gurus

[Guest guest]

One of the most common things I've seen among

astanga yogis is the phenomenon of guru worship. I think

that it is incredibly important in the practice of

yoga - especially a yoga as tangible and physical as

astanga - to maintain a personal and internal focus as

opposed to an external one.<br>I've met some amazing

yogis, and teachers, who could teach me as much as

Pattahbi Jois could. He is an amazing man, and the

practice would not exist without him, but I do not think

he is the be all and end all of astanga as a lot of

people seem to think. Astanga is its own entity, and

existed before Pattahbi Jois. Many people who offend the

guru (eg. a phenomenal yogi and even more amazing

teacher who wrote the first extensive english book on

astanga) by their offerings to the world of their own

knowledge have basically been disowned, and now are not

included as "legitimate" teachers of astanga. Some of

these teachers teach the primary and secondary series

in the most classical form it exists. They do not

differ from the guru on fundamentals, but if one

partakes in guru worship, then these teachers can be

dismissed. These teachers should not be dismissed. They are

amazing in their own right and should be fully

appreciated.<br>Be careful of worshipping the guru like a god - god

can be found everywhere and in everything.

[Guest guest]

At his workshop in Milan, Lino Miele gave us his

own view about teachers. He is very strict on this

subject: according to him, astanga-yoga teachers are only

those who have got the authorisation to teach from

Guruji and Sharath--i.e. the teachers that are listed on

the ashtanga.com site (Lino calls it "Guruji's

website"). Everyone else is *not* a teacher, and they have

no right to call themselves teachers of Astanga

Yoga. Instructors who offer astanga-yoga classes

without authorisation are just 'assistants'.

[Guest guest]

The debate over the importance of whom to learn

Ashtanga Vinyasa from is certainly a heated one- the

opinion of many students and teachers that I've spoken

with seems to be that you may receive better

"instruction" from a Richard Freeman type, but the Shakti

transmission from Guruji is what we really need to get the

Yoga. In fact, most of us had led classes as our intro

to yoga where we are guided through the alignment of

the asana and reminded of breath as well as the

subtle energies.<br>Whereas Guruji will say

"Laghuvajrasana, You go!"<br>as you stare back not knowing what

this pose is.<br>Conclusion, neither the "western"

teachers, nor Guruji can be discredited. You can truly

learn from the biggest Guru or the most hardened yoga

criminal.

[Guest guest]

The debate over the importance of whom to learn

Ashtanga Vinyasa from is certainly a heated one- the

opinion of many students and teachers that I've spoken

with seems to be that you may receive better

"instruction" from a Richard Freeman type, but the Shakti

transmission from Guruji is what we really need to get the

Yoga. In fact, most of us had led classes as our intro

to yoga where we are guided through the alignment of

the asana and reminded of breath as well as the

subtle energies.<br>Whereas Guruji will say

"Laghuvajrasana, You go!"<br>as you stare back not knowing what

this pose is.<br>Conclusion, neither the "western"

teachers, nor Guruji can be discredited. You truly can

learn from the biggest Guru or the most hardened yoga

criminal.

[Guest guest]

This notion of shakti transmission is interesting

when you start thinking about it. Presumably teachers

like Tim Miller and Richard Freeman have gotten shakti

from Guruji, so why could they not in turn transmit it

to their students? Perhaps they can transmit shakti,

but not in as strong a dose as Guruji. Or is their

shakti quite powerful, but untransmittable so long as

Guruji is in the flesh, and will be freed up -- or

upgraded to transmittable shakti -- after his passing? Or

is it permanently un-upgradeable, and the

transmittable shakti will be passed only to Sharath? I guess

there is no thoroughly-worked-out account of all of

this.<br><br>I am not really making fun: among Catholics and the

Eastern Orthodox there was once a two-tier system of

bishops: you could be consecrated either as a regular

bishop or as a chorepiscopus ("country" bishop). The

regular bishop could both ordain priests and concecrate

other bishops, whereas the chorepiscopus could only

ordain priests. Priests, of course, could not ordain

anyone else. What is transmitted in an

ordination/consecration ceremony is called "charism."<br><br>To what

extent do our rules reflect metaphysical realities? How

far must we go to provide a metaphysical underpinning

for them?<br><br>Peace and Good,<br>Homer

[Guest guest]

This notion of shakti transmission is VERY

interesting, since after practicing with KPJ in Carlsbad last

year and receiving one of his notorious crotch

adjustments while knotted up in pindasana (which was a little

shocking, admittedly, but that's another discussion), my

practice opened WIDE up and I found myself capable of

things I hadn't been able to do even a week before. And

then, of course, I got pregnant, but I don't know if

that's necessarily a result of the master's touch.

Although the baby doesn't look very much like his father .

.. .

[Guest guest]

Gosh - I don't dare ask what the relationship between being capable of things

you hadn't been able to do the previous week, and getting pregnant is

....<br><br><huge grin>