I have a delightful new colleague in the philosophy department named Trent. Trent is an epistemologist, which means that he considers questions about the nature of knowledge, kinds of knowledge, what we are doing when we make claims about knowledge, what it is possible to know, how we justify knowledge, how we know that we know, that sort of thing. In terms of philosophical interests and training, we are on fairly opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum. Not that I'm uninterested in such questions. Plato had a great deal to say about such issues, but I typically concern myself with more historical and literary questions about philosophical texts, which do often, like most things, lead to questions within the domain of epistemology, but I am definitely not "an epistemologist."
It turns out, however, that Trent and I do have yoga in common. As I always do, when I find out that someone does yoga, I asked him, via Face Book, what kind of yoga he does. (More on why I ask this question as the post continues). He eventually responded, via Face book, that he practices regularly and flips through Yoga Journal to find poses that will help him with lower back pain and bike riding which is another passion of his. That was sort of the end of the conversation at that point.
Yesterday, I was in the department and Trent told me about a recent encounter he had on the airplane with a hardcore yogini. My first thought, was oh wow, I wonder if he ran into Christina on the plane, but then I realized I probably would have already heard about the story if that were the case.
Anyway, Trent started a conversation with the yogini and in the course of the conversation, Trent said that he did (and sometimes taught yoga to his friends and students, just sort of come to the gym and roll out a towel.) The yogini hears about his experiences with yoga and says "BULLSHXT you can't know anything about yoga if you don't do yoga within a tradition." Trent was somewhat taken aback, but, being the epistemologist that he is, he started to ask himself what kind of knowledge claim she was actually making. Surely, it seems false that we can know nothing about yoga without a tradition. Does she actually believe that? I don't think Trent actually engaged her in this conversation, but he recounted the conversation to me and so the conversation got started and eventually this post emerged.
My initial response, as is often the case, particularly when I don't know quite what to say, was to laugh a bit. On the one hand, surely Trent is right that we can know a good deal about yoga without having any association with a method, but on the other hand, I kind of know where the incensed yogini is coming from. I do think having a method matters a lot and you will come to know a lot more about yoga once you learn yoga through a particularly methodological framework/ tradition.
Part of the reason I ask people what kind of yoga they do is a way of gauging what kind of conversation we are going to have about yoga. If a person says, I don't know, just basic Hatha, then I know they aren't learning a method of yoga and our conversation will be fairly general. If they answer a method other than Iyengar, then I know our conversation is going to have to navigate some different, often difficult waters. Often people have a pretty negative association with Iyengar yoga, and generally they feel the need to tell Iyengar people about it. If they say Iyengar yoga, then great, we are off to the races. To be fair, I ask the same sorts of questions about philosophers too. I have to find out what kind of philosophy they do and that navigates the direction of the conversation.
Anyway, Trent's story got me thinking about how we know yoga differently if we have a method of yoga. Again, I think we clearly can know yoga without a method.
One way of looking at the question, would be a level of knowledge thing. For instance, if a student has taken an Intro to Philosophy class, they know some philosophy. If they are a philosophy major, they know more, a graduate student more still, a professional academic, more still. I do think aligning with a method is like choosing a major and the more deeply you go into the method, the more it is like upper level study. I spent as long studying for my Iyengar certification as I did my PhD in philosophy...
Another way of getting at how we know differently has to do with having a more systematic approach to acquiring the knowledge of yoga. The subject of yoga is vast, even if one restricts an understanding of yoga to asana alone, one could spend a lifetime, even many lifetimes studying the nuances of that single limb of the eight fold path. A method of yoga gives you a lot of help along the way. You can benefit from the collective wisdom of the tradition about the best way to learn. There's much more to say here, but basically, without a system you are reinventing the wheel and in all likelihood the wheel you invent yourself is not going to be perfectly round. The value in not reinventing the wheel was particularly clear to me once I began teaching Iyengar yoga. For a while, I taught methodless yoga, I might have even played soft music...and I really just did yoga with the students, I didn't teach them anything. I also never really had much of a plan and often didn't really feel prepared to teach. Once I started learning Iyengar yoga, I also started learning how to teach yoga. First of all, I had more to teach because I was learning more about yoga and Second, I learned how to teach yoga, which is another sort of knowledge base. Student can learn just from the sharing of experience, but they learn more when they are actually being taught in a systematic way and most methods will also teach you how to teach that method.
