Hatha free Ashtanga Including Krishnamacharya's Yoga Makaranda Raja yoga Kriya's and Mudras.

Krishnamacharya continues...

"But during ancient times, all were skilled yoga practitioners and therefore had good health and strength, were blessed with a long life and were able to serve society". 


So Krishnamacharya starts out talking about Raja Yoga but then starts begins about yoga for health and strength., the territory commonly associated with hatha yoga. Krishnamacharya seems to have assumed that there was some form of physical yoga practice back way before hatha was a glimmer in Tantra's eye.

There may well have been, it seems likely that there were other postures than the handful of seated asana Patanjali/Vyasa seem to refer to. The early ascetics clearly had tapas postures, it's not a stretch to think other postures or exercises were practiced with focus by those early yogis, if only to warm up in the morning or to shake out the limbs after a long sit.

Either way these postures were not to unite prana, conserve bindu or force kundalini into the sushumna...., the sushumna, the yoga body concepts/models hadn't been invented/constructed back then. Nor were the yogi's concerned with achieving bliss, they had their eye on a bigger fish, bliss would have been a lower jana to pass over in seeking kaivalya, liberation, likewise the siddhis that may or may not have arisen as a distraction, a temptation....., a hindrance.

In Yoga Makaranda (Mysore 1934)  Krishnamacharya at least noted where he believed one practice to be belonging to Hatha yoga another to Raja and we can assume that he is referencing the texts he mentions in his bibliography, mostly later texts. The Yoga Upanishads  he references were hatha influenced, likewise the Yogayajnavalkya that Krishnamacharya had such an affection for.

Krishnamacharya was as confused as anyone else I suspect but he had a principle to work by...,

As long as a practice doesn't contradict Patanjali, go against the aims of the Yoga Sutras, then it might be considered.

In this he perhaps opened the doors to a great deal of confusion. Krishnamacharya was more than happy however to point out where practices in the hatha yoga pradipika for instance should be dismissed.


Where Krishnamacharya made an effort to be clear about which practices were hatha and which raja, everyone else since seems happy to have allowed them to bleed into each other such that we have the incoherent, contradictory  confused situation we have today. It seems to have become quite acceptible to cherry pick from one system or another wherever our interest takes us or perhaps the marketing possibilities.

Are we then practicing asana for hatha or for raja objectives, are we seeking to attain one pointedness or to force that kundalini into the sushimna, unite apana and prana, yoke ourselves with the universal. What are we practicing for.

Even here, in our definition of the word 'Yoga' we are confused, there are multiple translations available. Generally, it seems, in the eyes of most modern practitioners Yoga is translated as 'yoke', and interpreted as union, with for example the divine/universal consciousness. For Patanjali/Vyasa..., for Raja yoga the intepretation is to 'yoke the mind', "... it entails yoking the mind on an object of consentration" (Bryant)


Ashtanga Vinyasa



Note: I consider my daily practice to be Raja yoga, Patanjali/Vyasa yoga, the form this happens to take is Ashtanga Vinyasa as presented by Krishnamacharya/Jois ( with a Vinyasa Krama interpretation). I happen to find this form, the relation of the body to the focus on the breath in silent self practice, suitable for me personally. I have never practiced with Pattabhi Jois personally and have no interest in practicing at KPJAYI, my attitude to Krishnamacharya is merely one of curiosity. I refer to Ashtanga Vinyasa in this post but my interest is in a Raja yoga free from later Hatha yoga metaphysics, it may just as well be practiced perhaps in your local studio as in an Ashtanga Shala or, my preference, our own home. I have no involvement with parampara or a guru–shishya tradition, no interest in glorifying the practice or it's teachers past or present, I am merely appreciative. Each morning, before practice I thank "...all teachers and practitioners for bringing me too and maintaining me in my practice".

What does Ashtanga Vinyasa look like to you, do you see a dynamic, fast paced, physically challenging, hot sweaty, tight bodied practice or do you see, when practiced well and modestly, stillness, do you hear the breath? For me it's the latter.

Note: personally I take my practice more slowly, modified, seeking efficiency rather than challenge and in a moderately warm room.

Pattabhi Jois, when asked, allegedly referred to the yoga he taught as Ashtanga, to reference Patanjali, his teacher Krishnamacharya's ground zero, this is pre Hatha.

Many of the criticisms directed at Ashtanga Vinyasa seem to be on account of an assumed failure by Ashtanga Vinyasa and it's teachers/practitioners to focus enough on hatha yoga concepts and practices ( although many creep in perhaps due to a lack of awareness of the distinctions/demarcation between these two yogas, as well as others).

However, Ashtanga Vinyasa is Raja yoga, the later hatha practices are not required. The asana practiced are for health, strength, fitness, concentration and need not be related to the 'Yoga body' model, the asana, the vinyasa, are also a container/a form, for the breath to be focussed upon as an object of meditation

Raja yogi's from other schools in the Krishnamacharya lineage also criticise Ashtanga Vinyasa for not giving, what they may consider, enough stress to the other limbs in Patanjali's yoga. They may have a point. However, it could also be argued that Ashtanga Vinyasa (whether practiced speedily or more slowly), in it's attention to the breath, in following the breath throughout the sixty, ninety, hundred and twenty plus minute of practice is indeed very much in line with Patanjali's guidance. The breath is, for Patanjali /Vyasa a legitimate object of concentration and he instructs us to work on this practice, this focus on an object until samadhi arises...., which may or may not happen in this lifetime.

