Modern Transnational Yoga: The Transmission of Posture Practice 2020046206, 9780367516871, 9781003080121, 9780367530204

Citation preview

Modern Transnational Yoga

This is the first book to address the social organisation of modern yoga practice as a primary focus of investigation and to undertake a comparative analysis to explore why certain styles of yoga have successfully transcended geographical boundaries and endured over time, whilst others have dwindled and failed. Using fresh empirical data of the different ways in which posture practice was disseminated transnationally by Krishnamacharya, Sivananda and their leading disciples, the book provides an original perspective. The author draws upon extensive archival research and numerous fieldwork interviews in India and the UK to consider how the field of yoga we experience today was shaped by historic decisions about how it was transmitted. The book examines the specific ways in which a small group of yogis organised their practices and practitioners to popularise their styles of yoga to mainstream audiences outside of India. It suggests that one of the most overlooked contributions has been that of Sivananda Saraswati (1887–1963) for whom this study finds his early example acted as a cornerstone for the growth of posture practice. Outlining how yoga practice is organised today on the world stage, how leading brands fit into the wider field of modern yoga practice and how historical developments led to a mainstream globalised practice, this book will be of interest to researchers in the field of Yoga Studies, Religious Studies, Hindu Studies, South Asian History, Sociology and Organisational Studies. Hannah K. Bartos is a member of the Centre of Yoga Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, UK. She is also a qualified yoga teacher, having practised for 25 years.

Royal Asiatic Society Books

Editorial Board: 

Francis Robinson, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK (Chair); Tim Barrett, SOAS, University of London, UK; Barbara Brend, Royal Asiatic Society, UK; Evrim Binbas, Institute of Oriental and Asian Studies, University of Bonn, Germany; Anna Contadini, SOAS, University of London, UK; Michael Feener, University of Kyoto, Japan; Gordon Johnson, University of Cambridge, UK; Firuza Melville, University of Cambridge, UK; Taylor Sherman, London School of Economics, UK; Alison Ohta, Director, Royal Asiatic Society, UK

The Royal Asiatic Society was founded in 1823 ‘for the investigation of subjects connected with, and for the encouragement of science, literature and the arts in relation to, Asia’. Informed by these goals, the policy of the Society’s Editorial Board is to make available in appropriate formats the results of original research in the humanities and social sciences having to do with Asia, defined in the broadest geographical and cultural sense and up to the present day. For a full list of titles in the series, please see: https://www.routledge.com/asianstudies/ series/RAS Anglo-Indians and Minority Politics in South Asia Race, Boundary Making and Communal Nationalism Uther Charlton-Stevens Islamic Movements in India Moderation and Its Discontents Arndt Emmerich Modern Transnational Yoga The Transmission of Posture Practice Hannah K. Bartos

Royal Asiatic Society Books: Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt Series The Royal Asiatic Society’s Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt Fund, established in 2001 by Princess Fazilé Ibrahim, encourages the growth and development of Ottoman studies internationally by publishing Ottoman documents and manuscripts of historical importance from the classical period up to 1839, with transliteration, full or part translation and scholarly commentaries. Grievance Administration (Şikayet) in an Ottoman Province The Kaymakam of Rumelia’s ‘Record Book of Complaints’ of 1781–1783 Michael Ursinus

Modern Transnational Yoga The Transmission of Posture Practice

Hannah K. Bartos

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business © 2021 Hannah K. Bartos The right of Hannah K. Bartos to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Bartos, Hannah K., author. Title: Modern transnational yoga : the transmission of posture practice / Hannah K. Bartos. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2021. | Series: Royal asiatic society books | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020046206 | ISBN 9780367516871 (hbk) | ISBN 9781003080121 (ebk) Subjects: LCSH: Yoga. Classification: LCC B132.Y6 B348 2021 | DDC 294.5/436--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020046206 ISBN: 978-0-367-51687-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-53020-4 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-08012-1 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by SPi Global, India

Contents

Acknowledgements vi Note on transliteration vii List of abbreviations viii List of illustrations ix 1 Introduction

1

2 Sivananda and The Divine Life Society

13

3 Divine Emissaries: Sivananda’s famous disciples

48

4 Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga

69

5 Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga

99

6 The yoga of BKS Iyengar

118

7 Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga

149

8 Conclusion

182

Bibliography 197 Index 216

Acknowledgements

This study would not have been possible without the receptivity and cooperation of yoga teachers, practitioners, ashram visitors, lay persons and sannyasins – unfortunately too numerous to mention here individually – who were principally associated with Satyananda Yoga, Sivananda Yoga, Ashtanga Yoga, Iyengar Yoga, the yoga of Krishnamacharya and the Ramakrishna Mission. For permitting me extensive access to their respective centres, ashrams and libraries, I am thankful to BKS Iyengar, Geeta Iyengar, Vimalananda, Padmanabhananda, Jitamohananda, Niranjanananda, Satyasangananda, Suryaprakash, Pragyamurti, Swaroopananda, Atmaprabhananda, Philippe Harari, Gill Lloyd, TKV Desikachar and Sharath Jois. I owe a debt of thanks to the many individuals who ­generously gave their time to be interviewed and the helpful staff in private archives who fielded my many requests for information and assistance. For the kind support I received upon arriving in Delhi, I would like to thank Dharmanand Jain of the Adhyatma Sadhana Kendra. The text is based upon my Ph.D. dissertation completed at the School of History, Religions and Philosophies at SOAS, where I received financial assistance from the ‘Jordan Travel Grant’ to fund multiple fieldwork trips to India. I am grateful for the many people who have helped in bringing this book to fruition. Amongst them, I would like to express my gratitude to Peter Flügel, who has provided critique and guidance over many years, as well as to Ted Proferes and Cosimo Zene. Further development of the study has been shaped by my examiners who were generous with their feedback; James Mallinson, Ulrich Pagel, Elizabeth de Michelis and Christopher K. Chapple. I would also like to thank Suzanne Newcombe, Raphael Voïx and Routledge reader C whose detailed feedback on this project has been invaluable. Above all, I would like to give my heartfelt thanks to my wonderful husband, who has been a stalwart of encouragement throughout the ten years of this project, during which time we have had two sets of twins and moved from the UK to the Middle East and back again. Without Tom’s unflagging support I could not have contemplated such an endeavour.

Note on transliteration

To reflect what is employed in the written sources consulted and in situated practice, emic spellings are used irrespective of whether this carries with it inaccuracies in transliteration: for instance, ‘s’ is used instead of ‘sh’ for Sivananda (alias Shivananda). Consequently, I have chosen not to employ diacritical marks and transliteration for Sanskrit or Hindi in the main text. Treatment of the names of authors is consistent with standards dictated by the Library of Congress in accurately reproducing the spelling authors employ to refer to themselves. Indic terms have been italicised. However, words that are familiar in the English language have not been italicised, such as ‘guru’ and ‘yoga’.

Abbreviations

BKSIYTA BSY BWY DLS IY(UK) IYFM IYNAUS KHYF KPJAYI KYM RIMYI SYVC

BKS Iyengar Yoga Teachers Association Bihar School of Yoga The British Wheel of Yoga The Divine Life Society Iyengar Yoga (UK) International Yoga Fellowship Movement BKS Iyengar Yoga National Association of the United States Krishnamacharya Healing and Yoga Foundation Krishna Pattabhi Jois Ashtanga Yoga Institute Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram Ramamani Iyengar Memorial Yoga Institute International Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres

Illustrations

Figures 2.1 Sivananda watching Vishnudevananda by the Ganges 2.2 Illustration of shoulder-stand in Sivananda’s Practice of Yoga (1929) 2.3 Immersion in the Ganges of sannyasin candidates overseen by Chidananda 2.4 A DLS sannyasin initiation ceremony in 1999 2.5 Sivananda teaching a class of asanas in Rishikesh circa 1940 3.1 Timeline of the foundation of new organisations in the Sivananda School 3.2 Satchidananda standing next to Sivananda in Rishikesh 3.3 Vishnudevananda outside the first Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centre in 1959 3.4 Vishnudevananda, Chidananda and Satchidananda in the Bahamas in 1975 3.5 First SYVC teacher training course that took place in Canada in 1969 3.6 Worldwide distribution of accredited Sivananda Yoga Teachers (2018) 4.1 Satyananda’s sannyasa initiation certificate from 1947 5.1 Krishnamacharya and his yoga students in Mysuru, as shown in Yoga Makaranda in 1934 5.2 Worldwide distribution of KHYF yoga teachers (2012) 6.1 BKS Iyengar sitting with Venkatesananda 6.2 The Iyengar family in the 1960s 6.3 Worldwide distribution of accredited Iyengar Yoga teachers (2016) 7.1 Pattabhi Jois in Mysuru, India 7.2 Worldwide distribution of accredited Ashtanga Yoga teachers (2016)

15 19 25 25 38 51 53 55 58 62 65 83 102 110 121 122 126 151 162

Table 8.1 Basic features of organisation in the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools of yoga practice

185

1 Introduction

Modern transnational yoga is the product of over a century of efforts to transmit yoga practices worldwide, during which time the presentation of posture practices was refashioned, blended and redefined by both householders and sannyasins (renunciates) as well as persons of different nationalities, faiths, ethnicities and genders residing in various cultural contexts. The convoluted nature of transmission has led to a yoga practice that today is a globalised mainstream activity, encompassing a range of universally recognised bodily practices that has been applied to meet the diverse objectives of spirituality, relaxation and fitness, or some combination thereof.1 As interest in yoga practice outside of India climbed over the 20th century, definitive efforts were made to organise the practice on a grander scale by gurus and teachers originating specific styles or brands of yoga practice. At the forefront of these developments were Sivananda Saraswati (1887–1963), Tirumalai Krishnamacharya (1888–1989) and their leading disciples, many of whom may be considered as ‘followers, emulators, [or] intellectual heirs’ of Swami Vivekananda (De Michelis 2004:187). Both the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools of yoga practice2 were pivotal to the historical development of posture practice transnationally and the evolution of the field of modern yoga3 over the last 100 years, having been chiefly responsible for its popularisation. What may be surprising to many is the balance of influence between the two schools. Based upon data collated in this study, for every single teacher that has been accredited to date in the Krishnamacharya School, no fewer than seven teachers have been accredited in the Sivananda School.4 Despite this seven-fold outnumbering of official teachers, the literature, however, has overwhelmingly been weighted towards key figures and posture practices of the Krishnamacharya School.5 One potential contributor to this bias may well be the higher visibility of its teachings, given that it is principally from teachings of Krishnamacharya and his disciples that a very long tail of entrepreneurial operators emerged from the 1990s onwards, to teach branded or unbranded styles in their localities and awarding their own teacher qualifications, often registered with external governing bodies, such as Yoga Alliance or the British Wheel of Yoga. Particularly in the US, this proliferation of independent teacher training courses has provided increased choice for consumers and, whilst most teaching

2  Introduction initiatives were small scale, they accounted for the majority of individual course offerings on a numerical basis. This text aims to provide a counterweight to the imbalance of scholarship, by examining the histories of key protagonists within the Sivananda School alongside analysis of leading gurus and teachers in the Krishnamacharya School. The recent momentum in yoga studies takes us to a point where we are gaining a greater depth of understanding into the key figures who transformed the packaging of posture practice and disseminated it transnationally. Standard explanations for the popularisation of yoga teachings have tended to focus on considerations such as the role of guru charisma, the re-interpretation of Hindu teachings to accommodate the ‘West’, disillusionment with established religions, acculturation, appropriation and assimilative processes, as well as the nature and directionality of cultural flows of information and processes of globalisation.6 Valuable work has been produced on several thematic perspectives, with analysis in the literature that seeks to analyse modern yoga in its wider contexts, tackling subjects such as the early role of Hindu reformers, the reformulation of hatha yoga influenced by European physical culture, the shift of non-Indians towards Eastern spirituality, the fitness craze of the 1980s, the emergence of consumer cultures, the rise of commodification, commercialisation and branding alongside discussion on certain social and economic perspectives and so on (e.g. Pechilis 2004; De Michelis 2004; Strauss 2005; Fish 2006, 2014; Singleton 2010; Jain 2012, 2014, 2015, 2020b). Most recently, Hauser (2018:512) has argued persuasively that one cannot reduce transnational flows on postural yoga to models of linear diffusion, nor can we assume a unilateral transfer from India to a single reference point but rather transmission is advanced in the form of global distribution networks.7 Along with a few correctives to pervasive theories that equate transnationalism (or globalisation) to Westernisation,8 this study rejects uni-directional arguments in favour of a more complex construction with a plurality of lines of transmission and interaction across a multi-cultural milieu; that is, to emphasise the interplay between multiple centres and peripheries. Understanding the changing backdrop and prevailing currents in 20th-century yoga brings us to a missing piece of the puzzle; namely, the disconnect in scholarship between these contextual factors and precisely how these factors translated into actual action or, indeed, inaction. To properly explain transnational popularisation, I argue that one must account for the highly differentiated ways in which posture practice was transmitted and a full analysis cannot be divorced from a clear and nuanced understanding of the historical development of organising the practice and practitioners. Whilst essential groundwork has been carried out to date in the study of modern postural yoga, references to features of organisation in the literature have been largely incidental rather than part of any systematic examination. One finds that the social organisation of posture practice has been somewhat taken for granted in discussions of gurus and practice in modern yoga; that is, the patterned arrangement of institutions, networks, social groups and individuals in the field. Its importance for the development of transnational posture practice has been neglected in the literature although Newcombe’s (2014) paper on the 1970s routinisation of guru charisma in Iyengar Yoga in the UK is a welcome step. Recognising the intractable nature of the task at hand, following

