Yoga's authenticity problem.

In modern, western yoga culture there's always a lot of bickering about what's authentic, what's appropriation, and should westerners even be engaging in these practices at all. And it all just seems like such a distraction to me.

First of all, there really is no "authentic" yoga. From a historical perspective, what has been called yoga over its thousands of years history has varied greatly over time, and there's always been one system of "yoga" that has tried to negate or contradict another system of "yoga". Not to mention that what has been called yoga over the course of history has always shifted and changed with regard to the context of the time and culture in which a particular system of yoga was being practiced. Some of the earliest mentions of yoga in the Vedic period refer to sacrificial rites to attain boons from the gods. This was later viewed as completely deluded, and yoga became the practice of the cultivation of knowledge. This has happened time and time again, until we eventually end up with modern postural yoga. There have always been systems of yoga that take a dualistic viewpoint - God is something separate from you - and systems that take a non-dualistic view - everything is all the same. There's really nothing in yoga's history that we can look at and say "that's the real, authentic yoga". As with any tradition, yoga has had to shift and change over time to stay relevant to the time and place in which it’s being practiced.

With regards to appropriation, yoga itself has a deep history of appropriation. Simply looking at the often revered Yoga Sutra shows us this. Patañjali codified his system of yoga based on an amalgamation of ideas from many different traditions - Buddhist, early Hindu, and other prevailing thought and religious systems of the time. Patañjali literally just took bits and pieces of systems that he found helpful in achieving the end he was aiming for, and blended them together into his own system. And the Yoga Sutra are just one such example of how this has happened over time. When you look at the history of almost any system of yoga you'll see that throughout history they have all taken ideas from other traditions and made them their own. So, how is what is currently happening in modern, western yoga any different? I don’t think it is.

I think that the bigger issue here isn’t if our yoga is “authentic” or appropriated, but instead, are we brave enough to admit that it’s not authentic?

Most of what has happened in modern western yoga culture is that teachers have taken ideas, as they understand them, from various yoga systems and used them in a way that fits our modern context, but shrouded them in an air of “authenticity” by quoting from yogic texts and name dropping the yoga masters of yore. One such example of this is the concept of brahmacarya that we find in the yoga sutra. Brahmacarya means to practice continence and celibacy. Because the yoga sutra is a text addressing world renunciation, restraining your sexual urges is a necessary part of the system. World renunciation wasn’t a popular idea in Patañjali’s time, and it’s certainly not a popular idea in our modern western culture. But, to try and “authenticate” our yoga we’ve redefined brahmacarya to fit our needs. Look at any modern discourse on yoga and you’ll see that brahmacarya is defined as moderation. Moderation and celibacy are NOT the same thing and we’ve conveniently re-defined the word to make it more palatable, simply so we can “authenticate” our yoga based on adherence to the yoga sutra.

I believe this is the real problem when it comes to appropriation. It’s not that we are using parts of the yoga practice in a modern, western context that’s the issue here. The real problem here is that we haven’t drawn the clear distinction that what we are doing has necessarily changed to fit the context and culture within which we are using it.

I believe that it is possible for us to have a real, meaningful, and authentic relationship to yoga on our own terms, in the context in which we are currently living and also with the many traditions of the yoga of the past. We just have to acknowledge the difference between here and now, and there and then and not try to pretend that the yoga we are doing now is what it has always been.

One of the most common afflictions for a yoga teacher is imposter syndrome. So many yoga teachers struggle with believing in themselves, and believing that they are qualified to teach yoga. When we address yoga’s “authenticity” issue, and find the courage to admit that what we are teaching doesn’t have thousands of years of history to validate it we can be free from feeling like an imposter. To be a yoga teacher in the 21st century requires us to stand up and say “these are my ideas, based on my understanding of what I’ve learned from my teachers, and how they have helped me lead a more skillful life in a modern context”.

Sure, authentic means “of undisputed origin”, but it also means “genuine”. Perhaps “authenticity” in yoga deosn’t have anything to do with it’s origin (remember, there is no “undisputed origin” of yoga), but instead with how genuine we are when we talk about what we are doing. Maybe authenticity is finding the practices that help us live in a more skillful way, believing in what we are doing, and doing it with some fidelity while acknowledging that the yoga we are doing isn’t the same as the yoga that has always been done.