dear friends…
I’m very confused on ashtanga yoga…
Internet sources say that Ashtanga yoga was “invented” by Patabhi Joyce and everything from ashtanga links to vigorous vinyasa…everywhere you go and everyone you ask will tell that ashtanga is a bodily practice.
But at the same time Ashtanga also refers to Raja Yoga and associated with Patanjali yoga sutras, yamas and niyamas, and do not involve any asanas at all…
I appreciate, if you can clarify this for me…
The term ‘ashtanga’ comes from the Yoga sutra-s of Patanjali in sutra 2.29 where he first lists the eight limbs of yoga : Yama, niyama, asana, pranayama, pratyahara, dharana, dhyana, and samadhi. Asana is a part of this, but the reference in the sutras (2.46 and 47) define asana only as that which is steady and comfortable; to be reached through relaxation by means of correct effort and through meditation on the infinite (basically, although schools will differ on the translations). There is no further mention in the sutra-s of asana directly here.
Pattabhi Jois was given those series of asana practice by his teacher, Krishnamacharya, and either he or his teacher titled that method of practice as Ashtanga. Followers of the Jois method may practice Ashtanga yoga of Patanjali as part of their practice by following the eight limbs in their entirety, but these terms otherwise are totally separate entities in that one is an ancient philosophical concept and the other is the term for a lineage of study that was spread by Jois.
This confusion also arises in many other schools that take the names of greater concepts, as in Kriya Yoga or Kundalini Yoga. The term Kriya can mean action, it can represent methods of cleaning, and it is a term used by Patanjali at the start of Chapter 2 of the yoga sutra-s to represent a methodology of practicing yoga. Kundalini yoga is also a vast concept within many schools of yoga who all have different viewpoints on the nature of it, how it can be used, and why it should or should not be used.
It’s easy to get confused. One of the first times I was in a yoga class I remember someone asking the teacher about kriyas and she deferred the question to the class, and I enthusiastically started to describe Sutra 2.1 (my favorite), before I realized that he met bodily cleansing. haha. Nobody knew what I was talking about. Woops.
so…
Ashtanga yoga as aka Raja yoga is different from Krishnamachariya Ashtanga yoga?
… and Krishnamchariya studied yoga in Himalayan tradition under Ramamohana Brahmachari …as far a I know, Himalayan tradition is not like a vigorous vinyasa as well…
I would suggest that you have a right guess that contemporary schools just adopt the name…sometimes without any consideration…
Krishnamacharya and Pattabhi Jois have created the Ashtanga Vinyasa system of yoga from studying an 1500 year old text called the yoga kurunta authored by a Vamana rishi. This manuscript has not survived due to its weak condition. This is common in Indian history. Ramanujacharya is said to have studied the Bodhayana commentary of the Brahmasutra, but was unable to preserve the original text. He was denied to borrow the copy of the Kashmiri library, so he and his disciple broke in the library in the middle of the night. His disciple studied the text, but they couldn’t take it with them, because they were caught by the kashmiri pandits. Another story goes that they were granted to borrow the manuscript after pleading to the King, that Ramanuja’s student studied it, but on their way home it was stolen back by the Kashmiri Pandits. Later muslims have burned down many libraries in India, like the great Nalananda university of India. Some specialised tantrik and ayurvedic texts are still preserved by yogis in caves, they are afraid that these texts fall in the wrong hands, so they keep them away from the public. Indian traditions are largely preserved through guru-disciple relationship rather than textual sources. Krishnamacharya had acces to many gurus in his life, including the himalayan Rammohan Brahmachari, but also to south Indian manuscripts. That’s why we see a strong element of yoga chikitsa and ayurveda back in Krishnamacharya’s teachings. Elements like ayurvedic marma massage are an integral part in south-Indian yoga practice. Similar elements are also present in the south Indian martial arts and classical dance. We can see many similarities between south Indian yoga and for example Bharata Natyam or Kalaripayattu.
[QUOTE=CityMonk;62186]Ashtanga yoga as aka Raja yoga is different from Krishnamachariya Ashtanga yoga?
… and Krishnamchariya studied yoga in Himalayan tradition under Ramamohana Brahmachari …as far a I know, Himalayan tradition is not like a vigorous vinyasa as well… [/QUOTE]
Yes, Ashtanga yoga from the yoga sutra-s is a philosophical concept, different from the school of yoga the Pattabhi Jois started, which is called Ashtanga Yoga. Krishnamacharya also taught the philosophy of ashtanga yoga from the yoga sutra-s, as well as many other facets and theories of yoga practice to his other students such as: His son Desikachar, BKS Iyengar, Indra Devi, AG Mohan, and Ramaswami - but only it is only Pattabhi Jois who has adopted that name for a practice of specific asana sequences and practice techniques, and certifies teachers with it.
