Thinking Outside the Triangle: The Myth of Style in Yoga
A wise man once said, “There’s no right answer to a wrong question.” I think of this whenever someone asks what style of Yoga I teach.
I usually reply that the dictionary defines ‘style’ as a fixed, identifiable form or manner, while Yoga is an infinitely adaptable science of self-care. At this point, the questioner, expecting a one-word answer, begins to glaze and fidget impatiently. At the risk of creating hundreds of glazed fidgety readers, I will continue.
Yoga is one of the six formal Darsanas (viewpoints) extracted from India’s ancient Vedas. This elaborate system of self-care is brilliantly outlined in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, 195 pithy aphorisms chanted in Sanskrit from teacher to student for 2500 years. This is distinct from the word, ‘yoga’ found in countless texts with many meanings, including ‘to link, to focus, and ‘union with God’. But the complete, practical philosophy of Yoga is found in Patanjali’s
Sutras. The Yoga Sutras explore, in depth and detail, strategies for reducing the discomfort, the suffering that is part of daily living.
According to Patanjali, suffering, (duhkha) is universal. All duhkha, Patanjali explains, stems from the inherent human tendency to form habits and cling to them long after they serve a purpose. Problems occur when this habit formation (samskara) causes us to misperceive one thing for another, ultimately mistaking the impermanent for that which endures eternally.
Nowhere in the Yoga Sutras is there mention of fixed forms or styles. On the contrary, Sutra III: 6 uses the word ‘viniyoga’ or ‘special application’, to describe the need for situational modification. Though Yoga’s teachings are universal and it’s tools effective for reducing suffering, it’s universality and effectiveness are contingent on continual adaptation.
This fact is seen clearly in Asana, a basic tool for refining attention and revitalizing the spine. Each posture in Yoga is meant to fulfill a certain function or create a specific experience. In order to provide this function or experience, the form of the pose must be tailored to the individual practitioner.
The function of Utanasana, full forward bend, is a lengthening of the lumbar spine. The experience is a release into a forward fold. Although the classical form of this pose is feet together, legs perfectly straight; to achieve the function of this pose, certain practitioners would need to stand with the feet slightly apart or the knees slightly bent, or both. For some, standing with the feet too close together creates instability, wobbling. This would compromise the relaxed attentiveness; the stirhasukha (Sutra II:46) and the smooth deep breathing (II:47) that define Asana. Furthermore, if the legs are kept perfectly straight, those with tighter legs would feel the pose more in the legs and miss the experience of lengthening the spine and release in the back.
Individual modifications are essential, not just from person to person, but for the same person under different conditions. If your ‘style’ insists on always keeping the legs perfectly straight and the feet together, it can create the opposite of what the specific posture and Yoga in general are trying to achieve.
Modern Yoga is riddled with rationalizations justifying the pain and restriction which is inevitable if one practices postures in the same sequence or in the same form each day. Statements such as “Pain is necessary to work through painful samskaras” or “Even though I do the same practice every day it always feels different” echo through studios worldwide.
But fixed, stylized practice of asana is clearly problematic and unsupported by even the most liberal interpretation of the Yoga Sutras, Yoga’s authoritative text.
In fact, the very notion of styles is a recent invention. Throughout history, Yogis were as linked with their teacher as they were with their students.
These Yogis would learn whatever they could from their teacher and teach only what was appropriate to each student. Every teacher had a teacher who was himself a student to a teacher. This unbroken chain of relationships or ‘ lineage’ was, until recently, central to Yoga. Lineage provided reference (agama), which continually increased the overall knowledge base and reduced the tendency toward fixed perceptions or forms of practice.
By referring to an external authority, who was himself linked to a reference, each student’s perceptions were challenged, reformed, and refined by his teacher’s perspective. This led to less mechanical action, misperception and therefore less suffering throughout the entire chain.
Traditionally, there were only four focuses (styles) in Yoga: Siksana, Raksana, Cikitsa, and Adhyatmika.
Siksana is a developmental approach, primarily taught to healthy children and young adults. This focus emphasizes precise, vigorous asana to build strong bodies and increase stamina. It is a preparation for life ahead. To improve mental focus, this approach relied on lengthy sequences of Asana and thorough execution of the classical form. This is the approach the legendary master, T. Krishnamacharya taught to a young B.K.S. Iyengar, and K. Pattabhi Jois. This approach is limited in scope, depth and subtlety, but appropriate for the body and mind of a child.