Introduction  3 Gorringe (2010:120), a focus on charisma alone may actually ‘hinder analysis and obscure the complex processes, mechanisms and relationships that constitute leadership’ in hierarchical organisations. Or as Deslippe (2019:31) contends, it is necessary to deemphasise ideas of individual charisma and move towards a focus on structures and organisation to understand why some Hindu teachers succeeded. The necessity of founding a formal organisation as a consciously coordinated social unit was keenly felt by many ‘second-wave gurus’ in the US (circa 1960–1980s) who believed, as Williamson (2013a:111) identifies, that ‘their ideas and the practices they taught must be tightly contained within a system and the container was a legal organisation…’. To make steps towards remedying such paucity of attention, this text is uniquely orientated towards examining the diffusion of posture practice from the perspective of its social organisation. The idea of looking at the historical dissemination of postural styles of yoga practice from the angle of their organisational structures and processes is a novel, albeit quite a challenging, task. Doing so draws upon a body of scholarship on social movements, new religious movements and modern guru organisations that engages with this subject matter.9 As the history of transnational yoga over the last century remains only partially understood, a fertile area of inquiry asks what forms of organisation were produced and how did they help or hinder efforts at diffusion. One of the findings of this study centres on how the most successful and enduring proponents of posture yoga practice in the mid to late 20th century were those who efficiently developed systems of practice, organised practitioners and built institutions in a manner more akin to multi-national businessmen than religious teachers. As part of this process, a fundamental premise is that before individuals could be attracted to a practice, it needed to be presented in the first place (e.g. tours, literature, centres) and the methods employed to do so can be studied. Naturally, a yoga practice needed to be appealing to induce practitioners to take it up. However, no matter how appealing a style of posture practice was to the public, without concerted efforts to provide ongoing access to teachings (e.g. via classes taught by trained teachers), no individual could successfully master the practice and the proliferation of practitioners would have been constrained.10 A corollary of this is that the absence of certain organisational structures and functions may be associated with inhibiting transnational dissemination and a tendency towards non-persistence of a particular approach or brand. Two possible counter-examples include American TV yoga star, Richard Hittleman (1927–1991), and English yoga teacher, Yogi Sunita (1932–1970; née Bernadette Cabral), who proved to be transient phenomena by experiencing great fame during their lifetimes yet suffered from vastly diminished popularity thereafter. The very presence of certain types of institutional features was a necessity for long-time survival and analysis in this area helps us understand why certain schools of yoga practice successfully transcended geographical boundaries and endured over time, while others have dwindled and failed. It is important to recognise that not all efforts to organise modern yoga practice were equal and a wide range of outcomes have been observed, linked both to the type of strategies pursued by leaders as well as the quality of its implementation, often by subordinates. Some

4  Introduction were completely ineffectual over the long-term, including many of the travelling teachers of early 20th century American yoga who are not known today and, as Deslippe (2019:8, 32) finds, ‘most teachers either founded no organisations or else very short-lived ones’. In a similar vein, a further counter-example to the apparent successes of the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools is Mr. M.R. Jambunathan (1896–1974) who, despite publishing a relatively in-depth guide into how to practice asanas in 1938, Yoga Asanas, Illustrated, is unknown in the field of yoga practice today. Jambunathan’s (1938) yoga guide was illustrated with 50 postures and comparable to Sivananda’s 1935 text, Yoga Asanas, and Krishnamacharya’s 1934 text, Yoga Makaranda. Yet, as far as I have been able to establish, Jambunathan failed to establish any yoga organisations to train disciples and did not make efforts to support dissemination or organise practitioners, nor did he apparently brand his yoga system or tour abroad.

The study The period under research begins with Sivananda in the late-1920s and takes off around the point where Singleton’s (2010) study ends. The focus is primarily on developments across the 20th century and, whilst analysis extends into the 21st century, the text does not seek to focus on the contemporary landscape of globalised yoga in a nuanced way. In terms of scope, this project casts a relatively wide net in order to conduct a comparative analysis and capture useful insights on the historical development of a number of gurus and their yoga organisations. Of prime focus is Sivananda, Satyananda, Vishnudevananda, Satchidananda, Krishnamacharya plus TKV and Kausthub Desikachar, BKS Iyengar, Pattabhi and Sharath Jois and the various institutions in their names in India and around the world. By implication, it is not intended here to (re)construct the entire historical narratives of each one within the constraints of the space provided. There is commentary on a wide range of geographies worldwide – including Europe, North America, South America and Australasia – although the locus of the study for fieldwork was India and the UK. Outside of India, there is a pronounced leaning towards the UK and the US in the discussion, in part due to the path of events in the cases studied where these were sites of particular significance and in part due to research garnering the most pertinent data.11

Framework for analysis To unpick layers of complexity in the development of a transnational practice, an historical approach has been adopted to examine the sequence of past events relating to its transmission.12 Our intention, following Berg and Lune (2017:159), is that the adoption of a historical-comparative methodology ‘systematically recapture(s) the complex nuances, the people, meanings, events and even ideas that have influenced and shaped the present’. Several extended case studies are presented here that systematically analyse series of events and contexts to give an account of what happened in the past. In doing so, the study serves critically to analyse how these various cases have evolved transnationally by historical

Introduction  5 investigation of the largely unexplored role played by institutional factors for understanding (yoga) organisations in their current manifestation (Tolbert and Zucker 1983:36) and the precise decisions taken that led towards a mainstream globalised practice. Indeed, there have been a number of key junctures in the history of social organisation, or ‘points of crisis’, to use Turner’s (1957:328) expression, that have shaped the field, including schism, succession and scandals.

Sources As it has been only relatively recently that scholars have begun to unravel the vast historical and contextual web of yoga in the modern world, a weakness observed in the literature has been a general lack of systematic analysis of empirical data. To collect fresh data, I collated an extensive amount of new material in India and the UK primarily through multi-sited fieldwork over a span of 5 years. Qualitative and quantitative data were collated from a variety of sources in this diachronic study, with conclusions being formulated in an inductive fashion. The main method of data collection was through extensive archival research in India and the UK. Consistent with the view of Rowlinson et al. (2014:39) that ‘organisational archives are…an under-utilised source of data’, archival research proved to be fruitful through consulting the vast repository of largely unstudied texts in the ashram library of The Divine Life Society in Rishikesh (17,500 texts), the Bihar School of Yoga library in Munger (40,000 texts), B.K.S. Iyengar’s private library in the basement of his Pune headquarters (in excess of 6,000 publications) amongst others.13 A wide range of written material was consulted, drawing upon both primary and secondary sources of information, including but not limited to: books, magazines, periodicals, newspaper articles, ashram activity reports, letters (from gurus and supporters), financial accounts, annual reports, newsletters, membership booklets, founding documentation, lists of rules and regulations, in-house publications, training materials, advertisements, witness statements, memos, typewritten documents (apparently unpublished), transcribed lectures, interview transcripts and reports on special events, tours and conferences. It was also possible to consult recordings, videos, oral histories and photographic evidence. Beyond these settings, I researched many newspaper and magazine databases for articles and advertisements worldwide, online sources such as participant blogs and postings of videos, documentation and transcribed interviews. The importance of written sources to such a project is underscored by Newcombe (2009:900) in that, ‘printed material was an extremely influential form of regularising and defining the subject of modern yoga before the advent of television and affordable air travel’. Researching historical development has necessitated finding multiple sources of information (i.e. from several different authors or sources) to corroborate a particular set of events or timeline. Frequently, I encountered an emic tendency to rewrite official histories of a guru and his organisation in a more favourable light in later texts, which necessitated consulting earlier texts and comparing accounts systematically to detect changes over time. Archival research was supplemented in this study by over 30 fieldwork ­interviews – largely in India and the UK – and typically in the form of

6  Introduction semi-­structured interviews with leaders and senior office holders or senior teachers or unstructured interviews with other ‘insiders’ (e.g. volunteers, members, initiates, practitioners). These interviews provided valuable first-hand accounts, oral histories and information on personal experiences, especially in cases where there was a dearth of documentation from some official sources.14 Lastly, sourcing information also involved participation in general ashram life (e.g. lectures, chanting, classes of posture practices, worship, voluntary service), attending workshops and classes in multiple locations and involved participant observation and making field notes.

Key terms To clarify some of the recurrent terms in this research project, reference is made to the ‘field of modern yoga practice’; a concept inspired by Bourdieu (1991) and employed here following Aldrich’s (1999:49–50) definition of an ‘organisational field’ as ‘a set of interacting groups, organisations and agencies oriented around a common substantive interest’; in this case, yoga practice. ‘Field’ is employed as a useful heuristic device that facilitates analysis across different actors, networks and institutions in multiple cultural contexts. In relation to yoga, ‘field’ comprises yoga teachers, practitioners, schools of practice, yoga organisations and governing bodies, as well as suppliers and retailers of yoga products in what has become a mega-industry retailing yoga clothing and accoutrements; estimated at $80 billion in 2016.15 Against a backdrop of increasing flows of knowledge on yoga practice, transnational yoga organisations have flourished across borders. Situated within the field, an ‘organisation’ may be defined as a formal or ‘ruleoriented’ functional structure aimed at fulfilling a particular purpose and achieving a set of defined goals – which in this case is disseminating and regulating yoga practice.16 Strategies of organising transnational posture practice are detailed here as having acted as a meaningful force in shaping the field of yoga practice during the 20th and 21st centuries by facilitating the transmission of knowledge on yoga to the global mass market. In doing so, this supports Parsons’ (1960:41) simple contention that organisations act as a means ‘to achieve goals beyond the reach of the individual’. The initial export, ongoing transmission and coordination of modern posture practice has required the development of new yoga organisations with appropriate organisational structures for different cultural contexts (e.g. designs and frameworks).17 For our purposes, examining the development of yoga organisations means looking at their structures, functions and processes across multiple locations and accounting for a range of centre-periphery interactions.18 It follows that these forms of organisation under analysis appear to function – albeit to varying degrees – similarly to modern bureaucratic organisations, as defined by Weber (1978[1922]:959), and may be viewed as distinct from other sorts of social groups, such as sampradayas (communities of ascetics), precisely in how they are articulated and formalised (­Shafritz, Ott and Jang 2015:ix).19 To examine histories of particular yoga styles, this study attempts to take into account processes of change that have the effect of structuring, modifying or

