Poor research
Yesterday Andrea posted a comment, asking why I felt guilty about doing some intermediate poses after primary. It's an interesting question.
I don't feel guilty because of how I was "brought up" in Ashtanga ;-) Volleyball Guy is not a traditionalist. Or if he is, it's a West Coast kind of old school. Basically, we're encouraged to explore. Any fundamentalist streak in my own personal practice comes from my self. So I don't feel guilty in regards to my teacher.
When you get right down to it, I suppose I feel guilty from a scientific perspective. I am curious about the traditional system (perhaps more from a physical than a spiritual perspective, given I do not share the same belief system as Guruji and other traditionalists), but I am even more curious from a "how does it work" perspective. So a little more than a year ago, I launched the experiment of Ashtanga using my self as a lab rat. Throwing curve balls (i.e., crim activities) into the mix makes me feel remiss from a research perspective. I'm adding variables, and, therefore, compromising the experiment.
The majority of my educational background is in the arts, but my second graduate degree is in a technical field--so though I do not have an innate love of the scientific, I do have great respect for the beauty of well-designed research.
So yes, here I am. In the midst of another muddle of the spiritual and the material, the absolute and the individual. And shame on me, who just a couple of hours ago read the end of the Diamond Sutra and apparently did not learn a thing. Ain't life grand? ;-)
No matter. This morning I did the intermediate poses again. I had an interesting day yesterday, both physically and emotionally. Felt both more centered and more edgy simultaneously. So I can't resist trying it again and seeing how it plays out today.
Not gonna make any pronouncements one way or another. Just gonna see how it goes.
posted by Karen @ 7:45 AM
2 Comments:
The lab rat idea is interesting - similar to BKS's personal practice (from what I've read).
I've noticed that the longer that I stick to the traditional method, the less tolerance (?) I have for altering it. For example, I now find "short forms" to be unfulfilling because of the skipped poses - like my body gets pissed off without the pavrittas. Most likely it's just in my head, though.
We all have our individual tics, cheats, and research poses. Perhaps the key is in whether we're altering the method because: 1) we're don't have faith in the traditional method; 2) the traditional method is a challenging grind for the mind and minor alterations release some mental pressure; or 3) there should be a balance between the doctrine and what is best for an individual.
Okay. I'm babbling now. Interesting topic, though.
I think that trying to define the "traditional method" is, in itself, a difficult task, since said method has changed (evolved? Not sure that it could be classified as evolution) in a relatively short period of time.
The original westerners who were taught by Guruji (our senior techers) were taught differently than those who are currently being taught in Mysore. So I think nailing down what the "traditional method" is, is tricky.
But, I understand what you're saying and think it's certainly an interesting experiment. Of course, it is difficult to evaluate the results without having another variable against which to compare/contrast..
--A
Post a Comment
<< Home