1.32 To prevent or deal with these nine obstacles and their four consequences, the recommendation is to make the mind one-pointed, training it how to focus on a single principle or object.
(tat pratisedha artham eka tattva abhyasah) http://www.swamij.com/

1.34 The mind is also calmed by regulating the breath, particularly attending to exhalation and the natural stilling of breath that comes from such practice.
(prachchhardana vidharanabhyam va pranayama) http://www.swamij.com/

1.39 Or by contemplating or concentrating on whatever object or principle one may like, or towards which one has a predisposition, the mind becomes stable and tranquil.
(yatha abhimata dhyanat va)  http://www.swamij.com/







And 1:39 from the excellent Edwin Bryant's Yoga Sutras of Patanjali - with insights from the traditional commentaries.




For some, half a series of asana may be sufficient, boredom not being a distraction, for others ever more asana and series may be required to maintain interest and keep the student on the mat (something some may take advantage of rather than seeking to help overcome).

That said, the other limbs, can be a support to this practice, the yama and niyama may simplify our lives and give rise to compassion, both may help loosen our attachments and reduce distractions, they can be a support for our asana practice, just as the practice of pranayama may reduce our emotional distractions. and likewise pratyahara and just Sitting in calm abiding with the breath without the distraction of attaining a complicated asana.



Patanjali/Vyasa's eight limb (ashtanga) Yoga is a clear, straight forward path/methodology but hard if not near impossible to follow, to stick to/with, there are seemingly endless distractions. The yama/niyama are there to help us with these distractions. Krishnamacharya stressed that the yama/niyama should be engaged with from the beginning. Unfortunately it's often suggest that the yama and niyama can come later, after the asana or late into asana practice.

Asana, rather than being a tool to overcome distraction, to help lead us towards one-pointedness, has for many become the biggest distraction of all, perhaps as a result of this lack of attention to the yamas and niyamas (whether of our own culture/tradition or as outlined by Patanaji). Our inner craving for distraction has been fed upon by the market, we need it seems ever better alignment, more flow, more visualisation, we need ever more anatomy awareness or more understanding of this allegedly related concept/model from the hatha tradition, we need more historical knowledge.

Of course we need none of these. We can sit on the edge a chair and follow the breath, or we can use Ashtanga vinyasa as a tool and move from one asana to the next with enough awareness of anatomy perhaps to keep us safe while bringing our attention constantly back to the breath, whether we practice half a series or six. Nothing else is required.

If samadhi arrises in this lifetime, then we'll need to go back to Patanjali and see what comes next but for most of us, "ekam-inhale....".

Whether we ever attain samadhi or not we can perhaps tread more lightly in the world, be of service, live healthier, calmer lives with focus and concentration that we may direct where we feel is most appropriate. If samadhi arises, so be it if not this perhaps is sufficient.... for this lifetime.

My suspicion is that Krishnamacharya was not himself sufficiently clear as to the distinction between Raja and Hatha yoga, which texts where tantra inspired/influenced (Yogayajnavalkya?) It would have been difficult to date many of the texts he discovered/encountered. Krishnamacharya's rule of thumb seems to have been that if it didn't go against Patanjali's Yoga Sutras then a practice might be considered. He did however make an effort to indicate which practices he considered hatha and which Raja yoga. Pattabhi Jois perhaps failed to continue indicating these distinctions sufficiently as did BKS Iyengar, the result being that practices from one tradition have been allowed to blend into one another. One Ashtanga vinyasa teacher might consider it beneficial to follow his/her own interest and focus on prana as subtle psychic energy, another on raising kundalini, another on subtle and/or yoga body visualisations, still another on conserving bindu. Chanting mantras, compete with the breath as a focus of attention, likewise chakras, bandhas, praying to Hanuman or Kali or Ganesha, to Ishvara. Students who study with several of these teachers may end up merging several of these approaches, unclear themselves as to where one begins and ends, whether they are consistent with each other or contradictory.


In Yoga Makaranda, Krishnamacharya lists Kiriyas and Mudras and notes which belong to Raja and which to Hatha yoga. I find it interesting and useful to separate out the different practices and list them under their different traditions, we may get a feel for what seems to characterise each.

Krishnamacharya even makes this distinction in his instructions for janu Sirsasana.

As far as other asana go, we might look at how Pattabhi Jois (Krishnamacharya's assistant for a time) taught asana, perhaps reflecting how Krishnamacharya himself taught the boys of the palace with the focus on strength, health fitness, concentration and contrast it with krishnamacharya's own instruction in Yoga Makaranda, the longer stays, the kumbhakas, perhaps there is an implied distinction between asana for strength and asana for spiritual progress along with the benefits outline that may be considered asana for health.

Personally I'm no longer that interested the practices outlined below. We should remember too that Krishnamacharya was but one scholar, one authority and most likely flawed by the limitations of his research and the information available to him at that time.