Introduction  7 dissolving existing organisational structures and functions.20 It encompasses looking at both formal and informal sources of organisation and analyse the extent to which each of the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools have systematised and institutionalised the dissemination of their respective forms of practice. Here, institutionalisation is principally employed to refer to how certain values, norms, rules and modes of behaviour are implemented and become embedded within a yoga organisation that enhance the perpetuation of its particular style of teachings. Alternatively put, these are the strategic processes by which an organisation takes on a ‘special character’ (Selznick 1996:271) that allows practices or forms to become legitimate and diffuse throughout a specific community (Strang and Soule 1998). Transnational yoga organisations can be viewed as a site for ‘strategic institutionalised social practice’ (Reed 2006:39), in that it limits the admission of outsiders through the imposition of criteria, such as membership, accreditation and initiation.21 The concepts of organisational insiders and outsiders take on importance in this study, as they allow us to investigate the contribution of those who are fully recognised by a yoga organisation and incorporated in its official hierarchy (e.g. titled, certified) versus those who operate outside of organisational boundaries (e.g. supporters lacking official titles or mode of association, unofficial networks of communication). Beyond internal metrics (e.g. management structures, recruitment, marketing, power-sharing, resource allocation), one must also take into account the effect of being situated in different environments. Factors external to the organisation matter in the sense that the context within which the yoga schools have operated is recognised as a source of influence on decision-making, as well as in shaping organisational culture and the type of organisations produced; these external influences have ranged from tax and legal structures specific to certain jurisdictions to a specific set of cultural barriers faced or to general societal trends such as increasing professionalisation and regulation or technical innovations. One should not mistake the organisation of yoga practice as being new within South Asia. Attempts to impose social structure on yoga practitioners date back a millennium, with earlier structures in pre-modern yoga in form of institutionalised orders of Shaivism and Vaishnavism (sampradayas or Hindu sects).22 Despite some level of de-emphasis of the term sampradaya, this study finds there is continuing relevance of the term in the context of modern yoga organisations disseminating posture practice. Notably, the Sivananda School claims links with the Dashanami Order of Sannyasa, which has its own intricate hierarchical structures, complete with bureaucratic offices and provides early evidence of formalised knowledge transmission of yoga practice. Yet, despite renunciation (sannyasa) being a noteworthy feature of the organisation of modern yoga, it is barely mentioned at all in most studies of transnational postural practice. Membership of the Dashanamis is accessed by the performance of certain initiation rites (diksha) with entry into the sect made by establishment of a ritualised relationship with a spiritual master (Clémentin-Ojha 2000:192), representing the ‘acquisition of a new religious identity bestowed by the initiating

8  Introduction guru’ (Clark 2006:23).23 The guru–shishya (teacher–student) relationship is one of the fundamental organisational principles of the sampradaya and operates either by an individual becoming a renunciate by leaving his family for the spiritual family of his guru, or an individual remaining a layman while asking a renunciate to become his guru (Van der Veer 1988:71).24 Traditionally, this forms the central structure of knowledge transmission within Hinduism (Varenne 1989[1976]) and, within the yoga styles under research, the term parampara (teaching lineage)25 has remained a significant mechanism for the transmission of teachings on yoga. It has also been a source of complaint for some leaders, such as Sharath Jois (2010:187) of Ashtanga Yoga, apparently clashing with the consumer preferences of transnational audiences: Nowadays people do not know about parampara, they do not know about lineage, they do not know about that relationship between guru and shishya [student]. Everyone wants to have instant things: in one month they should get a certificate, in one month they want to become yoga teachers…It is not possible! Whilst the social organisation of ascetics is heterogeneous, it is fair to say that the life of most ascetics (irrespective of their order) tends to be highly structured and disciplined, being shaped considerably by self-imposed and received restrictions and limitations (Lamb 2006:165–166). A feature of Vaishnava and Shaivite ascetic social organisation is the presence of some sort of monastic system, which is likewise observed in Sivananda’s Divine Life Society and Satyananda’s Bihar School of Yoga.26 The socio-religious organisation of sampradayas can be extremely complex and tends to consist structurally of two main segments; a nucleus of renunciant sannyasins,27 and a group of lay followers (Gross 2001[1992]:47). The prominence (or absence) of religious connections is a point of difference observed across the field, with yoga organisations in the Krishnamacharya School considering it unnecessary to become a sannyasin in order to experience true renunciation. Krishnamacharya, Pattabhi Jois and BKS Iyengar were all Brahmins but whilst they never took up vows of sannyasa, they were all (professional) life-long teachers of yoga practice. To put this in context, religious life in Brahmanical society is organised around two states of life: the householder and the ascetic (Clémentin-Ojha 2000:193). This is a function of the general process of a Brahmanical reconstruction of asceticism as an interpretive strategy that Olivelle (1995:12–26) has referred to as ‘domestication of asceticism’, where Brahmin householder life is rendered ‘just as good’ as that of the celibate ascetic. In this regard, a redefinition of renunciation in the Bhagavad Gita offered a new understanding in that true renunciation may be viewed as an internal attitude and habit, not an external institution with specific rules and emblems (Olivelle 2011:25).28 Additionally, at least in terms of traditional roles, Brahmanical authority prescribed a path for those in this highest caste, such as Krishnamacharya and his leading (Indian, Hindu) disciples, to devote themselves to teaching others and disseminating religious knowledge without becoming sannyasins.29

Introduction  9

Organising modern yoga As with all of these inherited structures, there has been some degree of reinterpretation that shall be discussed in the text. Of note, research here considers the role of religious approaches vis-à-vis the rise of teacher training methods in the process of transnational expansion of teachings; that is, by examining the selective retention and reinterpretation of inherited structures and processes – such as the abolition of old structures or addition of new practices – together with the introduction of many new initiatives and ways of doing things. The pattern of organisation emerging towards the end of the 20th century is one where gurus not only were operating their own, separate organisations to handle organisational detail but were increasingly protecting their teachings by creating trademarks, which, as Williamson (2013a:111) notes, had ‘no precedent in traditional Indian Hinduism’. This historical study is presented across six main chapters and is divided into two parts. The first half of the text (Chapters 2–4) focuses on styles of yoga practice in the Sivananda School; namely, The Divine Life Society, influential disciples of Sivananda and the Bihar School of Yoga. The second half is devoted to the Krishnamacharya School of yoga practice, with three chapters devoted to the organisation of yoga in the tradition of Krishnamacharya (Viniyoga), Iyengar Yoga and Ashtanga Yoga in Chapters 5–7, respectively. Each chapter analyses the history of a specific guru, their modern yoga organisation and the manner in which they disseminated their respective world-renowned style of postural yoga practice, paying attention to the role of their founders, participants and networks of relations. An exception is explored in Chapter 3, which focuses instead on a transformative period of expansion in the field of yoga practice from the late1950s to early-1970s and discusses the impact and histories of multiple gurus who were formerly Sivananda’s disciples in Rishikesh. All of the chapters highlight the unique features of historical development and transmission for each case. It is through the fleshing out of their similarities and differences that this study seeks to enhance scholarly understanding of the past events that shaped the field today and the driving forces behind its exportation from India to multiple continents and later importation back again in fashionable formats for predominantly affluent urban consumers.

Notes 1 Defining yoga practice is not a simple task. Rooted in South-Asian contexts, it is a soteriological method informed by Hindu philosophies, teachings and practices. The Sanskrit term ‘yoga’ is a multi-dimensional term that has been subject to numerous interpretations and translations. The word ‘yoga’ is derived from the root ‘yuj’ and means ‘to yoke’ or ‘to bind together’. Additionally, scholars have translated it as ‘union’ denoting the connection between an individual to their higher, transcendental self. In defining yoga, this thesis takes Eliade’s (1990[1954]:4) conceptualisation of yoga to ‘designate any ascetic technique’. ‘Yoga practice’ will be referred to here in an abstract sense; however, it should not be misunderstood that there is one universal form of yoga practice. Rather than a monolithic tradition, ‘modern yoga practice’ is heterogeneous and its diversity has been well-established by scholars.

10  Introduction 2 School is employed here to refer to all actors (e.g. yoga organisations, groups and teachers) whose yoga styles have common origins and whose teachings may be closely related or share similar characteristics; for example, the ‘Sivananda School’ refers to Sivananda and his most influential former disciples, including Vishnudevananda, Satchidananda, Satyananda, Sivananda-Radha, Jyotirmayananda, Shivapremananda and Omkarananda whereas the ‘Krishnamacharya School’ includes TKV Desikachar, BKS Iyengar, Pattabhi Jois, Indra Devi and so on. A school may therefore comprise of multiple yoga organisations run by different gurus or teachers. 3 The term ‘modern yoga’ is most closely associated with De Michelis (2004) who employs it to distinguish from the largely South-Asian confines of ‘pre-modern yoga’ (pre-1896). Most yoga practice presently taught in the West (and some contemporary Indian yoga) may be grouped under this category. The term ‘modern’ is somewhat problematic but it is not employed here to represent a ‘unified categorical body of discourses and practices’ (Singleton 2013:38). Rather, it is an analytical concept used to refer to a concrete historical process and not intended to imply that pre-modern forms of yoga ceased to exist after 1896. An ‘historical break’ (Baier 2011:7–8) is recognised in the presentation of posture practice although it is acknowledged that some pre-modern forms persist alongside modern forms of yoga (i.e. influenced by Western intellectual traditions and cultural forms). 4 My calculations. Data are drawn from worldwide sources where available and are from 2020 unless stated in brackets but they are not exhaustive and thereby provide a snapshot. It includes figures from leading styles and/or centres of yoga, including Iyengar Yoga (2016), Ashtanga Yoga (2016), yoga in the tradition of Krishnamacharya (2012), American Viniyoga Institute, Anusara Yoga, Jivamukti Yoga, Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres (2018), Yoga Vidya, Integral Yoga and Satyananda Yoga (2016). 5 Contributions in the literature on Krishnamacharya include T. Desikachar (1982), Maréchal (1989a, 1989b, 1989c), Mohan (1993, 2010), Srivatsan (1997); Sjoman (1999[1996]), Ramaswami (1980), Kraftsow (2002), Nevrin (2005), K. Desikachar (2005a) and Young (2006), Singleton (2010), Singleton, Narasimhan and Jayashree (2012), Singleton and Fraser (2014), White (2014). On Iyengar Yoga from: PerezChristiaens (2012[1976]); De Michelis (2004), Stephan (2004), Kadetsky (2004), Hasselle-Newcombe (2005), Busia (2007), Newcombe (2007, 2009, 2014, 2020). And, on Ashtanga; Swenson (1999); Scott (2003); Stern and Summerbell (2002); Stern (2006, 2010a, 2010b); Maehle (2007); Smith (2004, 2007, 2008), Donahaye (2010); Donahaye and Stern (2010), Nichter (2013). Byrne (2014) and Maddox (2014). Most contributions on Sivananda predate the field of modern yoga scholarship, including Eliade (1981, 1988[1934]), Sastri (1948), Fornaro (1969), Ananthanarayanan (1998), Vandana (1980[1978]), Gyan (1980), Miller (1980, 1981), Miller and Wertz (1976), McKean (1996) with more recent scholarship from Strauss (2000, 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2008) and Alter (2018). On Satyananda, one finds just Persson (2007, 2010) and Aveling’s (1994) study on Australian sannyasins, which surveys 42 disciples of Satyananda by questionnaire. 6 On cultural flows, see Fuchs (1990), Ceccomori (2001), De Michelis (2004), Hoyez (2007), Newcombe (2007), Brown and Leledaki (2010), Syman (2010), Williamson (2013b), Hauser (2018), amongst others. There is a very extensive literature on charisma in ‘modern guru organisations’ and ‘new religious movements’ as well as on the re-interpretation of Hindu teachings; see Bartos (2017:25–26) for a brief summary. 7 Similarly, Baier (2011:8) concludes that modern yoga cannot be viewed as the result of a one-sided reception of traditional India forms of yoga in the West. 8 See Strauss (2005), Warrier (2005), Brown and Leledaki (2010) and T. Srinivas (2010). 9 See Demerath et al. (1998). 10 The general appeal of yoga practice is partly conceived as an attraction of the ‘other’ as something new or different; seen also with traditionally Eastern forms of

