Confused on ashtanga yoga

Spirituality
#12

“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”.

#13

@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

#14

‘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.

#15

@amir,

? 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

#16

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.

#17

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.

#18

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. :smiley:

#19

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.

#20

This is all very interesting.

Thanks to you all!

#21

The Ashtanga Yoga of Mr Jois, was developed by Mr Krishnamacharya, as a series of yoga asana sequences. Apparently it was never intended to be a complete yoga system. Just as Mr Krishnamacharya might prescribe a series of asanas for someone’s specific health concern, Mr Jois’s “Ashtanga Yoga” was series for a specific intent. In this case, it was intended for healthy active youngsters who needed physical exercise and mental focus. Obviously Mr Krishnamacharya would not have prescribe this “Ashtanga Yoga” for the elderly.

#22

“The schools of Desikachar and Iyengar do teach yoga that can be quite rigorous.”

Really? I have yet to discover rigorous yoga in the Desikachar tradition.

#23

[QUOTE=AmirMourad;62225]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.[/QUOTE]

Gee, Amir, while I, too bemoan the sweat factories that purport to be teaching “yoga” which abound these days, I have to humbly disagree with some of what you say here.

First, Pattabhi Jois (who is dead, btw, and, for all we know, [I]could[/I] have reached “enlightenment” upon his passing) NEVER in his lifetime stated that he was “enlightened” - perhaps his students have done so, but as far as I know, he never did. Beware of teachers who tell you they are “enlightened”. So, to accuse him of being irresponsible or even exploiting students in the way you imply is simply wrong. Should he have adopted another name for it? Perhaps…there would be less confusion! Was it aggrandizing to use Ashtanga as the name? Perhaps…but he had his reasons.

The wise say there are many paths, but only one Truth (I’m badly quoting the Vedas here). In other words, ALL paths are valid and legitimate - if the one treading their own particular path feels that it is bringing them closer to the Truth. You say that the Ashtanga (Vinyasa) yoga being practiced today is not one of these paths, is not yoga, and is not a method for the expansion of consciousness. I contend that it is all about the intention of the practitioner that makes the practice “yoga” or “not yoga”. If I want to get fit, yes, this asana practice will make me fit, flexible, strong and healthy and hopefully improve my life and lengthen it.

But, that’s not all I want to find through Ashtanga Yoga - nor was that my goal when I first began to practice it. I want to expand my own understanding of consciousness - I humbly but earnestly seek enlightenment, too (don’t we all, ultimately?). Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga is MY path towards that goal. It’s not yours, and that’s fine. But, please, don’t knock mine, and I won’t knock yours. That’s akin to saying one religion is better than another.

I’m well into my second decade of practice, and I can attest to the fact that you can and do find meditative states during this flowing movement practice. (And certainly, there are other examples of movement-based practice that leads to meditative states and to the Truth as well - the practice of Tai Chi and even Whirling Dervishes are two examples that come to mind.) And, it also enhances and enables the practice of all of Patanjali’s eight limbs. Very simply put, it makes you live ethically (yamas), it makes you treat your body/mind better (niyamas), it improves your ability to do breathing exercises (pranayama), it brings your focus inside (pratyahara), it enhances the ability to concentrate (dharana), and it helps you to find deep states of meditation (dhyana).

So, why would Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga ultimately NOT lead to the last limb - samadhi - if all the other limbs are accessible through it?

Was Krishnamacharya a charlatan? Certainly not - he really knew what he was doing when he developed this practice, and drew upon a lifetime of study in it’s creation. He understood the body is just another portal for realization of the Truth and that in order to find that, it was much easier when the body was functioning at it’s best.

Again, there are many paths, and all are valid. I’m not saying that everyone would have a meditative experience doing Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga - just that it [I]is [/I]possible. Ashtanga (Vinyasa) Yoga is not just simply “a series of physical exercises” as you state. Certainly, yes, Krishnamacharya, and Jois after him, taught these sequences of postures to help with building strength and flexibility (srsti) in the young, and as therapy, too (cikitsa). Once the body becomes acclimatized to the practice, Krishnamacharya intended their use for the maintenance (raksana) of health throughout a hopefully prolonged life. So, why the emphasis on building strength, flexibility, and therapeutic maintenance of the body through asana practice? Perhaps, if you live longer, you have a better chance of finding enlightenment than someone who dies at 65 of heart disease. (There are many pictures of K well into his 80’s practicing these postures.)