Another way I thought about it was in terms of religious/spiritual experience. Most religious people I know think it is important to practice a particular religion. They tend to be suspicious of people, who just sort of believe in God or Jesus, but don't affiliate with a particular church. So if you are a religious sort, it might be helpful to think about how your denominational views affect your religious belief and practice. Having a method of yoga is a bit more like that.
Another way I thought about the question has to do with philosophical training. We typically don't just learn philosophy, but we learn a way of doing philosophy. For instance, I was taught to read Plato in the way that I read him, with attention to historical context, dramatic and literary detail.. Others are taught to read Plato different, with an eye toward examining the arguments and their various implications. How one is taught shapes how we experience Plato. How we are taught to do yoga shapes how we experience yoga.
So is my knowledge/experience of yoga different than someone who doesn't have a method or who has a different method? Absolutely. Are we all knowing and experiencing yoga? Absolutely.
More another time on the value of navigating the differences between methods and the disadvantages of having a method.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Plato's Forms and Light on Yoga
I've been teaching Plato's Republic this semester in Social World. Social World is a two semester intellectual thought course that BIC students take in their second year. We are reading all of the Republic, Aristotle's Ethics, and Augustine's Confessions. Since we are not reading "everything," we have time to delve more deeply into the texts than is often the case in a typical undergraduate survey course. At the same time, I'm writing about the Republic for the last book chapter. So Plato's on my mind.
We talked about censorship in society the very day Obama's speech to schoolchildren garnered so much suspicion. We talked about Homeric poetry the day that Patrick Swayze died. Each of those intersections are worthy of a blog posting themselves, but I decided to write about how Plato's view of the forms might help us understand yoga poses better and how yoga poses might help us understand Plato's forms a bit better. This is the beginning of an academic article I will write.
For the yogis and yoginis among you, some background on Plato's theory of forms. Plato believed in an ideal realm of true being. This is the idea of the good, or the world of forms. In this realm, there are forms of true beauty or beauty in and of itself, true justice, justice in and of itself, piety, courage, temperance and all of these individual forms somehow participate in / make up/ are parts of / are different ways of getting at the good itself. Many of the dialogues address one of these particular forms. The Euthyphro asks what is piety, The Republic, what is Justice, the Charmides what is temperance. Prior to embodiment, our soul/mind had some association, indeed close communion with the forms. Plato typically uses highly erotic imagery to describe this relationship. The soul has intercourse with the forms, it feeds on the forms, it abides with the forms. As we become embodied, we forget what we knew about the forms. Philosophy is largely a practice of remembering what we previously knew.
Scholars spend a great deal of time pondering exactly what the forms are, but one point I frequently make about them is that they are forms and not contents. There is a form of justice that is universal, but that form doesn't dictate a completely set content of what a just act or just society is. For example, all society have laws, that place certain parameters around what is considered just and the laws and the view of justice can vary widely. We might look at the form of justice as the law making impulse that we collectively and individually have, but laws about safe driving practices, to use a mundane example vary. None the less, considering examples of X can lead us to reflect on what X is in and of itself.
This is a vastly oversimplified account, nowhere can you turn to page X of any dialogue and read Plato saying here is my theory of forms for your contemplation and enjoyment, but there are numerous passages in the dialogues where Socrates talks about truth, beauty, goodness, aka ultimate reality. Over the years, Plato scholars have developed a view of Plato's theory of forms which essentially posits Plato must have believed something like this for all of those passages to have coherence. Why you may ask, does Plato not simply say what is view is,Perhaps the author of the Seventh Letter is correct when he says, "it can't be written about like other studies." perhaps he didn't have it all worked out, perhaps he thought it better for us to figure these things out, to work with the forms and participate with them.
What the exact relationship between form X and instantiations of form X in the material world is a matter (so to speak) of great debate. It is here that an understanding of the dynamic relationship between yoga practitioner and yoga poses offers us some help.
For the philosophers and philosophinis out there, some background on yogasana. The practice of asana, yoga poses is one of the eight limbs of Astangha yoga. There are yamas, ethics principles, niyamas various self-regulations, asana (poses), pranayama, breathe control, pratyahara withdrawal of the senses, dharana, concentration, dyhana, meditation and finally samadhi, contentment. This system of yoga has roots in the most ancient texts of the Indian Subcontinent but has one of its clearest formulations in a much later texts, The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. The important point to see is that we might think of asana as a physical practice, but from the beginning it was rooted in an ethical and philosophical world view, which has numerous affinities with Plato's ethical, epistemological and metaphysical views.