Introduction  11

11

12

13 14 15

16 17

18 19 20 21 22

23

movement such as certain martial arts and dance originating in Asia (Brown and Leledaki 2010). Still, the issue of what is appealing is complex and differs according to particular contexts. For example, Strauss (2005:117) finds that globalised yoga ‘appeals to different national audiences for different reasons’, noting in her evaluation of Indian, German and American print materials that whilst all promoted yoga as an antidote to the stress of modern living, a wide range of other ‘selling points’ were offered for each audience. Despite the geographical bias towards English-speaking countries in this study, we are reluctant to employ the term ‘Anglophone Yoga’ (Singleton 2010, 2013:38) as it risks underemphasising the importance of non-Anglophone developments, by inferring English both as an exclusive medium of yoga teaching and as the determining factor in 20th century dissemination of yoga practice. Hauser (2018:16–17) also finds it ‘downplay[s] the extensive body of Indian language material’. The following studies may be viewed as excellent examples of, what Sarbacker (2007:279) identifies as, an emerging body of scholarship that is examining the relationships and lack thereof between modern constructions of yoga and their predecessors. Pioneering studies on modern postural yoga include those by Sjoman (1999[1996]), De Michelis (2004), Alter (2004) and Singleton (2010). Ramamani Iyengar Yoga Memorial Institute (1992:19), as cited by De Michelis (2004:222fn18). See Bartos (2017:467–512) for transcriptions of the main interviews. Delaney (2017). Industry size has grown considerable from $27bn in 2013 (Gregoire 2013). IBIS World has estimated the size of the US pilates and yoga studio industry to be $16bn, employing over 150,000 people and the UK industry to be £926m, employing 16,445 people; available at: www.ibisworld.com (accessed July 2020). ‘Organisation’ is a leading analytical category in this thesis, yet the complexity of the literature means that approaches to studying organisation are wide-ranging. See Scott (2003) and Reed (2006) for an overview. It is worth noting that the concept of ‘structure’ is limited by having certain static connotations and does not emphasise changes that occur in situated practice over time. ‘Structure’ is employed here in the sense of ‘structuration’, as employed by Giddens (1984), to incorporate the notion that organisational structures are produced and reproduced only as long as participants uphold the status quo. ‘Periphery’ or ‘local level’ perspectives refer to the region or nation where practice was exported to and where the guru is not permanently located. In the context of modern yoga, the term ‘organisation’ is therefore distinguished as a concrete category in its own right and may be seen to exhibit ‘higher levels of formalisation and goal specificity than other types of collectivities’ (Scott 2003:27). See Weick (1969:15). This follows Stinchcombe’s (1965:142) classic definition of an organisation as being ‘…deliberately [structured] with the explicit intention of continuously accomplishing some specific goal’. The renouncer tradition is acknowledged to be a very old cultural institution and the term sannyasa itself was coined sometime around the end of the 1st millennium BCE (Olivelle 2011:22). Malinar (2011:156) clarifies that sampradaya refers to ‘religious communities…traced back to a first teacher or founder’ and for Sinha and Saraswati (1978:35), the term denotes a ‘larger system of religious teachings which must have a broad base of the main religion and may or may not have further branches or subsects’. A shift in meaning of sampradaya is apparent whereby it previously tended to refer to formalised transmission of traditions of religious knowledge and has increasingly become the general, generic term for a distinct form of social organisation (Malinar 2011:157). Those initiated into a religious community of ascetics, such as the Dashanami sampradaya, experience a change of social identity, being brought into the lineage of the initiating guru (Hayes 2003:171). In practical terms, those newly initiated into

12  Introduction sannyasa are typically required to cut all social ties and renounce all familial and caste obligations, encompassing the ‘abandonment of daily, occasional and optional rites found in the Veda and in the texts of tradition, rites known through injunctions’ (Olivelle 2011:63–70). They enter into a wider community of renunciates that entails observance of rules and regulations prescribed by authorities within the order. In spite of the depth of scholarly understandings of the renouncer tradition, rarely does one come across a formal definition of renunciation (Clark 2006:63), arising in part from a difficulty encountered in that sannyasa relates to highly diversified social groups of religious seekers. See also Gross (2001[1992]:314, 324–326). 24 Renunciates are structurally and symbolically set apart from the Hindu laity (Gross 2001[1992]:112). Generally speaking, this represents the Brahmanical mainstream centred on the married householder versus highly diversified, celibate ascetic communities seeking personal salvation. As such, Burghart (1996:137), following Dumont (1980[1966]), agrees that the Brahmin householder and renouncer ‘situate themselves in different conceptual universes’. 25 The Indic concept of parampara is itself linked to the English term ‘lineage.’ Derived from old French as ‘lignage’ and from Latin as ‘linea’ or line, the word ‘lineage’ itself refers, for our purposes, to lineal descent from a particular teacher or guru. In many respects, I have found the two terms have been used almost interchangeably in the literature on yoga studies and both are employed emically in the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools and etically by scholars. 26 Matha is a term typically used to describe an ascetic monastic institution, which is a place where ascetics reside ostensibly to receive initiation and religious instruction given. 27 In addition to sannyasin, many other terms are used to describe ascetics; both in Sanskrit texts and in common usage in Hindu: sadhu, muni, yati, vairagi, tapasi, mahatma, santa (Sinha and Saraswati 1978:37–38). 28 Another major example of redefinition is the Brahmanical reinterpretation of the asrama system as a series of ordered life stages (c.4th century CE), which sought to absorb the ascetics’ spiritual superiority into the brahman varna (see Manu 6.33–85) (Burghart 1978:525–526; Olivelle 2011:17–19). 29 The fact that the leading teachers in the Krishnamacharya School are all Brahmins and were considered part of a ‘privileged community’ whose power and prestige is predicated upon, what Olivelle (2008:215) refers to as, ‘exclusive possession’ of ‘sacred and secret knowledge’ of scripture. For the brahman varna, an ascribed function is to study and teach the Veda after having sprung from the mouth of Brahma (Burghart 1978:521).

2 Sivananda and The Divine Life Society

Sivananda Saraswati (1887–1963) was a pioneering figure in 20th-century yoga practice, whose momentous influence is still felt around the world. A ‘giant of a man’ at over six-foot tall,1 he lived most of his life in Rishikesh, where he founded ‘The Divine Life Society’ in 1936 and taught yoga and Vedanta, including yoga postures (asanas). An initiated sannyasin (renunciate) in the Dashanami Order, he was a deeply charismatic figure2 and fervent publisher who proved adept in stimulating curiosity and sustaining the interest of those who came into his personal (face-to-face) orbit. It was really during the early-1930s that his teachings on yoga started to reach an international audience and, by 1939, Sivananda’s supporters were hosting meetings for local practitioners in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. After the Second World War, interest had spread further to North America, South America and Australasia. Sivananda’s growing reputation prompted travelling French doctor, Vijayananda (1978:244), to remark after his meeting in 1952 that ‘of all the Indian sages today Shivananda is probably the most widely known in Europe and America’.3 Despite these impressive early inroads, Sivananda came to be eclipsed by the higher profiles of BKS Iyengar and Pattabhi Jois, amongst others, whose contributions to shaping the field of posture practice have received far greater attention. The precise nature of Sivananda’s influence has been partially overlooked in the historical development of a globalised yoga practice and whilst his yoga organisation, The Divine Life Society, became famous throughout India as a stalwart of ancient religious wisdom, it is virtually unknown outside of Asia even amongst ardent yoga practitioners. In this chapter, we take a closer look at why the fortunes of Sivananda’s Divine Life Society dwindled transnationally, just as other Indian yogis were becoming global superstars.4

A brief history of Sivananda Born in Southern India (Pattamadai, Tamil Nadu) as Kuppuswarmy Iyer in 1887, Sivananda was a Brahmin with an Advaita family background.5 Contrary to most – mainly hagiographical – accounts of his life and claims of his yoga organisation (Sastri 1948, Chidananda 1996), Sivananda failed to qualify as a doctor as he was forced to leave mid-way through his medical studies at the Tanjore Institute due to the death of his father and ill-health of his mother.6 Not

14  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society discouraged, Sivananda was determined to work in the medical field. Serving initially in Madras as a pharmacy’s assistant (1907–1913), he travelled to British Malaya (now Malaysia) to work as a medical practitioner on a rubber plantation (1913–1920) and, subsequently, took a post at the Jahore Medical Office (1920– 1923). This period overseas was pivotal in shifting his focus towards the study of religion, being inspired by the spiritual revolution of Neo-Vedantic teachings espoused by Vivekananda (Sivananda 2011[1958]:11). Alongside avidly reading religious books on yoga, Vedanta and Theosophical literature, Sivananda practised headstands and other postures on a daily basis with his cook, Narasimha Iyer (Venkatesananda 1956:9–10). In his mid-thirties, Sivananda returned to India and pursued, what he refers to as, a ‘higher mission’ (Sivananda 2011[1958]:68). Some accounts of his life make reference to Sivananda leaving Malaya after the death of his wife and children (Eliade 1988[1934]:165–167; Strauss 2005:36–37), although I have found no evidence of their existence. Eventually, he made his way to Rishikesh, via Singapore, Benares and Pune, and, on 1 June 1924, received initiation into the Shaivite Dashanami Order (‘Saraswati’ branch) from Vishwananda Saraswati of the Shringeri Math.7 A second ceremony (Viraja Homa) was performed by Vishnudevananda Giri of the Kailash Ashram at some later, unknown date, completing a mandatory stage to achieve recognition as a Dashanami sannyasin.8 Sivananda was always enterprising and, in the decade prior to striking out on his own, he worked on a few initiatives whilst at the Swarg Ashram, including running a small dispensary (Satya Sevashram Dispensary) from 1927.9 Most notable was his creation of the short-lived ‘Swarg Ashram Sadhu Sangha’ in October 1933, as it was essentially a forerunner of Sivananda’s eventual vision, sharing remarkably similar aims and objectives with The Divine Life Society.10 Around this time, Romanian doctoral student Mircea Eliade (1981:188–191) partook in daily ‘meditation and yogic exercises’ during his 6-month stay with Sivananda in 1930. By March 1934, Sivananda had moved across the Ganges to the site of the Ananda Kutir and established his own modest ashram.11 From an early stage, classes of postural yoga exercises were conducted in Sivananda’s ashram with the intention to help train students ‘in all directions to become useful to the world at large’ (Divine Life Magazine 1938:52)12; Figure 2.1 shows Sivananda watching over Vishnudevananda in the 1940s: Unfettered by Swarg Ashram authorities, Sivananda was able to freely cultivate his own cohort of disciples, paving the way for a 20-year ‘golden period’ of growing his personal profile and influence in India and abroad.

Building a divine enterprise Sivananda is best known within India for founding The Divine Life Society (henceforth DLS), a Hindu-revitalist-reform style movement. His organisation was referred to as the ‘Divine Life Mission’ and initially registered with authorities as ‘The Divine Life Trust Society’ in January 1936. Sivananda realised his misstep a few years later, as the legal structure of a ‘Trust’ prevented him from offering a form of membership to the public.13 Given his ambitions of a mass membership organisation and raising funds through paid dues, he registered ‘The

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  15

Figure 2.1  Sivananda watching Vishnudevananda by the Ganges. (Unknown photographer)

Divine Life Society’ in April 1939 in Lahore.14 His intention for both (parallel) entities was the rather grandiose aim of achieving a ‘world-wide revival of spirituality’ in order to ‘awaken all men to the fine and lofty purpose of human life’.15 Foundation thus followed in the wake of several 19th-century reform movements in India and it is possible to trace their influence. Certainly, Sivananda originally drew some inspiration from the grand aspirations of Vivekananda’s ‘Ramakrishna Mission’ (est. 1897) and Yogananda’s ‘Self Realization Fellowship’ (est. 1920), who were preceding architects of similar types of organisation. Indeed, though undocumented, it is likely that Sivananda encountered the efforts of Ramakrishna Mission whilst working in British Malaya given that it gained a firm foothold in the country as far back as 1905.16 The structure of the DLS is comparable as a monastic institution with lay support, a mission to disseminate teachings on yoga and activities of religious teaching alongside charitable work. What further unites these organisations, amongst many others, is that they advocated a similar message based upon a revival of spirituality attendant with a Hindu Renaissance that, following Bharati (1970), was inextricably linked with Indian nationalism. Much of Sivananda’s early rhetoric and activity was geared towards Indian audiences and followed the nationalist message of Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948). Here, Alter (2018:455) notes that whilst Gandhi and Sivananda differ in respect of certain beliefs and practices, they share a structural position within the ‘cultural history of nation building’ that he finds comparable to the Sabarmati Ashram and Sevagram; namely, a focus on self-purification over politics. Sivananda’s discourse on 2 March 1948 is typical, where he lectured that ‘patriotism is the

