A Practical Man Shows Us the Way – Sharon Conroy

A PrACtiCAL MAN ShowS uS the wAY

by Sharon Conroy

In the fall 2009 issue of Yoga Samachar, I reviewed Edwin Bryant’s recently published book, The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: A New Edition, Translation, and Commentary with Insights from the Traditional Commentators. It is a wonderful resource with a rich and readable text that I will continue to study for many years. However, as a student and teacher in the Iyengar tradition, it was B.K.S. Iyengar’s foreword to the book that immediately caught my attention and truly delighted me.

In the foreword, Guruji very clearly and succinctly states two ways in which he differs from the classical commentators. Although I had sensed for a while that there were differences, I had not been able to put them into words, and I was delighted to see Guruji do so. What he said piqued my interest to know more and gave rise to new questions.

While the idea of being able to sit down with Guruji to explore this topic was enticing, the next time I would be in Pune was for his 90th birthday, and I didn’t feel that would be an appropriate time to request such a meeting. Then, it occurred to me that perhaps among the many longtime practitioners gathering from all over the world to honor Guruji would be someone who might be willing to discuss this topic with me.

As fate would have it, Faeq Biria and I happened to be staying at the same hotel in Pune. Although I had met him only once, I knew that he was one of Guruji’s oldest students and understood that he was knowledgeable about the Yoga Sutras.

When I told Faeq what I was interested in discussing and asked if he might be willing to meet with me, he graciously agreed to do so. And, once I had given him a copy of Guruji’s foreword, he asked me to read a particular article before our meeting.

Here are three paragraphs from that article. It was authored by Faeq and Patxi Lizardi. In the same way that reading the article set the stage for my meeting with Faeq, your reading of these paragraphs will set the stage for the article that follows.

Guruji was preparing Light on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali for publication. We were living in the Institute and had the privilege of being around Guruji when he was finalizing the manuscript. We were noting, entering, and retyping his corrections, trying to follow the unattainable flow of his new ideas and his very fast yet systematic way of reading, correcting, and clarifying his own explanations.

…this new and beautiful explanation was the fresh fruit of his own practice of Pranayama that very morning!

Some moments were particularly vivid and they can give to the reader an idea of how that book was written. For example, we will never forget the time when Guruji was reediting his manuscript about the sutra III.9 to III.13. His text was very beautiful, and it was ready to go to the final version when, very early one morning, he came to our room and took all his time to expose to us his new ideas on how to explain these sutra. And, the concept of the silent moments between the rising impressions and our attempt to restrain them came to be crystal clear forever. But something else also was clear for both of us: this new and beautiful explanation was the fresh fruit of his own practice of Pranayama that very morning!

And the same happened so many times. It was a marvel to witness that fountain of new explanations when Guruji was confronted by a sutra, and was not very happy about the clarity or fluidity of his own ideas to explain it, and next morning, after his own practice, the sentences were flowing like a mountain stream, so powerful and so clear. We began to understand why he was not using for reference any book except two dictionaries. A few times, when we presented him ideas from traditional commentaries, he refused kindly to see them and told us, with a smile, that he would go through all of them once his own work was over. Indeed, as with all his other writings, deeply anchored in tradition, he was proceeding like a thorough scientist, completely independent, using only his own experiential knowledge to present his invisible guru’s text. It is said that a sutra can be explained in a scholarly way or be used as a thread connecting the sutra writer to the commentator, inspiring him to share his experiential knowledge, and we felt often that this was the case. 1

The following conversation took place on December 19, 2008, on a bus traveling between Mysore and Bangalore at the end of the south India tour celebrating Guruji’s 90th birthday. Faeq reviewed the content for accuracy in the spring of 2010.

SC: I’m pleased that you asked me to read your and Patxi’s epilogue in the new

Astadala Yogamala. It was quite inspiring to hear how Light on the Yoga Sutras came into being. I was especially moved by the idea of each sutra being a thread connecting Patanjali to the commentator, inspiring him to share what he knows as

a result of his own practice. In the article, you reference a great pundit in Benares who had written about the difficulties of understanding the Yoga Sutras and wished for a commentary on the Sutras, as you say, “by an accomplished yogi who himself experienced their intrinsic nature.” 2 B.K.S. Iyengar is certainly that yogi! Who was the pundit?

FB: It was the late vyakaranacharya, Dr. Ram Shankar Bhattacharya. 3 He has a book called Introduction to the Yoga Sutra. In it he complains that most commentators are not practitioners but linguists and philosophers.

