Religious-Lite Yoga for Youngsters
-
@Mephis said
"I might be intellectually impecunious (which come to think of it is a very intellectually impecunious thing to say), but as I understand it: health and sexiness do not preclude the concept of Union."
It is undoubtedly a place where a lot of people start—looking for a good exercise routine that helps them look and feel better. Most stay there, but others continue to grow and their interests take them further.
I got my teacher certification with Yoga Works in Southern California, and beyond the Yoga Works style of constructing and leading safe, effective exercise and training sessions, we had seminars in Raja Yoga, and we read and discussed the Yoga Sutra's, among other things. But even here, there was no pretense that yoga was limited to a spiritual objective, but could just as easily, and profitably help people with other aspects of their lives. The Yoga Works motto is 'Yoga is for Everyone.' My reason for becoming a teacher had nothing to do with Union. I saw, and still see yoga as a great aid to actor training. Needless to say, my desire to use yoga in this was way was accepted and encouraged by my teachers.
I point to the time honored tradition of qualifying the word yoga with another term, at least by people who do not want to talk in generalities or be misunderstood: Hatha Yoga, Kundalini Yoga, Viny Yoga, Iyengar Yoga, Mantra Yoga, even Bikram Yoga, which despite its gross materialism is still considered valid yoga, even in India. This latter attribution bothers even me, but my issues with Bikram does not mean I have the right to exclude it from the great body of techniques and practices that all enjoy the designation of Yoga, as if my desires in this respect carried any weight.
But I understand the tendency, especially on this forum to consider all 'real' yoga as the type championed by Aliester Crowley and that also forms part of the curriculum of the AA.
Love and Will
-
Yoga as union. Yoga as yoke. This is not yoga, that is not yoga. What a yoke!
Crowley did not teach only one form of yoga. What a very short sighted understanding! He taught all eight limbs! Just ask the Jims.
Hatha yoga, union with one's body. Bahkti yoga, union with one's god. Raja yoga, union with one's Will. Kama yoga, tantric yoga, mantra yoga, Dhana yoga. These are all the yogas of Thelema. If you are a practicing Thelemite, doing your LBRPs and MPs, memorizing your LXVs, saying your Wills before you EATs, giving to all that thou meetest the Law (to give), RESH RESH RESH RESH and rivers to Phoenix and RA RA RAJA SISBOOMBA! You are practicing all eight limbs!
-
[Doh! Takamba's flowin'!]
If he's teaching them about religion anyway, I don't see the problem.
That's what I don't get.
Why religious-lite? What's the complicating factor?
-
@Takamba said
"Yoga as union. Yoga as yoke. This is not yoga, that is not yoga. What a yoke!
Crowley did not teach only one form of yoga. What a very short sighted understanding! He taught all eight limbs! Just ask the Jims.
Hatha yoga, union with one's body. Bahkti yoga, union with one's god. Raja yoga, union with one's Will. Kama yoga, tantric yoga, mantra yoga, Dhana yoga. These are all the yogas of Thelema. If you are a practicing Thelemite, doing your LBRPs and MPs, memorizing your LXVs, saying your Wills before you EATs, giving to all that thou meetest the Law (to give), RESH RESH RESH RESH and rivers to Phoenix and RA RA RAJA SISBOOMBA! You are practicing all eight limbs!"
Nice rhyme, but the dissertation is full of errors, even if the general idea is sound.
Raja Yoga is the yoga of eight limbs, which are:
Yama
Niyama
Asana
Pranayama
Pratyahara
Dharana
Dhyana
SamadhiI kind of buy the Yoke = Union notion, but I am also aware that you have to make the connection and others are also possible. By the tradition that Crowley lays out in Eight Lectures on Yoga, unless you have progressed to Samadhi, you are not practicing all eight limbs. Though, yeah, Magical practices can easily be interpreted as types of yoga; for example, the daily meditation is related to a species of Bhakti yoga, but Bhakti is not one of the 'traditional' eight limbs.