16  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society first step to universalism…love of one’s own nation in time leads to cosmic love or the love of God’ (Venkatesananda 2005[1961]:n.p.). Another example was the tenor of the rules introduced in 1939 by Sivananda that captured the spirit of the day in being quite patriotic in tone and instructing followers to, ‘serve the country and use as far as practicable country-made cloth and country-made goods only’ (rule 7) as well as ‘to use Hindi only, as far as nationality is concerned’ (rules 8).17 A growing wave of nationalist sentiments was linked to the presentation of a more physical yoga practice aimed not just at cultivating the minds and bodies of Indians but also a pole of unity and ultimately a rallying call for Independence from British Colonial rule.18 Crucial to his successes in India, Sivananda was an institutionaliser par excellence. Over the course of almost three decades, he would go on to build a large, complex organisation to disseminate his teachings. To be able to complete these ambitious steps, Sivananda needed to create a financially robust institution and founding a formal organisation provided him with a platform from which to recruit patrons and to institutionalise support and financial giving. For Sivananda, the calendar was punctuated with endless opportunities for raising funds to build the ashram, epitomised by his successful drive in 1938 for ‘Birthday Donations’ and his many ‘propaganda tours’ from 1925 onwards.19 Another tactic was to target the public by imploring that ‘funds are urgently required’ (Divine Life Magazine 1949:13), which became a ubiquitous message spanning nearly all his periodicals, magazines and letters. To more efficiently target his audience, Sivananda personally kept meticulous records of potential donors, listed by category: Ashrams, Associations, Advocates, Judges, Graduates, Book-sellers, Publishers, Firms, Doctors, Correspondence students, DLS Branches, Libraries, Ladies Section, Magazines and Periodicals, Maharajas and Zamindars, Students who have received initiation, Monthly Donors, household Disciples, Officers, Patrons, Professors, Wonderful Misers (also written as ‘first-class misers’).20 To give a boost to the cause, he transferred his nest egg to India in 1938 that he had saved whilst working in British Malaya.21 A sizeable sum, it was worth USD $1,700 at the time, and Sivananda was careful to put ashram assets into the trust structure thereby legally separating the assets of the ashram from the general accounts which resided in the Society (i.e. receiving income and general cash expenditure).22 The strategy was aimed at retaining greater control over the management (and most importantly, disposal) of these valuable assets; worth USD $5.9m as of 2010.23 A fairly savvy investor, Sivananda purchased Indian government postal certificates and encouraged his supporters to do the same, laying the groundwork for decades of low risk investment for the yoga organisation. In the very early days, Sivananda prioritised using funds for building or publications and would send his disciples to the alms-house for free food.24 This appeared to be a strategic choice and whilst a common refrain is of frequent indebtedness of the ashram (Satchidananda 1976, Venkatesananda 2006[1985]:98), the financial accounts (1938–2011) did not evidence a precarious situation. Money was raised from external sources in a variety of ways, such as membership fees, journal subscriptions, sales of books (later CDs and DVDs), cash donations, gifts-inkind (non-cash donations), entrance fees and fees for special services or rituals. As funds grew, the ashram plot expanded across the hillside25 and new buildings

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  17 were constructed to house a hospital, dispensaries, offices, a post office, further accommodation and a library. The late-1940s saw a marked rise in general visitors to the ashram, with individuals heralding from as far as France, Germany, England, Switzerland, Uruguay and the USA, including academics and nobility; e.g. Dr. Frederick Spiegelberg and Dr. Julia Tyberg26 in 1949 (Venkatesananda 2005[1961]) and the Countess of Mayo in 1955 (Ananthanarayanan 1998[1970]:119). Visiting Sivananda in person from overseas was very much the preserve of the wealthy and determined few in the 1930s–1950s and remains largely a middle-class pursuit today for both Indians and non-Indians. In line with Sivananda’s proclivity to raise funds at every opportunity, in recent years day visitors were charged INR 300 (2011) for access to services and to visit temples in the Sivananda Ashram, along with a veritable menu of other provisions; e.g. puja (worship) could be requested in the name of a specific person for INR 3,000 (2011) and japa (recitation) could cost up to INR 10,000 – equivalent to a costly US $224 at the time. Essentially, these fees were a charge levied at wealthy Hindu patrons of the DLS as well as Indian middle-class spiritual tourists who came for whistle-stop tours of the ashram. Fees did not deter visitors to the main ashram in Rishikesh, which remained an important focal point and saw a steady stream of visitors; 12,114 visitors in 2011, including 854 ‘foreigners’ (DLS Annual Report 2011), up from 10,987 visitors in 1986 (McKean 1996:189). ‘Lay disciples’ could also be temporary residents when in receipt of the requisite permission from the General Secretary of the DLS. By 1944, over 200 rooms had been built for this purpose (Venkatesananda 2006[1985]:111). In adding the extra hurdle of requiring a formal application in advance, staying at the ashram was imbued with more of an air of exclusivity and extra specialness. Ashram activities were strictly regulated with a daily regime including chanting, readings, silent meditation, pranayama and short talks.27 Formal training was part of the experience and, in 1959, the published financial report records that 529 students received training in ‘yogic exercises’ including 56 foreigners during the year (p.8).28 In the 21st century, asana remained a key part of the daily routine for ashram residents running from 5 am to 9.30 pm, with a 1-hour morning class for males (6–7 am) and a 2-hour class prescribed for females (4.30–6.30 pm) that I found well-attended by non-Indians during my fieldwork. In recent years, the extensive, built-up and sporadically bustling Sivananda Ashram appeared far from its rudimentary beginnings of an underpopulated, jungle-like hillside sloping down to the Ganges with a few dilapidated buildings. It was no longer the ‘spacious and quiet’ ashram recollected by Indian Christian nuns visiting in 1973.29 Personally, I found the ashram atmosphere to be charged with spiritual overtones yet was not an especially cordial, celebratory ambience but rather provided a solemn, austere and heavily institutionalised (rule-based) experience.30 Despite the increased crowds and noise of modern Rishikesh, the ashram itself retained a certain serenity afforded by its location beside the revered Ganges and retained a few quiet corners within the ashram plot. Part of the appeal was the open access for all to the Sivananda Ashram, with no discrimination across caste, religion, gender or nationality, that succeeded in maximising the reach of Sivananda’s message to a wide range of groups.

18  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society

The systematisation of posture practice A frequently overlooked contribution of Sivananda is his early systematisation of posture practice where, unlike Krishnamacharya’s (2011[1934]) Yoga Makaranda, Sivananda made concerted efforts to publicise his teachings on asana to English-speaking audiences throughout the world. Contrary to by claims by Kausthub Desikachar (2011:22), Sivananda did not advance a ‘… completely different approach to the practice of asanas’ but rather their presentations appear overlapping, with both prescribing seated, standing, forward folding postures alongside balances and backbends. From an early stage, the supporting role of asanas in achieving a divine life was presented as necessary ‘to keep up good health and strength and purify the prana and steady the mind’ (Sivananda 2011[1958]:50). However, unlike many proponents of posture practice (e.g. Krishnamacharya School), the teaching of asana was not the sole focus and Sivananda’s leading motivation being for more individuals to realise God (i.e. any God) through a number of paths of yoga.31 Taking his cue from Vivekananda’s writings three decades earlier,32 Sivananda advocated a four-fold directive combining Raja, Bhakti, Jnana and Karma yogas (Sivananda 1929) and incorporated them into the (now ubiquitous) organisational slogan ‘Meditate, Serve, Love, Realise’, which formed part of the DLS logo from the late-1930s. With global ambitions, disseminating this message was Sivananda’s greatest objective. To do so, he prioritised the publication of books, pamphlets and magazines on topics of religion, philosophy and medicine. Sivananda’s first text prescribing the regular practice of yoga postures was Practice of Yoga (1929). Affording a greater weighting to pranayama and meditation techniques, asana was confined to eleven postures that Sivananda described how to attain in reasonable detail and outlined anatomical and health benefits achieved in each case, accompanied by illustrations (Figure 2.2).33 The text came 7 years in advance of the actual foundation of the DLS and was realised due to the patronage of ‘Sree Jaspat Rai Hsaib’ (Sivananda 1929:xi). By this time, yoga practice as propagated by Indian teachers was increasingly identified with the performance of postures (Singleton, Narasimhan and Jayashree 2012:341) but remained relatively unfashionable in India and considered a deeply esoteric practice outside of South Asia. As a nod to his previous medical training, this early text also contained guidance for ‘elderly persons after 40’(!) (Sivananda 1929:76); such advice was not altogether unsurprising in view of the average mortality age in 1930s India being just 26.9 years (Aghion and Durlauf 2014:633). A more user-friendly guide was produced in 1933 when diagrams where introduced into a second edition of Practice of Yoga. Nonetheless, it was Sivananda’s 1935 text, Yoga Asanas (Sivananda 1935), that represented a major leap forward with a 216-page text devoted entirely to posture practice. Increasing the number of postures taught from 11 to 85, Sivananda included twisting postures and standing postures for the first time. Shortly thereafter, photographs of poses took the place of drawn diagrams with the publication of Practical Lessons in Yoga (Sivananda 1938:120–139) and

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  19

Figure 2.2  Illustration of shoulder-stand in Sivananda’s Practice of Yoga (1929)

later editions of Yoga Asanas (Sivananda 1962) containing 27 pages of photos of future DLS General Secretary, Krishnananda (1922–2001). Partial inspiration for Sivananda’s teachings on asanas can be traced back to Shripad Damodar Satwalekar (1867–1968). An intriguing figure – both portrait painter of the aristocracy and freedom fighter – he wrote several books in Hindi and was awarded India’s third highest honour in 1968, the Padma Bhushan. Sivananda (1929:232) refers to having read his work and lauds his ‘beautiful book with 50 pictures on asanas’ and Damodar’s clear diagrams (Satwalekar n.d.:111– 112, 121) bear a striking resemblance to those used a few years later by Sivananda

20  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society to describe his initial 11 postures.34 Other documented sources of inspiration include the H.H. Rajah of Aundh (Sivananda 1934) and famous bodybuilders (e.g. Eugene Sandow), yet all of these names are edited out of later editions of Sivananda’s work (e.g. Sivananda 1962). On balance, as first identified by Bartos (2017:89–90), most influential on Sivananda’s formulation and presentation of asanas was Kuvalayananda (1883–1966), whose scientific approach is partly attributed by Alter (2000:68) as transforming yoga into a ‘physiologically based form of physical education’ and ‘reinvention of yoga as therapy’.35 Sivananda (1929:230) makes direct reference to Kuvalayananda’s teachings on hatha yoga, admires his style that is along ‘scientific, modern lines’ and even recommends his readers to purchase his ‘very useful’ quarterly publication, Yoga Mimamsa. A degree of reproduction is evident with all 11 postures from Sivananda’s (1929) initial guides being presented in diagrammatical and descriptive form by Kuvalayananda from as early as 1921.36 Both used identical English and Sanskrit names for individual poses, such as ‘Topsyturvy Pose’ for Sirshasana37 and ‘PanPhysical Pose’ for Sarvangasana.38 Alter (2018) rightly recognises a further parallel between them in that both Kuvalayananda and Sivananda – alongside Yogendra – were India’s leading protagonists of a medicalised yoga practice (i.e. Nature Cure). Intriguingly, Practice of Yoga and Yoga Asanas remained the core teaching texts for the DLS over the 20th century in spite of a materially superior text being produced in the 1950s by one of Sivananda’s direct disciples. Practical Guide for Students of Yoga was published by the DLS in 1957 under Sivananda’s name but it appears to have been entirely written by his then DLS Professor of Hatha Yoga, Vishnudevananda; who later used it as a proto-type for his own publication, The Complete Illustrated Guide to Yoga (1959). Largely forgotten by The Divine Life Society since the 1960s,39 this re-edited version became the primary teaching text within the independent organisation Vishnudevananda founded in 1963, known as ‘Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres’.