SC: How did Guruji’s commentary come about? When did he begin to work on it?

Guruji kept notebooks of his own translation based on his practice and experience of the sutras.

FB: It was started in the late 50s or early 60s. And it was completed in December 1991.

At one point, Guruji told me, “I must understand this text.” He said that

Krishnamacharya, his teacher, when requested to teach him the Sutras had told him, “Don’t even use the name of Patanjali.” But, Guruji’s primary motive in editing his personal notes into book form was seeing a very erroneous translation and commentary on the Yoga Sutras.

SC: Did Guruji read other commentaries before or during the writing of his own?

FB: Vyasa, as the first commentator, is taken as inseparable from Patanjali. Guruji looked through Vyasa and also went through Hariharananda. 4 But, mainly, he read the Sutras and delved into their meanings on his own. Guruji kept notebooks of his own translation based on his practice and experience of the Sutras. He wanted to remain independent from commentators. These notebooks became the basis for the first version of his commentary on the Yoga Sutras. 5

Over almost 30 years, Guruji wrote and rewrote his commentary, 16 times. This is his way of working. He did this with Light on Pranayama and then with Light on the Yoga Sutras.

SC: In the same way that we refine our asanas, he refined his commentary.

FB: Yes, it’s exactly the same.

SC: If I’m practicing in an open and aware manner, then the understanding I bring to

Utthita Trikonasana is different each time I practice. In a similar way, each time I return to a particular sutra, my understanding has ripened a bit by virtue of my practice of Asana and Pranayama. While my reading of other commentaries may inform and inspire, my evolving understanding is driven by my practice, not by my reading. FB: Yes. And, we understand some poses more quickly than others. It takes much longer for Utthita

Parsvakonasana than Utthita

Trikonasana. In the same way, some sutras take much longer to understand. Guruji had always said, “I don’t want to write anything I didn’t experience myself.” He wanted to experience all the Sutras before he came out with his own commentary. He hadn’t yet experienced all the siddhis, and he didn’t feel right coming out with his commentary until he did. Then, one day in Pune after a practice, Guruji came into the library with very bright eyes. He said that Patanjali doesn’t say a yogi needs to experience all the siddhis. He had realized that the siddhis are not a

“target” but a “sign.” If you can get a few, that is enough to know you are on the right track.

Once Light on Pranayama came out in 1981, Guruji increased his work on the Yoga Sutras. When he visited Faeq in Paris in the early 1980s, he brought three volumes of the commentary with him. This was the second time Faeq had seen the manuscript.

FB: I worked with Guruji on the last three versions of Light on the Yoga Sutras— helping him to make the edits he wanted to make. Geetaji was reading the text very carefully. Patxi was typing, and many other students were helping to prepare the book so that it could be published as soon as possible. But, of course, the true author was Guruji himself. He worked more than everyone and was the source, the fountain, from which all ideas flowed.

SC: As practitioners and teachers in the Iyengar tradition, should we

be familiar with the classical commentators? Is there a value in this?

FB: As we’ve said, Vyasa’s commentary is taken as inseparable from Patanjali’s text, and all should be familiar with it. It can also be helpful to see how commentators, especially those acquainted with Vedanta, at different periods of history, interpreted different sutras. But, many of the commentators copied over each other. They didn’t write from their own experience. It was the same with asanas. For example, when one wrote that an asana was good for the liver, all others copied him. They might all say over and over again that a certain pose is good for the liver. Guruji is the only one who put each and every asana under the lab experience of his tapas. It was the same with his understanding of the sutras. He approached them in the same way.

SC: Guruji has always worked from his own experience.

FB: Yes. Once, Swami Satchidananda of

Virginia complimented Guruji on his commentary of the Yoga Sutras and then asked him from what commentators he got his ideas.

Guruji said, “I get my ideas from the library of my body.”

SC: That’s a wonderful and inspiring response! And, it clearly illustrates what you say in the article, “that nowhere could we find a study on Patanjali’s sutras where the interpretation was so deeply rooted in the personal experience of the author, and nowhere would be found an author with the unquestionable authority of a true yogi of the calibre of our Guruji.” 6

In March 2010, I had an opportunity to discuss Light on the Yoga Sutras with Shirley Daventry French, another one of Guruji’s oldest students. She, too, had helped him in an important way. At Guruji’s request, over the course of just one month in Pune, she went through the entire manuscript, “tidying up the English and grammar,” as she put it. She says, “All along, Guruji said his commentary was for the practical man. And, he would talk at times about the division between the scholarly men and the practical men.”

