I've had a post floating around in my head for the last few weeks (years probably), the last week has brought it back to mind.
or seemingly much use for.
or perhaps....
The list seems to get longer every time I sit down to write it but high on the list are...
With the terminology above I'd probably throw in...
I 'm quiet happy with good old fashioned, bread and butter terminology like
but mostly I prefer to employ....
just practice, my practice, which really has nothing whatsoever to do with yours, or yours with mine for that matter.
I love that you have a practice too but don't think for one moment that mine should reflect yours or how you happen to conceive it or yours reflect mine.
As it happens my practice outwardly resembles somewhat the Ashtanga vinyasa taught by Pattabhi Jois and his family ,which isn't surprising as I originally developed my practice through the books and videos/dvds etc. of the early students of Pattabhi Jois. It's convenient to employ that term, Ashtanga, as well as occasionally Ashtangi but to be perfectly honest I seem to have less and less use for those terms too so lets put those on the list....
It doesn't interest me whether you are or aren't, whether on this list or that, who you've studied with or for how long, if drawn to you, lists don't come into it....
And why not lets chuck Yoga and Yogi on the list also,
More tired terminology that is perhaps past its sell by date, more a hindrance than a help.
Tear off the title page of your Patanjali and just write practice sutras instead, and for god sake throw out the commentary.... just practice and worry about making sense of it as you go along....
just as Vyasa did.
After learning that approach to practice generally referred to as Ashtanga, I turned to Pattabhi Jois' own teacher T. Krishnamacharya. It's the study and practice of Krishnamachaya's early work (consistent with his later) that currently most informs my own practice although I tend to pretty much keep the 'Ashtanga vinyasa' form of the practice that I began with and am most familiar and comfortable with. But I certainly don't consider Krishnamacharya sacrosanct, I don't consider him my guru, how could I, Guru is on my list of Ashtanga terminology that I have no use for.
I tend to see Krishnamacharya as a teacher in the same way perhaps as I saw/see Heidegger as a teacher , the philosopher who most fascinated and intrigued me and whose approach to thought most inspired my own at Uni and after. I put 'thought' in italics because Heidegger questions what is thinking just as Krishnamacharya perhaps questions what is practice. Both are very much tied to their traditions and yet questioning, exploring the nature of that tradition, perhaps seeking to overcome it ( damn, I used tradition), to find elbow room within it certainly.
But of course I've had many teachers, many inspirations and influences on my thinking and I question them all just as I question Heidegger and Krishnamacharya however inspiring and influential I may currently find them.
So to recap
Ashtanga terminology that I have no interest in
or seemingly much use for.
or perhaps....
Ashtanga terminology that I could quite happily live/practice without
The list seems to get longer every time I sit down to write it but high on the list are...
Parampara
Isvara-pranidhana ( albeit fascinating)
Surrender
Lineage
Lineage holder
A clumsy expression at best
Lineage holder
A clumsy expression at best
tradition
should I go on.....
With the terminology above I'd probably throw in...
Tantra
If the yogi's managed without tantra for a thousand years or so (at least) then so, I suspect, can I (don't worry yogi makes it on the list later)
hathayogapradipka
hatha texts in general come to think of it
fascinating but can do without them
I 'm quiet happy with good old fashioned, bread and butter terminology like
teacher(s), yep more than one,
respect for teacher(s),
....enough to engage with and question anything/all they may teach but respectfully
philosophy
but mostly I prefer to employ....
practice,
I love that you have a practice too but don't think for one moment that mine should reflect yours or how you happen to conceive it or yours reflect mine.
As it happens my practice outwardly resembles somewhat the Ashtanga vinyasa taught by Pattabhi Jois and his family ,which isn't surprising as I originally developed my practice through the books and videos/dvds etc. of the early students of Pattabhi Jois. It's convenient to employ that term, Ashtanga, as well as occasionally Ashtangi but to be perfectly honest I seem to have less and less use for those terms too so lets put those on the list....
Ashtanga
Ashtangi
and also....
Authorised
Certified
It doesn't interest me whether you are or aren't, whether on this list or that, who you've studied with or for how long, if drawn to you, lists don't come into it....
And why not lets chuck Yoga and Yogi on the list also,
Yoga
Yogi
More tired terminology that is perhaps past its sell by date, more a hindrance than a help.
Tear off the title page of your Patanjali and just write practice sutras instead, and for god sake throw out the commentary.... just practice and worry about making sense of it as you go along....
just as Vyasa did.
We can quite happily get on with our practice day in day out and let it take care of itself, work itself out without straitjacketing it with such terminology.