Dissemination of teachings Keeping up an incessant publication schedule, Sivananda was a prolific author and wrote almost exclusively in English as he lacked proficiency in Hindi.40 He authored over 300 books during his lifetime (1925–1963), creating an important income stream.41 Not one for hiding his light under a bushel, Sivananda sent many of his first editions to the British Museum.42 Reception for his works has, at times, been rather mixed. Complaints of repetition were voiced early on by his Indian publishers who urged him to make corrections in 1935 (Sivananda 2011[1958]:155–156). Stubbornly, Sivananda refused to omit a single word arguing this was a deliberate strategy he employed and ‘repetitions are necessary…[for] hammering the worldly mind’ (ibid). A further criticism of Sivananda’s books has been that they tend to be poorly proof-read (Gyan 1980:13), if checked at all. This sits in contrast to BKS Iyengar’s approach where proof-reading was taken seriously and, for which Geeta Iyengar tells

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  21 me, was very much a family affair that she participated in.43 Sivananda’s refusal to adapt his approach has arguably repelled many potential readers and it was particularly alienating for UK-based editor Gerald Yorke – who was pivotal in publishing Iyengar’s (1965) Light on Yoga – who concluded that ‘none of [Sivananda’s books] will sell much here’ and refused to publish his works.44 The role of Yorke in holding back his popularity in the UK should not be overstated, however, as Sivananda really only gained traction with those he met face-to-face and generated only limited sustained support amongst those he never met. Additionally, Sivananda had already died by the time Yorke made this damning assessment and the best representation of his teachings were already being widely disseminated by the international publisher of his disciple, Vishnudevananda (1959), in The Complete Illustrated Guide to Yoga. Due to his self-promotion in the 1930s–1950s, Sivananda’s books did find their way into the hands of many outside of India who made productive use of the texts; most of whom never met him in person and relied on books alone. For instance, Dr. Karel Werner (1925–2019) – author of the first Czech guide to yoga practice in 1969 – told me that he was in receipt of Sivananda’s books and that they greatly influenced his teaching of secret yoga classes in Communist Czechoslovakia.45 Held under the guise of a ‘social club’, Werner ultimately served 1 year of hard labour in the mines for promoting what authorities considered a ‘hostile ideology’. Sivananda was also influential on Andre van Lysebeth (1919–2004), a key player in posture practice in Europe, who like many studied Sivananda’s teachings from freely distributed texts, founding his ‘Integral Yoga Institute’ in 1960. Unlike most, he went on to meet Sivananda in person in April 1963 before co-creating the ‘Belgian Federation of Yoga’ (1964)46 and, subsequently, the ‘European Union of Yoga’ (1971) alongside Gérard Blitz (founder of Club Méditerranée) who was later taught by Krishnamacharya (Desikachar 2010[1995]:xvi).47 Attempting to capture further interest abroad, additional forms of media were employed and The Divine Life Society produced a few Technicolor™ films in the fifties (Times of India 1953:10). One film demonstrated 80 exercises of asana and pranayama, with postures performed by Indians and Europeans (Venkatesananda 1998a[1957]). In an effort to popularise yogic exercises to a wider audience, the film was first shown in Mumbai, then in London (by Edward Hein) and subsequently in Vancouver (by Sivananda-Radha).48 This proved a popular medium, with Vishnudevananda recalling during a speech in 1986 that movie cameras were used in the ashram as far back as 1946 ‘since it was helpful for devotees, [so] Sivananda never objected…’ (McKean 1996:237). Interest was further buoyed by over 3 million French viewers seeing Sivananda interviewed on Television Française in 1959 (Ananthanarayanan 1998[1970]:171). Unfortunately, in the absence of any commentary from viewers of films and interviews, we have scant information on how this was all received by local audiences. One may assert with greater confidence that there was a positive reception of US audiences in the 1970s for Sivananda’s asana teachings with the advent of Lilias Folan’s US television series (Leviton 1990:54).49

22  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society Tours and promotion in India One of the most vaulted achievements amongst Sivananda’s activities was conceivably his tours around India. Here, he worked ardently to disseminate his teachings in person, initially in 1925 at Dampur and then through several ‘Spiritual-Awakening Tours’ mainly in North and East India from 1930–1932.50 Public demonstrations of asanas and pranayama formed part of the offering alongside Sivananda’s lectures. His first major tour took place in 1932 around Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. However, most impactful was Sivananda’s celebrated ‘All-India Tour’ of 1950. A popular tactic amongst guru-led organisations, touring was particularly fruitful for Sivananda in recruiting thousands of Indian-based aspirants. The positive reception was achieved in spite of the linguistic stumbling block that he did not speak fluent Hindi and often had to arrange for one of followers to provide translation for his English discourses to audiences (Ananthanarayanan 1998[1970]:44). Addressing 144 public meetings, visiting 30 temples and holding 5 press conferences, Sivananda’s 60-day tour was recorded not only a as a major success in the national press (The Times of India 1950:3) but also ushered in a purple patch for the finances. A surge in annual donations is recorded rising a massive +811% from 1947 to the mid-1960s.51 Success was partly due to concerted efforts by Sivananda – shortly before the 1950 tour – to cater for a greater section of the Indian public by introducing a Hindi-version of the core periodical, Divine Life Magazine (later The Divine Life), renamed as Divya Jeevam Sandesh.52 Post the tour, Sivananda seized upon an opportunity to put his organisation on a firmer footing by leveraging his newly-found contacts and hiked up the fees for receiving literature by almost double from 2 to 3½ rupees in 1953. Whilst this represented an unequivocal triumph, giving impetus for lay members across India (and Sri Lanka) to start their own local initiatives to teach (Miller 1981:103), little was progress was made to transnationally disseminate the practice. Letter writing and supporters abroad A far greater impact in reaching and persuading supporters abroad was through Sivananda’s letter writing. His preference for English, together with a willingness to teach non-Hindus and foreigners, meant that he was well positioned to attract interest overseas. In seeking contact with ‘many learned and pious souls from far off lands’ (Sivananda 2011[1958]:100), Sivananda was a fairly pushy spiritual marketeer. A characteristic of his recruitment technique was to send people abroad unsolicited packages of his English-language publications to read and distribute.53 This was decidedly risky as it caused postage and printing costs to soar precipitously, accounting for a combined 53% of all expenditure in 1938. Yet, this strategy did bear fruit. During archival research in Rishikesh, I came across a vast number of correspondents from around the world, too numerous for a complete list here, many engaged in a regular exchange of letters with Sivananda. Dissemination of the ‘divine message’ often took precedence over the supply of basic necessities, which explains the costly purchase of a large printing press in 1951 at a time when the ashram had fairly constrained financial resources.54

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  23 The drive and commitment of his early efforts resulted in Sivananda making a number of useful contacts in Europe to disseminate his yoga teachings.55 One of Sivananda’s most prominent supporters was Harry Dikman (1895–1979), leader of the ‘Latvian Yoga Society’ in Riga, who in June 1939 promised to, ‘introduce your books to the English reading public here’ (Sivananda 1962).56 That same year, a second outpost opened as the ‘Rangoon Branch’ (Sivananda 1997[1938]:32), followed by representation in Estonia and Denmark in the 1940s (Ananthanarayanan 1998[1970]:62, 167) and lectures on Sivananda’s yoga in Norway and Sweden by Louis Brinkfort (Venkatesananda 2006[1985]:307). Particularly influential on shaping the field of yoga practice were correspondents Boris Sakharov (1899–1959), Elisabeth Haich (1897–1994) and Selvarajan Yesudian (1916–1998). Russian-born Sakharov founded Germany’s first school of posture practice in Berlin in 1939.57 Haich and Yesudian were considered to be a major force in the development of professional yoga instruction in Europe and opened a Budapest yoga centre in the late-1930s as well as Switzerland’s first yoga school in Zurich in 1947. A drawback of Sivananda’s enthusiastic letter writing was that it was timeconsuming and, by its very nature, not conducive to mass dissemination. It did allow his initial correspondent to distribute his pamphlets to their social circles and organise local events for discussions or lectures. This process was aided by an army of bilingual supporters who translated his works into several European languages, including Danish (Edith Enna, Viswakalayanananda),58 Bulgarian (unnamed clergyman, possibly V.M. Sepleneko)59 and German (Jean Herbert; Heinrich Schwab, aka Swarupananda).60 Linkages with Germany proved particularly productive, with Schwab and Eric Pierschel both opening yoga centres there (Venkatesananda 1998a[1957]). Not only did Sivananda’s teachings inspire the foundation of what is today one of the largest teaching institutions in Europe, Yoga Vidya,61 but two of the most influential of Sivananda’s female sannyasins were German; Marianne ‘Sita’ Frankel (Gurudevananda) and Sylvia Hellmann (Sivananda-Radha). In an attempt to solidify these linkages, a favoured technique of Sivananda was offering initiation by post. The rather unorthodox practice of initiating disciples from afar sought to guarantee their support indefinitely by cementing his position as their guru. By 1955, Sivananda was personally writing an average of 40 letters per day to students – many of whom he had initiated in this way by sending ‘… sacred cloth and instructions’ (Sivananda 2011[1958]:138). Yet, whilst this early initiative garnered some level of success, these linkages were not necessarily long-lasting and, thus, did not ultimately prove a panacea to achieving on-going representation abroad for his teachings.

Initiation and recruiting labour Sivananda appeared keenly aware that realisation of his initiatives would require more people on the ground. Aided by his skills of persuasion and drawing upon traditional religious models of association, he proved highly successful in attracting talented individuals to stay permanently in the ashram to do the work.

24  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society Compared with the unconventional method of ‘initiation-by-correspondence’, a far less tenuous bond was created through face-to-face initiation ceremonies performed in the Rishikesh ashram.62 At the heart of these recruitment efforts was Sivananda’s status as an initiated member of the Dashanami Order, not only a religious tradition but a fully-fledged Indian institution in its own right.63 The Shaivite Dashanamis are an orthodox Hindu order of Sannyasins, purportedly organised by Adi Shankara into ten sub-groups or ‘names’ (e.g. Saraswati), that are structured around four monasteries or mathas (e.g. Shringeri). Entry into the sect is made via the establishment of a ritualised relationship with a spiritual master (Clémentin-Ojha 2000:192) who is suitably qualified and the performance of a series of orthodox procedures. Within the context of The Divine Life Society, the only person permitted to carry out these procedures was Sivananda and, subsequently, his heirs, Chidananda (1916–2008) and Vimalananda (1932–2019).64 Such ceremonies were performed for a group of candidates (up to 15–20) with most candidates being permanent residents of the ashram alongside a handful of non-residents. All sadhaks were required to make some pre-ceremony observances, just as Chinmayananda and Vishnudevananda observed a fast and ‘keep vigil during the night’ ahead of their initiation in 1949.65 To be eligible for full sannyasa, individuals were usually first initiated as a lower level initiate (brahmacharin) in an abridged ceremony (mantra diksha), where the guru imparts a mantra by whispering in their ear (Sivananda 1963[1947]:157– 159).66 Entry into fully-fledged sannyasa required performance of a number of formal rites and signalled a higher form of religious commitment.67 This sits in line with the Dashanami tradition, where there are usually two stages to the initiation process, with the first stage called the panc-guru-samskar (five-guru ceremony) or a brahmacharin ceremony, known as mantra diksha or initiation (Clark 2006:23) and the second stage referred to either as vidya-samskara, virajahavan or viraja-homa (ibid:89).68 The DLS initiation process was notably shorter than the traditional Dashanami ceremony outlined by Clark (2006:81–103) yet retained its core elements. It was largely orientated around performing a religious ritual of worship (puja) by the Ganges and a series of rituals carried out in waist-deep water, as shown in Figure 2.3.69 At this point, Sivananda (1963[1947]:157– 159) would instruct: Sannyasa candidates please come here one by one. Here I cut the tufts of your hairs; throw them in the Ganges; throw also your sacred threads. Stand in the river-water, hip-deep. Face the sun and raise your hands. Initiates were then asked to recite with Sivananda the Praisha Mantras (lit. ‘call’), which completes a central act in the ritual.70 After immersion in the Ganges (Figure 2.4), the group would repeat the Hamsa Gayatri together. An hours-long meditation ceremony would subsequently take place in the Sivananda Ashram, where initiates clothed in ochre-coloured robes participated in tracing a Sanskrit mantra in the sand (Krishna 1995:24). Each individual was given a personal mantra and new spiritual name,71 before the Paramahamsa

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  25

Figure 2.3  Immersion in the Ganges of sannyasin candidates overseen by Chidananda. (Credit: The Divine Life Society, Rishikesh, India)

Figure 2.4  A DLS sannyasin initiation ceremony in 1999. (Credit: The Divine Life Society, Rishikesh, India)

Mantra would be repeated and the ‘Four Mahavakayas’ chanted. They were also handed several items, including a water pot, stick and large bead mala (rudraksha seed necklace).72 The final step in the process was the fire ceremony that acted as a symbolic funeral rite and represented the ritual death of the candidate’s societal and familial life. The abandonment of this former life is interpreted within the sannyasa tradition as an ‘internalisation’ of the fire