Having finished our discussion on how Light on the Yoga Sutras came into being, Faeq and I turned our attention to the two ways that Guruji says he differs from the classical commentators. One could say that the first difference addresses the following question: For the realized yogi, what is the ultimate relationship between purusa and prakrti?

Guruji is the only one who put each and every asana under the lab experience of his tapas.

According to the classical commentators, the aim of yoga is to uncouple purusa from prakrti. Edwin Bryant summarizes that position repeatedly and states that “the goal of yoga is not to join, but the opposite: to unjoin, that is, to disconnect purusa from prakrti.” 7

On the other hand, Guruji states the following: “The entire text speaks of the intelligence of nature and the intelligence of the self. I understand that the perfection of asana brings unity between the various sheaths of the body and the self (purusa) which Lord Krishna calls ksetra-ksetrajna yoga in the Bhagavad Gita (XIII.1ff). Hence, perfection in asana means a divine union of prakrti with purusa.

“The practice of asanas develops sattva guna, sublimating the gunas of rajas and tamas. The aim of asanas is to make the prana (cosmic universal force) move concurrently with the prajna (insight) of the self on its frontier. This means to make the awareness of the self (sasmita) move and cover the entire body (II.19) so that the mechanisms of nature are sublimated and the intelligence (prajna) of the self engulfs the body with its sakti.” 8

SC: In Light on the Yoga Sutras, Guruji references the ultimate merging or union, or divine marriage, of purusa and prakrti, over and over again beginning with I.2 and continuing through IV.34, the very last Sutra. How do you understand what Guruji is saying about this divine marriage?

FB: In the Bhagavad Gita, a yogi is defined as someone who can maintain equanimity in all situations and who practices skill in action. When you achieve these two qualities, then your mind is united with God and you become enlightened. Patanjali’s approach is different. He’s like neti, neti: “not this, not this.” This is why someone once said that Patanjali’s yoga practice is a type of surgery. This is why an honest approach to the practice of yoga may be very painful! Guruji is saying that only when you reach the level where you can isolate the self, only then can you experience the divine marriage of prakrti and purusa.

SC: Can you say more?

FB: Through our practice, a ray of light occasionally reaches each of us, a flash of insight. But it goes away. We cannot hold it, but we feel its effects. We are not enlightened, but we become sure that the light does exist. Through his honest tapas and pure will, Guruji has reached a place of pure surrender. Guruji is aware and

conscious and in full surrender to God. He is the one who thoroughly brings Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita together. He’s a bhaktan of yoga in the most noble sense of the term.

The second way that Guruji says he differs from the traditional commentators involves the virama pratyaya of Sutra I.18. Faeq and I did not discuss this second difference. Rather, our conversation focused on the manner in which Guruji states his differences.

SC: How do you understand the second way Guruji says he differs from the classic commentators?

FB: All commentators are refuting or agreeing with each other. Guruji is graciously saying, “I see things differently.” He’s not saying the others are wrong. That is his greatness!

SC: There is definitely a graceful elegance to the manner in which he presents his differences.

FB: Yes. He understands that proving something doesn’t refute what else can be. This must become a lesson for all yogis.

SC: Yes. We are all too often attached to our own point of view. And, perhaps, we’ll only be able to see the truth in diversity when we become, as Gandhi says, a “zero,” when we have surgically dismantled the ego through yoga. As you pointed out, only when the self is isolated can there be a divine union of prakrti and purusa. Just as the isolation allows for the union, perhaps the union allows for the pure surrender you now see in Guruji. Thank you very much for finding the time to meet with me. I really enjoyed our conversation, and I learned a lot. If you are interested in reading Guruji’s foreword in its entirety, you may do so by going to www.IYNAUS.org.

Copyright, October 2010

Sharon Conroy is an Intermediate Junior III teacher who has been practicing since 1986. She founded the Iyengar community in New Orleans, where she once more resides and teaches. Her email is sharon@greatwhiteheron.net.

Notes:

1. Astadala Yogamala, 8 (2008): 304.

2. Astadala Yogamala, 8 (2008): 305.

3. A vyakaranacharya is a master of Sanskrit grammar. Dr. Bhattacharya was one of India’s great Sanskrit scholars. 4. There is no way to know whether Vyasa (4th or 5th century) was a practitioner. Hariharananda Aranya (19th to 20th centuries) was a practitioner. 5. Published in Pune in 1985 on the 10th anniversary of

R.I.M.Y.I.