Even in the Sutras Pantanjali cites practice, and in this respect the Yoke translation makes a bit more sense as a discipline—it could be any discipline. He says the practice, and the heat generated by practice, or Tapas is essential to achieve liberation.
EDIT: corrected my spelling of Dhyana
Love and Will
-
Yes. I intentionally made the "mistake" of labeling the various "types" as "limbs," but any yoga is still a yoga. One, imo, doesn't even have to know they are practicing "yoga" for the results to arrive.
-
@Takamba said
"Yoga as union. Yoga as yoke. This is not yoga, that is not yoga. What a yoke!
Crowley did not teach only one form of yoga. What a very short sighted understanding! He taught all eight limbs! Just ask the Jims.
Hatha yoga, union with one's body. Bahkti yoga, union with one's god. Raja yoga, union with one's Will. Kama yoga, tantric yoga, mantra yoga, Dhana yoga. These are all the yogas of Thelema. If you are a practicing Thelemite, doing your LBRPs and MPs, memorizing your LXVs, saying your Wills before you EATs, giving to all that thou meetest the Law (to give), RESH RESH RESH RESH and rivers to Phoenix and RA RA RAJA SISBOOMBA! You are practicing all eight limbs!"
Sounds like a late Allen Ginsberg poem.
-
Double post, sorry.
-
@RobertAllen said
"
Hatha yoga is yoga! That's what is taught in most yoga studios outside of India. It's yoga, it's primary objective is health, not liberation. "Hatha yoga should comprehend Pranayama (it should be the most important point there, in fact), a thing in the studios you talk about it's never used, or if it is only very superficially. So no, it's not the same thing, at all.
@RobertAllen said
"
See Vivekenanda's assertion that the hatha yogi is only interested in living forever, not liberation. They can have other objectives as well, but the practice of hatha yoga is primarily concerned with achieving a certain kind of physical perfection."And in fact Vivekananda calls them "yogi" in a sort of dispregiative sense. Hatha Yoga primary concern is NOT "physical perfection" but still liberation, see the Hatha Yoga pradipika etc. If there are certain people that use some of the practices therein for physical health that's not dissimilar from using magical powers to fulfill the ego desires.
In short terms, a magician is still a magician no matter what he sought and does, as an yogi is still an yogi no matter what and an artist is still an artist no matter what. Still, at the same time, true art is completely different from manierism.
@RobertAllen said
"
My previous comments were meant to be helpful. Obviously, your friend is interested in presenting the 'philosophy' (wrong word because it's more of a method, but it was the word you used originally) of Raja Yoga. Crowley wrote about Raja yoga! If you are interested I may still be able to make a focused suggestion."Crowley didn't talk only about Raja. Liber Astarte (as all the Abramelin operation etc.) are good examples of Bhakti Yoga (and the difference therein in bhava/prema). Raja-Yoga comprehends in its structure (as every form of Yoga, btw, but in this case more prominent) many other branches, from Karma, Jnana, Mantra and Hatha.
-
@Lavir said
"
Crowley didn't talk only about Raja. Liber Astarte (as all the Abramelin operation etc.) are good examples of Bhakti Yoga (and the difference therein in bhava/prema). Raja-Yoga comprehends in its structure (as every form of Yoga, btw, but in this case more prominent) many other branches, from Karma, Jnana, Mantra and Hatha."
Lavir,
This is not really true, but it is a good example of what you do in the rest of your post—construct an argument that supports a preferential way of viewing the subject. One that I am not totally out of sympathy with.
Crowley wrote an instruction that is 'based' on Bhakti yoga, and many other devotional practices the world over—Islamic, Christian, etc... The same is true for many other practices he authored that can be likened to gnana, karma, and other yogas—my assumption is that it was not specifically his attempt to recreate a bhakti or gnana practice, which would have been redundant (why not just practice yoga?). He synthesized the essence of many traditions. It is only easy for us to be reductive about this now, especially if we are principally interested in punching holes in another argument.
