — the thoughts on people’s personalities helps add to the discussion, especially.
S
nicely put, insightful and very helpful!
This is so much like many of my art world discussions
The importance of building a solid technical foundation (in any field of study really) is crucial before one can truly let the rules loosen to create a whole new expression.
As someone pointed out, there is something to be said for the constitution of each individual, and how that changes over time. I am mostly Vata, Pitta. Learning this practice has done wonders for settling my monkey brain, and I’m sticking with it for awhile. I’m not making any promises for the future. Live for today.
I actually like hearing that the folks you mentioned started out in Ashtanga. I have a whole new respect for them. I also believe, that any way you can bring your average Joe or Joanna to the mat, is a good way. “the watered down yoga” may be the introduction. One never knows how that practice will morph down their road. Hey, I started out that way 8 years ago. And here I am today with Ashtanga.
As I like to say to my artist friends…different strokes for different folks.