The following dialogue
takes place between a Patanjali yoga Teacher, Vidya, and a student, Brahmari.
Part 1
Inhale.
Exhale.
Inhale.
Exhale.
When focus slips your
fingers like water
Inhale. Exhale.
When the window is the most
glorious painting of an alternate universe
Every sound magnified,
every being fascinating
When focus slips through
your fingers like water
Asana are meaningless
motions
Dhyana is a game for the
monkey mind
The heart reaches out for
everything, grasping nothing
Inhale. Exhale.
Waiting, waiting, waiting
for the timer to go off
For a voice to call you
back
To free you from the prison
of the monkey mind
V: Bringing your presence back into the room.
Freedom.
V: Inviting small movements into your body to ground.
Sweet freedom.
V: Today's reading is from Sri Patanjali Yoga Sutra, book I
lines 23-26:
"Ishvara pranidhanad
va. Klesha karma viaka-ashayair aparmairshtah purusha vishesha ishvara. Tatra
niratishayam sarvajynya bijam. Sa purvesham api guruh kalena-anavachedat."
In English,
"Realization
may also come if one is oriented toward the ideal of pure awareness, Isvara.
Isvara is a distinct, incorruptible form of pure awareness, utterly independent
of cause and effect, and lacking any store of latent impressions, samskara. Its
independence makes this awareness an incomparable source of omniscience.
Existing beyond time, Isvara was also the ideal of the ancients."[1].
Ishvara has been
passed down from teacher to student since long before Sri Patanjali wrote it
down so beautifully, which is why finding the right Teacher is essential for
attaining realization or enlightenment. It is through the Teacher that one can
begin to cultivate pure awareness[2].
Brahmari, you're not paying attention, your mind has wondered off elsewhere.
B: May I ask you a question? It's not directly related to
this passage of the Yoga Sutra, but
it is bothering me.
V: Of course, everything is inter-related.
B: I know we've been through this before, but what does brahmacharya
mean?
V: What do you think it means?
B: My understanding is that it refers to a vow of celibacy
and is one of the five yamas or self-restraints that Sri Patanjali outlines[3].
V: That's correct, why do you ask?
B: On the bus this morning I saw a girl carrying a blue tote
bag from Lululemon. Across the bag the word brahmacharya is spelled out with
different items such as cookies, French Fries, alcohol, cigarettes,
prescription pills, needles for intravenous drug use and condoms. Lululemon has
a huge influence over what we expect yoga to look like in North America, and
now they have created an image of Brahmacharya that seems so at odds with its
actual meaning. I was so confused when I saw the bag I went to go find it on
Lululemon's website to take a closer look. In the description for the bag
Lululemon defines brahmacharya as moderation or non-excess saying:
"Brahmacharya
teaches us to recognize that moment of "just enough" so we don't move
past it into uncomfortable excess. Maybe it's by pushing away the plate of
French fries or using our pent-up energy for a run. By focusing inward, we keep
our bodies healthy and energetic.".
Their
website also features a blog post by staff-member, Sandy Wei, who goes into further detail describing this
version of yoga, describing how she used to eat unhealthy foods like chips and
then decided to get a gym membership. I don't have an issue with moderation,
but it seems to me that Lululemon has dramatically altered the meaning of brahmacharya
to serve their own needs. The blog post, and to some extent the bag itself, is
an advertisement for Lululemon's other products. The bag is given to customers
at the check-out counter and seems to send the message that it is okay to
consume the products featured on the bag in moderation, so long as you go to
the gym wearing your $100 Lululemon pants.
V: Of course, it is an advertisement, of course Lululemon is
doing this for its own personal gains, Lululemon is a multi-national
corporation, and capitalism is based on the concept that everyone acts out of
self-interest[4]. This is a
company that frequently treats women's bodies as sex objects in their
advertisements, celibacy is obviously a concept that they do not want to
promote and it is also a concept that many have argued is no longer relevant
post-sexual revolution.
B:
My understanding of the reason why brahmacharya is a yama is because sex, and
subsequently children, were seen as distractions from yoga and the pursuit of attaining
enlightenment. With contraception readily available, brahmacharya is no longer
necessary in order to avoid having children, so in that respect it is outdated.
However, I have also heard modern interpretations of brahmacharya as the
appropriate use of one's sexual and creative energy, so in other words, one
should abstain from the harmful act of adultery or wasting one's energy on
meaningless hook-ups[5]. These
reinterpretations at least resemble the traditional understanding of brahmacharya,
but Lululemon is not adapting the concept to a new historical and cultural
context, Lululemon is constructing an entirely new meaning and new image of brahmacharya.