6. Astadala Yogamala, 8 (2008): 305.

7. Bryant, The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, 2009: 5.

8. Foreword to The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, 2009: x.

teAM teAChiNG: Assisting Dr. Geeta S. iyengar at the iYNAuS Convention for Certified teachers in Portland, oregon, in May, were Zubin Zarthoshtimanesh, Geetaji’s niece Abhijata Sridhar, Mondira Dutta, Nidmarti rajlaxmi Sudhirkumar, Kobra Akbar Dashti (Gulnaz), Geetaji, her sister Sunita Parthasarathy, and Kannarakoti Venkatachri Parthasarathy, Sunita’s husband.

Abhijata at one of the opening puja ceremonies.

Geetaji and Abhijata.

Power of Intention continued from page 18 their practice and teaching.

I also see that our teachers undergo the most rigorous certification process in the country. No one’s teachers are better trained than Iyengar Yoga teachers.

As I said earlier, and as most of you know, Guruji’s practice and teaching are steeped in traditional yoga, in the Raja Yoga system as described by Patanjali. In fact, in a recent interview with Guruji in Yoga Journal (December 2008), when asked, “What is Iyengar Yoga?” he said with a laugh, “I myself do not know. I just try to get the physical body in line with the mental body, the mental body in line with the intellectual body, and the intellectual body with the spiritual body so they are balanced.

“It’s just pure traditional yoga, from our ancestors, from our gurus, from Patanjali.” Iyengar Yoga, then, whatever it is, is a profoundly spiritual practice directed toward our very reasons for being and the nature of existence.

So we are part of an ancient spiritual tradition—whose methods are recognized far and wide as extremely effective—and our teachers are top notch. Why, then, isn’t everybody doing Iyengar Yoga?

This is a huge question, more than enough of a topic for another talk or panel or article or book, but if our intention is to reach out to the broader community, we need to ask how is it that our message is so persuasive, lauded, and imitated, but in terms of numbers of practitioners, Iyengar Yoga is being caught up to and surpassed by adherents of other approaches.

I can think of lots of reasons, frankly. We are uncompromising, demanding, challenging. Not everybody wants that. I do. I wouldn’t sacrifice that for popularity. Better to go down the tubes with integrity than sell out our principles for passing gain. We use Sanskrit. We are critical. We work on learning, not just doing, which means we ask for a commitment, not just a one-night stand. We aren’t satisfied with half-hearted or casual behavior. We insist on your best shot.

These are perfectly understandable reasons why Iyengar Yoga is not everybody’s cup of tea. And certainly, there is the fact that no teacher or system can be all things to all people.

But if our intention is to reach out to folks, to present the benefits of our method, to entice them to take a look, we need to examine the things we can do better without sacrificing our hearts and souls.

So what’s the knock on Iyengar Yoga and yogis? We are rigid. We are harsh. We are boring. We are arrogant. We are unfriendly and unwelcoming.

I doubt any of this is a surprise to you—most of you, anyway. And to those of you who are worried about hanging out the dirty laundry, I think it makes for good relations to hang around in the back yard chatting with the next door neighbor for awhile while you put your stuff on the line and take it off.

…when asked, “what is iyengar Yoga?” he said with a laugh, “i myself do not know. i just try to get the physical body in line with the mental body, the mental body in line with the intellectual body, and the intellectual body with the spiritual body so they are balanced.“

So while we’re chatting, I’m reminded of my momma’s words (my mom always had words for every occasion): “You catch a lot more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.”

I’m not saying we should sugar coat what we do and come up with watered down tricks that suck the real juice out of our yoga. It wouldn’t be Iyengar Yoga anymore, anyway. What I am saying is that we should look at how we manifest our yoga, especially we teachers. What do people see when we step in front of a class? Are we healthy, vibrant, enthusiastic? Do we radiate joy, friendliness, compassion? Do the students see someone that they want to be like, a presence they aspire to?

And if we want folks in other traditions to be accepting, respectful, and friendly toward us, do we offer them the same?