Anyway, at least some form of asana, even if it was "just" seated poses used in meditation was practiced for a long period of time. In 1966, B.K.S. Iyengar published the book Light on Yoga, which has pretty much defined what the "classic form" of asana is for the contemporary yoga student. B.K.S. has continued to practice yoga over the intervening 43 years and there's an important sense in which the classic form is an ongoing work in progress. Add to that, there are many traditions of contemporary yoga practice and some emphasize flow much more than form and some have a different definition/convention of how to do a pose. The Trikonasana of asthanga yoga has a shortner stance than how the current version of Iyengar Trikonasan is taught, but is actually similar to the directions given about the distance of the stance in Light on Yoga. However, everyone would agree that they are both examples of the the form Trikonasana. In Anusara yoga, Trikonasana is often expressed with a deep backward bend in the torso. This is clearly a variation on "classic" form, but it still participates in the form Trikonasana. At what point does trikonasana stop being trikonasana and become some other pose, is an open question. One has to think about what the essential aspects of Trikonasana are that make it different from Utthita Parsvakonasana, for example.... When does courage stop being courage and become something else...
There's also an important sense in which all the poses are really one pose, much like all the platonic forms are really the good. B.K.S Iyengar is famous for saying "find Tadasana, Mountain pose, standing straight and tall, in every pose. John Friend's articulation of the Universal Principles of Alignment, take us to this commonality quite directly. Regardless of the pose, universal prinicples apply. How much and in what way depends on the pose, the practice, and the person.
Some other interesting things to note. Many poses are named after something more universal, like a geometric shape, trikonasana, is triangle poses. So when one practices trikonasana, you as particular person are participating in an understand of the universal triangle. How I have to shape my body as as a short, some what fleshy American female is quite different, than a lithe long-limbed Indian man.
Poses are often named after something in the natural world, Vrksana, tree pose, Ardha Chandrasana, half moon pose. So when one assumes that shape one might reflect on what aspect of a half moon we are trying to embody. Plato too thought that reflecting on the things of the natural world was part of the path to enlightenment.
Many of the poses, particularly the twists, are named after sages. Twists are very difficult for me. I wish my philosophical practice some how had endowed me with more affinity for the sage poses.
There are also a number of poses named after animals, pigeon, lion, scorpion, feather of a peacock...In assuming these poses, we come to understand/embody some particular quality like flight, or lightness, or courage
Some are just descriptive names for the poses themselves, like hand on big toe pose. The names of these poses might lead us to reflect directly on the relationship of the various of ourselves and hence a greater awareness of ourselves.
Well, this is a work in progress and I'm off to meditate, drop Milo off at puppy school, then go to Devon's 7:30 asana class.
We talked about censorship in society the very day Obama's speech to schoolchildren garnered so much suspicion. We talked about Homeric poetry the day that Patrick Swayze died. Each of those intersections are worthy of a blog posting themselves, but I decided to write about how Plato's view of the forms might help us understand yoga poses better and how yoga poses might help us understand Plato's forms a bit better. This is the beginning of an academic article I will write.
For the yogis and yoginis among you, some background on Plato's theory of forms. Plato believed in an ideal realm of true being. This is the idea of the good, or the world of forms. In this realm, there are forms of true beauty or beauty in and of itself, true justice, justice in and of itself, piety, courage, temperance and all of these individual forms somehow participate in / make up/ are parts of / are different ways of getting at the good itself. Many of the dialogues address one of these particular forms. The Euthyphro asks what is piety, The Republic, what is Justice, the Charmides what is temperance. Prior to embodiment, our soul/mind had some association, indeed close communion with the forms. Plato typically uses highly erotic imagery to describe this relationship. The soul has intercourse with the forms, it feeds on the forms, it abides with the forms. As we become embodied, we forget what we knew about the forms. Philosophy is largely a practice of remembering what we previously knew.
Scholars spend a great deal of time pondering exactly what the forms are, but one point I frequently make about them is that they are forms and not contents. There is a form of justice that is universal, but that form doesn't dictate a completely set content of what a just act or just society is. For example, all society have laws, that place certain parameters around what is considered just and the laws and the view of justice can vary widely. We might look at the form of justice as the law making impulse that we collectively and individually have, but laws about safe driving practices, to use a mundane example vary. None the less, considering examples of X can lead us to reflect on what X is in and of itself.
