I'm out of practice posting, this is just rambling.
I spent twenty years reading Heidegger, I still read him occasionally but less obsessively so of late. It was probably in my second year of reading him as an undergrad that I came across the fact that he was a member of the Nazi party (indeed, the party's puppet as Rector at his University for a time at least until he resigned his position) and around that same time that books started to come out on Heidegger and Nazism until, for a time, it seemed to be all the newer commentators wrote or published about him.
It didn't stop me reading him (rather than his commentators), I read everything as it came out in translation. I bet you didn't know that the film director, Terrence Malick (Thin Red Line), was an important translator of Heidegger (The Essence of Reasons) Malick gloriously dropped out of his graduate studies after an argument with Gilbert Ryle over his thesis on the concept of world in Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein, ( I did something similar).
"Where Heidegger talks about “world” he will often appear to be talking about a pervasive interpretation or point of view which we bring to the things of the world. This, in any case, has been the view of many commentators. But there is little sense in speaking of “a point of view” here since precisely what Heidegger wants to indicate with the concept is that none other is possible. And there is no more sense in speaking of an interpretation when, instead of an interpretation, the “world” is meant to be that which can keep us from seeing, or force us to see, that what we have is one. Heidegger’s concept is quite like Kierkegaard’s “sphere of existence” and Wittgenstein’s “form of life,” and, as with them, it enters his inquiry only at its limits, when a problem moves out of his depth, or jurisdiction." Terrence Malick - Introduction to Martin Heidegger's The Essence of Reasons
Note: I miss Heidegger, just as my practice will never be what it was as when I practiced 'standard' Ashtanga, my clarity of thought will never be the same as when I read Heidegger daily. I would go to Paris for a week and sit in the Tuileries the whole time with a bottle of wine, some bread and some cheese and battle through his texts line by line....., come to think of it the wine probably didn't help.
Heidegger's critique of metaphysics was either of value or it wasn't, his political inclination didn't make his thinking more or less relevant, uncomfortable perhaps but not less relevant. Unfortunately, philosophers and critical thinkers influenced by Heidegger tend to get read more of late, with only a passing acquaintance with Heidegger's own writings. When I was reading him we sought to make his thought more accessible rather than try to sound clever by embracing incomprehensibility ( there are similarities with practice here too, the blogosphere sought to share our discoveries as we explored practice rather than shout "look at me, look at me" on instagram) There are good reasons Heidegger can be difficult to read, he was challenging language itself, like Coltrane he was almost seeking to transcend language (Listen to Coltrane's My favourite things). Heidegger wasn't trying to sound intelligent, he didn't need to, students referred to him as the hidden king, his lectures were verbal LSD, mind blowing (try a few pages of History of the Concept of Time - my favourite for hearing Heidegger's 'Voice' in lectures).
Patabhi Jois was a sex pest, does this make the practice he popularised, Ashtanga, of less value, less beneficial, less rewarding?
See this post Ashtanga : Inappropriate Adjustments/Sexual abuse.
I never practiced with Pattabhi Jois, I never went to Mysore. Apart from two occasion, possibly three, I barely went to a Mysore rooms in my first years of practice. I had no teachers, no adjustments, no assists, Jois was irrelevant, Mysore irrelevant, Sharath irrelevant. I practiced daily at home and built a discipline. I had enough common sense and enough luck not to be injured, unlike years before when I had practiced Aikido and buggered my knees. I practiced yoga to help me sit and practice Mindfulness, the yoga book in the library just happened to be Ashtanga. I stuck with yoga, with Ashtanga, because despite the problems I had had in the past with my knees, that had stopped so many other forms of exercise, I had no problems with them in my yoga practice, whatever posture I tried ( and I practiced up to Advanced B, my knees only seemed to rebel at kandasana).
I built a discipline.
One of the problems we have with talking about yoga is language games ( I also studied Wittgenstein of course). Language games 101, you can't play chess following the rules of backgammon, likewise you can't talk about the brain with the language we use to talk about the mind, norwe can't talk about the mind with the language we use to talk about the brain. Confusion ensues, this is where, for Wittgenstein and indeed Heidegger ( Wittgenstein was influenced by Heidegger in his later writing) many of the problems arise.
