I wrote my first blog post in a couple of months this week but decided it was too negative and took it down after a day. If I'm going to start posting again and it's a big IF at the moment, I want to try and be somewhat more positive.
It strikes me that the Ashtanga world has gone through somewhat of a paradigm shift of late.
For many, the old authorities have been loosened. Pattabhi Jois has lost credibility through his abusive behaviour and this raises questions as to the authority of those who, in turn, have emphasised a close relationship to him. Some were enablers, talking down those who did wish to speak up, others remain apologists, many just looked the other way, most were no doubt just confused. More and more are speaking up, too many others remain silent. Some argue that it was another time or another place, perhaps they haven't seen the article (Remski) where Saraswati, upon being told that his (Jois') behaviour was not acceptable in the US, reportedly said, 'It's unacceptable anywhere'. Some argue, shockingly, that his behaviour wasn't as bad as Bikram's. Others continue to profess to be confused as to why anybody would not speak up, not go back, are they equally confused as to why so many stay in abusive marriages, even today when divorce is so much easier, to those who argue thus I would suggest there is a lack of imagination, understanding and empathy.
It has been shown (here on this blog) how the Ashtanga series (the first two series at least) were a slight reordering of Pattabhi Jois' teacher's (T. Krishnamacharya) table of asana ( see Lists). This isn't a practice that Jois invented, he never claimed to, but rather that he was just teaching what his teacher taught him, clearly there was much that the mature Krishnamacharya didn't share with the boy Jois.
We can see too the practice that Jois presented as Ashtanga was a simplification of his teachers teaching, what was shared with the boys of the palace rather than in the side rooms where Krishnamacharya would teach his private students, hints of which might be found, freely available to all, in Krishnamacharya's early Mysore texts ( Yoga Makaranda - Mysore 1934, Yogasanagalu - Mysore 1941 - Free Downloads).
We can see too, in the 1938 documentary video of Krishnamacharya demonstrating asana, that he is presenting Sarvangasana and Sirsasna kramas ( shoulderstand and headstand sequences) close to those he would teach to Ramaswami soon after leaving Mysore. Krishnamacharya was I believe constantly exploring both his own practice and his teaching to others, just as perhaps we should.
With authority loosened, parampara shown to be a justification of authority (financial?), we find ourselves perhaps somewhat free from dogma, the traditionalists may be shocked to realise perhaps that often, the more flexible ashtanga vinyasa taught in gyms may actually be closer to how Pattabhi Jois' teacher would teach (note I'm not talking about goat or beer yoga here but the sincere, student focused rather than dogma focussed, vinyasa teachers.
Jois presented one, simplified, version of his teacher's teaching, as well as one approach to teaching it. Even Sharath, it seems, while holding firmly to the dogma of the first seems to have taken a somewhat less hands on, aggressive, approach to the second. Many of the most respected, long term Ashtanga practitioners/teachers have taken innovative approaches in their own teaching.
Krishnamacharya argued that we don't all need to learn ALL the asana (how could we, six series merely scratches the surface of all the possible variations) but that some should (learn as many as they can). Likewise, we don't all need to learn a relatively fixed, dogmatic approach to Ashtanga vinyasa, although perhaps some should, so that practice of the boys of the Mysore palace isn't lost completely. Equally we should also reject the idea of there being one traditional, authentic approach, and explore our practice freely (and safely), just as Krishnamacharya seems to have done, this strikes me as more authentic, more traditional.
More than anything we should challenge the idea of yoga as equating with asana, the asana for Jois' teacher Krishnamacharya was ALWAYS integrated with pranayama and with the meditative limbs and on the ground of a code of behaviour (E.G. Yama/Niyama).
A couple of months ago, I wrote a post where I stated that I no longer identified as an Ashtangi (a clumsy expression I admit). I wanted nothing more to do with Yoga and explored Qigong for a time, I learned Taichi too but gradually slipped back into an approach to practice that had been evolving over the last few years (see Proficient Primary).
A series of posts then perhaps, an opportunity to raise and question dogma, here's the first.