26  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society that henceforth would be carried by the initiate in their breaths (Olivelle 2011:22). To evidence their changed status, newly-initiated sannyasi were awarded certificates and, at least since the 1970s, presented with a 10-page pamphlet providing rules and information on mantras; A Message to New Initiates (Chidananda 2001[1977]). Their new role entailed the requirement for individuals to renounce their family life and social obligations, wear ochre robes, observe naming conventions and respect rules and observances traditionally associated with asceticism, such as a vegetarian diet, celibacy and refraining from alcohol (Sivananda 1963[1947]).73 Enticing individuals to take the momentous step of embracing sannyasa was a definite achievement of Sivananda. Retaining their services in the ashram also evidences an impressive degree of organisational ‘vitality’ (Finke 2004:20).74 However, their numbers did not rise upward in a linear fashion. From initial claims of 100 followers in the early-1930s (Venkatesananda 2006[1985]:98), Sivananda was left with just a handful of disciples after leaving Swarg Ashram. He proved adept at growing this core group of seven sannyasins to 200 renunciate recruits within the space of 6 years. A second dip caused by World War II left him with 100 ‘selfless workers’75 before bouncing back considerably by 1953 to having initiated ‘over five hundred monk disciples’ and ‘thousands’ of brahmacharins (DLS 1954:xix). Following McKean (1996:175–176), many of these initiates were wealthy and university-educated, with older renunciates having retired from successful careers in law, medicine, education, business and government administration.76 From the outset, Sivananda espoused inclusivity and initiated both men and women in sannyasa, which was not historically unusual in the tradition, according to Clark (2006:28), who finds a significant number of female renunciates amongst the Dashanami Order and within some other ascetic communities. This is in spite of certain traditional, Brahmanical restrictions that deny women the opportunity to take vows of sannyasa (Olivelle 1984:114–115; Khandelwal (2004:36–37). In practice, Sivananda gave sannyasa to ‘hardly a sprinkling of ladies’ in the words of Vasantananda; who was initiated by him in 1957 after she had graduated from medical college (McKean 1996:260). Though many Indian supporters opted to become full-time ascetics upon retirement, Sivananda exhibited a clear preference for recruiting young (male) sannyasins as he deemed them of more practical use than retirees, questioning, ‘what can an old man do?’ (Venkatesananda 2006[1985]:160) and noted that youth is ‘the foremost qualification for the path of renunciation’ as the young can be ‘moulded nicely’ (Sivananda 2011[1958]:137). The supportive role of seva Sivananda was proficient at recruiting sannyasins from the mid-1930s who were prepared to work as unpaid staff in the DLS and help realise his initiatives. To organise his followers, he implemented an orderly hierarchy of stratified roles to deal with the ever-rising workload.77 The lion’s share of the work was undertaken by resident sannyasins performing full-time roles in one of the 21 departments of

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  27 the organisation. A source of cohesion was the pervasive organisational culture, characterised by a hard work ethic, quiet compliance, deference to an authority figure and a strong sense of ritualised behaviour founded upon a system of shared beliefs. In a manner akin to the monastic institutions of various ascetic orders, the Sivananda Ashram enhanced cohesion for the group whilst permitting individual spiritual journeys; as Bouiller (2017) observes amongst contemporary Nath Yogis, for whom institutions offer a lasting and solid framework that balances personal expression with collective duties. Technically, DLS sannyasins were afforded a status that is commensurate with each other. However, this jars with Sivananda’s practice of appointing some sannyasins as supervisors for specialised areas of work, which created different status levels. In allocating roles according to a perceived level of commitment and expertise, he created a large group of subordinates and introduced asymmetrical power relations. The resultant dynamic is one where, following Warrier (2005:86), providing one’s labour to a religious organisation through ‘selfless service’ (seva) may be viewed as a kind of ‘levelling’ activity that erodes the individuality of an aspirant but, in practice, it actually offers significant scope for nurturing personal distinctiveness within an ashram environment. Understanding why sannyasins represented almost the entire staff of the DLS and offered their services for free requires an awareness of ‘selfless service’ or seva.78 Towards the end of the late 19th century, a shift is discernible in India towards incorporation of service as a valid spiritual discipline for sannyasins. That is despite the fact that serving non-ascetics is an anomaly from a soteriological perspective (Flügel 2003:169). Emulating the reorientation towards service within Vivekananda’s Ramakrishna Mission,79 the DLS sought to address a growing impetus towards articulations of asceticism with social relevance; as part of wider trend affording prominence to Hindu nationalist discourses. This brought a commingling of organisational tasks – undertaken as part to service – with religious roles geared towards the pursuit of liberation. The reinterpretation brought about a form of renunciation based upon ‘…utilitarian criteria without abandoning the ancient ideal of spiritual liberation’ (Dazey 1990:283). Sivananda made further accommodations to Dashanami structures and procedures for the purpose of running a modern yoga organisation but appeared conflicted. Evidently, mediating between the two – traditional sampradaya and modernity – was a challenging task. On the one hand, Sivananda’s own account claims that he was ‘strictly following traditions of the order…’ (Divine Life Magazine 1938:36). On the other hand, he established his own hierarchy of roles and set of official titles for sannyasins that was completely separate from that maintained by the centralised authorities of the order. And, for all practical purposes, he effectively replaced the head of the Dashanami order as chief authority and dictated superiority of DLS rules over Dashanami prescribed regulations and observations. One may reapply Beckerlegge’s (2000:73) analysis of the Ramakrishna Mission to the DLS as both were characterised by organisation that ‘owed something to the ethos of the earlier sampradaya and satsanga but was different from both…due to incorporation of features of the kinds of modern organisational structures then being developed in the West’.

28  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society What is revealing is that I have scarcely been able to find specific mention of the Dashanamis at all in publications within the DLS archives since the 1970s and it tends only to be mentioned in reference to Sivananda’s own initiation and that of his (initiating) guru, Vishwananda. Historically, ‘Dashanami’ used to be explicitly stated on written certificates presented to newly initiated sannyasins, stipulating entry into the ‘Sacred order of Dasanama Sannyasa of Shrimad Shankaracharya, Shringeri Mutt’ and signed by Sivananda,80 whereas in later decades of the 20th century, initiation certificates made no direct reference to the Dashanamis.81 Of note, other Hindu organisations like the Ramakrishna Mission and the Arya Samaj also claimed to have Dashanami origins.82 Just as Sinha and Saraswati (1978:77) consider the ascetics of the Ramakrishna Mission to be ‘outside the fold’ of the Dashanami Order, one can claim the same of The Divine Life Society. With the qualification being the existence of ‘their own interpretations of sannyasa and their own separate institutions’ (Khandelwal 2004:29), Sivananda’s ascetics may be similarly interpreted as ‘outside’ of the order. The cumulative effect of reinterpretation and fluidity has been an overall ‘distancing’ from strict observance of traditional Hindu models of organisation. In other words, DLS sannyasins were disconnected from the wider social network of the Dashanamis despite it representing an important mechanism to ‘connect and socialise all communities [of renouncers] across space and time’ (Gold 1999:64). One benefit of this partial reinterpretation of Dashanami membership is that it allowed Sivananda to liberate his supporters from any competing source of authority and afford himself unfettered control. In other words, he chose to foreground his yoga organisation over any external institutional affiliation. An example of deemphasising traditional linkages is shown by the decision of Sivananda’s heirs to discontinue formal attribution of initiation into the Dashanami order. This follows the direct example set by Sivananda himself, stemming from his 1958 publications in which the neutral wording of ‘Order of Sannyasa’ (Sivananda 2011[1958]:93) and ‘Holy initiation’ (Sivananda 2011[1958]:9) is employed rather than properly attributing the Dashanami sampradaya. Making deviations is not new within the context of sannyasa as considerable variation has been observed between renunciatory sects historically; notably, the ‘remarkable flexibility’ that Dazey (1990:282) claims of the Dashnamis over centuries of existence as a response to managing distinctive sets of circumstances. The present situation may be interpreted as two frames of reference that overlap in practice; that is, modern yoga organisation and sampradaya. The DLS appropriated large swathes of Dashanami practice (dress, initiation rites, diet, etc.), as was the case with Satyananda’s Bihar School of Yoga and Vishnudevananda’s Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres. However, each organisation operated completely independently of the order by not submitting to its authorities or following its regulations. It is possible to consider these modern yoga organisations to have redefined their terms of interaction, resulting in a fairly abstract form of Dashanami membership.83 Sivananda was fairly successful at navigating a path between these differentiated roles, being simultaneously the head of a splinter group of ascetics and a group leader as well as the guru and office bearer of The Divine Life Society.

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  29 Being a member A lynchpin of Sivananda’s successful development of institutions in his name was the steady recruitment of ‘non-renunciates’84 as members of his organisation. Paid membership not only offered a recognised way for the laity (householders) to express support for Sivananda and his teachings but guaranteed regular funding of the organisation through annual dues. Nearly every magazine and journal published from 1936–2012 that I consulted offered the general public the opportunity to become a member of The Divine Life Society, or ‘Mission’ in the early days. Becoming a member required signing a written agreement originally conceived in 1936 (Statement of Membership), outlining the ideals one must seek to uphold such as a pledge to ‘strictly abide by the triple virtues of non-injury, chastity and truthfulness – Ahimsa, Satyam and Brahmacharya’ (Chidananda 1993:52).85 Not all categories of membership were the same, however, with multiple categories being offered over the years, including the non-defunct ‘junior member’ and ‘sympathiser’ being offered at least between 1966 and 1982.86 The mainstay of this offering has been the full version for ‘ordinary members’, ‘patrons’ and ‘life members’. Contrary to Fornaro (1969:93), membership titles were not all ‘honorific’ as full members enjoy entitlement to attend special events held in the ashram. An additional category was the ‘subscription member’, who is limited to periodically receiving DLS magazines.87 It was also possible to be a ‘branch member’ although attendees of branch activities were not full members of The Divine Life Society per se but their donations would be forwarded to the main headquarters. All new members received a form of ‘secondary socialisation’ (Berger and Luckmann 1991[1966]) to Sivananda’s teachings and organisational norms by being sent an initial ‘Sadhana Set’ to provide them with a grounding of expectations regarding conduct.88

Institutionalisation and stability An advantage of membership was that it facilitated wider participation in decision-making. Invited to every Annual General Meeting, paid-up members were able to vote to make senior appointments from a pool of candidates.89 Elections were carried out periodically for the two life appointments of President (guru) and General Secretary and carried out annually for the roles of Vice President (2 posts), Treasurer (1), Secretary (2) and Assistant Secretary (3).90 Identifying and designating a successor during the lifetime of a present guru has historically been commonplace amongst guru organisations but it was more unusual to open up the process for the entire membership base to determine senior appointments. For the DLS, however, one finds that in practice these all-important elections were usually a symbolic, rubber-stamping exercise; not least as Sivananda made sure to signal his preferred appointee for the top job outside of this process. Chidananda’s succession to guru was foreseen in an official publication almost 10 years prior to his appointment, when Sivananda-Vijayalakshmi noted that ‘Chidananda would succeed Swami Sivananda and work equally earnestly and sincerely for the execution of the Divine Life Mission’ (Chidananda 1954:67).91 Doing so

30  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society appeared to confer stability upon the organisation by minimising disruption, in that succession from Sivananda was well-flagged and predictable. So, whilst institutionalised systems were developed for appointment and promotion, it was the guru who retained a monopoly of authority to make the most influential appointment of all, his successor. Dilution of the positive aspects of oversight and governance are also found elsewhere. For example, one would expect the two boards of The Divine Life Society – the ‘Board of Management’ and ‘Board of Trustees’ – to be comprised of completely different persons but, in this case, two-thirds of positions were the same people.92 Consequently, no realistic independent oversight of leadership decisions could take place. Again, this points to a weakening of governance measures with the guru free to act as a direct and unambiguous source of (sacred) authority rather than having their authority mediated by an alternative (profane) source. Both of the cases outlined here suggest that the (divine) mandate of a charismatic guru was easily able to overrule the rational, legal structures of his bureaucratic organisation.93 In any case, succession was largely uneventful in Rishikesh with Sivananda’s first heir proving a safe pair of hands for most of his tenure. Chidananda was wellliked and even presided over a dramatic uptick in the financial fortunes of the organisation in his last decade, when donations rose three-fold amidst celebrations for his 80th birthday in 1997. Donations rose again post celebrations for his 60th year in the ashram in 2003, peaking at just under one million US dollars.94 His tenure was also marked by impressive growth in the number of branches in India, peaking at 404 fully paid up branches in 2003; versus just 160 branches in 1949.95 One must be cautious in attributing this success to Chidananda’s popularity alone. What looks like an explosion of support in the early-1990s must be placed in context of seismic changes in the Indian economy at this time brought by a raft of new government policies.96 Effectively, significant monies were put into the hands of companies who received tax breaks to donate to registered charities, such as The Divine Life Society.97 So, whilst Chidananda had long enjoyed a stable following, his leadership coincided with a raft of measures external to the organisation itself that gave it a boost in wealth. As with the development of any large, complex organisation, ensuring discipline was an ongoing challenge, with various incidents of non-compliance to rules taking place over the years. The ultimate sanction for members and sannyasins in the DLS has apparently been ejection from the organisation although punishments of this kind appear to be a rare occurrence. In 2011, Gurupriyananda was expelled from The Divine Life Society by Vimalananda for ‘misconduct with the devotees’ but no further details were provided as to what constituted ‘misconduct’.98 A pressing concern of Sivananda was to bar the creation of internal cliques within the organisation, as reflected in Venkatesananda’s (2006[1985]:124) rebuff, ‘…you can leave the ashram, these vipers should not be allowed to poison the atmosphere and create internal dissensions’. An early documented transgression led to Sivananda sending away a disciple in 1953 for ‘disrupting the activities and harmony of the ashram’ (ibid:137–144). Non-compliance also occurred at the branch level. In practice, with a fairly laissez-faire oversight from the headquarters, branches were essentially free