So what are we talking about when we talk about Yoga, are we talking about health, fitness, flexibility, wellbeing, a path, method, a discipline, meditation, contemplation, union.
Ashtanga yoga can bring health strength and fitness however, being a dynamic practice it can also cause harm, like gymnastics say or cheerleading. This doesn't seem to fit the Yoga = health and well-being 'non-harming' language game therefore it can't be YOGA right?
Wrong.
It's an ontological argument verses an ontic argument, Heidegger again. Put more simply it's a 'What IS yoga' versus a 'HOW is yoga' argument'. When you ask what something IS questions you get what something is answers. When you ask how something is questions you get how something is answers.
What Ashtanga is.
Ashtanga yoga has a physical aspect, we practice a mostly fixed series of postures with a fixed transition sequence in between each posture. The sequence is partly made of subroutines in which a basic posture develops into a more complex posture before moving onto another posture outside the subroutine or moving into the beginning of another subroutine. We practice this sequence, ideally, daily.
How Ashtanga is.
Practicing the same sequence daily allows us to focus our attention on the breath, either directing the breath or merely observing the breath, the practice has a meditative quality.
Practicing daily develops discipline, mainly because the practice is and always maintains a challenging quality. Even after 'smoothing out the edges' of the postures and transitions we're still left with seeking to observe the breath without following distracting trains of thought.
For some, health and or strength and fitness may be their main goal in seeking the practice although they might also consider the meditative aspect as reducing stress and thus also concerned with health.
Most seem to agree that exercise tends to be good for us, injuries of course can happen in any form of exercise, even tiddlywinkers, I hear, get tendonitis. Runners of course get all kinds of injuries from blisters to blown knees to torn hamstrings to heart attacks. I saw a video recently of a gymnast breaking both her knees in a somersault that she seemed to land perfectly.
We can of course seek to limit the risk of injury. Are our teachers pushing us too hard, do they actually know what they are doing, are we sufficiently prepared for the exercise we intend to practice. "Please consult your doctor before attempting this practice" Who actually does that?
Ashtanga yoga CAN be a dangerous practice, there is a tradition of teaching, coming from Jois himself, that encourages students to practice postures they should never consider (see the Jois led Advanced series practice in a garage video on Youtube). There is cranking and twisting, pulling and pushing into postures, and as the man was revered by his early ( and indeed later) students, his methodology became also became revered and justified and copied.... and passed along.
The method of teaching isn't the practice. The practise of the practice is the practice (Sounds like Heidegger, I remember writing "Arggggghh" in the margin of the first text of his I was given to read, I still have it).
![]()
As I mentioned before, I wasn't taught by Jois, I wasn't pulled or pushed or cranked into postures, I just followed a book (Swensons's) that had more gentle variations of postures and practiced them until the more challenging posture became available.
Note 1. A few years later I went to a teacher who studied with Jois but declined their adjustments and assists, wincing at the screams I heard around the room as students were cranked into postures that I had approached myself through kinder variations.
Note 2. Jois' teacher Krishnamacharya taught variations leading up to more challenging postures, indeed we even see it in the practice itself. Unfortunately, as well as being a Sex Pest Jois was an idiot, he added a posture that his teacher had put into an intermediate grouping into the primary group and then stopped students from moving on to the next unrelated posture or subroutine until they forced themselves into the posture.
Note 3. Jois' son mentions that in the beginning his father would encourage variations and moving on after an attempt at a posture rather than being held back, Jois' son continues to teach this way.
Ashtanga yoga is, or can be, surely, should be, a meditative practice, it develops focus and concentration. Other practices do this as well of course but the fixed sequence of postures, the attention to the breath, marries well with the demanding 60-90 minute physical practice.
Ashtanga is a discipline. This for me is the key issue. Ashtanga is demanding enough for us to often not want to get on the mat to practice. If we make the practice too easy, too enjoyable then getting on the mat becomes easy and we don't perhaps develop a discipline, a habit perhaps but not necessarily discipline. I would argue that it is because the practice is challenging that the discipline becomes established.
Stoicism too is all about discipline, disciplining ourselves.
It is from this discipline, attained through the practice of Ashtanga, that we move into other aspects of Yoga. The practice of Ashtanga yoga may be considered the beginning rather than an end itself.