The part I find most infuriating is that this new Lululemon brahmacharya
contradicts the other yamas: How can one practice ahimsa if one is using
intravenous drugs such as heroin in moderation? We have established that this
bag is part of Lululemon's advertising campaign for their other products, they
want us to feel emotional attachment to the company and its products,
contradicting the yama, aparigraha (non-attachment). And what about Satya, or
truthfulness? Or Asteya, non-stealing? Lululemon is not being honest about the
meaning of brahmacharya in the image it created, and it is taking a concept and
using it for its own purposes. What right does a Canadian active-wear company
have redefining and marketing an ancient Indian tradition?
V: Is this not to be expected, though? This is not an
isolated incident. Westerners have been reinterpreting and promoting their own
ideas of Indian traditions and culture for over two hundred years.
B: What do you mean?
V: Recall Edward Said's influential book, Orientalism. How does he define
Orientalism?
B: Said defines Orientalism in three ways: First he defines
Orientalism in the academic context, as the (anthropological, sociological,
historical etc.) study of the Orient and Orientals. His second definition is
more general; Orientalism refers to the ontological and epistemological
distinction made between the Orient and the Occident[6].
The final definition Said describes Orientalism,
"as
the corporate institution for dealing with the Orient- dealing with it by
making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching
it, settling it, ruling over it: in short, Orientalism as a Western style for
dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient,"[7].
V: What, according to Said, is the Orient?
B: The Orient is an exotic place of romance and adventure, a
source of Europe's colonial wealth as well as Europe or the Occident's inherent
opposite[8].
V: And where geographically is the Orient?
B: Initially it referred to the Bible lands and India,
however Said acknowledges that the Orient has expanded since the early
nineteenth century[9].
V: Regardless, throughout the period of India's colonization
by European powers, India was considered part of the Orient and it remains in
the Orient.
B: That does not
make sense to me, the Middle East and India seem to be so culturally different,
how could Western Europeans lump the two together?
V: That is a valid point, and in the early years of European
colonialism Muslims did not identify as 'Eastern' because they considered that
term to be referring to Hindus, but with time they accepted it[10].
To this day the centre of the Muslim world is labeled " the Middle
East", you yourself just used it, ignoring any regional differences
between the nations that are lumped together under that term. Perhaps India was
seen as being part of the Bible lands because it was part of the Muslim Mughal
Empire prior to European colonization, perhaps it is just because India, like
the Bible lands, is East of Western Europe, or the Occident. Either way,
Orientalism via all three definitions leaves samskaras, or latent impressions,
in our minds that there is an Orient and an Occident and that they are
different.
B: Samskaras being psychological, physiological and cultural
grooves in the in mind, body and the culture?
V: Exactly, we all have this internalized belief that the Orient
and the Occident are real, they exist and there are opposites. Now, does the
Orient exist by itself?
B: Said repeatedly makes it clear that the discourse
surrounding the Orient is primarily determined by Europeans saying that
"the hegemony of European ideas.... usually overrid[es] the possibility
that a more independent, or more skeptical, thinker might have different views
on the matter"[11]. He
therefore establishes the fact that two people can look at that geographical
region of the world and see something completely different than the Orient. If
my understanding of Sri Patanjali's teachings on our sense of self is correct,
then if two different people can look at the same physical thing, which does
exist, and see two very different things, then the thing that one is seeing
cannot exist except in the mind of the viewer[12].
Therefore, the geographical region exists, but the concept of the Orient is
manmade because it relies on the viewer's perception, which is influenced by
the viewer's samskaras.
V: Exactly, and Said himself argues this when he states,
"the Orient is not an inert fact of nature. It is not merely there, just as the Occident itself is
not just there either,"[13].
B: Therefore both the Orient and the Occident are created in
our minds[14].
V: Precisely, which is why Said stresses that, "what is
commonly circulated... is not 'truth' but representations"[15].
Externalities such as language, images, etc. these are not truth, but are meant
to represent something else, and therefore they have the possibility of
misrepresenting.
B: If the Orient is nothing but a misrepresentation then why
did you bring up Orientalism? What does this have to do with Lululemon's
distortion of Brahmacharya?
V: Have patience. In the mean time, you must realize that the
Orient is not simply a misrepresentation, or as Said calls it, "an airy
European fantasy... but a created body of theory and practice in which, for
many generations, there has been a considerable investment"[16].
The Orient, and Orientalism as a whole, is a deeply entrenched samskara whose
effects on the world are very real and very much relevant to your initial
concerns. Now, recall for me how does Said describe the Oriental?