My argument, and my point of view: Crowley's writing on Bhakti, or other yogas does not even come close to the extent that he 'really' wrote about Raja Yoga. (It should be pointed out that there is a categorical problem in referencing certain types of yoga's as regards the main points of this discussion. These yogas are not, strictly speaking, traditions—they are simply practices that many yogas make use of in one form or another. These include pranayama and mantra yoga. To say that the Abramelin operation is Bhakti yoga is the type of thing I am talking about. The statement is only true in a provisional sense—as if to say that it is Bhakti-like. It is patently false in a factual sense because it is derived from a document that cannot show direct influence from Indian traditions of yoga.)
As for your general exceptions to my points, which, btw, are cherry picked, I can only counter that, regardless of what either you or I think yoga should be, there is actual usage and tradition that has to be reckoned with. Vivekenanda couldn't change this fact by expressing an opinion, and neither can you or I. He still referenced the Hatha Yogi as a yogi.
Love and Will
-
@RobertAllen said
"
Crowley wrote an instruction that is 'based' on Bhakti yoga, and many other devotional practices the world over—Islamic, Christian, etc... The same is true for many other practices he authored that can be likened to gnana, karma, and other yogas—my assumption is that it was not specifically his attempt to recreate a bhakti or gnana practice, which would have been redundant (why not just practice yoga?). He synthesized the essence of many traditions. It is only easy for us to be reductive about this now, especially if we are principally interested in punching holes in another argument."The principal argument was not this, however. This remark was just a side point. As for Bhakti, many practices on it were not widely known at the time of Crowley. The most predominant view at the time was the one of the Bhagavad Gita, that, while concerned with love it was more of an "austhere" and/or "noble" type (probably because originating and meant from an higher "class" of individuals) and less passionate as later examples of Bhakti. Liber Astarte is an example of such later Bhakti and it is interesting to note that Crowley reached the same conclusions in what you call "recreating" to those made by the disciples of Chaitanya (including Ramakhrisna), both in the approach to the experience and both in the type of result therein.
They even reached the same conclusions about the two different approaches (one of longing and one of searching) and alternating between the two.
@RobertAllen said
"
To say that the Abramelin operation is Bhakti yoga is the type of thing I am talking about. The statement is only true in a provisional sense—as if to say that it is Bhakti-like. It is patently false in a factual sense because it is derived from a document that cannot show direct influence from Indian traditions of yoga."I never implied it was Bhakti in the strict sense, the remark (that was a little fuorviating, I admit) was made appositedly for the result on the way Crowley describes it and the way he approached the operation (i.e. marriage, intimacy, for this my remark after of the difference between bhava and prema). I don't know if Abramelin meant it exactly that way (it can possibly be, however).
@RobertAllen said
"
As for your general exceptions to my points, which, btw, are cherry picked, I can only counter that, regardless of what either you or I think yoga should be, there is actual usage and tradition that has to be reckoned with. Vivekenanda couldn't change this fact by expressing an opinion, and neither can you or I. He still referenced the Hatha Yogi as a yogi."And in fact I said that an yogi is still an yogi, no matter if he uses Yoga for liberation or not, the same as a magician is still a magician no matter the way he uses magic.
This, however, doesn't change the fact that Hatha-Yoga is a discipline for liberation and not for physical health, so those that use it for the latter use it for a different scope than for what it was created. For this my statement on manierism vs. art.
And, btw, it is not "cherry picking" because the Hatha-Yoga done in studios miss completely the major point of Hatha-Yoga: Pranayama. That would be like pretending that in such and such a place they are teaching you to drive in a rally while they make you practice with a car with all assists on.
-
I don't have problems with most of your post; I thought most of it was thoughtful. The minor differences are of hairsplitting variety that don't amount to much. And then there is the remaining disagreement, and it basically comes down to an opinion.
