A lil' edification

In an aim to write about more than just yoga, here are a few bits of information which some of you may not have known.

Everyone's familiar with paisley (estampado de cachemira), the print that proper dandies have on their cravats (or any old British fop would wear) and which had a boom in the 80s. Not everyone is aware that the pattern was really Indian in origin, although the name in Spanish suggests something of the sort (cachemira, Kashmir). I'm hoping Prince William will sport some in his upcoming royal wedding gear (maybe a nice silk pocket hanky), not to demonstrate and assert his role as Britain's military leader or the British Empire's superiority over Indians, but rather as a nod to the Indians' influence in fashion today.
http://www.indian-heritage.org/artcraft/designs/mango.html
Oh, I forgot to mention the most important part. The paisley pattern does not feature a "paisley". It features everybody's favorite fruit, the mango. This image and pattern can be found all over India (like on kitchen bowls or bordering a temple's awning/gables). Yes, it is a repeated expression of the Indian's love for mango, which I and most sane people share.

Speaking of paisley, what's today's fashion accessory which most frequently bears the paisley pattern? That's right - gangsters' bandanas (AKA handkerchief AKA panuelo). Did gangs invent the bandana? I don't think so. Who did, you ask? You may have guessed right. The Indians did. And if you've done any yoga, the word bandana may sound familiar to you. Really, it's bandhana (related to tying, like bandhas - inner locks/ties). Bandha is where we get the word bound and bind in English, which is what you do with your bandana if you are a gangster - bind it around your head or wrist or ankle if you want to be cool or whatever. You could also stick it in your pocket to be associated with some gangs, but to me that seems more like you want to be associated with British royalty and aristocracy, except in the cotton sort of way (for animal rights' activists who don't use silk because of the silkworms killed in the silk-making process). If you were gay and had a dog, you could also tie the bandana around your dog's neck, thus associating him/her with some gang or other. Remember, silk paisley print material is upper class wear, for right fops, and cotton bandanas are working class gear, to keep your hair back and the sweat from getting in your eyes. Generally nowadays, you don't see too many working class Indians wearing bandanas, because they'll tie any old rag they can get their hands on around their heads to keep the sweat from pouring into their eyes as they labor and toil under the blazing Indian sun They'll even tie an old wool sweater which will make even more sweat pour into their eyes than if they didn't have anything at all tied around their heads. Remember, you're making a fashion statement when you accesorize - it's not only about functionality.
http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/bandana.html
That brings me to the last item of the day: indigo. (The reference to India should be obvious here at least).
I could be talking about a range in the electromagnetic spectrum somewhere from 446 and 464 nanometers per wavelength, as we perceive it in visible light. Sir Isaac Newton considered indigo to be one of seven colors in the spectrum. Many later scientists reject his idea, since possibly he defined seven colors so that waves of visible light (color) could be equated to the seven notes (wavelengths of sound) in a musical scale and to seven days in a week. These later scientists say that indigo and violet are both hues of blue, meaning colors in the spectrum aren't equated to anything, neither sound nor time, which is rather boring and scientific. :(
Besides color and light, indigo was the Greek name for dye (indikon), suggesting that in the past, everybody (or at least the Ancient Greeks) only wore blue clothes and had blue sheets, as that was the color the Indians dyed their fabric. This also indirectly implies that Indians were the ancient world's dyers and technological leaders in this textile industry, which is most assuredly truer than my last declaration. An even more correct statement would be that Indians were the world's dyers for the ancient world (as it is encompassed in the purely Western-centric system), only to be surpassed in time by the Dutch, Flemish, Netherlandish and Brabantine (ok, let's just say the Low Countries) in the medieval era, basically dyeing all of Europe's cloth. To recap, in a western-based perspective, Indians dyed the ancient world's cloth and the Low Country-ers dyed the medieval world's cloth. And of course, we use the word indigo for the color because of the Indians' influence.
This was for all of you who think that India is only great because of Gandhi, having inspired a few Beatles' songs, and palak paneer.