I’ve come to believe the practice is just one means (for those with whom it resonates) to optimize the human instrument, to get it “vibrating” to the right pitch, as it were, both body and mind, so that it can become a vehicle for the expansion of compassion, awareness, happiness and ultimately, consciousness.

Yes, there are many, many people who are practicing just to get a washboard stomach and to simply become fit. Yes, there is a huge misconception about what yoga is, especially in the States - that it’s just about doing postures. I bemoan this misconception. I know several “teachers” with packed classrooms full of sweating people, who shout affirmations and aggressively adjust students, blasting pop music all the while, and calling it yoga. Is it “yoga”, what they are doing? It depends on their intent and the intent of the student. At the very least, for most, it’s just fun. Nothing wrong with it. Many have appropriated the word yoga to sell their form of fun. And there’s no law against that.

Still, while thery are having fun, they are finding a glimpse of happiness, and maybe having the occasional burst of mental clarity and compassion that arises from movement practice, so this is not a bad thing. Their bodies are healthier, and they don’t drain the health care system like someone who sits around all day eating chips and watching TV. So, I say, good for them! Many people find yoga in this way, through the body…and then it leads them from the gross (the body) to the subtle (the mind/consciousness/spirit) and they discover that there are other limbs besides the third one.

#24

I also learned from those who had many years of direct experience with Patabi Joice, the asana practice suits me well into my fifties but never did I consider it anything other than an efficient asana practice.

#25

Why would someone say that Ashtanga Yoga is not yoga. Of course it is yoga. Just as algebra is mathematics. It may not be the whole ball of wax, but it is definitely a slice of yoga.

#26

[QUOTE=Senin;62782]Why would someone say that Ashtanga Yoga is not yoga. Of course it is yoga. Just as algebra is mathematics. It may not be the whole ball of wax, but it is definitely a slice of yoga.[/QUOTE]

More accurately Pattabhi Jois’s “Ashtanga Vinyasa” is yoga asana, where as Jnana, Bhakti, Karma or Raja yoga is inclusive of Patanjali’s (Ashtanga Yoga) Eight-fold, Eight-limb or Eight-step path.

Confusion with words…

#27

Dishelle,

“I have to humbly disagree with some of what you say here.”

The very fact that you have called it humble in itself shows that it is not.

“First, Pattabhi Jois (who is dead, btw, and, for all we know, could have reached “enlightenment” upon his passing”

No, he was not awakened. And “enlightenment” is not something that one has to wait to happen until the time of death, but if such a thing does happen, it is just a reflection of the way in which one has been living.

“So, to accuse him of being irresponsible or even exploiting students in the way you imply is simply wrong. Should he have adopted another name for it? Perhaps…there would be less confusion! Was it aggrandizing to use Ashtanga as the name? Perhaps…but he had his reasons.”

The reasons are very simple - he simply used ancient terminology to give his “yoga” some credibility and attraction, that is a very old method which has been used countless times before.

“The wise say there are many paths, but only one Truth”

While that is true, it all comes down to the same - to come to more awareness. All of the various methods of yoga are just different skillful means towards this. The very word “yoga” means Union. Any method which brings you into communion with your own true nature is a method towards Yoga. Because Patabhi Jois so called Ashtanga Yoga is not a means towards this, it is not yoga.

“I’m badly quoting the Vedas here”

Stop quoting the Vedas.

“In other words, ALL paths are valid and legitimate - if the one treading their own particular path feels that it is bringing them closer to the Truth.”

