tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1449952380128375575.post8322007919289849520..comments2024-03-21T00:30:14.738-07:00Comments on Yoga in the Dragon's Den: A short meditation on the matrix of AshtangaNobelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00655577410721103577noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1449952380128375575.post-10196916456109109012011-02-12T11:40:53.053-08:002011-02-12T11:40:53.053-08:00Very interesting thoughts and points you bring up,...Very interesting thoughts and points you bring up, Grimmly. <br /><br />Well, perhaps the matrix isn't quite the right analogy here. Perhaps this is what's going on: There is a vast body of yogic knowledge/wisdom. It is so vast that if one were to try to teach everything to every student at once, people will be totally confused and disoriented. So Krishnamarcharya (and probably Brahmachari before him as well) packaged these teachings in differently-shaped "vessels" for different students, depending on the students' backgrounds and physical and mental conditions. So perhaps the teachings were taught to Krishnamacharya by Brahmachari in a certain "vessel", Krishnamacharya taught Jois with another "vessel" (the one we recognize today as the Ashtanga Vinyasa system), and Krishnamacharya taught other students with yet other vessels. But the "liquid" that is contained within these vessels is essentially the same.<br /><br />As to your observation, "Krishnamacharya continued to teach for fifty years after he left Mysore, how come it's that Mysore palace style practice of the late 20's early 30's that is passed down as the 'lineage', unchanged...."<br /><br />This is my personal take on this: Jois felt that he was only qualified to pass on whatever he has been taught by his guru, and nothing else. Since his guru only taught him the Mysore palace style practice, that was the lineage as it ran through him, at least as far as he himself was concerned. And he saw his role in the lineage-passing as being confined to passing on this Mysore palace style practice. <br /><br />Jois was probably aware of the subsequent changes in Krishnamacharya's teaching over the next 50 years (indeed, I find it hard to imagine that he wasn't aware, especially if he had stayed in touch with his guru), but he probably reasoned to himself that since he wasn't privy to his guru's subsequent teachings, he should only stick to what he knows, and teach only that. <br /><br />All this is, of course, strictly my personal theory. I have no way of knowing what goes on in other people's minds. But it is the most reasonable picture I can put together, from what I can see. <br /><br />And I, of course, have chosen to go with what Jois has learnt from Krishnamacharya, even if it might not be the whole picture. It seems to be working for me so far :-)Nobelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00655577410721103577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1449952380128375575.post-26681679832575842442011-02-12T00:17:44.291-08:002011-02-12T00:17:44.291-08:00Not so much contention really, Jois was unrelated ...Not so much contention really, Jois was unrelated to Krishnamacharya or K. to his teacher Brahmachari so 1. is a little problematic wouldn't you say.<br /><br />A matrix as you define is problematic here too. It used to be four series, Primary, Intermediate and Advanced A and B, it seems, not six and they were probably knocked up on the back of a napkin over chai latte's one afternoon when K asked J to take over a couple of kids classes for him. Does anyone really believe that K was taught those four series as we know them by Brahmachari? No led classes, eight breathes rather than five, postures in a different order, full vinyasa between each asana not half... so many changes that the matrix idea folds in upon itself or your just left with the tristana but even here there's a problem as K doesn't seem to have been concerned with drishti. So movement with the breath, that's our matrix.<br /><br />But we should go with the more recent manifestation of the lineage right? but hang on, Krishnamacharya continued to teach for fifty years after he left Mysore, how come it's that Mysore palace style practice of the late 20's early 30's that is passed down as the 'lineage', unchanged....well, apart from the changes mentioned above of course.<br /><br />Having trouble seeing the matrix here.<br /><br />Not that it matters, it's a pretty practice as we have it and worth preserving, even if we top it up with a little more fruit every once in a while.Grimmlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00301656317399292135noreply@blogger.com