This is a vastly oversimplified account, nowhere can you turn to page X of any dialogue and read Plato saying here is my theory of forms for your contemplation and enjoyment, but there are numerous passages in the dialogues where Socrates talks about truth, beauty, goodness, aka ultimate reality. Over the years, Plato scholars have developed a view of Plato's theory of forms which essentially posits Plato must have believed something like this for all of those passages to have coherence. Why you may ask, does Plato not simply say what is view is,Perhaps the author of the Seventh Letter is correct when he says, "it can't be written about like other studies." perhaps he didn't have it all worked out, perhaps he thought it better for us to figure these things out, to work with the forms and participate with them.
What the exact relationship between form X and instantiations of form X in the material world is a matter (so to speak) of great debate. It is here that an understanding of the dynamic relationship between yoga practitioner and yoga poses offers us some help.
For the philosophers and philosophinis out there, some background on yogasana. The practice of asana, yoga poses is one of the eight limbs of Astangha yoga. There are yamas, ethics principles, niyamas various self-regulations, asana (poses), pranayama, breathe control, pratyahara withdrawal of the senses, dharana, concentration, dyhana, meditation and finally samadhi, contentment. This system of yoga has roots in the most ancient texts of the Indian Subcontinent but has one of its clearest formulations in a much later texts, The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. The important point to see is that we might think of asana as a physical practice, but from the beginning it was rooted in an ethical and philosophical world view, which has numerous affinities with Plato's ethical, epistemological and metaphysical views.
Anyway, at least some form of asana, even if it was "just" seated poses used in meditation was practiced for a long period of time. In 1966, B.K.S. Iyengar published the book Light on Yoga, which has pretty much defined what the "classic form" of asana is for the contemporary yoga student. B.K.S. has continued to practice yoga over the intervening 43 years and there's an important sense in which the classic form is an ongoing work in progress. Add to that, there are many traditions of contemporary yoga practice and some emphasize flow much more than form and some have a different definition/convention of how to do a pose. The Trikonasana of asthanga yoga has a shortner stance than how the current version of Iyengar Trikonasan is taught, but is actually similar to the directions given about the distance of the stance in Light on Yoga. However, everyone would agree that they are both examples of the the form Trikonasana. In Anusara yoga, Trikonasana is often expressed with a deep backward bend in the torso. This is clearly a variation on "classic" form, but it still participates in the form Trikonasana. At what point does trikonasana stop being trikonasana and become some other pose, is an open question. One has to think about what the essential aspects of Trikonasana are that make it different from Utthita Parsvakonasana, for example.... When does courage stop being courage and become something else...
There's also an important sense in which all the poses are really one pose, much like all the platonic forms are really the good. B.K.S Iyengar is famous for saying "find Tadasana, Mountain pose, standing straight and tall, in every pose. John Friend's articulation of the Universal Principles of Alignment, take us to this commonality quite directly. Regardless of the pose, universal prinicples apply. How much and in what way depends on the pose, the practice, and the person.
Some other interesting things to note. Many poses are named after something more universal, like a geometric shape, trikonasana, is triangle poses. So when one practices trikonasana, you as particular person are participating in an understand of the universal triangle. How I have to shape my body as as a short, some what fleshy American female is quite different, than a lithe long-limbed Indian man.
Poses are often named after something in the natural world, Vrksana, tree pose, Ardha Chandrasana, half moon pose. So when one assumes that shape one might reflect on what aspect of a half moon we are trying to embody. Plato too thought that reflecting on the things of the natural world was part of the path to enlightenment.
Many of the poses, particularly the twists, are named after sages. Twists are very difficult for me. I wish my philosophical practice some how had endowed me with more affinity for the sage poses.
There are also a number of poses named after animals, pigeon, lion, scorpion, feather of a peacock...In assuming these poses, we come to understand/embody some particular quality like flight, or lightness, or courage
Some are just descriptive names for the poses themselves, like hand on big toe pose. The names of these poses might lead us to reflect directly on the relationship of the various of ourselves and hence a greater awareness of ourselves.
