|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Radharani
USA
843 Posts |
 Posted - Sep 20 2011 : 01:37:13 AM
|
| As mentioned in a previous post, I have studied various branches and schools of yoga over the last 35 years, my main practice in the past having been SRF style kriya, along with asana, but I have woven together the essence of the various teachings into my own [what I thought was unique] bhakti-tantra path. More recently I discovered Heart of Yoga and became a student of Mark Whitwell and learned to my surprise (and relief) that his teaching essentially parallels what I have discovered along my own path. I am also a big fan of AYP due to its being such a well-integrated and comprehensive system and meeting the wonderful people whose energy attests to its validity and results. There had been some question as to the compatibility of these 2 systems, particularly with regard to "which way is up?" I recently got to spend a week at an intensive retreat with Mark (here is the link to a description of our trip overall: http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....PIC_ID=10268) and it turns out, there may not be much specific incompatibility here on a technical level. The "which way is up?" question is apparently not an issue after all. Mark does insist that we receive the breath (prana) from above and the exhale comes from below, but this need not dictate how various energy practices are done. The issue arose when Mark stated "the seat of Shakti is in the heart, not the base of the spine," and I asked, "well then who or what is doing that?!" (kundalini rocketing up the spine from the base). He asked (in typical manner), "well what do you think?" "I don't know, I assumed it was Shakti." He gave me kind of an annoyed look and said in a tone of voice that suggested I ought to already know the answer, "Her seat is in the heart. But She travels all throughout the body in the various channels and nadis and you can experience the energy flow in many different ways, as you choose." He used the illustration of the lotus flower blossoming in the heart and the petals spreading out in all directions through the body, up and down and all over, and said it depends on when and where you get into the flow (confirming what I had said earlier with my ocean/waves analogy). There is a specific exercise with the Sri Yantra where we receive the triangle from above on inhale and the one from below on exhale. However, the other advanced meditative exercises and pranayama practices are the same. The main difference with Heart of Yoga is the emphasis on asana WITH pranayama as a form of moving meditation, with the breath being of primary importance. The asana exists for the breath which in turn naturally allows for meditation. Mark proposes Heart of Yoga NOT as yet another different school of yoga, but rather, suggests that these principles of Krishnamacharya regarding the body and breath be integrated into whatever form of yoga you are already doing (specifically the various schools of asana which have somehow managed to completely forget about the breath and the meditative/devotional purpose of asana, as well as the meditative schools which neglect asana and the tantric dimension entirely). When it comes to sitting meditation you are free to incorporate whatever you like, merely as "something to do" or "whatever works." The one big point of potential disagreement is the whole notion of "enlightenment" as a goal to be reached. However, Mark does not deny that "something may happen" when you do a consistent yoga practice and that there are various states of being/consciousness; he merely emphasizes that the purpose of doing yoga is not "trying to get somewhere that you aren't already," but rather, to enjoy or celebrate or connect with the Union that already exists. Also he does not actually reject the idea of "witness consciousness" as such; rather, he says that it must not be imposed as a goal to be reached, especially early in the practice when it can become dysfunctional detachment; he says it will happen automatically at some point (which was my experience as well). Mark de-emphasizes all "ideals" or "goals" or philosophical arguments and says "just DO YOUR YOGA!" consistently and everything will unfold naturally. He also encourages the attitude, "the guru is in you," to listen to your own body and breath, your own experience of yoga, not as something imposed on you from without by somebody else. So it would appear that these 2 systems are quite compatible and any discrepancy is mostly a matter of emphasis or possibly semantics. I do think that the asana with pranayama as moving meditation is a great foundation for any of the more advanced seated meditation practices which AYP offers. I also think that AYP might be more appealing to students with a very active mind who always want to be DOING something and prefer to have more specific exercises and structured practice, who might not be convinced that merely breathing and moving is enough. |
|
|
Radharani
USA
843 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2011 : 6:12:41 PM
|
| Just to clarify, as the question did arise: No, in Heart of Yoga we do NOT substitute asana for seated meditation. Rather, asana WITH pranayama as a form of "moving meditation" is the prerequisite to seated deep meditation. Participation in the union of body and breath sets the stage for inner Union in whatever seated meditation practices you are doing thereafter. Meditation simply begins while you are doing asana and continues while seated. |
 |
|
|
Holy
796 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2011 : 9:03:51 PM
|
| In the end, if the combination of what is done works, people will do it. And all the doing for the undone =P |
|
|
|
Radharani
USA
843 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2011 : 02:08:44 AM
|
| Holy, right. I just wanted to clarify that there is not nearly so much difference between HOY and AYP as I had initially suspected. I do think they are quite compatible and could easily be used together, especially given the flexibility that Yogani has designed into the AYP lessons with regard to asana and each student's individual needs and preferences. I would also recommend AYP to advanced HOY students looking for more specific instruction in "stuff to do." |
|
|
|
HathaTeacher
Sweden
382 Posts |
Posted - Sep 23 2011 : 4:10:50 PM
|
Thanks for insightful posts!