How I see it

Whenever I go to Shaivite temples, I always think of the “Hindu” concept of darshan (viewing/vision). The idea is that when you go to temple to worship, among the sensations of incense burning, flowers, incantations, contrasts of light with deep darkness in corners, bell-ringing, anvil pounding, gold and brass shining, the “high point” of a temple visit is seeing the main murti (idol figure/representation of god which is worshipped). The murti is not always on view; oftentimes it is covered by a curtain or completely closed off under metal blinds, or even encased in what seems to be a golden safe just like the royal jewels. Contact with a Brahmin priest in a temple is your opportunity to get closer to the murti, view it, and, as the idea goes, this is when the murti (or really god, working through the medium of the statue) sees you. Traditionally, when going to temple, viewing of the murti should only be for a few minutes and from far away (at least some distance/separation). At times the figure may leave the temple and be used in processions, but this is not the norm. It is believed that the power of the effigy dissipates with time. Part of the priests’ role using Vedic chants is to bring back some of the power/aura which has been dispersed through repeated viewings by so many people. This is also why the effigy is kept closed up at night and many times during the day in the dark, dark, sanctum sanctorum in the center deep in the temple.
I am attracted to the idea of the idol figure’s power becoming more diffused with time upon viewing, like you’re really wearing out the divinity/holiness in the effigy with your eyes, unless rituals are performed to retain this aura. (I also love the way the murtis are fanned by Brahmin priests to cool them off after so many flames in ghee lamps are waved before them over and over, but this is irrelevant when considering darshan.)
The idea of the god viewing you as you view it (through an artistic or at least manmade representation, also generally made in man’s image) is the most interesting point here. In the same way that a woman’s gaze might meet yours in a painting, establishing contact, intimacy and even affinity or mutual understanding between you and the painting’s subject, the darshan of when the god sees the temple-visitor is really a main reason for which Hindus visit important temples (which have murti with a strong aura) instead of simply worshipping at home, with their various home altars, shrines and pooja rooms. Hindus don’t go to temple only to get a glimpse of God, they go to temple because they want God to see them. Really, it is a mutual viewing, making eye contact and establishing connection/union under the steady gaze of the Godhead.
The idea of darshan (view, vision, perspective, teachings) also includes different ways of seeing and understanding the world within Indian philosophy, of which there are many schools, as well as the darshan (wisdom/advice) that a swami or religious leader could offer to you upon seeing you. He offers his perspective/view on you when you go to see/view him.
The whole idea of viewing and understanding things is taken up a notch when one considers that in many darshans of Indian philosophy, there is no duality. God or a divine spirit is everywhere, in everyone, in you, in every bit of matter. There is no objectivity, no subject versus object, no “you versus them” – it’s all one. That’s all fine, but it becomes a subtler idea when you have a reciprocal gaze, as when viewing deities in temples. You have the privilege of looking at them and they are looking at you, and following from the tat tvam asi concept (“you are that”), it’s all one anyway (not that you’re looking at yourself but rather that there is no division between the observer and the observed). In the same way that some mutual understanding and intimacy is established between you and the figure in a Degas portrait, the understanding of each other’s presence and the intimacy which a reciprocal gaze between god and you implies make use of the physical sense of sight to more readily establish your connection and unity with God. Humans understand the world, universe and everything through the senses, later processed by the mind, so we will better understand our link to god and participation in non-duality through visual stimulus (sight is a mode of transmitting information or “truth” which we humans are particularly disposed to understanding).
For me the puzzling part is when you go to a Shiva temple, as I mentioned at the beginning. Shiva is not traditionally represented with a doll or effigy taking on human form in temple. Normally you can find a shivalingam (or many!), representing the union of feminine and masculine elements, among other things (as does yin/yang). This is not an anthropomorphic form, although the symbolic representation of female and male reproductive organs could be loosely considered to be some human representation. Nine times out of ten, Shiva temples are filled with shivalingams. Occasionally they’ll have a head or a gold mask, or may have his whole body as a murti, but this is the exception, not the rule. Very occasionally, a lingam stone (or other stones of worship representing god) are given two painted eyes (nothing could be stranger, if the shivalingam is the combined symbol of genitalia, than to have two eyes!), giving the shivalingam the ability to see you! Shivalingam with eyes are few and far between, leaving the temple-goer with a different experience than when he goes to Vishnu or Ganesh temples, for example. Generally, the aura of magic, darkness and sometimes creepy bareness and silence (instead of bright gold/Vishnu) pervade in Shiva temples, and the power and energy of the lingam seem to float in the air all over the temple. The Shiva temple-goer’s experience is mystical, heavy, dank, and dark (he is the destroyer, after all) but the air is pregnant with energy, and sharply contrasts the experience of a Lakshmi/Vishnu temple, replete with shiny gold, flowers in exuberant abundance, images of prosperity and good fortune everywhere you look.
So my doubt is (the part where I don’t see clearly, or, I’m in the dark): Does “Shiva” or the Godhead really view you as you view it/him through the lingam? If it has a few brushstrokes of paint (as eyes), then it does, as some village deities have eyes painted on stone, although they may lack an anthropomorphic form. And if the lingam doesn’t have eyes? Does the same rule apply? Is the lingam also the vehicle through which god sees you, like other murtis? Ironically, Shiva is the god with above average number of eyes to start with. His third eye (tryambakam) wouldn’t have been used to view you, though; its purpose was to burn away desire into ashes (Shiva eyes in stones such as agate are a common iconographic image found across India). Regardless, the lingam form is an abstraction and anyway, should the external form really matter when it’s just a medium for the content and energy which is underlying. So the part that still leaves me wondering almost uncomfortably (is he watching? is he not? These aren’t the right questions, but it’s hard to put into words) is of little import. It would be impossible to understand the perspective or vision which the god’s side has of it (or of us) and besides, in a system of non-duality, it is pointless to consider any perspective or viewpoint of an “other”, as there is no “other” or “otherness”.
What’s your view on it?

