Is Lululemon destroying yoga?

The Dallas News recently interviewed Georg Feuerstein, author of Yoga Morality: Ancient Teachings at a Time of Global Crisis and a leading yoga scholar. Feuerstein laments how the physical elements of yoga have overridden the other seven limbs, specifically the yamas (moral restraints) of nonharming, truthfulness, nonstealing, moderation, and nonhoarding.

This is a complicated subject. I agree with Feuerstein that a certain chunk of people claiming to 'practice' yoga are really only moving their arms and legs around, abandoning the rest of themselves to their unconscious lives and habits for lack of mental, emotional, and spiritual engagement. I do, however, have to protest a few of his points.

First, I have to take issue with his criticism of modern yoga fashion. Feuerstein states:

What would a traditional Hindu yoga teacher, steeped in modesty, think of those revealing outfits women and men wear to classes[?]

I believe this confuses a cultural difference - perhaps not Hindu, but his own - with something that actually matters to the practice of yoga. May I point out that traditional yoga wear for men in India is like a cloth-wrap Speedo? Not a paragon of modesty. If Feuerstein has an issue with Lycra or Luon, it might be more steeped in his own perceptions of acceptable exposure than whether it adversely affects yogic practice. I, for one, couldn't be happier to have clothing that moves with me, doesn't stick to me when I sweat, and gets out of my way when I need to twist and turn. My fellow yogis are enlightened and decent enough, as well as immersed sufficiently in their current cultural norms, I don't think it's necessary to consider introducing Yoga Burkas.

Also, there's no traditional comparison for women's yoga wear because women were banned from practicing yoga until about a hundred years ago when, like almost everything else, certain privileged women had to push for it and work harder for the same teachings amidst much discrimination and resistance. If Feuerstein is taking modern yoga's sexuality to task, I'd take much greater issue with the deeply harmful sexism that has been traditionally and universally condoned and perpetuated in yoga than a few naked yoga classes that misinterpret tantra.

In the DN article, Feuerstein is quoted saying:

most of today's yoga practitioners don't care about, or don't understand, the tradition's moral teachings, which could offer guidance on sexuality, war, corporate greed, racism, politeness, gluttony, financial debt and pollution.

I would be more inclined to say that most people, in general, don't care about or understand these teachings. The sickness he's identifying is a) universal, not only a yogic issue and b) a corruption that is reduced every time someone steps on their mat consciously.

Perhaps I have more faith in modern yogis than Mr. Feuerstein.

In my yoga classes, I see courage, curiosity, and dedication. Week after week I watch the yogis in my classes come to their mats interested in learning and growing. They take time for themselves in the midst of busy schedules, bringing more balance to their lives. They listen to their breath in order to be  aware and present in their postures. They take steps towards letting go of old fears and habits, even if their feet don't leave the ground in a headstand or their heads never touch their shins in a forward fold.

The yogis I see care about their families, want to be better people, choose yoga instead of a treadmill because they connect with the practice's integrity and nourishing of their minds and souls. They come to let go of stress and embrace kindness. They laugh and feel and breathe and improve their experience of being on this planet.

I don't completely disagree with Feuerstein - we have a long way to go before we are able to uproot the dark elements of our human nature and pull us out of these New Dark Ages. But I believe many yogis are doing this work, this often unseen, quiet daily discipline to become better beings.

 

Comments

[Asia Nelson]

A commenter from Facebook - where my blog is imported - pointed out a fault line in my logic in this post that I'd like to clarify. The convo is below:

Commenter - I do have one criticism of your post. You state that if Feuerstein is taking modern yoga's sexuality to task, you'd take much greater issue with the history of sexism in yoga.

While yoga has had a history of sexism, how does mentioning that deal with Feuerstein's angst over the state of of modern yoga's sexuality?

Feuer: "There's too much overt sexuality in modern yoga."
Reply: "Yes, but yoga has had a history of sexism."

My reply - We may be tangling the argument. Sexuality and sexism are two distinct issues. Feuerstein is disturbed at what he considers an indiscreet sexuality in yoga, which in his eyes violates bramacharya or sexual moderation. He's taking modern yogis to task on their allowance of sexual expression (as he interprets yoga wear to be) in yoga. I see this as a type of indirect sexual repression ("we must not identify ourselves as sexual"). I don't think he's right to request this.

My move to identify the sexism in yoga's history is more to undermine the ethos of these "traditional Hindu yoga teachers" that Feuerstein seems to consider the measure of whether our behaviour is 'right'. These upholders of tradition we're supposed to avoid offending have offended women more deeply than our tank tops could do to them. Their misogyny dismissed our gender for centuries, so I'm not about to worry whether that dear little moderate yogi is uncomfortable with my Lulu pants.