I too have noticed that pranayama exercises and "asana as a kind of pranayma" are a low prio in quite many "trendy" yoga centers. That prepares neither the mind nor the body for meditation (nor for tantra).
As Yogani pointed out earlier in another thread, the what's-ups are a minor argument between friends. Both Swami Satyananda and David Deida are quite broadminded on that, offering "reversed" breathing schemes in some chapters. To me it seems to be a lot more about the relaxed awareness and attitude than about what's upward.
The heart is also very pronounced in the Satyananda tradition (probably an echo of his first teacher Sivananda's 'serve, love, give, meditate, realise').
Diana Richardson has a Tantrist point about Shakti being + at Anahata and - at Mouladhara (Siva being the opposite polarities), and it works in our case, too. As soon as I open to receive her heart-pole energy, the union elevates. Bodies and souls.
The coherent array of AYP techniques is still key, but intimate life and everyday life involve more Anahata than I happened to believe before trying (I posted a link to D.R., in one of your first AYP threads: www.aypsite.org/forum/topic....D=10046#86047 )
L & L |
|
|
|
Radharani
USA
843 Posts |
Posted - Sep 23 2011 : 6:28:11 PM
|
Dear HathaTeacher, agreed on all technical points! And I do love "the coherent array of AYP techniques" and I appreciate that Yogani includes the importance of Heart in the lessons.
Re: Diane Richardson, thanks for that link you provided a while back in the tantra discussion. I did get her book and I must say, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I was a bit disappointed because I had imagined the book would be much more advanced. I don't know if maybe I've just been especially blessed (or jaded? LOL!) in that a lot of the stuff she mentions just seems obvious and I thought everybody was doing that already. So it struck me as kind of mundane or boring, and she didn't really discuss the deeper aspects. On the other hand, it's a nice safe introduction maybe for somebody who never considered doing tantra before or has no idea what it's about. I did, however, really like her discussion of breathing all the way down to the base and have enjoyed incorporating that... By the way, I am not sure what she says about the polarities being reversed in men and women; if that were technically the case we would have to have entirely different systems of yoga/ energy practice. It seems possible it may be the case during tantra, i.e. as the two systems interact with each other, but she made it sound like it was our essential nature, which I doubt. So it's a sweet book as far as it goes but I am not convinced of the technical accuracy from a yogic standpoint.
Anyway, thanks again! |
|
|
|
HathaTeacher
Sweden
382 Posts |
Posted - Sep 24 2011 : 09:10:24 AM
|
You're welcome, JamieRadha.
To me, Richardson and Deida seem to address a similar level (AYP is more purposeful for spiritual seekers, and balanced rather than Tantra-only).
The poles seem to be more like the yin & yang symbol than all black/all white, and the size of the spot varies between individuals and situations.
Some schools say Tantra is all about polarity - which I too think is an over-simplification.
L & L |
Edited by - HathaTeacher on Sep 24 2011 09:58:25 AM |
|
|
|
Radharani
USA
843 Posts |
Posted - Sep 26 2011 : 5:49:24 PM
|
Yes, AYP is definitely more in-depth and balanced which is, again, what I love about it.
The yin/yang analogy you gave is useful. Regarding the gender "polarity" thing, Richardson describes on pages 230-231 the polarity being different for men and women even in solitary meditation/energy movement; this is what I dispute from the standpoint of yoga as an integrated system. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Heart of Yoga