-How strong do I need to be, how flexible do I need to be-
Over the last year or so, I seem to have settled into this short krama as the main seated/asymmetric portion of my practice.
Notes:
I work gently into Paschimottasana, the knees bent slightly at first. I have my hands over my feet and it's the pointing of my feet that takes me down into the folded version. I will often include a short kumbhaka after the inhalation and/or a kumbhaka after the exhalation when folded. Krishnamacharya includes Kumbhaka in most of his asana instruction in his early Mysore book, Yoga Makaranda (Mysore 1934).
I don't bother to jump back between sides (Mantra: How strong do I need to be, how flexible do I need to be) or between postures but practice it somewhat more in the approach of Ramaswami (and thus his teacher Krishnamacharya), practicing all the postures on one side and then on the other. Ramaswami mentioned once that even though we might not jump back or return to standing there is, in a sense, always an implied count. Of course, one might take a more Ashtanga like approach, practice first one side and then the other, jumping back between sides or perhaps just between postures. Just as we might include a jump back and through between each asana we might also return to standing each time.
This short sequence is not unlike the first part of the Ashtanga Primary series, ardha badha padmasana is skipped ( we already have a standing version with more freedom for the hip), Kouchasana from second series though is slipped in, as is bharadvajrasana but here a simpler version from Simon Borg-Olivier that I've come to like with less stress on the knee.
An Ashtangi might not see any resemblance to Ashtanga at all in this....., unless of course I were to publish my practice in a book as my own.
I will often include Maha Mudra with kumbhaka before folding down into Janu Sirsasana A. I practice Janu sirsasana D (which used to be part of Ashtanga Primary back in the day supposedly) rather than C, again, to give less stress to the knees.
These are the only two versions of Marichyasana I tend to practice these day, omitting the half lotus versions, again, to go easier on the knees. I will often finish this sequence with navasana include the first few backbends from second series or prepare for a sarvangasana (shoulder stand) krama.
It strikes me that the Ashtanga world has gone through somewhat of a paradigm shift of late.
For many, the old authorities have been loosened. Pattabhi Jois has lost credibility through his abusive behaviour and this raises questions as to the authority of those who, in turn, have emphasised a close relationship to him. Some were enablers, talking down those who did wish to speak up, others remain apologists, many just looked the other way, most were no doubt just confused. More and more are speaking up, too many others remain silent. Some argue that it was another time or another place, perhaps they haven't seen the article (Remski) where Saraswati, upon being told that his (Jois') behaviour was not acceptable in the US, reportedly said, 'It's unacceptable anywhere'. Some argue, shockingly, that his behaviour wasn't as bad as Bikram's. Others continue to profess to be confused as to why anybody would not speak up, not go back, are they equally confused as to why so many stay in abusive marriages, even today when divorce is so much easier, to those who argue thus I would suggest there is a lack of imagination, understanding and empathy.
It has been shown (here on this blog) how the Ashtanga series (the first two series at least) were a slight reordering of Pattabhi Jois' teacher's (T. Krishnamacharya) table of asana ( see Lists). This isn't a practice that Jois invented, he never claimed to, but rather that he was just teaching what his teacher taught him, clearly there was much that the mature Krishnamacharya didn't share with the boy Jois.
We can see too the practice that Jois presented as Ashtanga was a simplification of his teachers teaching, what was shared with the boys of the palace rather than in the side rooms where Krishnamacharya would teach his private students, hints of which might be found, freely available to all, in Krishnamacharya's early Mysore texts ( Yoga Makaranda - Mysore 1934, Yogasanagalu - Mysore 1941 - Free Downloads).
We can see too, in the 1938 documentary video of Krishnamacharya demonstrating asana, that he is presenting Sarvangasana and Sirsasna kramas ( shoulderstand and headstand sequences) close to those he would teach to Ramaswami soon after leaving Mysore. Krishnamacharya was I believe constantly exploring both his own practice and his teaching to others, just as perhaps we should.