The schools of Desikachar and Iyengar do teach yoga that can be quite rigorous, if the student is capable, prepared and has a need to build that kind of strength. I think Krishnamacharya taught to his students what they needed to learn, and the Ashtanga yoga method taught by Pattabhi Jois is an offshoot that provides what people need in order to reach a focused state of mind. I may not agree with it in it’s entirety, but that because I feel that people find the teachers which are right for them - and that style is just not what I need.
[QUOTE=CityMonk;62186]I would suggest that you have a right guess that contemporary schools just adopt the name…sometimes without any consideration…[/QUOTE]
I do think that many people adopt things without consideration, but in the case of great teachers like Pattabhi Jois, who obviously has teachings which are well founded, I can say he had a good justification to do so. All of those other schools were started by people who chose the names because the word in Sanskrit was something that they believed in or held in high regard. I see this a lot when I am in India, with all sorts of organizations, temples, companies, even people. I’ve even seen tire shops and cafe’s named after deities and religious terms. I just wish that there would be a disclaimer on them. haha. Such as Wikipedia has -
[I] 'This article is about ______ If you were searching for the _________, then please click here: (Disambiguation). [/I]
And I think part of the problem stems from the nature of Sanskrit - where every word has so many meanings, interpreted with valid teachings from many sources - who can say what is truly right or wrong?
There is a tremendous difference. The so called “Ashtanga” yoga that has become popular has very little to do with Raja Yoga. It was simply that the ancient term “eight-limbed” was adopted and exploited for an entirely different purpose. “Ashtanga” yoga has no place whatsoever for meditation. Nor is it a method for the expansion of consciousness towards ones enlightenment. It is simply a series of physical exercises. Raja Yoga has very little to do with the asana practice which most in the West have become infatuated with. Raja Yoga refers to any method which seeks to come to ones awakening through means of meditation. And you can continue practicing all of these physical exercises for eternities, but as long as one has yet to come to direct insight into ones own mind and its programming, it is not going to be of any help. It is fine if you are simply interested in exercise - but it is not yoga. At the most, it can be called asana practice. And what people like Patabhi Jois and many others have done is absolutely irresponsible. He himself is not awakened, and unless you have come to your awakening - it is almost impossible to assist others towards their own awakening. This is a ladder towards coming to a direct perception of ones divine nature, and anything else has nothing whatsoever to do with yoga.
Let us be realistic and positive. It is only natural that the seekers in the West got attracted to asana, the physical aspect of Yoga. Most of them were and still are not ready to accept spirituality independent of religion. When one’s spiritual identity is not recognized what meets the eyes are the asanas and breahing exercises. On the other hand, the immediate health benefits are more tangible and sit nicely in the exotic company of other Eastern disciplines making them easy to accept.
To expect that they will suddenly understand the tricky Raja Yoga is unrealistic. Tricky because, it is all about quieting the mind fluctuations and initially, the tool for that is mind itself. For a material, result-oriented, aggressive mind-set it is crazy to imagine meditation as a “no-mind” state.
The gurus, mostly from India and their advanced Western disciples, owe it to the authentic Yoga tradition to restrain themselves from peddling “half-Yoga” as the real one. Lopsided importance to Asanas and a market full of branded Yoga is a wave; quite inevitable one. We the knowers have to lead the next wave by expanding the horizens of the seekers. There is no need to belittle asana, it is necessary to deflate its celebrity status and bring a sense of proportion.
After all nobody is a born Yogi (with very rare exceptions) and each one of us have some or the other reason to turn to Yoga. Once on the path, it is for the seniors to lend a helping hand to educate about the Yoga paths like Raja Yoga and to lead by example. If you are senior enough humility and genuine concern about others comes naturally.
[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;62228]
The gurus … owe it to the authentic Yoga tradition to restrain themselves from peddling “half-Yoga” as the real one. …After all nobody is a born Yogi (with very rare exceptions) and each one of us have some or the other reason to turn to Yoga. [B]Once on the path, it is for the seniors to lend a helping hand to educate about the Yoga paths like Raja Yoga and to lead by example. If you are senior enough humility and genuine concern about others comes naturally.[/B][/QUOTE]
This is very well said.
