RE: ashtanga yoga Ashtanga Vinyasa and modifications - Various Approaches

[Guest guest]

I had the great fortune to study with Desikachar for a few months at

the KYM in Madras in 1989. I have to say that this recent wellspring

of attention to Yoga has been awfully amusing to watch, given how

nutty I was considered at the time for doing asanas.

 

I'll save the niceties of that experience for a memoir I may someday

actually write, but with respect to the differences in approach, I'd

like to add my $.02.

 

First off, I think you have to eliminate Iyengar from the discussion

outright. He studied with Krishnamacharya, but rejected much of the

adaptive aspects of Krishnamacharya's teaching, hightailed it to

Europe, and actually wrote his teachings down (Light on Yoga). Later

on, at Krishnamacharya's 100th Birthday celebration, he made a big

production out of prostrating to his guru, and admitted that he was

wrong to stray from the master's more easygoing approach to learning

asanas. Therefore, I think that there is some doubt as to what

Iyengar actually thought, since he appears to have changed his tune

after Light on Yoga came out.

 

You'd think that Desikachar would have the inside line on

Krishnamacharya's "real" teachings, being his son and all, but

Desikachar made it clear several times that his relationship with his

father would not be considered "typical" or even close, by western

standards. Krishnamacharya was 50 when Desikachar was born. Also,

when learning Yoga, Desikachar was not treated as an "insider" any

more than Jois or the other students, western or otherwise. As such,

it is entirely likely that Jois and Desikachar got a different

approach.

 

More likely, from what I have read about Jois, is that each man took

what he learned and adapted it based on their own experience. Jois

is reportedly quite headstrong. Desikachar is highly analytic and

disarmingly charming. He seems to have taken his father's

alternative medical role to heart as much as his role as yogi. Even

the same exact teachings would probably be interpreted and applied

differently by such diverse personalities. I do think that

Desikachar probably inherited more of his father's personality,

judging by the somewhat irreverent tales he would tell about his dad

(that the great yogi would enjoy a little whisky and tobacco, on

occasion, for instance). So perhaps studying at the KYM would be

closer to studying directly with Krishnamacharya than heading to

Mysore. (Unfortunately, I missed making the comparison myself by

only a few months, Krishnamacharya died shortly before I arrived in

India.)

 

But I think the crux of the issue is that both were taught in the

oral tradition, which is very hard for Westerners to grasp.

Krishnamacharya never thought it necessary to write anything down –

if a student wanted to learn it, he would help him or her memorize

it. This went even for such earth-shattering items as the Yoga

Sutras of Patanjali. Desikachar was the first to see the value in

publishing his father's spoken sutras. When you are taught orally,

you take in that which is most important to you at the time. You

retain some teachings, and forget or minimize others. I'll wager

that the few folks with whom I studied would disagree sharply about

what we were taught, even as a group. If we decided to teach, we

would take very different approaches. I don't think that

Krishnamacharya would see any issue with that, providing we did not

harm to our students and properly honored the sutras.

 

Yoga is as Indian as the Ganges, and as organic. An oral tradition

guarantees intimacy with a guru (in fact it requires it), but it is

also imprecise. Anyone who spent any time in India would recognize

that paradox as the wonderful thing that it is.

 

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > > >

> > > 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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > News - Today's headlines

> > http://news.

[Guest guest]

I agree with you completely. No two people will ever come out of a room

telling the exact same story, it is all perception based on each's reality.

Each one of us has to decide for ourselves where we want to be, where we

want to go with our practices and how we will get there. I feel very

fortunate to have a teacher who teaches Mysore and that is the way the I

prefer to learn (as much as I would love to throw some minor adjustments in

there at times). When his classes were small, I was able to experience the

closeness of him as a teacher and learned so much more then just asanas. As

his classes have grown tremendously, something has been lost and it is when

you can see how "changes" can take place due to the obligations of the

teacher and their ability to make a living from their classes.

Margee

>

> richardhimes [sMTP:no_reply]

> Monday, October 07, 2002 6:58 PM

> ashtanga yoga

> Re: ashtanga yoga Ashtanga Vinyasa and modifications -

> Various Approaches

>

> I had the great fortune to study with Desikachar for a few months at

> the KYM in Madras in 1989. I have to say that this recent wellspring

> of attention to Yoga has been awfully amusing to watch, given how

> nutty I was considered at the time for doing asanas.

>

> I'll save the niceties of that experience for a memoir I may someday

> actually write, but with respect to the differences in approach, I'd

> like to add my $.02.

>

> First off, I think you have to eliminate Iyengar from the discussion

> outright. He studied with Krishnamacharya, but rejected much of the

> adaptive aspects of Krishnamacharya's teaching, hightailed it to

> Europe, and actually wrote his teachings down (Light on Yoga). Later

> on, at Krishnamacharya's 100th Birthday celebration, he made a big

> production out of prostrating to his guru, and admitted that he was

> wrong to stray from the master's more easygoing approach to learning

> asanas. Therefore, I think that there is some doubt as to what

> Iyengar actually thought, since he appears to have changed his tune

> after Light on Yoga came out.

>

> You'd think that Desikachar would have the inside line on

> Krishnamacharya's "real" teachings, being his son and all, but

> Desikachar made it clear several times that his relationship with his

> father would not be considered "typical" or even close, by western

> standards. Krishnamacharya was 50 when Desikachar was born. Also,

> when learning Yoga, Desikachar was not treated as an "insider" any

> more than Jois or the other students, western or otherwise. As such,

> it is entirely likely that Jois and Desikachar got a different

> approach.

>

> More likely, from what I have read about Jois, is that each man took

> what he learned and adapted it based on their own experience. Jois

> is reportedly quite headstrong. Desikachar is highly analytic and

> disarmingly charming. He seems to have taken his father's

> alternative medical role to heart as much as his role as yogi. Even

> the same exact teachings would probably be interpreted and applied

> differently by such diverse personalities. I do think that

> Desikachar probably inherited more of his father's personality,

> judging by the somewhat irreverent tales he would tell about his dad

> (that the great yogi would enjoy a little whisky and tobacco, on

> occasion, for instance). So perhaps studying at the KYM would be

> closer to studying directly with Krishnamacharya than heading to

> Mysore. (Unfortunately, I missed making the comparison myself by

> only a few months, Krishnamacharya died shortly before I arrived in

> India.)

>

> But I think the crux of the issue is that both were taught in the

> oral tradition, which is very hard for Westerners to grasp.

> Krishnamacharya never thought it necessary to write anything down -

> if a student wanted to learn it, he would help him or her memorize

> it. This went even for such earth-shattering items as the Yoga

> Sutras of Patanjali. Desikachar was the first to see the value in

> publishing his father's spoken sutras. When you are taught orally,

> you take in that which is most important to you at the time. You

> retain some teachings, and forget or minimize others. I'll wager

> that the few folks with whom I studied would disagree sharply about

> what we were taught, even as a group. If we decided to teach, we

> would take very different approaches. I don't think that

> Krishnamacharya would see any issue with that, providing we did not

> harm to our students and properly honored the sutras.

>

> Yoga is as Indian as the Ganges, and as organic. An oral tradition

> guarantees intimacy with a guru (in fact it requires it), but it is

> also imprecise. Anyone who spent any time in India would recognize

> that paradox as the wonderful thing that it is.

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > > > >

> > > > 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

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > News - Today's headlines

> > > <http://news.>

>

>

>

>

> ashtanga yoga

>

>

>

> Terms of Service

> <>.