B: The Oriental is the Occidental's foil: The Occidental
speaks for the silent, passive Oriental who is inevitably the opposite of the
Occidental. The Oriental is described as dependent, irrational, lazy, gullible
yet cunning and untrustworthy, while also being erotic, lustful characters
worthy of starring roles in Victorian pornographic novels[17].
Conversely, their Occidental colonizers are independent, rational, virtuous,
mature, intelligent and forward thinking, and constitute the norm[18].
Another key difference between the two is that unlike the diversity amongst
Europeans, all Orientals are alike, irrespective of whether or not one is a
Sikh Indian and another is a Muslim Egyptian[19].
V: Do Orientals exist by themselves?
B: Of course not, the Oriental is completely dependent on the
Occidental, again, that is not to say that the people who live in the
geographical regions named the Orient do not exist, but it is to say that the
Oriental is a misrepresentation of reality that is dependent on the Occidental.
European colonizers formed the concept of the Oriental in their minds and
perpetuated that samskara into the minds of Europeans and non-Europeans alike
through language, visual art, doctrines, scholarships as well as institutions
and bureaucracies[20].
V: How does Said describe the relationship between the Orient
and the Occident?
B: "The relationship between Occident and Orient is a
relationship of power, of domination, of varying degrees of complex
hegemony"[21] wherein the
Occident has power over the Orient. This power dynamic can be identified in how
the Occident acts and speaks on behalf of the Orient in the first two
definitions, but it is the third definition, the definition Said sees as being
the most important[22], that one
really sees this dynamic explored.
V: Note however, that Said makes clear that the Orient was
able to determine in part what was said about the Orient[23],
this is especially important to remember when we consider Orientalism's role in
India.
B: Of course, but it did create and enforce a relationship
between the two wherein the Occident consistently gained strength from its comparison
with the Orient. To paraphrase Said, the Occidental can have a variety of
relationships with the Orient without ever losing the upper hand[24].
V: It is important to emphasize how strong Orientalism was as
a discourse. Orientalism could be used to not only justify Europe's
colonization of the Orient, but also to maintain that system through its tight
knit relationship with socio-economic and political institutions[25].
B: How could Orientalism be used to justify the colonization
of India? After all, Orientalism as we are discussing it now is Said's term, it
was not used this way prior to 1978.
V: That is correct, but one can identify Orientalism as Said
explores it in his third definition in the writings of the British colonizers.
For example, British philosopher John Stewart Mill, who had worked in India on
behalf of the British crown, made it very clear that he did not believe his
ideas on liberty and representative democracy were relevant to India. Indians
(Orientals) were civilizationally and racially inferior to Europeans and
therefore the same philosophy could not be applied in both the Occident and the
Orient. Indians needed the British to colonize them and run India for them if
they ever had any hope of reaching the same level of civilization as the
British[26].
B: That is ridiculous, not only is it obviously untrue that
Indians are inferior, but it is very clear in the Yoga Sutra that the only one
who can liberate us from our suffering is ourselves. British colonization would
not be of true benefit for India no matter how well intentioned.
V: While this may be true that does not change the fact that
Orientalism is a part of India's history. However, Said primarily explores
Orientalism in relationship to Islam, what is the relationship between Orientalism
and Hinduism?
B: Why are you asking about Hinduism?
V: The effect Orientalism had on Hinduism in turn affected
yoga.
B: Orientalism strongly influenced the construction of what
we now consider to be Hinduism. He examines how the Sanskrit term sindhu, as in
the Sindhu, or the Indus, Valley was translated into Persian as Hindu and into
Arabic as Hind, all three terms referring to a geographic region now in
Pakistan[27].
While people in what would become British India began using the term during the
Mughal Empire, it was used primarily as a distinction between indigenous
peoples and foreigners irrespective of their religious affiliations, a
definition that persisted during the early years of contact with Europeans[28].
Prior to the eighteenth century, Europeans classified Hindus as being either
Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Heathens, the latter being associated with worship
of the devil and in typical Orientalist style was attributed to Buddhists,
Sikhs and Jains as wells as groups we now consider Hindu[29].
Eventually the term Hindu began to exclude the Abraham religions leaving only
the many, diverse indigenous 'heathen' religions[30].
V: Exactly, and note that Heathens are the ultimate other to
the (primarily Christian) Occidental and clearly carry highly negative
connotations. When the term Heathen and Hindu merged into one, Hindus inherited
that negative, othered stereotype.
B: Right, and when European Orientalist scholars began
examining the religious practices of Hindus they attempted to make these
diverse belief systems and practices conform to a European Judeo-Christian
understanding of religion[31].
