Sometimes readers email me to shoot the breeze about yoga stuff. Last week a reader and Facebook friend wondered about this (he gave me permission to quote him.) He said:
“I had a conversation with my mentor…whom has been my connection to the Krishnamacharya lineage. We were discussing the effects of traditional systems vs. Innovative systems, most specifically the relationship between Ego and a teacher’s “need” to innovate.
Obviously one of the key features of Krishnamacharya’s teaching was the importance of adaptation of the practice to suit the individual…..and American teachers seem to be very good at adaptation….but that adaptation seems to be more about their own ego and “self value” in creating the newest and most “effective/clever” system of Yoga.
I’m not really asking a direct question, but more your thoughts, maybe you’ve written something of similar subject? I figure your being connected with KYM, this is something you guys discussed?”
I actually have never written about this and in all my times at KYM, this topic has never come up. If I understand the question correctly, it is: where does the ego and service, so to speak, separate?
I can’t comment on what other teachers “invent”….Anusara, Forrest yoga, etc. Does it come out of their ego on wanting to control or change things? I don’t know. Someone once said that I created METTA YOGA. Did I? I don’t know. I say that Metta Yoga is the Yoga of Awareness, i.e. being awake to reality, all the good and especially the bad, our shadows. All I know is what informs my practice: trainings at KYM, with Srivatsa Ramaswami, Buddhism. “My” yoga is all about the breath, meeting people where they are (both aspects being totally KYM), being aware of what is happening now (the Buddhadharma.) Yoga, for me, must contain pranayama and meditation for it to be called Yoga, but that’s me, that’s the lineage in which I study. Am I going to totally spin the teachings to suit my own purpose? No, because to me Real Yoga (and I don’t care if that phrase upsets people) is about Transformation and Healing.
We all know what happened with John Friend and Anusara…karma? And people applaud Ana Forrest’s “new” way of teaching — isn’t it supposed to be a bit more therapeutic now? I’ve been teaching that way for years, i.e., about watching what comes up, digging down to face your demons. In my opinion, she did not come up with anything brand new.
No one called Krishnamacharya a “yoga therapist.” When I was in India this year, A.G. Mohan told us that Indians did not come to see Krishnamacharya for “yoga for fitness”, i.e., purely asana practice. They lined up literally down the street to see him for yoga for depression, bad backs, and other conditions. He did not teach “yoga therapy”, IT WAS JUST YOGA. So did he change what he learned from his gurus? Of course he met the individuals where they were, we know that he taught Iyengar, Jois, and his son Desikachar differently because that’s how those styles evolved. But did he make up something that was dramatically different from what his gurus taught him? I don’t think so.
All I know is that I must meet people where they are and as Desikachar has said, whatever happens, happens.
What I do know is that in the end, it’s all the same, really. What did Friend create? Anusara is Iyengar inspired and he put a new spin on things, his whole tantra-esque thinking is nothing new, he just made it
sexy palatable for Westerners.
After I responded, the reader went on to say that “the direction American Yoga is moving in is pretty darn interesting. In fact, over contemplating your email, I started wondering what drives most Western yoga students to become “teachers” in the first place, let alone trying to reinvent their “own” system. Part of it, I’m assuming, is the ego wanting this seemingly luxurious life of being a yoga teacher……because let’s face it, the way most Americans work their lives away pretty much sucks! The American Dream has essentially become Corporate Slavery.
As bad a rep as the Guru principle has received in the US, I think it’s a missing element. The idea that a teacher has done the long hard journey and come back to help others along. Not to say they are totally missing….but I think there is a lack of very experienced teachers amongst the yoga population here. And the ones that are around are too busy traveling around teaching workshops to thousands of students around the country rather than working closely with a student for a long long time!”
I absolutely agree that the the missing piece is having a Guru or at least a long-term relationship with one teacher which I kinda sorta wrote about here: https://lindasyoga.com/2012/03/29/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-guru/
As for everyone doing teacher trainings, I personally think there are TOO MANY teacher trainings. It feeds into what I wrote about babies teaching babies….https://lindasyoga.com/2011/08/03/babies-teaching-babies/ — which ironically has a video of John Friend! Hey, who knew, right? 😉
As for yoga teacher trainings helping someone to “deepen” their own practice….really? In what way? Always? For everyone? I tell my students that if their path is the length and width of their yoga mat, that ain’t much of a path. How are you treating people, what are you saying to people? “Deepening your practice” is a loaded phrase.
I believe that teacher trainers do a disservice in taking everyone into their training, like those who have been doing yoga for a month. Uh, no. If I did my own training my requirement would be one year of solid yoga practice, at least once a week. I am damn old school. I was a student for 7 years before I became a teacher, not 7 weeks.
Another question to ask is, is yoga teaching a job or a way of life? I know what it is for me. I don’t care anymore about “success”, I just feel blessed to teach the students who seek me out in my home shala. I did not want to come back from India this year, I wanted to stay in India and study study study. On that false merit of prestige and “success” as a teacher:
“What you should not do, I think, is worry about the opinion of anyone beyond your friends. You shouldn’t worry about prestige. Prestige is the opinion of the rest of the world.
Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. It causes you to work not on what you like, but what you’d like to like.
Prestige is just fossilized inspiration. If you do anything well enough, you’ll make it prestigious. Plenty of things we now consider prestigious were anything but at first. Jazz comes to mind—though almost any established art form would do. So just do what you like, and let prestige take care of itself.
Prestige is especially dangerous to the ambitious. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, the way to do it is to bait the hook with prestige. That’s the recipe for getting people to give talks, write forewords, serve on committees, be department heads, and so on. It might be a good rule simply to avoid any prestigious task. If it didn’t suck, they wouldn’t have had to make it prestigious.”
Talk amongst yourselves.
You must be logged in to post a comment.