Well, this is a work in progress and I'm off to meditate, drop Milo off at puppy school, then go to Devon's 7:30 asana class.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
On Happiness
Christina was mentioning that her teacher John Friend says everyone comes to yoga because they want to be happier in some way. The desire may not express itself as "wanting to be happy." It may express as wanting to be more fit or more flexible or wanting to get out of chronic pain or reducing stress and anxiety. But if you pull on the thread of those desires, ultimately you want those things because you want to be happy.
Aristotle would agree. He begins and ends the Nicomachean Ethics with an inquiry into the nature of happiness. He starts saying All human actions aim at some end and the good has rightly been declared as the end to which all actions aim. We aim at the good, I'm paraphasing now, because knowledge of the good is ultimately what makes us happy.
Aristotle did not mean happy in the here today, gone tomorrow sense of being in a good mood. He actually thought that the attainment of happiness took the course of a whole human life and that we could only really and truly judge a life happy at the end of life. It is a life long endeavor to become happy. Much like the practice of yoga is a life long endeavor.
The word that gets translated, happiness, is eudaimonia. Literally, it means having a good spirit or daimon, that which abides in us, that which makes us human is well, at peace, exercising its true nature and highest calling. It is probably more closely akin to our typical understanding blessedness, profound contentment, or serenity.
Aristotle observed that there are three main competing notions of happiness (and that the wise do not give the same account of it as the many). The majority think it is pleasure, health or wealth. He says under this operating principle, we live lives suitable to beasts.. (how about that for breaking it to us gently?). Some he says are motivated by honor and service. The wise recognize that the contemplative life is the highest form of happiness. Basically, you have to be a philosopher to be truly happy.
There are quite a few similarities between Aristotle's view and the yogic understanding of happiness. We do yoga to see the self and its true nature, once we see that true nature we will recognize our own blessedness and unity with the divine. Aristotle did, more or less, think we could become divine through philosophical practice, if not completely divine, at least very divine like. Aristotle also recognized it is a lot of hard work and how we respond to circumstance shapes our character in important ways. You don't just get to do whatever you want to achieve the end. You have to life live in accord with the highest principles. The yogic vision is similarly august. The many are not really drawn to the true path of yoga. They may pursue yoga as bhoga, but to see beyond the bhoga to the deeper levels of yogic practice, that's not a journey that many chose to take.
Aristotle would agree. He begins and ends the Nicomachean Ethics with an inquiry into the nature of happiness. He starts saying All human actions aim at some end and the good has rightly been declared as the end to which all actions aim. We aim at the good, I'm paraphasing now, because knowledge of the good is ultimately what makes us happy.
Aristotle did not mean happy in the here today, gone tomorrow sense of being in a good mood. He actually thought that the attainment of happiness took the course of a whole human life and that we could only really and truly judge a life happy at the end of life. It is a life long endeavor to become happy. Much like the practice of yoga is a life long endeavor.
The word that gets translated, happiness, is eudaimonia. Literally, it means having a good spirit or daimon, that which abides in us, that which makes us human is well, at peace, exercising its true nature and highest calling. It is probably more closely akin to our typical understanding blessedness, profound contentment, or serenity.
Aristotle observed that there are three main competing notions of happiness (and that the wise do not give the same account of it as the many). The majority think it is pleasure, health or wealth. He says under this operating principle, we live lives suitable to beasts.. (how about that for breaking it to us gently?). Some he says are motivated by honor and service. The wise recognize that the contemplative life is the highest form of happiness. Basically, you have to be a philosopher to be truly happy.
There are quite a few similarities between Aristotle's view and the yogic understanding of happiness. We do yoga to see the self and its true nature, once we see that true nature we will recognize our own blessedness and unity with the divine. Aristotle did, more or less, think we could become divine through philosophical practice, if not completely divine, at least very divine like. Aristotle also recognized it is a lot of hard work and how we respond to circumstance shapes our character in important ways. You don't just get to do whatever you want to achieve the end. You have to life live in accord with the highest principles. The yogic vision is similarly august. The many are not really drawn to the true path of yoga. They may pursue yoga as bhoga, but to see beyond the bhoga to the deeper levels of yogic practice, that's not a journey that many chose to take.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
How To Do Things With Chairs Saturday August 22, 3-5 PM.
How To Do Things With Chairs Saturday August 22, 3-5 PM.
Certified Iyengar Yoga Instructor, Anne-Marie Bowery, will teach you how to use backless yoga chairs in basic backbends, inversions, standing poses, forward bends, and twists.
The workshop will be held at Clear Spring Studio, 605 Copeland Street.