I won’t speak for people from other tribes, but I, too, often hear comments from my fellow Iyengaris that are disrespectful, pompous, full of pride. Those of you who know me well, know that I am not without fault in this respect myself. Guruji in Light on Life says, “This pride lies in difference, not equality. I am fierce, but you are weak. I am right, but you are wrong. Pride blinds us to the quality of others. We judge by external and by worthless comparisons. We lose the joy in the existence of others. We expect others to perform according to our desires. We are consistently dissatisfied.”

Of course most of you practice and teach with joy and it shows. I have only to think of our dear friend, wonderful colleague, and shining example, Mary Dunn. Talk about exhibiting qualities that one would find admirable, desirable, and eminently worth

emulating. As far as I am concerned, she was the ideal poster person for the Light on Iyengar Yoga in this country.

As always, Mr. Iyengar provides us with excellent guidance on this whole issue. In Light on Yoga he says, “Maitri is not mere friendliness, but also a feeling of oneness with the object of friendliness (atmiyata). The yogi cultivates maitri and atmiyata for the good and turns enemies into friends, bearing malice to none.”

Mudita is a feeling of delight at the good work done by another, even though he may be a rival. Of upeksha he says, “The yogi understands the faults of others by seeing and studying them first in himself. This self-study teaches him to be charitable to all.”

We Iyengar Yogis are fortunate to have been graced, either directly or indirectly, with a teacher, B.K.S. Iyengar, who has shown us a practice that is powerful, effective, and time-tested. If our intention is to share with others the great joy we have experienced in this practice of Iyengar Yoga, we will fulfill that intention by following his advice and we will cultivate an attitude of friendliness, delight, and charity towards those with whom we come into contact. For only to the extent that we feel atmiyata, oneness with our brothers and sisters, only by opening our eyes and hearts to see in everyone the same spark of divinity that unites us all, only then will our power of our intention to share the joy of Iyengar Yoga be realized.

The entire keynote address is available at http://www.unitywoods.com/MARKETING/JS_ RI2009.pdf.

John Schumacher is the founder and director of Unity Woods Yoga Center, the largest Iyengar Yoga center in the United States. He has taught in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area since 1973. John received Advanced Junior I certification from B.K.S. Iyengar.

Guru Pournima continued from page 4 of consciousness makes us aware of simultaneity in happening. When there is awareness, one can read one’s own mind clearly. Awareness thus becomes a tool to acquaint us with our own thinking, with our own minds and our being. This internal reading makes us confront our mind, our intelligence. Saint Jnaneshwar refers to this awareness when he talks about sva samvedyata—one being aware of oneself. When I can become completely aware, my ego can fade. Where there is ego, awareness is dormant, and where awareness is bloomed, ego subsides.

Patanjali says in the second chapter: samadhi bhavanarthah klesa tanukaranarthasca. (II.2 The practice of yoga reduces afflictions and leads to samadhi.)

Yoga reduces afflictions. As the afflictions dissolve, as avidya goes, darkness vanishes.

Guru is one to whom we are open, open enough to allow him to play with our egos. This can lead to transformation. If this tampering is not allowed, obstacles to knowledge can never be removed. Guru is a murti (embodiment) of awareness.

Awareness has the ability to fully bloom in man. Where it is fully bloomed, there Guru tattva manifests. Where that happens, wisdom dawns, wisdom shines. We as students can see, perceive, and learn better with the light of that wisdom. Yoga is the art and science of cultivating this awareness, of expanding one’s consciousness. Awakening awareness and making one continuously aware of this awakened state are the qualities of a guru. After all, a guru does not create knowledge, but removes the obstacles that stop us from gaining that knowledge. In that sense, a guru is indispensable to us.

For us, Guruji is our light.

Having said so much about a guru, understand that a guru does not exist independently. Birth of a child signifies birth of a mother. Every bloomed flower has in it its bud. So too, the presence of a shishya, a disciple, is essential to bring a guru to existence. Thus, we need to become shishyas to have a guru. Maybe we have to wait for many more full moons before the concept of shishya pournima is opened.

Guru is one to whom we are open, open enough to allow him to play with our egos.

Arjuna took to Lord Krishna as his guru and his guru taught him various things. After all the philosophical discourse, Krishna told Arjuna to now go and fight the battle. Krishna, the jagatguru, just released Arjuna from the bondage of his own mind. At the end, Krishna asked Arjuna if his moha (delusion) had gone. Mind creates. Mind divides. Mind entangles. Mind traps us in moha. Guru liberates the shishya from these entanglements.

On this day, on behalf of all the students worldwide, Guruji, please accept our love, gratitude, and best wishes.

Om sri gurava namah.