I still get mail, there is clearly a lot of disillusionment in the Ashtanga community of late, from students and teachers alike. For some the spell has been broken somewhat and there is the temptation to let the practice lapse, to give it up altogether, but then what, what comes after Ashtanga. When a practice has dominated your life for months, years, decades even, what happens if and when you stop, there is some fear there, grief even for something lost, a practice, a lifestyle, a community.
"I still love the practice but....".
I've been hearing that a lot.
'I love the practice but I don't want anything to do with Pattabhi Jois, or lately with Sharath, or with those friends and teachers I'd looked up to who criticised and vilified the victims of those who came forward to talk about Jois' abuse, as well as any who spoke up in support'.
Or indeed,
"...all those who stayed silent".
I'm sure I'm not the right person to comment, I've been moving further and further away from straight, by-the-book Ashtanga for years. And yet I always tended to feel that what I was practicing was somehow still Ashtanga, a couple of months ago however it did feel like a final clean break ( see previous post, 'No longer identifying as an Ashtagni').
I practiced Qigong for three months, I learned Tai chi, I practiced Simon Borg-Olivier's Spinal movements, asana virtually disappeared from my practice..... but then it came back. At first I would just include Krishnamacharya/Ramaswami's key asana but then I would move from Simon's spinal movements into some Standing postures and soon realised that I was basically practicing half Primary.
I've always felt that half Primary made a lovely practice ( half second perhaps every couple of days), being short it allows plenty of time for pranayama and a Sit just as Krishnamacharya intended. It's modifiable, you can practice it slowly, long slow breathing perhaps with kumbhaka following Krishnamacharya's instruction in his early Mysore text, 'Yoga Makaranda'. Or you could practice it with natural breathing as Simon Borg-Olivier might suggest along with his anatomical and physiological guidelines. You could add in a couple of preparatory postures or more advanced developments of a posture or both as we see in Ramaswami's Vinyasa Krama, also clearly present in Krishnamacharya's early teaching. Practiced this way we are perhaps recovering Krishnamachary's original Mysore teaching, we are in the Realm of Pre-Jois, pre-Ashtanga.
What is most important it seems is that we do still practice... something, that we maintain a daily discipline to assist in giving focus to our lives in seeking to reduce our attachments, especially in this period of unease. Yoga Philosophy is very simple, it's the commentators who distort or make it complicated. I remember Ramaswami saying that he always found Patanjali's Yoga Sutras approachable, immediate (my words), it's the commentaries that confuse matters.
We might practice other forms of exercise of course but as the Italians might say, Asana 'marries' with pranayama and Asana, they come from the same soil.
Pattabhi Jois lifted his Primary and Second series from Krishnamacharya's table of asana (which we find in Krishnamacharya second Mysore book, 'Yogasanagalu'). Jois' Primary series is barely changed from the table, minor tweaks. Jois' second series contains a little more of a shuffle, a rearrangement of some of Krishnamacharya's asana groups, the Advanced series, while containing the same asana as Krishnamacharya's table, is completely different following the requirements of the course Jois was asked to teach, as both Krishnamacharya said, Advanced asana is for demonstration.
Note: This is in no way an attempt to 'airbrush' Pattabhi Jois out the Ashtanga Vinyasa story, to do so would also airbrush out the victims of his abuse, rather, while recognising that Pattabhi Jois promoted aspects of his teacher Krishnamacharya's approach to Yoga we can perhaps move out of Jois' shadow and look directly to his source.
If the asana are the same, the way they have become practiced is not.
Fixed series perhaps helped make Ashtanga popular (and those early practitioners were attracted to the physicality of the practice as much as any spiritual suggestion), but popular is not necessarily better. Fixed series also caused problems, it introduced pitfalls. A fixed series led to faster breathing, a hot, faster sweaty practice as we seek to cram a whole series, or a series and a half, into our morning before running off to the office. A long fixed series meant that pranayama was basically discarded along the way. Meditation, the whole point of the practice for Krishnamacharya and indeed for Patanjali barely made it into the picture.
We became asana obsessed, fixated, our attachments grew perhaps rather than lessened.
Meanwhile, the money rolled in.... to Mysore, piles of it.
Practice asana as we wish and for whatever reason and watch how our practice and our reasons for practice change. Practice to escape, to break a patten, a habit. Practice for health and or fitness, practice for a beautiful body, practice as a hobby as a devotion, for a community all are of course perfectly justifiable but if we practice asana for Yoga, as Yoga, then we surely need to try and keep the asana in perspective and not lose ourselves in the asana at the expense of Yoga or mislead ourselves or others by the suggestion that asana is sufficient.
Sharath of course, however well intentioned he may have been, sought to preserve his grandfather's legacy. Despite being well aware of the sexual abuse committed by his grandfather Pattabhi Jois, even being present in the same practice spaces on occasions when it occurred, Sharath still virtually deifies his grandfather every Guru Purnima, Sharath's legitimacy is tied to his grandfather. Sharath took care of the family business, now no doubt he looks out for his own families future. Becoming ever more authoritarian and dogmatic to this outside observer, the practice seems to have become, as it were, preserved in amber.