That said Ashtanga, as health and fitness can of course also be considered an end in itself, anybody should be free to practice it just for fun, for exercise and community without judgement.
For me personally, I don't give a damn whether I get fit or strong or flexible or even how healthy I may become, these are byproducts for me. I happen to believe that with regular exercise, whatever form it may take, I will naturally become fitter, healthier, more flexible, stronger too I guess but if these were more important to me then perhaps I would practice Cross-fit. Cross-fit too by the way develops discipline.
What I seek through the practice of Ashtanga yoga is a discipline that marries well with a meditative aspect and that suits my body physically. A practice that supports and prepares me for other aspects of yoga. In my case those other aspects of yoga happen to my practice of Stoicism (which equates perhaps with Yama/Nyama and Contemplatio which equates perhaps with DHARANA - Focused concentration and possibly DHYANA - Meditative absorption.).
Ashtanga comes from Krishnamacharya, Jois, his student, merely popularised it. I personally would argue that in simplifying his teacher's teaching he somewhat......, dumbed it down, Mcshtanga if you will. However, Krishnamacharya's teaching is available to us. Jois allowed us to jump head first into a practice, once we've learned to swim we are free to rediscover other aspects of Jois' teacher's teaching by reaching back to the primary sources.
Ashtanga may have been dumbed down but it's not dumb, Krishnamacharya's teaching may have been simplified but that just makes it approachable rather than simple, it is perhaps a clearing that opens up for us (Heidegger again).
There are arguments for having a very narrow fixed presentation of Ashtanga. If we have one standardised approach then we can walk into any Ashtanga class or Mysore room and practice without possibility of confusion. We can call this Standard form Ashtanga perhaps. It's not necessarily the best or most ideal form of practice generally or individually ( i tend to feel that Sharath has been hobbled somewhat in feeling the need to preserve his Sex Pest grandfather's later presentation, rather than exploring the practice freely as so many of Jois' other western students were free to do) but it's convenient to have a reference point, Mysore, Kpjayi , Sharath, they can be useful in this. It's only when you become dictatorial about it, give yourself absurd titles, seek to hold onto authority and all it's financial rewards for your family that it becomes an issue.
The best Ashtanga is perhaps practiced outside of Mysore, the safest Ashtanga is perhaps practiced outside of Mysore...., the most interesting Ashtanga is perhaps practiced outside of Mysore.
My own practice is non standard Ashtanga (most wouldn't recognise it as Ashtanga perhaps), it has the general outline perhaps of the Ashtanga sequence, it tends to be mostly fixed, the same practice day in day out but also maintains a degree of flexibility. It leans more towards Krishnmacharya's own texts than to KPJAYI, more influenced of late by Simon Borg-Olivier approach as well as his anatomy and physiology rather than any other teacher of Ashtanga. Jois is irrelevant to me personally and I tend to be indifferent to Sharath. I don't recognise a tradition, parampara is nonsensical to me personally. I lean towards the Stoicism of Greek and Rome, to the western tradition of Contemplatio that to the yoga philosophy of India. Krishnamacharya would have encouraged me in this, he wouldn't have wanted me to look to another religion, another tradition but rather to embrace and search within my own worldview
Jois may have been an arse, but his teacher's practice that he shared remains a joy..... however differently I may approach it.
There are many who seek to undermine Ashtanga and use Jois' abuse to do so. I get it, Ashtanga doesn't come under Yoga Alliance, this is a problem for those who seek to control the yoga that is practiced and how it is taught. In Jois and the tradition of teaching he passed along they perhaps have some justification. However there is also something wonderful about having teachers pass along a teaching that they have practiced and explored themselves, daily, for many years rather than having practiced yoga for a few months, been allowed on to a Yoga alliance 200hr TT course and let loose.
I've always felt it was up to the Ashtanga community to circumvent the Jois family altogether, form some non profit organisation led by trustees. But in the light of jois' abuse and realising that most of the early teachers we respected were perhaps enablers, apologists, defenders , where would we look for trustees. The politics is depressing. Best perhaps to just practice, either at home or with a teacher you trust and if somebody asks YOU to teach then to do so and learn as much as we can to avoid damaging anyone in the process and perhaps allow the KPJAYI a symbolic fiefdom.