Cost of the workshop: $25.00
Workshop participants will be able to purchase chairs at the bargain price of $30.00.
Call Anne at 512-468 2808 or email her at AnneBowery@yahoo to register.
Note: I’m not going to be teaching the September 5 chair workshop due to some other obligations, so this will be your last opportunity to learn about chairs for a while.
Certified Iyengar Yoga Instructor, Anne-Marie Bowery, will teach you how to use backless yoga chairs in basic backbends, inversions, standing poses, forward bends, and twists.
The workshop will be held at Clear Spring Studio, 605 Copeland Street.
Cost of the workshop: $25.00
Workshop participants will be able to purchase chairs at the bargain price of $30.00.
Call Anne at 512-468 2808 or email her at AnneBowery@yahoo to register.
Note: I’m not going to be teaching the September 5 chair workshop due to some other obligations, so this will be your last opportunity to learn about chairs for a while.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Techne, Episteme, Phronesis, Sophia
Christina and I were having one of our usual conversations about yoga on our way back from Breath and Body the other day. We were talking about the differences between the various styles of yoga we have some experience with ranging from "hot yoga" like Baptiste and Bikram to Ashtanga, Anusara, and Iyengar. We were talking about the various benefits and limitations of each in the public class setting and in terms of cultivating ongoing personal practice. It struck me as we were talking that a lot of the difference really have to do with the goals one has with respect to learning about and experiencing yoga. The ancient Greek philosophers spent a lot of time distinguishing between various forms of knowledge and some of those distinctions are helpful to keep in mind as we navigate the terrain of yoga in America.
Techne, technical or craft knowledge. Knowing how to do something. You simply learn how to do the pose or you might learn a sequence for back pain and follow the sequence. You will definitely get benefit simply from the doing, but the level of understanding really doesn't extend beyond the how to mechanics of the pose.
Episteme is often translated as knowledge, sometimes scientific knowledge, but the Greeks had a different view of science than we do so that translation can be misleading. On the most basic level, episteme involves the understanding of why things work the way they do. At the deepest level, in involves understanding the large theoretical concepts that inform a system of knowledge. So in Anusura, The Universal Principles get at episteme, but the instruction, "stick your butt out." might just be a technique to get you in the ballpark of inner spiral without full knowledge of inner spiral.
In Iyengar Yoga, episteme would involve understanding the effects that various poses have both on a theoretical and an experiential level and then being able to use that knowledge to develop a sequence for allergies or fatigue, where as "tighten your knees," "ribs back," "tail bone" in are all pretty firmly in the domain of techne.
Phronesis is often translated as practical intelligence. It is knowing what to do in a particular situation. So a teacher confronting a very mixed level class, will have to make a decision how to modify the class plan so that everyone can be involved in a meaningful way.
Sophia is wisdom. It is the result of long uninterrupted study of many many branches of knowledge. Sophia involves self-knowledge and knowledge of the cosmos as well. It is the state of being that arises through the ongoing practice of the contemplative life.
Techne, technical or craft knowledge. Knowing how to do something. You simply learn how to do the pose or you might learn a sequence for back pain and follow the sequence. You will definitely get benefit simply from the doing, but the level of understanding really doesn't extend beyond the how to mechanics of the pose.
Episteme is often translated as knowledge, sometimes scientific knowledge, but the Greeks had a different view of science than we do so that translation can be misleading. On the most basic level, episteme involves the understanding of why things work the way they do. At the deepest level, in involves understanding the large theoretical concepts that inform a system of knowledge. So in Anusura, The Universal Principles get at episteme, but the instruction, "stick your butt out." might just be a technique to get you in the ballpark of inner spiral without full knowledge of inner spiral.
In Iyengar Yoga, episteme would involve understanding the effects that various poses have both on a theoretical and an experiential level and then being able to use that knowledge to develop a sequence for allergies or fatigue, where as "tighten your knees," "ribs back," "tail bone" in are all pretty firmly in the domain of techne.
Phronesis is often translated as practical intelligence. It is knowing what to do in a particular situation. So a teacher confronting a very mixed level class, will have to make a decision how to modify the class plan so that everyone can be involved in a meaningful way.
Sophia is wisdom. It is the result of long uninterrupted study of many many branches of knowledge. Sophia involves self-knowledge and knowledge of the cosmos as well. It is the state of being that arises through the ongoing practice of the contemplative life.