[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;62228]
To expect that they will suddenly understand the tricky Raja Yoga is unrealistic. Tricky because, it is all about quieting the mind fluctuations and initially, the tool for that is mind itself. For a material, result-oriented, aggressive mind-set it is crazy to imagine meditation as a “no-mind” state.
.[/QUOTE]
Thats what my version of Hatha YOga pradipika says…
How would you describe Yoga in the US today?;
“It?s a mess. And you can quote me on that. Anything that comes to America or the West in general, immediately gets individualized and commercialized. There has always been great diversity in traditional Yoga, and this diversity was based on the experience of masters. Today even beginning teachers feel qualified to innovate and create their own trademarked Yoga system. So, looking at the Yoga movement today, part of me feels very saddened by it, but then I also see that it contains the seeds of something better. Also, amazingly, Yoga can be beneficial even when it is reduced down to posture practice. But people shortchange themselves when they strip Yoga of its spiritual side.” ~Georg Feurstein
[QUOTE=CityMonk;62181]dear friends…
I’m very confused on ashtanga yoga…
Internet sources say that Ashtanga yoga was “invented” by Patabhi Joyce and everything from ashtanga links to vigorous vinyasa…everywhere you go and everyone you ask will tell that ashtanga is a bodily practice.
But at the same time Ashtanga also refers to Raja Yoga and associated with Patanjali yoga sutras, yamas and niyamas, and do not involve any asanas at all…
I appreciate, if you can clarify this for me…[/QUOTE]
I always refer to the Pattabhi Jois asana practice as ?Ashtanga Vinyasa Asana? to limit the confusion of the uninformed.
“To expect that they will suddenly understand the tricky Raja Yoga is unrealistic. Tricky because, it is all about quieting the mind fluctuations and initially, the tool for that is mind itself. For a material, result-oriented, aggressive mind-set it is crazy to imagine meditation as a “no-mind” state”
Words are such, that they will mean whatever one wants them to mean. But if we are speaking of yoga as a living experience, then we are not even speaking of meditation, or any method in particular. In fact, yoga is not something that can be done - the whole existence is already in a state of yoga. The word itself simply means Union. That is, when you come to know of a state of consciousness in which you are in direct communion with your true nature, then you are in a state of yoga - it is the very essence of enlightenment itself. And all of the methods of “yoga” are just different means towards this. Even if you are sitting in meditation for weeks or months - still it is not yoga, because we are not referring to a particular practice, although just out of convenience, we refer to these methods as “yoga”.
@amir,
‘In fact, yoga is not something that can be done - the whole existence is already in a state of yoga. The word itself simply means Union.’
…meaning Yog is an event and not a process’. Achieving the union is Yog and the the methods, any for that matter… is not yog
‘meaning Yog is an event and not a process’
It is a process, because the moment of so called ‘enlightenment’ is just the beginning. And outside of ones moment to moment existence - there can be no such thing as awakening. Truth is not something fixed and static that one can grasp into ones fist. And if one is to become the living truth itself - then one becomes just like a river stream, or a candle flame burning. The flame which burns in one moment is not the same flame in the next, in the whole eternity it cannot even repeat itself. With this integration in the present - every single breath, every single step, sight and sound, you are constantly born anew in a freshness which is inexhaustible.
? because the moment of so called ‘enlightenment’ is just the beginning.
One good quality of You enlightened persons is that you all are very good in confusing others, Now, you say even enlightenment is a process . So, when Buddha got enlightenment under bodhi tree, it was not complete enlightenment , but just a beginning and pray, when did the beginning end, at least for Gautama.
? Truth is not something fixed and static that one can grasp into ones fist.?
You have said else where that
? Truth is not something that is to be included as part of one’s knowledge, ?
Please reconcile
?
-? then one becomes just like a river stream,?
Or like a straw floating on the stream.
?or a candle flame burning. ?
Or like the wick!!
?The flame which burns in one moment is not the same flame in the next,?
The moments are not incremental they are continuous.
?? it cannot even repeat itself.?
It is not true only with the flame but any moment lived even by a fool cannot be repeated. Past can never come back as present in its true value
.
?With this integration in the present - every single breath, every single step, sight and sound, you are constantly born anew in a freshness which is inexhaustible?
Meaning one can live forever in the present moment. Immortal
prasad,
you all are very good in confusing others
If one is a seeker of Truth, it is good to become confused often - it tends to break your habitual patterns of the mind which is constantly desiring to cling to just about anything at all. Confusion is not a problem, it has a great potential. The problem is once becomes identified with a certain belief system or philosophy, now you cannot see anything else beyond it.