I spent twenty years reading Heidegger, I still read him occasionally but less obsessively so of late. It was probably in my second year of reading him as an undergrad that I came across the fact that he was a member of the Nazi party (indeed, the party's puppet as Rector at his University for a time at least until he resigned his position) and around that same time that books started to come out on Heidegger and Nazism until, for a time, it seemed to be all the newer commentators wrote or published about him.
It didn't stop me reading him (rather than his commentators), I read everything as it came out in translation. I bet you didn't know that the film director, Terrence Malick (Thin Red Line), was an important translator of Heidegger (The Essence of Reasons) Malick gloriously dropped out of his graduate studies after an argument with Gilbert Ryle over his thesis on the concept of world in Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein, ( I did something similar).
"Where Heidegger talks about “world” he will often appear to be talking about a pervasive interpretation or point of view which we bring to the things of the world. This, in any case, has been the view of many commentators. But there is little sense in speaking of “a point of view” here since precisely what Heidegger wants to indicate with the concept is that none other is possible. And there is no more sense in speaking of an interpretation when, instead of an interpretation, the “world” is meant to be that which can keep us from seeing, or force us to see, that what we have is one. Heidegger’s concept is quite like Kierkegaard’s “sphere of existence” and Wittgenstein’s “form of life,” and, as with them, it enters his inquiry only at its limits, when a problem moves out of his depth, or jurisdiction." Terrence Malick - Introduction to Martin Heidegger's The Essence of Reasons
Note: I miss Heidegger, just as my practice will never be what it was as when I practiced 'standard' Ashtanga, my clarity of thought will never be the same as when I read Heidegger daily. I would go to Paris for a week and sit in the Tuileries the whole time with a bottle of wine, some bread and some cheese and battle through his texts line by line....., come to think of it the wine probably didn't help.
Heidegger's critique of metaphysics was either of value or it wasn't, his political inclination didn't make his thinking more or less relevant, uncomfortable perhaps but not less relevant. Unfortunately, philosophers and critical thinkers influenced by Heidegger tend to get read more of late, with only a passing acquaintance with Heidegger's own writings. When I was reading him we sought to make his thought more accessible rather than try to sound clever by embracing incomprehensibility ( there are similarities with practice here too, the blogosphere sought to share our discoveries as we explored practice rather than shout "look at me, look at me" on instagram) There are good reasons Heidegger can be difficult to read, he was challenging language itself, like Coltrane he was almost seeking to transcend language (Listen to Coltrane's My favourite things). Heidegger wasn't trying to sound intelligent, he didn't need to, students referred to him as the hidden king, his lectures were verbal LSD, mind blowing (try a few pages of History of the Concept of Time - my favourite for hearing Heidegger's 'Voice' in lectures).
Patabhi Jois was a sex pest, does this make the practice he popularised, Ashtanga, of less value, less beneficial, less rewarding?
See this post Ashtanga : Inappropriate Adjustments/Sexual abuse.
I never practiced with Pattabhi Jois, I never went to Mysore. Apart from two occasion, possibly three, I barely went to a Mysore rooms in my first years of practice. I had no teachers, no adjustments, no assists, Jois was irrelevant, Mysore irrelevant, Sharath irrelevant. I practiced daily at home and built a discipline. I had enough common sense and enough luck not to be injured, unlike years before when I had practiced Aikido and buggered my knees. I practiced yoga to help me sit and practice Mindfulness, the yoga book in the library just happened to be Ashtanga. I stuck with yoga, with Ashtanga, because despite the problems I had had in the past with my knees, that had stopped so many other forms of exercise, I had no problems with them in my yoga practice, whatever posture I tried ( and I practiced up to Advanced B, my knees only seemed to rebel at kandasana).
I built a discipline.
One of the problems we have with talking about yoga is language games ( I also studied Wittgenstein of course). Language games 101, you can't play chess following the rules of backgammon, likewise you can't talk about the brain with the language we use to talk about the mind, norwe can't talk about the mind with the language we use to talk about the brain. Confusion ensues, this is where, for Wittgenstein and indeed Heidegger ( Wittgenstein was influenced by Heidegger in his later writing) many of the problems arise.
