Ashtanga Vinyasa and modifications

[Guest guest]

Hi everyone -

 

There has been quite a bit of noise recently (well, actually, it

seems to be ongoing here) on this group regarding what is (and isn't)

considered proper when engaging in a practice of Ashtanga Vinyasa

Yoga, as taught by P. Jois. Instead of harboring on our actual

difference of opinions, I like to suggest that we instead flip this

discussion on its head to become more philosophical, open and, in

turn, an experience that we can all learn from instead of the

dogmatic and pedantic rhetoric that currently fills this group.

 

So I have a discussion point that I would like to propose--and that

is the concept of change and interpretation, as knowledge passes from

one person to the next.

 

Let me explain a bit further.

 

Shri K. Pattabhi Jois acknowledges that his guru was Shri T.

Krishnamacharya. Jois studied with Krishnamacharya at the early age

of 12 in 1927, and continued to study with his guru until 1952.

Krishnamacharya and Jois, worked out the Ashtanga Vinyasa system

based on the Yoga Korunta .

 

T.K.V. Desikachar, was the son and also a student of T.

Krishnamacharya, and began learning yoga at a very early age, and

teaching at the age of 13. His teaching method, while there are

striking similiarities to Jois' approach, is a unique teaching

approach.

 

BKS Iyengar also acknowledges that T. Krishnamacharya was his guru,

and was introduced to Krishnamacharya's yoga system at the age of 16.

 

As anyone knows who has taken classes in the various styles as taught

by Iyengar, Jois or Desikachar -- these classes are very different in

methodology and approach.

 

So what gives? How can three different teachers, with distinct and

diverse teaching methods *all* study with, and acknowledge the same

guru -- Krishnamacharya? Why is it that these teachers *do not*

teach the same exact method?

 

Here is my hypothesis: Krishnamacharya taught different approaches to

different students, because he felt that no one approach would work

perfectly for all.

 

Or another hypothesis: As Krishnamacharya continued to teach, he

emphasized different aspects of yoga, as appropriate for his students

at the time.

 

Or does someone here have other ideas as to why Jois, Iyengar and

Desikachar have such wildly varying teaching methods? I think this

group would benefit from the discussion of the origins of these

teachings, and how they vary.

 

Regardless, the very notion that three very distinguished teachers --

Jois, Desikachar and Iyengar -- teach distinct approaches to asana

yoga indicates that modifications/adaptation, or even interpretation

of knowledge passed on from one's guru not only occurs, but is, in

fact, inevitable. Even students of Jois who studied with him in

1970's and 80's note that his approach is different (albeit only

slightly) now. Change is inevitable.

 

That would mean that the folks at Jivamukti in NYC, David Swenson,

and yes, even It's Yoga, are like Lino Miele, Tim Miller and Dena

Kingsberg--all are doing exactly what Jois, Desikachar and Iyengar

have done with their learnings -- passing their knowledge and

experience on to others in their unique interpretation of the

practice.

 

And interpretation is where things get sticky, and sometimes, ugly.

Interpretation can wreak havoc -- because it is simply impossible for

everyone to agree on the same interpretation. And interpretation

stems from the ego, which allows differences between people to be

highlighted rather than that which is universal. As we all know too

well, wars in the past (and even impending wars) occur out of a

difference in interpretation.

 

The biggest debate of this group stems from interpretation as well.

There are traditionalists who teach and study the Ashtanga system

literally, and follow Jois' teachings to the T. There are also those

who might be called "reformists" who incorporate Jois' teachings but

also translate the teachings differently than the traditionalists.

This is ultimately no different than, say, the difference of

interpretation of Judiasm by Reformist vs. Conservatives vs.

Orthodox, or the difference of interpretation of Christianity by

Catholics vs. Protestants, (or differences in interpretation of

Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc.).

 

Anyway, what does everyone else think about this? I'm eager to hear

other's responses/thoughts/digressions.

 

 

As we continue to grow closer to the light of greater consciousness

The light in me salutes the light in you,

--ak