And Now for Something Completely Different...

I don't want to get too ponderous on the yoga because there's so much more to India. I also don't want to bore with details from my daily private Sanskrit classes with a true whiz, a man with a brilliant mind, although, like all things Indian, he teaches some things backwards (not a problem for a yogi like me). I feel truly privileged to be his student ( as I also have with my other Sanskrit teachers), plus I'm lucky that he's also patient (with my sluggish western writing skills in Sanskrit and my stilted knowledge of the language). As a surprise bonus, when we're chanting the noun declensions (24 for each word, thank you very much), I try to do as much as possible memorized and eyes closed, and when it's flowing well, I get to this strange trance-like state which I've almost only previously achieved through meditation or watching strange contemporary video art pieces; the curious part is that this normally happens when I turn my brain off, but when I'm chanting the nouns (which still requires me to use much of my limited cerebral resources), I can get to the same state. Very nice. Then it weirds me out that I'm sitting on the living room floor on a cushion with this petite-framed intense brahmin with a beard and hair pulled back in a bun, gold shiny sandalwood paste smudged across his forehead, all decked out in his finest gold-trimmed pure white bed sheets, chanting one word a million ways. Even stranger, when we chant the word cow, it really sounds like my teacher is "mooing"; the word totally sounds like a cow bellowing and mooing. And when we chant the word river, the words ribbon up and down, flowing and ebbing, and there are parts where I can even see the waters bubbling up, and rushing back. It's much more lilting when he chants this one (I don't know if he's aware of this). Same thing, we chant the word earth, and it really seems to emanate and arise out of nothing (the word earth in Sanskrit, bhu, means something that came to be), this time pulsing in waves. Now you think I'm crazy. There is a sonoral expressiveness in this language which is much more obvious and sensatory than with most languages.
So, the "now for something completely different" was really to tell of my attendance of school performance day at the school where Ratna's girls, Bhoomi and Megha, go. Really, the show was performed in the city center in the Jaganmohan Palace (beautiful, Muslim-influenced architectonic backdrop for such an event). I was expecting a nice sedate show of traditional Indian dance and song, folk songs, Karnatic dance, etc. Which it was.
I wasn't expecting the 12 huge speakers and sub-woofers pumping out music as loud as in any music festival, which was reverberating back and forth in the all wood auditorium like a wicked disco with twisted acoustics. There were traditional dances, one with the smallest children with a shirtless fat boy dressed as Ganesh with a long trunk nose and all the little children dancing around. There were also classic Bollywood numbers of crazy modern dance music (we know how much Indians love wild Bollywood drumming and fast beats) and I can't figure it out, but 2 of the medleys ended with gabber!!! No joke!!! There was even a pseudo-breakdancing number with the oldest teenage boys dressed as Americans which I found particularly amusing. Everyone knows I'm not a fan of bad dance music but with the Indian rhythms and scales, it's much much better. This video is very poor in quality (my camera is a photo camera and I didn't realize til too late that I could have gone into the orchestra pit to record) but maybe you can get a sense of the dance which starred Megha (9 years) as lead dancer. This was a traditional folk dance but still had crazy loud music. The quality of the video is dismal at best (I wasn't expecting it to start and couldn't change the quality once I'd started), so I recommend just turning the music up loud.