European scholars picked specific texts, savior figures and other
Judeo-Christian religious staples to manufacture an Oriental religious
tradition that would counter their Occidental one, thus further entrenching Orientalist
beliefs and values[32]. However,
just as Said notes that Orientals had some ability to determine what was said
about them, Hindus also played a role in shaping the discourse about their
newly created religion.
V: While that is true, it is very apparent that the Hindus
participated in this self-determination process were limited to the Brahmin
caste[33].
This clearly contributed to the emphasis on Sanskrit, Brahminic texts such as
the Vedas, as well as the belief that Hinduism as the European colonizers
conceptualized it was a single, unified tradition[34].
B: King also notes how the strong Brahmanic influence over
European Orientalists' construction of Hinduism also entrenched Brahmin's elite
status[35].
Texts associated with the Brahmins such as the Bhagavad Gita and Sri Patanjali's Yoga Sutra were identified and romanticized by Orientalist scholars
as having far more importance than they did at that point in history, to the
detriment of the Hatha yoga tradition[36].
V: How do you think Orientalist assumptions and discourse
about Hinduism inform Lululemon's reconstruction of the Hindu concept of
Brahmacharya?
B: Well, much like how Occidentals would speak for Orientals,
Lululemon is, incorrectly, explaining the meaning of Brahmacharya to a wider
audience. However, I feel like there is a huge historical gap between
Orientalism and Lululemon, I do not feel like the two are actually related.
Besides, if I were to say to a Hindu that Hinduism is a Western invention they
would be upset. Hinduism is a concept that is accepted today, why bother
discussing Orientalism?
V: Is Orientalism no longer relevant? Is this something that
we have moved beyond? Or is it something that continues today? Take some time
to think and reflect on these questions and we'll discuss your answer in our
next class.
Part 2
Part 2
[1] Patañjali, Chris Hatranft. 2003. The Yoga Sutra of Patanjali: Sanskrit Translation & Glossary.
(http://www.light-weaver.com/ys/ysp-skrit-eng-chip-hartranft.pdf)
[2] Patañjali, Geshe Michael Roach, Christie McNally. 2005. The
Essential Yoga Sutra: Ancient Wisdom for Your Yoga. New York: Three Leaves,
Doubleday. p.18-19
[3] Patañjali, Geshe Michael Roach, Christie McNally. 2005. The
Essential Yoga Sutra: Ancient Wisdom for Your Yoga. New York: Three Leaves,
Doubleday. p. 50
[4]
Smith, Adam. 1776. 'Chapter 2: Of
the Principle Which Gives Occasion to the Division of Labour.' Pp. 15-18 in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations. p. 17
Friedman, Milton. 1979. 'The Power of the Market' Pp.9-37 in
Free to Choose. New York: Harcourt.
p. 13-14
[6]
Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the
Orient. London: Penguin Press. p. 2
[7] Ibid. p. 3
[8] Ibid. p. 1
[9] Ibid. p. 4
[10]
Hodgson, Marshall. 1974. ‘European World
Hegemony: The Nineteenth Century’ Pp. 223-248 in The Venture of Islam, Volume 3: The Gunpowder Empires and Modern Times.
Chicago: University of Chicago press. p. 233
[11]
Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the
Orient. London: Penguin Press. p. 7
[13]
Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the
Orient. London: Penguin Press. p. 4
[14] Ibid. p. 5
[15] Ibid. p. 22
[16] Ibid. p. 6
[17] Ibid. p. 8, 36, 38-40
[18] Ibid. p. 40
[19] Ibid. p. 38
[20] Ibid. p. 2
[21] Ibid. p. 5
[22] Ibid. p. 6
[23] Ibid. p. 3
[24] Ibid. p. 7
[25] Ibid. p. 6
[26] Ibid. p. 14
[27] King, Richard. 1999. 'Orientalism and the
Modern Myth of "Hinduism"." Numen.
46(2): 146-185. p. 162
[28] Ibid. p. 162-163
[29] Ibid. p. 163
[30] Ibid. p. 164
[31]
King, Richard. 2002. Orientalism and Religion.
Routledge. Retrieved 9 November 2013, from (http://www.myilibrary.com?ID=33497).
p. 111
[32] Ibid. p. 111
[33] King, Richard. 1999. 'Orientalism and the
Modern Myth of "Hinduism"." Numen.
46(2): 146-185. p. 169
[34] Ibid. p. 169
[35] Ibid. p. 170
[36]
Singleton, Mark. 2010.
Yoga Body: The Origins
of Modern Posture Practice. Oxford: Oxford UP.p. 41