Most of the the shalas, studios and gyms have, I would argue, abandoned the essence of the practice, discarded the pranayama and the meditative activity, some though have rediscovered it, teach it quietly, somewhat under the radar, often unauthorised or de-authorised teachers the former perhaps never choosing to visit Mysore, the latter choosing not to return, both practice with the same devotion as those who make yearly visits to Mysore.
For Krishnamacharya the asana and pranayama clean the room, we don't then leave, we sit. Krishnamacharya suggested that the meditative activity be twice as long as the pranayama, the pranayama twice as long as the asana, asana is the lesser of the three and yet in Jois' Ashtanga it has eclipsed the other two
Note: Manju Jois, Pattabhi Jois' son still includes pranayama and a meditative activity (chanting) after every practice.
The growing disillusionment with Ashtanga is perhaps an opportunity to recover the Pre-Jois practice of Krishnamacharya. It is a simple practice, perhaps half a Jois Ashtanga series or a handful of basic postures practiced mindfully, with or without transitions followed by a simple breathing practice and a meditative activity. It's as fixed as we want it to be, as modifiable as we wish it to be. It perhaps recovers much that was lost along the way as Ashtanga was made more popular, more marketable.
We should perhaps ask ourselves more seriously, I should have asked myself more seriously....
Because one glance at Instagram is enough to show us that the ballerinas, the gymnasts the acrobats and contortionists, the martial artists all exceed our most 'liked' practitioners in terms of grace and flexibility, fitness, strength and application. We shouldn't kid ourselves with a "Yes but our practice is more authentic, traditional (it really isn't), more....meditative...., it's YOGA ", We discarded meditative and likely yoga along with it when we fixated on asana, on a sold system. We listening to those who trumpeted the system, defended it and justified it's popularised form. We should perhaps have listened to the voice inside that knew better all along that there was perhaps another way to approach the same practice.
Many practice their Ashtanga this way already, as Richard Freeman has said, those who are less flexible are somewhat blessed. Home practitioners are equally blessed. A different approach to our practice suits us at different times, I myself may have needed at the time, the full-on dynamic, sweaty asana/series chase for a time but perhaps I became somewhat lost in that. Most who stay in Ashtanga will no doubt end up adapting their practice eventually anyway, as they let go of the asana chase, the series chase, perhaps the fame chase.
How do we respond to the Ashtanga crisis? Reduce our attachments, we might start with the view of practice we have become attached to.
We are so often seeking legitimacy for our practice, authority. The authority for our practice, the legitimacy of however we practice comes from our Sitting, from how well our practice prepares us to Sit or to go through our lives mindfully and treading lightly.
Make shapes mindfully, breathe, sit and follow our yama/niyamas as best we can, enjoy our practice.
Note: The idea of practicing less asana (perhaps half rather than a full series) is to allow time for Pranayama and a Meditative activity, not to allow you to leave your mat early for cake...., as M. seems to think.
"I still love the practice but....".
I've been hearing that a lot.
'I love the practice but I don't want anything to do with Pattabhi Jois, or lately with Sharath, or with those friends and teachers I'd looked up to who criticised and vilified the victims of those who came forward to talk about Jois' abuse, as well as any who spoke up in support'.
Or indeed,
"...all those who stayed silent".
I'm sure I'm not the right person to comment, I've been moving further and further away from straight, by-the-book Ashtanga for years. And yet I always tended to feel that what I was practicing was somehow still Ashtanga, a couple of months ago however it did feel like a final clean break ( see previous post, 'No longer identifying as an Ashtagni').
I practiced Qigong for three months, I learned Tai chi, I practiced Simon Borg-Olivier's Spinal movements, asana virtually disappeared from my practice..... but then it came back. At first I would just include Krishnamacharya/Ramaswami's key asana but then I would move from Simon's spinal movements into some Standing postures and soon realised that I was basically practicing half Primary.
I've always felt that half Primary made a lovely practice ( half second perhaps every couple of days), being short it allows plenty of time for pranayama and a Sit just as Krishnamacharya intended. It's modifiable, you can practice it slowly, long slow breathing perhaps with kumbhaka following Krishnamacharya's instruction in his early Mysore text, 'Yoga Makaranda'. Or you could practice it with natural breathing as Simon Borg-Olivier might suggest along with his anatomical and physiological guidelines. You could add in a couple of preparatory postures or more advanced developments of a posture or both as we see in Ramaswami's Vinyasa Krama, also clearly present in Krishnamacharya's early teaching. Practiced this way we are perhaps recovering Krishnamachary's original Mysore teaching, we are in the Realm of Pre-Jois, pre-Ashtanga.
What is most important it seems is that we do still practice... something, that we maintain a daily discipline to assist in giving focus to our lives in seeking to reduce our attachments, especially in this period of unease. Yoga Philosophy is very simple, it's the commentators who distort or make it complicated. I remember Ramaswami saying that he always found Patanjali's Yoga Sutras approachable, immediate (my words), it's the commentaries that confuse matters.