Reflexiones sin flexiones

Tengo que reconocer que la práctica de ashtanga siempre es dura, y más en el shala de Sharath (y no estoy hablando de “ankle/leg grabbing”). Al final veo que donde una persona avanza más no es en las posturas, sino en temas personales, o quizá no es avance, sino que más bien un progreso y retrogresión seguida de otro progreso. Hay que involucionar para evolucionar. Hay temas personales que son duros de tratar y trabajar pero hay que intentarlo constantemente. Luego hay lo que parece ser el juego de Sharath, que es darte y hacer lo que esperas y te gustaría, hasta que realmente lo esperas, y luego no te da nada ni te hace caso de manera brutal, mientras que observas lo que hacen los demás (bueno, algunos de ellos), que les sale de manera muuuuy inferior a lo que haces y lo que tus profes siempre te pedían de ti y de los demás en sus shalas respectivos. Sharath no lo pide de algunos, porque cada uno está trabajando algo distinto y están todos en distintos puntos aunque estemos en el mismo asana. El acepta mediocridad en muchos asanas de algunas personas (que nunca sería aceptable en otras escuelas donde he practicado) y luego no da ningún reconocimiento del nivel de calidad de algunos de los demás. (Porque sabe que estas personas son capaces de esto, luego que no necesitan reconocimiento? Porque se enfoca en otras cosas según qué persona - la respiración, la concentración, la fluidez? No tengo ni idea) Pero esto es lo de menos.
Luego hay el otro juego de Sharath, que es ponerte a prueba con cosas raras en su oficina, y esto es donde nunca sé si apruebo o suspendo – no tengo ni idea que espera él de nosotros en estos momentos. Me ha hecho el mismo juego de dinero (no darme bien el cambio) 2 veces – una vez el mes pasado, que me hizo recordar que hizo lo mismo la primera vez que estuve aquí – ni me acordaba hasta que lo estaba explicando a amigos esperando fuera y me di cuenta de que, esperate! Ya me había hecho la misma jugada antes! Imposible que un indio no pueda sumar y restar bien con números fáciles – que los indios son unos cracks con mates, por encima de todos los países con excepción de los rusos. Repite el mismo escenario: después de pagarle yo, él pone las vueltas (el cambio) encima de su escritorio, lo miro, veo que está mal, no digo nada, el dinero sigue en la mesa hasta que lo recojo yo sin decir nada, porque total, qué más da pagar 2 euros más cuando ya estás pagando 300 o 500? No sé que espera él – que le diga algo? que le corrija? Que no haga nada? Está comprobando si soy inteligente o lista? No soy buena con el ajedrez, no hago jugadas para observar qué hacer después. Es una cosa sin ninguna importancia pero Nick Evans me contó más de una vez algunas cosas parecidas que hicieron Guruji y también Sharath con él hace tiempo. Puede ser por cantidades grandes o pequeñas, obviamente el tema aquí no es el dinero, aunque lo parece en la superficie; sin embargo, lo que están intentando sacar de ti en cuánto a comportamiento sigue siendo misterio para mí, y si me acuerdo bien, la teoría de Nick era que son unos “tests” sin importancia, de mostrar irregularidad, para observar qué pasa de tu parte, o simplemente para cambiar las cosas, sacarte de un estado predecible y controlable donde tu mandas, o un universo donde se puede entender el proceso y orden en las cosas. Si lo comento no es por el dinero (que da igual) sino porque imita el proceso que también hace él dentro del shala, de hacerte un montón de caso y luego no hacerte ninguno, o de no darte ninguna postura en 6 meses, y luego darte 4 el día que te vas.
Para mí al fin y al cabo, lo más bonito del shala es poder practicar con toda clase de gente. Con niños, con viejos, con gente con piernas y pies protésicos, con gente que tiene que ir por la calle siempre con muletas, pero están ahí trabajando igual que tú día tras día, y esta vez algo que me impresiona aun más (si cabe) que los con miembros protésicos, la cantidad de personas ahí practicando grandes partes de la cuarta serie de ashtanga (advanced B), alucinante!!!!! Unos asanas que dices, “de veras, ah, no sabía que esto era una postura de yoga! No me digas, que doblas la rodilla al revés cómo y te metes el pie dónde? Y con la pierna detrás de la espalda haces esta torsión mirando atrás en maricyasana???!!!!! Hanumanasana a diestra y siniestra. No exagero. Son posturas que cuando las ves, casi te tapas los ojos de miedo. Me quedo pensando, “Wow! Qué privilegio tengo de estar con esta gente!” No hay tantos en el mundo que practican cuarta, que yo sepa (que lo han hecho realmente, con proficiency en las otras series). Están trabajando lo mismo que tú e igual que tú, pero te da mucha fe en el sistema y la práctica y sobre todo una sensación de fascinación en el cuerpo humano y las funciones perfectas de sistemas en el universo (el sistema nerviosa, por ejemplo, el sistema de “checks and balances” que existe dentro del cuerpo y que está siempre trabajando durante la práctica de yoga, entre otros). No me explico bien porque son cosas que entendemos y observamos a nivel inconsciente pero queda asombrosamente obvio mientras observas la práctica de estos. Increíble!