So what are we talking about when we talk about Yoga, are we talking about health, fitness, flexibility, wellbeing, a path, method, a discipline, meditation, contemplation, union.
Ashtanga yoga can bring health strength and fitness however, being a dynamic practice it can also cause harm, like gymnastics say or cheerleading. This doesn't seem to fit the Yoga = health and well-being 'non-harming' language game therefore it can't be YOGA right?
Wrong.
It's an ontological argument verses an ontic argument, Heidegger again. Put more simply it's a 'What IS yoga' versus a 'HOW is yoga' argument'. When you ask what something IS questions you get what something is answers. When you ask how something is questions you get how something is answers.
What Ashtanga is.
Ashtanga yoga has a physical aspect, we practice a mostly fixed series of postures with a fixed transition sequence in between each posture. The sequence is partly made of subroutines in which a basic posture develops into a more complex posture before moving onto another posture outside the subroutine or moving into the beginning of another subroutine. We practice this sequence, ideally, daily.
How Ashtanga is.
Practicing the same sequence daily allows us to focus our attention on the breath, either directing the breath or merely observing the breath, the practice has a meditative quality.
Practicing daily develops discipline, mainly because the practice is and always maintains a challenging quality. Even after 'smoothing out the edges' of the postures and transitions we're still left with seeking to observe the breath without following distracting trains of thought.
*
Most seem to agree that exercise tends to be good for us, injuries of course can happen in any form of exercise, even tiddlywinkers, I hear, get tendonitis. Runners of course get all kinds of injuries from blisters to blown knees to torn hamstrings to heart attacks. I saw a video recently of a gymnast breaking both her knees in a somersault that she seemed to land perfectly.
We can of course seek to limit the risk of injury. Are our teachers pushing us too hard, do they actually know what they are doing, are we sufficiently prepared for the exercise we intend to practice. "Please consult your doctor before attempting this practice" Who actually does that?
Ashtanga yoga CAN be a dangerous practice, there is a tradition of teaching, coming from Jois himself, that encourages students to practice postures they should never consider (see the Jois led Advanced series practice in a garage video on Youtube). There is cranking and twisting, pulling and pushing into postures, and as the man was revered by his early ( and indeed later) students, his methodology became also became revered and justified and copied.... and passed along.
The method of teaching isn't the practice. The practise of the practice is the practice (Sounds like Heidegger, I remember writing "Arggggghh" in the margin of the first text of his I was given to read, I still have it).
As I mentioned before, I wasn't taught by Jois, I wasn't pulled or pushed or cranked into postures, I just followed a book (Swensons's) that had more gentle variations of postures and practiced them until the more challenging posture became available.
Note 1. A few years later I went to a teacher who studied with Jois but declined their adjustments and assists, wincing at the screams I heard around the room as students were cranked into postures that I had approached myself through kinder variations.
Note 2. Jois' teacher Krishnamacharya taught variations leading up to more challenging postures, indeed we even see it in the practice itself. Unfortunately, as well as being a Sex Pest Jois was an idiot, he added a posture that his teacher had put into an intermediate grouping into the primary group and then stopped students from moving on to the next unrelated posture or subroutine until they forced themselves into the posture.
Note 3. Jois' son mentions that in the beginning his father would encourage variations and moving on after an attempt at a posture rather than being held back, Jois' son continues to teach this way.
Ashtanga yoga is, or can be, surely, should be, a meditative practice, it develops focus and concentration. Other practices do this as well of course but the fixed sequence of postures, the attention to the breath, marries well with the demanding 60-90 minute physical practice.
Ashtanga is a discipline. This for me is the key issue. Ashtanga is demanding enough for us to often not want to get on the mat to practice. If we make the practice too easy, too enjoyable then getting on the mat becomes easy and we don't perhaps develop a discipline, a habit perhaps but not necessarily discipline. I would argue that it is because the practice is challenging that the discipline becomes established.
Stoicism too is all about discipline, disciplining ourselves.
It is from this discipline, attained through the practice of Ashtanga, that we move into other aspects of Yoga. The practice of Ashtanga yoga may be considered the beginning rather than an end itself.