Raksana, the approach used for healthy adults, focuses on prevention and maintenance. Raksana considers each student’s age, condition, occupation, needs, goals, strengths and weaknesses. This prescriptive practice uses more modified asanas integrated with pranayama, sound, mantra, gestures (mudra, nyasa), visualization (bhavana), Sutra study, meditation, prayer and ritual. This shorter, richer practice utilizes the full eight limbs, Patanjali’s Ashtanga Yoga to aid in the fulfilling of adult responsibilities.
Cikitsa, or Yoga Therapy is for healing the sick. Often based on a multidimensional model such as the 5 Mayas or 7 chakras, this approach woks with the interconnections between the body, breath, mind, personality, and emotions to create wellness. Cikitsa uses highly modified asana, along with pranayama, bhavana, sound, and prayer. Quite often techniques commonly perceived as Ayurvedic, such as diet, herbs, and massage are employed to treat specific health problems and build confidence (sraddha) and vitality (prana).
Adhyatmika is for students wishing to experience the highest truth or meaning of life. Taught mainly to elders, renunciates, and others free from normal daily responsibilities, this approach is deeply contemplative and employs reflection, meditation, prayer and ritual to achieve inner peace and self-realization.
Although these traditional focuses could be called styles, they are fundamentally different from styles as understood and practiced by modern people.
First, these classical approaches were based on the needs of the individual student, and applied with a deep respect for the uniqueness of each person, unlike contemporary styles which impose their fixed form on every practitioner, requiring the student to adapt to the ‘style’ in order to achieve the benefits.
Secondly, these focuses were defined by their function or experience, not pre-set methods or appearances. Whether the aim was to develop strength, heal an illness or find God, these classical ‘styles’ were ingeniously adapted to provide each person with the desired effect or experience.
To refine modern Yoga’s perception of ‘styles’ seems a formidable task. As Yoga becomes increasingly commercial, an identifiable style is equivalent to a brand name, a huge advantage in the marketplace. Whether the style demands pre-heated rooms, pre-set sequences or a heavy reliance on props, these easily recognizable forms promise easy answers for those needing a quicker fix.
Furthermore, in an already information-saturated society, a simplistic understanding (Yoga = Asana) and simple directive (perform these 26 poses and all will be well) is more digestible and easier to cover in a six-week teacher training than the Yoga Sutras’ subtle, multifaceted view of the human system and its complex pharmacopia of techniques and strategies.
So seductive are brand-name styles that ‘viniyoga’, the word T.K.V. Desikachar once used to explain the Yogic principle of appropriate application, has itself been copyrighted, and is being presented as yet another style of Yoga.
But the shift to a deeper, more fluid understanding of Yoga is inevitable. Practitioners worldwide are experiencing the palpable truth that practicing Yoga as a ‘style’ may give short-term relief, but can ultimately deepen the tendency toward physical degradation, dogmatic thinking, mechanical reactions, and emotional rigidity.
According to the Yoga Sutras, any failure to observe life with fresh eyes and respond appropriately will only increase suffering, individually and collectively. An example of this collective distress is the intense factionalism between Yoga’s various styles. Ironic, considering one definition of ‘yoga’ is ‘to join together’.
The first step in practicing and teaching a more expansive version of Yoga is establishing a relationship with a style-free teacher and learning the full range of Yoga’s principles and applications. I met such a teacher, Desikachar, the son of the legendary T. Krishnamacharya, while studying at the Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram in South India.
desikachar teachings are untouched by the notion of style. Exposure to this teacher and his understanding of Yoga forced me to empty my cup of style-centered preconceptions. An ongoing association with him requires cup emptying on a regular basis. His creative applications of Yoga’s many tools continue to surprise and challenge my definition of yoga. As a result, I am continuously blessed with new awareness ( samapatti), greater freedom (kaivalya), and an ongoing expansion of the possible.
I do get frustrated when questions to my teacher are not answered in clear, style-dictated, yes or no terms, but with a thoughtful, often enigmatic, ‘It depends…’
What is crystal clear, however, is that my practice, my teaching, my relationships, and my life keep getting better.
Is cultivating a relationship with a teacher and embracing a style free practice possible, appropriate, or even desirable for everyone? … “It depends…”
