I wrote my first blog post in a couple of months this week but decided it was too negative. 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.
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 some dogma, here's the first.
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. And I for one benefited from that highly structured approach in the beginning in developing a disciplined daily practice, it suited my temperament. 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.
You might argue that there needs to be authority, that we need to be taught how to practice these asana. You're probably right. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have been the case that Jois had much of an idea HOW to teach asana... safely or to whom (see the advanced series in a garage video on youtube), perhaps the same went for Krishnamacharya, did either of them ever open an anatomy/physiology book, has Sharath? Or was it all mostly intuitive, trial and lots of error, damaged for life error. And of course Pattabhi Jois' students, his authorised teachers followed his lead in how they taught the Ashtanga series, cranking students into postures, promoting extreme backbends, twists and hip openers. An 'authorised' teacher may well be one of the most dangerous teachers to go to.
Thankfully, more recently, many teachers have taken the initiative themselves and turned to the anatomy books, to workshops with teachers with a focus on safe practice, and Sharath too (who adjusts less and less), in special courses for his authorised teachers, seems to suggest safer adjustments as well as those to avoid. He is also said to be open to students discussing their practice with him and why they may not wish to practice certain asana. So there are safe authorised teachers to go to but there are also some frankly terrifying authorised teachers out there, I speak from personal experience. There are claims that Jois injured some, perhaps many, of his students to lesser and greater degree, we will never know how many. It's often tended to be the Ashtanga mavericks and/or those teaching outside the KPJAYI or sharathjois.com authorisation system who have challenged dogma in favour of safer practice, a safer Ashtanga. Sharath may excommunicate those Ashtanga teachers who offer teacher training but at least these training tend to include a safe practice, anatomical awareness, element, John Scott's TT with David Keil comes to mind.
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 some dogma, here's the first.
(After ) Ashtanga: Beyond Dogma #1 - Authority
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. And I for one benefited from that highly structured approach in the beginning in developing a disciplined daily practice, it suited my temperament. 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.
You might argue that there needs to be authority, that we need to be taught how to practice these asana. You're probably right. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have been the case that Jois had much of an idea HOW to teach asana... safely or to whom (see the advanced series in a garage video on youtube), perhaps the same went for Krishnamacharya, did either of them ever open an anatomy/physiology book, has Sharath? Or was it all mostly intuitive, trial and lots of error, damaged for life error. And of course Pattabhi Jois' students, his authorised teachers followed his lead in how they taught the Ashtanga series, cranking students into postures, promoting extreme backbends, twists and hip openers. An 'authorised' teacher may well be one of the most dangerous teachers to go to.
Thankfully, more recently, many teachers have taken the initiative themselves and turned to the anatomy books, to workshops with teachers with a focus on safe practice, and Sharath too (who adjusts less and less), in special courses for his authorised teachers, seems to suggest safer adjustments as well as those to avoid. He is also said to be open to students discussing their practice with him and why they may not wish to practice certain asana. So there are safe authorised teachers to go to but there are also some frankly terrifying authorised teachers out there, I speak from personal experience. There are claims that Jois injured some, perhaps many, of his students to lesser and greater degree, we will never know how many. It's often tended to be the Ashtanga mavericks and/or those teaching outside the KPJAYI or sharathjois.com authorisation system who have challenged dogma in favour of safer practice, a safer Ashtanga. Sharath may excommunicate those Ashtanga teachers who offer teacher training but at least these training tend to include a safe practice, anatomical awareness, element, John Scott's TT with David Keil comes to mind.
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).