Por el Amor de Dosa!

Things I’ve been meaning to write up in this blog lately have taken the form of lists these days (a result of chanting and memorizing so many lists of declensions of Sanskrit nouns, I’m suspecting), but I might disappoint my two readers out there if I write up list after list of things I’ve been reflecting on (and I’ve got quite a few lists in my head right now). So, although one of you (or approx. 50% of my readership) may find this not as stimulating reading as the bits I write when I’m traveling in search of tigers, the other reader out there (which in some parts could be considered majority) may be interested in hearing more on yoga. Technically, this is part of an email I wrote to a friend in response to his question about how I deal with the disparity of working on understanding the internal universe inside one, going deep into one’s self, and then reconciling this with the external universe of daily life in a typical, mundane context. I’ll just paste the email and hope that this serves to help non-practitioners understand what part of yoga is about, and if you find it too boring, just go back to your facebook page and see if anyone’s put a “like” next to your latest post.
In India you get to work on a lot of issues, internal issues and also dealing externally with things not working out how you'd like (on a very regular basis). And yes, the yoga goes very deep and you get pretty crazy things happening subconsciously and unconsciously in dreams.
I can say that what you're talking about, working through things internally and then having to face a different external reality, is what yoga is all about. It's not about twisting your body into a strange pose or balancing everything on your hands, a sweaty mess involving as much physical exhertion as some Olympic sports. This is what is looks like on the surface (or from outside) but when you do a regular daily practice and you move deeper (and into stranger poses) you stir up a lot of psychological junk/mental stuff that in the past manifested into a physical reaction in your body, or has settled and accumulated somewhere in your body (or mind). And dealing with resolving these things on the mat and then off happens every day, not just when you're in India, or after being in India and then returning to "normal" life. Life experiences always have physical repercussions in the body/mind, as any body worker knows. Much of yoga is just dealing with and accepting things that are released (or re-released) into energetic and psychic streams after postures or practice. I had a big thing this past summer; I was going so deep into hip-openings (dvi pada sirsasana and yoga nidrasana, etc), releasing things that are so internal in your body and so deeply-rooted. What a mess it was (and so godawful painful in practice for weeks, virtually unable to do yoga, although I could ride the bike, swim and run for an hour with no pain at all). After I wrote it all out on 30 pieces of paper and did 108 sun salutations for Guruji (we did a ceremony on his birthday) it all mysteriously and thankfully left, all the strife and turmoil and horrible misery. But it was bad for a time.
And yes, sometimes the mess and goo comes out in small doses; maybe for you that's happening, when you start to practice or take it up again. You do some yoga and you think you're doing the right thing and you feel worse and crappy later and then think, “why? yoga is supposed to make me more stable, etc, not weepy or aggressive or sore....” But as you eliminate past disturbances from your system (anything from trauma to treatments with antibiotics), the junk has to go somewhere when leaving you (maybe negative thoughts, pain, inexplicable sadness, a bad reaction you can't control, maybe strange pussing white sores on your arms and legs which stay there for a month at a time, no joke, but it'll come out, one way or another). Anyway, what I'm saying is that the disparity between apparent/experiential realities has to be worked through all the time, whether you practice once in a while or day in and day out for 20 years. Of course there are escape mechanisms to avoid this or the roughness of dealing with the disparity (drinking, smoking, any addictive behavior), but yoga (or any meditation practice) is exactly working through and dealing with the disparity of what we perceive as reality and what we almost never even perceive as reality but sometimes may get a glimpse of in short moments which we work to extend into longer glimpses through a meditative practice. Of course, really, in the end, there's no disparity between external and internal, because the internal system is a reflection (or maybe microcosm) of the external and working to incorporate this realization into living can help you make peace with the "disparity". Some of yoga philosophy is about this. It’s bedtime now, but if anyone is interested in any more information or further reading, please send a comment and I can provide more details or put you in the right direction.