Motto of the week
Keep out of the way of your practice
Bumper sticker
Keep out of the way of my practice
Damnit
let it take care of itself.
Terminology is mostly there for those who make a living out of using it, for us who practice I suspect it just gets in the way.
Nope.....
Do your practice and all is coming
is on the list as well, as is...
1%theory,
95% practice
oh and ....
Mysore
as a concept, as terminology rather than a place name.
and for heaven sake, put
Advanced
and
instagram
on the list as well
After learning that approach to practice generally referred to as Ashtanga, I turned to Pattabhi Jois' own teacher T. Krishnamacharya. It's the study and practice of Krishnamachaya's early work (consistent with his later) that currently most informs my own practice although I tend to pretty much keep the 'Ashtanga vinyasa' form of the practice that I began with and am most familiar and comfortable with. But I certainly don't consider Krishnamacharya sacrosanct, I don't consider him my guru, how could I, Guru is on my list of Ashtanga terminology that I have no use for.
Guru
I tend to see Krishnamacharya as a teacher in the same way perhaps as I saw/see Heidegger as a teacher , the philosopher who most fascinated and intrigued me and whose approach to thought most inspired my own at Uni and after. I put 'thought' in italics because Heidegger questions what is thinking just as Krishnamacharya perhaps questions what is practice. Both are very much tied to their traditions and yet questioning, exploring the nature of that tradition, perhaps seeking to overcome it ( damn, I used tradition), to find elbow room within it certainly.
But of course I've had many teachers, many inspirations and influences on my thinking and I question them all just as I question Heidegger and Krishnamacharya however inspiring and influential I may currently find them.
So to recap
4 comments:
With you on all of them except isvarapranidana. Why banish that one? I remember Mr. Ramaswami translating it as "faith in God" and as a shortcut to yoga - skip everything else and just have faith in God. Mr. Desikachar (as I am told via his students) translates it as "non-attatchment to results". While the Desikachar translation works best for me personally, I enjoy tossing both of them around in my head - how could they ever be the same? How are they different? Quite a juicy internal conversation! Is that how Mr. Ramaswami translated it when you studied with him? Is it the God factor that turns you off?
Hi Robyn. I wouldn't call it banishing so much as.... putting to one side. As a list, terms/items can be taken off and others added as one sees fit. I think i referred to isvarapranidana as 'fascinating' above so one might expect some movement on and off the list.
in Yoga Makaranda Krishnamacharya refers to it thus (he has 10 each yama and niyama)
5. "To worship one’s chosen deity in the proper manner according to the vedas is isvara puja".
In an interview he was asked about it, this was his reply
46. "What does the bhakti mean to a person who has no belief in Isvara?
Love is bhakti for them".
In a sense Krishnamacharya is saying if you don't have a chosen deity, no problem, put that niyama to one side and just practice love.
In another post I've employed this niyama to refer to a love of/surrender to knowledge (Knowledge/truth-alethia being the deity), practice then, as the path to knowledge is in a sense a surrendering to knowledge. As I said, on and off the list.
Ramaswami stressed that isvarapranidana was an option, a fast track option, a shortcut, if you happen to have a deity than single minded focus on that deity can be relatively easy, without it you have to go the long way around and work at cultivating focus/concentration, Patanjali's yoga sutras is for those who have to take the long way around.
Robyn you asked about Ramaswami's translation, here's Pam Hoxy's notes on his Yoga Sutra course that she turned into a book with him
1-23 isvara-pranidhanad-va
Surrendering (with intense devotion) to the lord
(one can achieve Nirodha by surrendering to the lord.
Notes
Isvara (the lord) , in yoga is not a creator, sustainer or destroyer, as in other religions (such as puranas, Christianity, Judaism) but is the pure consciousness.
Samkhya philosophy was adopted by patanajali in the first part of the yoga sutras:
By mastering the 24 tattvas (elements) one can see the 25th principle (purusha - individual self).
But Patanjali added contemplation on Isvara (the 26th principle - the self - pure consciousness), which can bring knowledge of the 25th principle ( purusha - individual self).
Isvara is not connected to the 24 tattoos or to the 25th principle it’s just there.
Thanks for the additional information. You inspired me to check my notes from the lecture I attended in 2008 with Mr. Ramaswami on Chapters I and II of the YS (in NYC). I remembered him speaking about it being the "short cut method" and, otherwise, we have the YS for the rest of us. My own notes do not shed any more light on the subject - being very consistent with everything you have written here. I also checked what Edwin Bryant had to say, just for good measure. As is his interest, he equates it with bhakti yoga, offering a little less wiggle room for those who might not jive with the more directly religious translation. Thanks again for your thorough interest and research!
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.