We might practice other forms of exercise of course but as the Italians might say, Asana 'marries' with pranayama and Asana, they come from the same soil.
Pattabhi Jois lifted his Primary and Second series from Krishnamacharya's table of asana (which we find in Krishnamacharya second Mysore book, 'Yogasanagalu'). Jois' Primary series is barely changed from the table, minor tweaks. Jois' second series contains a little more of a shuffle, a rearrangement of some of Krishnamacharya's asana groups, the Advanced series, while containing the same asana as Krishnamacharya's table, is completely different following the requirements of the course Jois was asked to teach, as both Krishnamacharya said, Advanced asana is for demonstration.
Note: This is in no way an attempt to 'airbrush' Pattabhi Jois out the Ashtanga Vinyasa story, to do so would also airbrush out the victims of his abuse, rather, while recognising that Pattabhi Jois promoted aspects of his teacher Krishnamacharya's approach to Yoga we can perhaps move out of Jois' shadow and look directly to his source.
If the asana are the same, the way they have become practiced is not.
Fixed series perhaps helped make Ashtanga popular (and those early practitioners were attracted to the physicality of the practice as much as any spiritual suggestion), but popular is not necessarily better. Fixed series also caused problems, it introduced pitfalls. A fixed series led to faster breathing, a hot, faster sweaty practice as we seek to cram a whole series, or a series and a half, into our morning before running off to the office. A long fixed series meant that pranayama was basically discarded along the way. Meditation, the whole point of the practice for Krishnamacharya and indeed for Patanjali barely made it into the picture.
We became asana obsessed, fixated, our attachments grew perhaps rather than lessened.
Meanwhile, the money rolled in.... to Mysore, piles of it.
Practice asana as we wish and for whatever reason and watch how our practice and our reasons for practice change. Practice to escape, to break a patten, a habit. Practice for health and or fitness, practice for a beautiful body, practice as a hobby as a devotion, for a community all are of course perfectly justifiable but if we practice asana for Yoga, as Yoga, then we surely need to try and keep the asana in perspective and not lose ourselves in the asana at the expense of Yoga or mislead ourselves or others by the suggestion that asana is sufficient.
Sharath of course, however well intentioned he may have been, sought to preserve his grandfather's legacy. Despite being well aware of the sexual abuse committed by his grandfather Pattabhi Jois, even being present in the same practice spaces on occasions when it occurred, Sharath still virtually deifies his grandfather every Guru Purnima, Sharath's legitimacy is tied to his grandfather. Sharath took care of the family business, now no doubt he looks out for his own families future. Becoming ever more authoritarian and dogmatic to this outside observer, the practice seems to have become, as it were, preserved in amber.
Most of the the shalas, studios and gyms have, I would argue, abandoned the essence of the practice, discarded the pranayama and the meditative activity, some though have rediscovered it, teach it quietly, somewhat under the radar, often unauthorised or de-authorised teachers the former perhaps never choosing to visit Mysore, the latter choosing not to return, both practice with the same devotion as those who make yearly visits to Mysore.
For Krishnamacharya the asana and pranayama clean the room, we don't then leave, we sit. Krishnamacharya suggested that the meditative activity be twice as long as the pranayama, the pranayama twice as long as the asana, asana is the lesser of the three and yet in Jois' Ashtanga it has eclipsed the other two
Note: Manju Jois, Pattabhi Jois' son still includes pranayama and a meditative activity (chanting) after every practice.
The growing disillusionment with Ashtanga is perhaps an opportunity to recover the Pre-Jois practice of Krishnamacharya. It is a simple practice, perhaps half a Jois Ashtanga series or a handful of basic postures practiced mindfully, with or without transitions followed by a simple breathing practice and a meditative activity. It's as fixed as we want it to be, as modifiable as we wish it to be. It perhaps recovers much that was lost along the way as Ashtanga was made more popular, more marketable.
We should perhaps ask ourselves more seriously, I should have asked myself more seriously....
"How fit is fit enough, how strong is strong enough, how flexible is flexible enough".
Many practice their Ashtanga this way already, as Richard Freeman has said, those who are less flexible are somewhat blessed. Home practitioners are equally blessed. A different approach to our practice suits us at different times, I myself may have needed at the time, the full-on dynamic, sweaty asana/series chase for a time but perhaps I became somewhat lost in that. Most who stay in Ashtanga will no doubt end up adapting their practice eventually anyway, as they let go of the asana chase, the series chase, perhaps the fame chase.
How do we respond to the Ashtanga crisis? Reduce our attachments, we might start with the view of practice we have become attached to.
We are so often seeking legitimacy for our practice, authority. The authority for our practice, the legitimacy of however we practice comes from our Sitting, from how well our practice prepares us to Sit or to go through our lives mindfully and treading lightly.
Make shapes mindfully, breathe, sit and follow our yama/niyamas as best we can, enjoy our practice.
Note: The idea of practicing less asana (perhaps half rather than a full series) is to allow time for Pranayama and a Meditative activity, not to allow you to leave your mat early for cake...., as M. seems to think.
