Iyengar ,asana,ashtanga,purity ?

[Guest guest]

Looking through an old yoga journal .Dec 1997.

Issue 137.( Look it up if you have it). I found an

interview with BKS Iyengar where he was asked the following

interesting question-<br><br>"There are a wide range of poses

that you teach now, and are in Light on Yoga, which

are not in the Hatha Yoga Pradapika or other ancient

texts. Where did they come from ?"<br><br>He replies

that there were some drawings, books that

Krishnamacharya had but he also tells that he had to create some

new poses to keep some college students that he had

happy. He says<br>"I had to create poses-if Trikonasana

could be done like this, why not Parivrtta trikonasana

? If virabhadrasana 1 could be done, why not

Virabhadrasana 3 ? If you can do Vasisthasana, why not

Visvamitrasana ? or kukutasana-if you do, why nor Parsva

kukutasana ? If Bakasana, why not Parsva Bakasana ? so thats

how it developed."<br><br>Is Iyengar trying to take

all the credit here or what ? How could he have

created Parivrtta trikonasana or Virabhadrasana 3 etc

when they are in the ashtanga series`s. I doubt

whether hes lying but what this shows is that things are

not as pure and handed down by the ancient rishis as

we like to believe they are. It seems that there has

been a lot of experimentation going on. What went on

at Krishnamacharyas yoga school has influenced the

teaching of these 2 great teachers Pattabhi Jois and BKS

Iyengar but I am in no doubt that these were dynamic

teachings that evolved and were not all passed on by

ancient yogis. If the yoga korunta ever existed, then how

can we be sure that what was on it ,is the same as we

are taught today ?.<br>If you take a look at the

primary series how it is taught now and how the first

westerners like David Williams learned it ,you will see that

there have been some changes. Pattabhi has taken some

postures out (like nauli ) and there have been other

changes too.<br>There is no doubt that the the ashtanga

vinyasa yoga system is effective and a work of genius but

the romantic idea of it being passed down from

ancient times in its pure, unspoilt form is lesser

true..<br>Like other things yoga is dynamic and changes and

beliefs in the way yoga should be because of tradtion are

often very debatable. The series is good and should be

kept how it is because it works- but to say that it

should be kept as it is because of tradition is the sort

of justification used only by fundamentalists after

power ,symbolic capital or money.

[Guest guest]

As far as I know, Iyengar only studied with

Krishnamacharya for a few months - this may explain why he had to

invent his own poses.<br><br>I know Guruji took some

poses out of primary series and put them into second

series, but these first two are basically the same as far

as I know today as they were 30 years

ago.<br><br>Nauli is a Kriya which is normally performed for a

limited period of time to obtain a specific curative

effect - I dont know if you can call it a

posture.<br><br>Someone who has deep knowledge of yoga is qualifed to

create his/her own systems. This does not mean that

western people without such knowledge should do the same.

The results of such experimentation may only be known

after many years and perhaps, unfortunately, at the

expense of the student.

[Guest guest]

BKS iyengar was at Krishnamacharyas yoga school

from the age of 15 in 1933 until 1936 when

Krishnamacharya sent him away to teach yoga. He received very

little teaching from Krishnamacharya because he was very

sickly- instead he was told to do what he could. In this

time he must have observed alot of what was going on

in the school and then introduced and maybe modified

a few of the asanas afterwards. There is a total

kick ass video of Iyengar from his days with

krishnamacharya which shows him doing dynamic yoga. This gives

great insight into what was being taught at that

time.<br><br>BKS Iyengar makes changes to the details of his

asanas all the time, I see no reason why Pattabhi

shouldn`t make changes to the ashtanga yoga series`s if

there are logical reasons for it but the belief that

the form is sacred and preserved through respect to

tradition held by fundamentalists is very transparent. I

agree with you that someone who has deep knowledge of

yoga is qualifed to create his/her own systems.<br>As

for a western yogi changing the sequence- maybe some

teachers that have researched this practice intensively

for a longtime have something to add but the danger

is that others without any experience or insight

will do the same and then the deep effects will be

lost- and as you say who knows what effects they will

have on the student. Already we see the fitness

industry making money out of yoga- trying to turn yoga

into a form of aerobics. What will the result of this

be ?