That said Ashtanga, as health and fitness can of course also be considered an end in itself, anybody should be free to practice it just for fun, for exercise and community without judgement.
For me personally, I don't give a damn whether I get fit or strong or flexible or even how healthy I may become, these are byproducts for me. I happen to believe that with regular exercise, whatever form it may take, I will naturally become fitter, healthier, more flexible, stronger too I guess but if these were more important to me then perhaps I would practice Cross-fit. Cross-fit too by the way develops discipline.
What I seek through the practice of Ashtanga yoga is a discipline that marries well with a meditative aspect and that suits my body physically. A practice that supports and prepares me for other aspects of yoga. In my case those other aspects of yoga happen to my practice of Stoicism (which equates perhaps with Yama/Nyama and Contemplatio which equates perhaps with DHARANA - Focused concentration and possibly DHYANA - Meditative absorption.).
*
Ashtanga comes from Krishnamacharya, Jois, his student, merely popularised it. I personally would argue that in simplifying his teacher's teaching he somewhat......, dumbed it down, Mcshtanga if you will. However, Krishnamacharya's teaching is available to us. Jois allowed us to jump head first into a practice, once we've learned to swim we are free to rediscover other aspects of Jois' teacher's teaching by reaching back to the primary sources.
Ashtanga may have been dumbed down but it's not dumb, Krishnamacharya's teaching may have been simplified but that just makes it approachable rather than simple, it is perhaps a clearing that opens up for us (Heidegger again).
There are arguments for having a very narrow fixed presentation of Ashtanga. If we have one standardised approach then we can walk into any Ashtanga class or Mysore room and practice without possibility of confusion. We can call this Standard form Ashtanga perhaps. It's not necessarily the best or most ideal form of practice generally or individually ( i tend to feel that Sharath has been hobbled somewhat in feeling the need to preserve his Sex Pest grandfather's later presentation, rather than exploring the practice freely as so many of Jois' other western students were free to do) but it's convenient to have a reference point, Mysore, Kpjayi , Sharath, they can be useful in this. It's only when you become dictatorial about it, give yourself absurd titles, seek to hold onto authority and all it's financial rewards for your family that it becomes an issue.
The best Ashtanga is perhaps practiced outside of Mysore, the safest Ashtanga is perhaps practiced outside of Mysore...., the most interesting Ashtanga is perhaps practiced outside of Mysore.
My own practice is non standard Ashtanga (most wouldn't recognise it as Ashtanga perhaps), it has the general outline perhaps of the Ashtanga sequence, it tends to be mostly fixed, the same practice day in day out but also maintains a degree of flexibility. It leans more towards Krishnmacharya's own texts than to KPJAYI, more influenced of late by Simon Borg-Olivier approach as well as his anatomy and physiology rather than any other teacher of Ashtanga. Jois is irrelevant to me personally and I tend to be indifferent to Sharath. I don't recognise a tradition, parampara is nonsensical to me personally. I lean towards the Stoicism of Greek and Rome, to the western tradition of Contemplatio that to the yoga philosophy of India. Krishnamacharya would have encouraged me in this, he wouldn't have wanted me to look to another religion, another tradition but rather to embrace and search within my own worldview
Jois may have been an arse, but his teacher's practice that he shared remains a joy..... however differently I may approach it.
There are many who seek to undermine Ashtanga and use Jois' abuse to do so. I get it, Ashtanga doesn't come under Yoga Alliance, this is a problem for those who seek to control the yoga that is practiced and how it is taught. In Jois and the tradition of teaching he passed along they perhaps have some justification. However there is also something wonderful about having teachers pass along a teaching that they have practiced and explored themselves, daily, for many years rather than having practiced yoga for a few months, been allowed on to a Yoga alliance 200hr TT course and let loose.
I've always felt it was up to the Ashtanga community to circumvent the Jois family altogether, form some non profit organisation led by trustees. But in the light of jois' abuse and realising that most of the early teachers we respected were perhaps enablers, apologists, defenders , where would we look for trustees. The politics is depressing. Best perhaps to just practice, either at home or with a teacher you trust and if somebody asks YOU to teach then to do so and learn as much as we can to avoid damaging anyone in the process and perhaps allow the KPJAYI a symbolic fiefdom.