yoga styles, part three

[Guest guest]

ASHTANGA, VINYASA & IYENGAR YOGA<br><br>I am left

gratefully indebted to B.K.S. Iyengar and his students, my

Vinyasa teachers and my meditation teachers all. But I am

not able to cling to this style or that. Nor to say

that this is better than that. Only that both Iyengar

and Vinyasa yoga have benefited me immensely, and any

harm I have come to in my practice is a result of my

own lack of judgment, and not the techniques of any

given school, or style of yoga. <br><br>As my practice

draws on both methods, so too does my teaching. And

observing my students now, compared to when my orientation

was either more exclusively to Iyengar or Vinyasa

Yoga, I see that they also benefit from an approach

that draws on both methods. For this allows students

to utilise the singular advantages and to

counterbalance any attachment to a limited aspect of either

method. While Iyengar Yoga places great emphasis on the

effects on awareness of aligning the various body parts

accurately, only too often students get caught in the method

and never feel the effects. They remain caught in

their anatomical and intellectual bodies and never go

deeper. While Vinyasa Yoga places emphasis on the breath

and the bandhas only too often these are

misunderstood, applied aggressively and result in superficial

practice that is gymnastic rather than yogic. It was only

through the sensitivity and understanding of

relationships gleaned from the Iyengar method that I was able

to, eventually, discover how to breathe and use the

bandhas. It was only by being taken deeper for longer as a

result of the challenge of the vinyasa continuity that I

was finally able to embody the principles of

alignment and feel their effects. Without Vinyasa Yoga my

understanding of alignment would be far less even that it is

today. Likewise without Iyengar Yoga my understanding of

the breath and bandhas. <br><br>I do not suggest by

this that either Vinyasa yoga or Iyengar yoga are

inherently limited or superficial: simply that each

individual brings to both methods their own limitations

which can be brought into sharper focus by the use of

more than one mirror. This becomes especially

important when that individual does not have the ongoing

daily presence of the guru to reflect to them where

they are abusing or shortchanging the method. And I

can't help thinking that had I known only one style,

though I would be full of ideas about it, I would have

no real experience of yoga, and nothing solid

therefore to offer my students, for technique alone is not

enough.

[Guest guest]

Mula Bandha! These were two of few words of

"english" Sri KP spoke to me when I met him long ago. Truly

powerful words spoken by a master. Are you refering to

Ashtanga yoga when you use the phrase vinyasa yoga?

Following the guru's prescribed path of the eight limbs and

pure diet leads one to a joyous existence and clarity

of mind and is a full time job. To master a path

such as Ashtanga returns in spades every ounce of

effort one puts in. A person such as yourself obviously

finds it beneficial to serve two masters but that is

not necessary. Most people will not live long enough

or have the time in this life to master one yoga

system much less two. A master, by definition, will have

a greater understanding of yoga or anything else by

focusing one's energies on one system.<br><br>For those of

you new to Ashtanga, find a strong loving teacher and

lose yourself in it. You will only be stronger and

happier for the effort. For those who are never sure or

satisfied with one system, some is better than none.

However, you will never know what you missed.

[Guest guest]

But, take-it-up-2000, is it not also the case

that if you stick with one system all your life, you

will never know what you might have missed from not

having tried two or more systems?<br><br>But then again,

if the nondualists are right, nobody ever misses

anything, and this whole discussion -- and all others

discussions -- would be concluded.<br><br>Which maybe is not

so bad.<br><br>Peace and Good,<br>homer_hanumat

[Guest guest]

i think you know me well enough (?) to know that

i try to choose my words with care, but that my

passion sometimes runs away with me. i tried to

distinguish between the technique and the context. connecting

postures with a vinyasa is a technique. if done within the

context of the eight limbs of patanajali, it becomes

ashtanga vinyasa yoga. other techniques used within that

context but without vinyasa could be called ashtanga

yoga, but not ashtanga vinyasa yoga. (by me that is).

we all have our own way of using words. having a

sense of how much weight to put on each part of each

foot, or of which muscles to use to originate the lift

into a handstand (which you know more about than i) is

part of the technical aspect of my practice. as are

the connecting movements of vinyasa. both are applied

within the context of yama, niyama, asana etc. i dont

see two paths here. nor two masters. the path to me

is ashtanga yoga, the vinyasa technique has proved

to be an indispensable tool (as has specific

direction in alignment), the master is patanjali, and the

fool is me (in that it has taken me almost 30 years to

learn what it means to apply yama and niyama to my

practice, 30 years during which whatever else i was up to

it definitely was not ashtangayoga). but, as you

know (i think) my laughter is not hollow. your

brother, even if you're not who i think you are.

[Guest guest]

With all due respect to all concerned, I didn't

see anywhere in Gdev's posts where he stated anything

to the effect that he was "serving two

masters."<br><br>My own (comparatively much more limited) experience

has shown me that the Iyengar and astanga/vinyasa

systems can complement each other. <br><br>On the whole

though, I have to say that, like Gdev, my practice of

yoga never truly began until I began practicing the

astanga system.