How to do things with chairs
Come Learn How To Do Things with Chairs !!!
Have you ever wonder exactly what to do with those backless yoga chairs you see in yoga studios and on the web? Here’s your chance to find out. Each workshop will focus on a different aspect of how chairs can enhance your yoga practice.
Three Special Workshops with Anne Bowery, Certified Iyengar Yoga Instructor
Saturday July 18 Chair Backbends
Saturday August 22, Chair Twists and Forward Bends.
Saturday September 5 Standing Poses and Inversions.
The Workshops will be held from 3-5 at Clear Spring Studio.
$25.00 each workshop. Take two workshops for $45.00. Take all Three for $60.00.
Backless chairs are available for purchase $40.00 regular chairs, $55 for small chairs, $95.00 for tall chairs.
Call Anne Bowery at 512- 468 2808 or email her at AnneBowery@yahoo.com to register or to purchase yoga chairs.
Have you ever wonder exactly what to do with those backless yoga chairs you see in yoga studios and on the web? Here’s your chance to find out. Each workshop will focus on a different aspect of how chairs can enhance your yoga practice.
Three Special Workshops with Anne Bowery, Certified Iyengar Yoga Instructor
Saturday July 18 Chair Backbends
Saturday August 22, Chair Twists and Forward Bends.
Saturday September 5 Standing Poses and Inversions.
The Workshops will be held from 3-5 at Clear Spring Studio.
$25.00 each workshop. Take two workshops for $45.00. Take all Three for $60.00.
Backless chairs are available for purchase $40.00 regular chairs, $55 for small chairs, $95.00 for tall chairs.
Call Anne Bowery at 512- 468 2808 or email her at AnneBowery@yahoo.com to register or to purchase yoga chairs.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Enlighten Up!
Devon, Jeff, Laura Forsythe and I went to see Enlighten Up ! on Sunday afternoon. It is a documentary made by a woman who has been practicing Asthanga yoga for about 8 years. She was interested in documenting how it is possible to find genuine transformation through yoga, particularly given how commericialized yoga is today. She really wanted to show that yoga will change anyone's life, so she finds a subject who has never done yoga and documents his experiences with it. She doesn't just document his experience. She guides his experience in many ways, by introducing him to a number of influential teachers ranging from Cyndy Lee, Normal Lee, Alan Finger, the Jivamukti people, Pattabi Jois, and BKS Iyengar. Not your average six month foray into yoga.
Anyway, the movie is well worth seeing mostly for the interviews with the above mentioned people. Pattabi Jois's advice, practice, practice practice. forget about the theory. BKS has some great remarks about how the conduit of yoga goes both ways, from the physical to the soul and the soul to the physical.
One thing that really struck me in the movie was that everyone agreed that asana dealt with the physical sheath, but the way in which that physical dimension gets characterized is so different. Some yogis from bhakti traditions they interviewed say it is not real yoga because it is only internal, it is for "health" but not enlightenment. BKS and Pattibi Jois both agree yoga is initially for health, but the physical practices lead to so much more. They are not merely physical in the way that the bhakti yogis were implying. More isn't possible if health isn't there, but the more is revealed through the practices and what they lead to.
On the other end of the spectrum, Baron Baptiste says, yoga is a great physical "work out." That's really struck me. The difference between doing yoga as a work out and doing yoga for health. Health is such a broader, more holistic concept.
More thoughts on the movie later.
Anyway, the movie is well worth seeing mostly for the interviews with the above mentioned people. Pattabi Jois's advice, practice, practice practice. forget about the theory. BKS has some great remarks about how the conduit of yoga goes both ways, from the physical to the soul and the soul to the physical.
One thing that really struck me in the movie was that everyone agreed that asana dealt with the physical sheath, but the way in which that physical dimension gets characterized is so different. Some yogis from bhakti traditions they interviewed say it is not real yoga because it is only internal, it is for "health" but not enlightenment. BKS and Pattibi Jois both agree yoga is initially for health, but the physical practices lead to so much more. They are not merely physical in the way that the bhakti yogis were implying. More isn't possible if health isn't there, but the more is revealed through the practices and what they lead to.
On the other end of the spectrum, Baron Baptiste says, yoga is a great physical "work out." That's really struck me. The difference between doing yoga as a work out and doing yoga for health. Health is such a broader, more holistic concept.
More thoughts on the movie later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.JPG)