@Lavir said
"This, however, doesn't change the fact that Hatha-Yoga is a discipline for liberation and not for physical health, so those that use it for the latter use it for a different scope than for what it was created. For this my statement on manierism vs. art."
There are several strains and developments of Hatha Yoga that can be cited countering your assertion, just as you will want to cite a source that support the position. I will limit myself to those I have a personal connection to.
Fact is, most of what passes as the Hatha Yoga canon is only a couple of hundred years old. There are some apocryphal stories about a cache of documents discovered a couple of hundred years ago, but these have never been published—it's generally considered to be a lie. Historically, the Sutras only talk about sitting with a straight spine when discussing asana. You mention the Pradipika in a previous post. IMO, this is an important text because it shows a developmental stage of thinking about physical yoga—it's really little more than a collection of various practices from different schools of the period, with very little effort to integrate them, at least as far I can deduce from the critical notes in my translation. It's certainly not the coherent masterwork that we find in the Sutras. In contemporary practice there are actually certain common Hatha Yoga gestures and asanas that resemble a number of calisthenic exercises common among the British troops from the area and period when these practices became known!
Don't get me wrong. Liberation is a great goal, but the philosophy that supports this work has always been separable from most practice, the practice seeming to have a life of its own.
@Lavir said
"And, btw, it is not "cherry picking" because the Hatha-Yoga done in studios miss completely the major point of Hatha-Yoga: Pranayama. That would be like pretending that in such and such a place they are teaching you to drive in a rally while they make you practice with a car with all assists on."
So, my opinion, which I feel is based on established practice is this: Contemporary studios do what they want with Hatha Yoga because the tradition has always been one of adaptation. The mistake is in asserting that this ability and genius of adaptation is the mistake. The great diversity of postures and exercises that now make up Hatha Yoga is proof of this because you simply don't need most of it if all you want is moksha!
My tradition, if you can call it that (I don't own it, it's just the one that informed my training), comes from a Hatha Yoga saint named Krishnamacharya. He had three students: B. K. S. Iyengar, Pattabhi Jois, and T. K. V. Desikachar. Respectively, they each have their own brand of Hatha Yoga: Iyangar, Ashtanga, and Viny.
Desikachar has return in some measure to the core philosophy of Samkhya, and you will find this attitude in his writings. The other two masters peddle a yoga that is primarily about something else—that's not to say there are not strains of Krishnamacharya's philosophy in their work, but this philosophy is nevertheless, viewed as non-essential.
Jois developed his yoga as a way of channeling the excessive energy in Indian youth, specifically young men; Iyengar's path began when Krishnamacharya sought to help him as a young man because he was sickly! To this day people will go to his studio in Puna for migraines, and any number of other neuromuscular conditions, including simply not being able to touch your toes. Much of his teaching came about as a result of his coping with his daughters birth, Ghita. She had serious medical problems. He was too poor to afford a doctor so he adapted his yoga to help her. This other strain has much more in common with ayurveda medicine that any concern for liberation.
As far as I can tell the yoga of Bikram is about physical prowess first, and then health. He also had a teacher, a master, who instructed him to bring yoga to the west, which shows there is a tradition here. One of my actors is a Bikram instructor. She can do a standing back bend and grab her ankles. This is considered a real achievement in that tradition. To this day there are Yoga competitions in India that are not about liberation—who can realize liberation the quickest. They are about tying yourself into knots!
Again, it's fine to disagree with certain schools, but there is really no basis for accusing any of them of lacking authenticity or dispensation for what it is they do.
Love and Will
-
It doesn't matter what they say in the papers because it's always been the same old scene.There's a new band in town, but you can't get the sound from a story in a magazine... Aimed at your average teen......
-
@Takamba said
"It doesn't matter what they say in the papers because it's always been the same old scene.There's a new band in town, but you can't get the sound from a story in a magazine... Aimed at your average teen......"
Awesome Billy Joel reference! Even if my humor is overlooked in this thread rest assured that yours, sir, is not.
Namaste