Now, you say even enlightenment is a process . So, when Buddha got enlightenmeint under bodhi tree, it was not complete enlightenment
When Gautama became enlightened, it was not something which simply erupted out of nowhere. There was a whole background behind it, and all of the effort of which he was doing was just a way to prepare the mind for ones awakening. So while the path may happen gradually, the experience is instantaneous in that way - that there comes a moment where there bursts forth something which is completely shattering, which brings about a certain transformation. But that does not mean that you stop there - enlightenment is something which needs to be integrated in daily living.
And as to how to integrate it - there are many different possibilities. In Zen, one master Tozan, has described five different kinds of states of integration of enlightenment - one leading into the next. In yoga - the same thing has been talked about regarding different depths of sahaja samadhi (spontaneous samadhi). So if you interpret enlightenment as the end, then you are mistaken - it is in fact just the beginning. And the fact is that as long as a human being continues living in the body, he has to postpone his full liberation. Because to become completely liberated would require you even to cut loose the bonds which are connecting you to the body, the body is itself a limitation. But if you want to live in the world, you will have to keep the body functioning. That is why, for most of the enlightened beings, their moment of death and their moment of complete liberation are one and the same. And those who have decided to remain in the body, have decided to do so for some particular purpose. Even Gautama Buddha, after coming to his awakening, was intending simply to pass away into Nirvana and remain silent about his discovery. The Buddhist traditions have said that Gautama was persuaded by Brahma and various gods to share his experience. Whether one interprets this literally or not is irrelevant, but for some reason he decided to postpone his complete liberation and start teaching. In the yogic sciences, there are two different kinds of so called liberated states. One is jivanmukti - you can remain somewhat liberated while still living in the body, although you will have to also live according to physical limitations. The other is videha mukta, liberation beyond the body.
Or like the wick!!
Yes : ) That too.
Meaning one can live forever in the present moment. Immortal
Whether living or not living, there is nothing else.
amir,
I am not here to arm wrestle.
you keep shifting the target very skillfully.
There are people who got enlightenment during current life without preparation, gyanmukta. karma
as for Gautama, to quote-
During a full-moon night in May, Siddhartha went into deep meditation. As the morning star appeared in the eastern sky, he became an enlightened one, a Buddha. He was thirty five years old.
When the Buddha stood up at last, he gazed at the tree in gratitude, to thank it for having given him shelter.
Enlightened one don’t have to integrate any thing, things integrate into them.
Check out an article on Elephant Journal called “What The @#%^ is Rajadhiraja Yoga?,” by Ramesh Bjonnes.It pretty well outlines the classical ashtanga yoga from a longtime practitioner.
Cheers. 
prasad,
Enlightened one don't have to integrate any thing, things integrate into them.
Again, you are speaking of something of which you have absolutely no direct experience. And if you want to cling to all kinds of conclusions, that is fine, but it is not going to be of much help as far as heightening your understanding is concerned.
To have a glimpse into your true nature is one thing, and for it to be integrated from moment to moment is something else entirely. That is why, particularly in Zen as well as in certain yogic traditions - after coming to ones awakening there comes a period of time for maturing ones realization. Because you can become absorbed in your true nature at the expense of the relative, that is one extreme. Or you can become absorbed in the relative at the expense of remaining blind to your true nature, that is another extreme. And in both cases, you have remained blind to one essential part of existence. So it is one thing to come to an awakening to the so called absolute, it is another thing to integrate this awareness from moment to moment in ordinary living. Some yogis have attained to such a realization of their true nature through nirvikalpa samadhi, but they became absorbed in it in such a way - that living an ordinary live was impossible. So there is such a thing as training which involves bringing both dimensions together into balance, so that you are neither absorbed in the relative alone, neither absorbed in the absolute alone. Even Gautama Buddha, after his enlightenment, was still practicing and sitting in meditation.
The problem is that it is all to easy to come to conclusions about things which have yet to enter into your experience and declare them as final. There is a reason why in the East the Sahasrara chakra has been called the thousand petaled lotus. Because once you come to your awakening, there are still many depths upon depths which start unfolding in your experience, which are just different intensities of so called enlightenment. And the problem is that there is a certain limit of the depth of awakening that you can experience while remaining in the body - if you move beyond a certain point, you will not even be able continue living in the body because there are certain limitations which keep you connected to it. This is how some yogis can consciously enter into death at will. That is what Maha Samadhi is. What is being done is that you are, consciously, cutting off the bonds that keep you connected to the body.
This is all very interesting.
Thanks to you all!