With authority loosened, parampara shown to be a justification of authority (financial?), we find ourselves perhaps somewhat free from dogma, the traditionalists may be shocked to realise perhaps that often, the more flexible ashtanga vinyasa taught in gyms may actually be closer to how Pattabhi Jois' teacher would teach (note I'm not talking about goat or beer yoga here but the sincere, student focused rather than dogma focussed, vinyasa teachers.
Jois presented one, simplified, version of his teacher's teaching, as well as one approach to teaching it. Even Sharath, it seems, while holding firmly to the dogma of the first seems to have taken a somewhat less hands on, aggressive, approach to the second. Many of the most respected, long term Ashtanga practitioners/teachers have taken innovative approaches in their own teaching.
Krishnamacharya argued that we don't all need to learn ALL the asana (how could we, six series merely scratches the surface of all the possible variations) but that some should (learn as many as they can). Likewise, we don't all need to learn a relatively fixed, dogmatic approach to Ashtanga vinyasa, although perhaps some should, so that practice of the boys of the Mysore palace isn't lost completely. Equally we should also reject the idea of there being one traditional, authentic approach, and explore our practice freely (and safely), just as Krishnamacharya seems to have done, this strikes me as more authentic, more traditional.
More than anything we should challenge the idea of yoga as equating with asana, the asana for Jois' teacher Krishnamacharya was ALWAYS integrated with pranayama and with the meditative limbs and on the ground of a code of behaviour (E.G. Yama/Niyama).
*
A couple of months ago, I wrote a post where I stated that I no longer identified as an Ashtangi (a clumsy expression I admit). I wanted nothing more to do with Yoga and explored Qigong for a time, I learned Taichi too but gradually slipped back into an approach to practice that had been evolving over the last few years (see Proficient Primary).
A series of posts then perhaps, an opportunity to raise and question dogma, here's the first.
(After) Ashtanga: beyond dogma - 1. Seated and Asymmetric postures.
-How strong do I need to be, how flexible do I need to be-
In his book Yoga Mala, Jois indicated a certain freedom in how we might approach our practice after reaching fifty, just as he did to those with less time available.
We don't need to wait until we are fifty however, this was always Krishnamacharya's approach.
Over the last year or so, I seem to have settled into this short krama as the main seated/asymmetric portion of my practice.
Notes:
I work gently into Paschimottasana, the knees bent slightly at first. I have my hands over my feet and it's the pointing of my feet that takes me down into the folded version. I will often include a short kumbhaka after the inhalation and/or a kumbhaka after the exhalation when folded. Krishnamacharya includes Kumbhaka in most of his asana instruction in his early Mysore book, Yoga Makaranda (Mysore 1934).
I don't bother to jump back between sides (Mantra: How strong do I need to be, how flexible do I need to be) or between postures but practice it somewhat more in the approach of Ramaswami (and thus his teacher Krishnamacharya), practicing all the postures on one side and then on the other. Ramaswami mentioned once that even though we might not jump back or return to standing there is, in a sense, always an implied count. Of course, one might take a more Ashtanga like approach, practice first one side and then the other, jumping back between sides or perhaps just between postures. Just as we might include a jump back and through between each asana we might also return to standing each time.
This short sequence is not unlike the first part of the Ashtanga Primary series, ardha badha padmasana is skipped ( we already have a standing version with more freedom for the hip), Kouchasana from second series though is slipped in, as is bharadvajrasana but here a simpler version from Simon Borg-Olivier that I've come to like with less stress on the knee.
An Ashtangi might not see any resemblance to Ashtanga at all in this....., unless of course I were to publish my practice in a book as my own.
I will often include Maha Mudra with kumbhaka before folding down into Janu Sirsasana A. I practice Janu sirsasana D (which used to be part of Ashtanga Primary back in the day supposedly) rather than C, again, to give less stress to the knees.
These are the only two versions of Marichyasana I tend to practice these day, omitting the half lotus versions, again, to go easier on the knees. I will often finish this sequence with navasana include the first few backbends from second series or prepare for a sarvangasana (shoulder stand) krama.
Below is speeded up version and below that a video in real time .