It has nothing whatsoever to do with your own feelings, which are often just as deceptive as ones thoughts. Because certainly - if you were to do things your way, you will do things according to your likes and dislikes. What you like may be a great hindrance, and what you dislike may be a stepping stone towards your liberation. But because you are unable to see beyond your own prejudices, one will fail to realize this. Often times, the work of coming to ones awakening will be tremendously uncomfortable. If you are seeking comfort and security - you should seek elsewhere, yoga is not for you. Because mans is so deeply programmed, that if he even takes a small step outside of his comfort zone, fear arises, and one want to return back to the protective walls that you have built around yourself. Ones system is such, that it will resist transformation at almost any cost. That is why - if you are to see your expansion are just a matter of how you “feel”, then you are opening yourself up to all kinds of delusions. What is needed is not feeling, what is needed is clarity. And your likes and dislikes are amongst the most blinding forces for your clarity.

"I humbly but earnestly seek enlightenment, too (don’t we all, ultimately?)

No, most do not, and if your desire to come to your enlightenment was sincere, then by now you would be doing everything possible to come to know yourself, through and through. But if you are honest with yourself and look closer at your direct experience, you will find that you have countless other priorities. Only those who are willing to loose their lives ever come to know of the fragrance of eternal life.

“That’s akin to saying one religion is better than another.”

What is better or not better than another is just a matter of opinion. What is important is what works. And what works is not a matter of opinion, it is a scientific phenomenon. You can exhaust all of your efforts with a great hope and desire that somehow by walking into the wall you will walk through it, but it is not going to be of any help. And you can try with great hope and desire that a flower will blossom by trying to pull a lotus out of a seed, but it is going to be fruitless.

“So, why would Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga ultimately NOT lead to the last limb - samadhi”

Anything can lead to samadhi. Just going for a walk in the morning - if you can become absolutely absorbed in the present, then it will lead to samadhi. If you just sweep the floor with absolute mindfulness and attention, then it will lead to samadhi. Because the nature of your action is not the fundamental thing, what is important is the awareness which is behind it. So yes - practicing something like Ashtanga Vinyasa can lead to samadhi if your inner space is prepared for it. But whether the method has been created to bring you to samadhi is an entirely different matter. That was not the intention of Patabhi Jois, and the chances of your reaching samadhi through such a system is very unlikely, because that is not its area of focus.

#28

Senin,

“Of course it is yoga. Just as algebra is mathematics. It may not be the whole ball of wax, but it is definitely a slice of yoga”

No, it is not yoga. Asanas have nothing to do with yoga, neither does pranayam, kriyas, bandhas, mudras, mantras, yantras, or a thousand and one different techniques of meditation. Because the word yoga itself just means Union - it is a certain state of consciousness. Just out of convenience, any method which leads towards this state of consciousness has been called a method of “yoga”. But Yoga is a certain state of being, it is not a technique. That is why Patanjali has said that “Yoga is bringing the mind to a state of stillness, then the Seer sees into his own true nature”. Vyasa has said that “Yoga is Samadhi”. And samadhi is none other than enlightenment itself. If you want, you can call all something like asanas “yoga”, words are such that they will mean whatever you want them to mean. But it is important to be absolutely aware of this distinction.

#29

“Asanas have nothing to do with yoga, neither does pranayam, kriyas, bandhas, mudras, mantras, yantras, or a thousand and one different techniques of meditation.”

I get it now, Amir. Asana, pranayam, kriyas, bandhas, mudras, mantras and yantras are NOT yoga.

Hmmm, for you, the trip would be the destination. For me, the trip would be the journey.

Frankly, Amir, I think you are wrong.

#30

“Asanas have nothing to do with yoga, neither does pranayam, kriyas, bandhas, mudras, mantras, yantras, or a thousand and one different techniques of meditation.”

Here is someone who is trying to reduce the entire yoga tradition to a various forms of meditation. Only someone who has completely misunderstood the broader scope of Bharata Dharma can come up with something like that.

#31

It is a semantic problem. Yoga does not mean just union. Just one example : In Yoga sutras according to what are considered “classical” commentators such as Vijnana Bhikshu and Vacaspati Mishra, Yoga stems from the Sanskrit root [I]yuj[/I] with the meaning of concentration and not from the root [I]yujir[/I] which implies union. And it makes sense within the Yoga Sutra metaphysics as the goal is the separation between Purusha and Prakriti. In other contexts, the emphasis lies on union. Yoga is a polysemic word, hence the common confusion about concepts expressed by homonyms.

Philippe