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  31 to operate as they saw fit, being autonomous, financially independent entities, and could even operate as a personal fiefdom. Indeed, during fieldwork one supporter visiting Rishikesh (2011) commented to me that she no longer participated in activities at the DLS branch in Delhi due to the corruption of local leaders. Theoretically, for a branch deviating from prescribed activities or engaging in fraud, scope did exist for the DLS to remove its backing of a local branch via refusal to recognise the branch. On occasion, sannyasins were the cause of trouble. Feted in the press as a ‘rising star’ (Hinduism Today 1999), Adhyatmananda caused a polemic and was officially ‘removed’ by Chidananda from his post as head of the important Ahmedabad branch after being decisively condemned. A former personal assistant to Chidananda, his eventual expulsion from the DLS came after a series of run-ins with its leadership resulting in his local branch being deemed ‘not a Branch of The Divine Life Society’.99 The nature of transgressions by this rogue swami centred around his attempts to assert his independence from Rishikesh authorities, as manifested by his unsanctioned publication and sale of Sivananda’s texts and the claimed flaunting of ‘normal ethical and model codes’ (ibid). On the whole, despite these transgressions, Sivananda and his yoga organisation enjoyed a demonstrably high level of success and institutional stability over its history. His personal impact was significant during his lifetime, not just in achieving personal fame but also in reaching out far and wide to disseminate his teachings and to build a solid base of popular support in India. Development of key institutional features played a supportive role in this respect; including, but not limited to building a central headquarters, instigating a hierarchy of authority with specialised roles, detailing extensive rules, creating formal modes of association for supporters and coordinating a slew of ongoing tasks to fulfil its organisational functions. For much of the 20th century, Sivananda’s organisation was influential, serving as a veritable gold standard in India with ‘many up-andcoming gurus’, as McKean (1996:13) reports, seeking to model their organisations in the guise of The Divine Life Society. Yet, despite his early-mover status and considerable successes, some institutional failings were observable that would contribute to a dwindling of transnational support for Sivananda’s Divine Life Society. The precise reasons for this dramatic decline shall be discussed below.

Weaknesses of organisation Running the yoga organisation was not always smooth sailing, with the structure of power inherited by Sivananda’s heirs leading to a number of complications. In Sivananda’s day, a clearly subordinate role to the guru was the ‘General Secretary’, who dealt on a day-to-day basis with the operational running of the entire organisation. Historically, this was distinct from the top office bearer of guru (‘President’) and main spiritual leader. The theory behind splitting chief roles in this manner was to reduce social frictions by posing a structural solution in having a task leader (General Secretary), specialising in directing and controlling ‘goal-attainment activities’ alongside a socio-emotional leader (Guru, President), devoted to motivating members and reducing tensions.100 Nevertheless, in

32  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society practice, the difference between these two roles became less clear-cut after Sivananda’s passing in 1963. A case in point was the direct conflict between President and Secretary in the 1990s, with Chidananda expressing consternation to a US audience that Krishnananda was preventing non-Indians from registering as full members of the DLS (Strauss 2005:18). Excluding any specific group was not only in direct violation of the will of the guru and President, Chidananda, but contrary to Sivananda’s strong emphasis on inclusion for all, stating in 1950, ‘I declare…[that] anybody can join as a member of the Society’.101 Non-Indians were effectively marginalised in The Divine Life Society, with full membership not openly accessible and subscription membership the only viable option. This is consistent with my personal experience at the ashram where I found it impossible to gain full membership at the ashram administrative offices, despite guru and President Vimalananda telling me personally that I could do so.102 In practice, the guru would prescribe one thing but the Secretary could choose to restrict his ability to put it into practice, as he controlled the reins of the operations. By doing so, the guru’s role was impaired. Evidently, each individual brought their own interpretations to what had formally been defined roles with separate mandates.103 Such internal frictions can be traced back to at least the late-1970s, with Krishnananda being reported as able to outwit Chidananda in ‘ashram politics’ (Mangalwadi 1977:67). Certainly, I found that the level of seniority of the guru over the Secretary had been eroded, not least as current General Secretary Padmanabhananda described his role to me in 2011 as one of a ‘spiritual leader’ and was at pains to emphasise his spiritual equivalence to the role of President and guru rather than subordination.104 Arguably, the damage to internal and external relations from friction between the two leadership roles has been compounded by the long-running nature of this standoff, with the Chidananda-Krishnanada pairing lasting for almost 40 years (1963–2001).105 Highly divisive, it was an ‘ever present, rarely acknowledged, internal battle’ (Strauss 2005:66) that split the ashram into two camps; disciples of Chidananda versus disciples of Krishnananda. Anecdotally, my personal experience of the pairing of Vimalananda106 (President 2008–2019) and Pabmanabhananda107 (current General Secretary) was of a similar dynamic persisting. Against such a backdrop, I find it hardly surprising that The Divine Life Society did not manage to evolve much beyond the point of inheritance from Sivananda in 1963. The sheer distraction caused by controversies related to power-sharing led to internal dynamics acting as a barrier to change. Arguably, an inability to either broker a consensus or, alternatively, to push through initiatives by monopolising decisionmaking meant that innovation of Sivananda’s legacy was near impossible and any deficiencies in strategy or operations were difficult to correct. Weak branch structure A fundamental issue was that many of the overseas initiatives failed to last, which is somewhat surprising given the early inroads made by Sivananda. By 1953, this had mushroomed to an estimated 300+ branches of the DLS (Padmanaban 1953:Plate 34), with a vast circle of admirers claimed around the world, including

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  33 those in British Guyana, Burma, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Mexico, Russia, Switzerland and in the US in California, Baltimore and New York (ibid; Siva-Gyan 1950:11). A word of caution is advised here as whilst DLS literature paints a picture of Sivananda’s teachings being wildly popular amongst worldwide audiences, there was a tendency to assume affiliation of a local group was solely to the DLS, whereas in practice overseas branches – especially in the early days – tended to engaged in simultaneous discipleship by cultivating links with multiple gurus and forms of practice. Notably, Dikman was a ‘tourist of gurus’ (Warrier 2005:78) by having contact with almost 100 yogis alongside his three primary teachers, Sivananda, Yogananda and Vishnu Tirth (McConnell 2016:5). The transient nature of the network meant that none of the original farflung branches exist today, such as Kenya, Iran, Egypt, China and Bahrain (Venkatesananda 2006[1985]:307). Equally, the ‘European Divine Life Society’ run by Sivananda-Magarita Saraswati and branches in Latvia, Oslo and Rome continued to operate in the late-1950s (The Divine Life 1957:13) but no word has been unearthed in the literature thereafter. The precise reasons for the failure of these individual branches is not well-documented although, from studying various photographs and magazine reports, I would speculate that a high proportion were comprised of members of expatriate communities, who in themselves were impermanent in such locations. Elsewhere, timing was problematic in that certain environments were not conducive to the mass dissemination of ­Sivananda’s teachings. In the case of Charlotte Walinski-Heller (Sivananda Sarada), the ­Sivananda-inspired yoga school she established in her native Germany, after visiting Sivananda in 1953, was forced to close when she was persecuted in her local area for her views (Interview Werner 2011). Activities of the aforementioned Harry Dikman were similarly curtailed when Soviet occupation post World War II prompted him to move to the US to teach yoga (McConnell 2016:xxvi). In the UK, there have been mixed fortunes.108 Though Sivananda claimed that his yoga practice had spread to the UK in the 1940s, prior to BKS Iyengar’s series of visits from 1954, there really is little by way of evidence to measure the impact of his teachings. British visitors continued to be received at the Rishikesh ashram, including ‘millionairess’ Liliane Shamash and her daughter in 1948,109 but generally nothing is recorded about any continuation of activities back in the UK. Sivananda continuing to occasionally name-drop British-based yogis, such as G.C. Nixon of Britain who he claimed as one of his ‘advanced’ students during a press conference in Benares in 1950.110 What is clear is that there was a DLS branch in London during the 1990s and, as of 2020, a UK branch was still claimed as operational. Yet, whilst in-house publications cite visits of leading officials to the ‘London branch’, such as Vimalananda from 10 to 21 December 2010,111 no address was provided for the centre, nor were any activities advertised and the phone number provided has been defunct for 20 years.112 This experience is consistent with an overall picture of overseas branches very much becoming a marginal part of The Divine Life Society. Data shows that branches registered outside of India have consistently represented a mere 3–8% of the total network (DLS Annual Reports 1986–2011).

34  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society The inability to popularise Sivananda’s teachings transnationally was partly attributable to the poor design and implementation of the branch concept. The term ‘branch’ in itself implies a definitive level of connection, with local groups an offshoot from the DLS headquarters, implied by the branch and connected to the main tree. Supposedly ‘prototypes’ of the main ashram (Venkatesananda 1998a[1957]), they were supposed to offer similar activities congruent with its spiritual, cultural and social objectives. As Krishnananda put it, ‘whatever the headquarters stands for…the branches also stand for’.113 In practice, this was more of an aspiration as analysis here suggests that local branches were a fairly weak form of association with the guru and his organisation based upon three main deficiencies: namely, anyone was eligible to open a branch (i.e. with no proven commitment), little training was provided to prepare them to run a branch – only a pamphlet, Routine for Branches – and sparse monitoring of activities by authorities apparently took place.114 Low barriers to joining and leaving as an official branch (‘Branch Member’) meant that affiliation was often short-lived. To establish a branch, aspirants paid a one-off registration fee of INR 1,000 and annual dues to the Rishikesh headquarters (INR 500 in 2020). Designation conferred the right to use The Divine Life Society name to arrange activities in the locality and raise funds for charitable causes. Importantly, branches were financially and operationally independent from the main headquarters.115 This exposed an underlying issue in that branches were open to swings in the personal fortunes of those running them and reliant on their ability to raise funds from others in order to continue to pay fees and retain registration. As a consequence, figures for the entire network show that a stable membership base has been elusive and have instead oscillated wildly, such as numbering 300 branches in 1977 but falling to 226 by 1986 (−24.7%), then reaching 423 branches by 2002 and climbing to 536 the following year (+26.7%).116 The fragility of the format affected its ability to grow and maintain a transnational network, with the total number of (active, functioning) centres outside India peaking at 23 in 2003 and falling to just 11 by 2011. Major gaps in geographical coverage emerged, arising from branches being opened at the initiative of volunteer lay supporters rather than emerging from a centrally coordinated plan for regional expansion. More problematic still, not all branches were run in the same way and those run by sannyasins generally appeared to be qualitatively superior to householderled branches. A key differentiator was that renunciate disciples of Sivananda or his heirs typically enjoyed very close bonds with Rishikesh and were viewed as being more qualified (spiritually and practically), which tended towards greater branch longevity. For example, a particular stronghold of Sivananda’s teachings overseas has been in Malaysia – where he once personally lived from 1913–1923 and steered for decades by close disciple, Pranavananda – and South Africa, where he sent one of his most senior disciples, Venkatesananda, at the behest of supporters desiring local representation. Both Prananvananada and Venkatesananda’s relationship with Sivananda was more like fictive kin (i.e. spiritual brotherhood) and benefited from a sacred mandate of having been ‘sent’ be Sivananda personally. Conversely, being less like fictive-kin, branches run by

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  35 non-renunciates in New York, Canada and Germany in the 1960s seemed to owe ‘nominal allegiance to Rishikesh’ (Fornaro 1969:82). The running of the majority of branches relied on the ongoing interest and leadership of laypersons, most of whom – unlike s­ annyasins – would have been predominantly engaged in earning a living. Failings of leadership A failing of Sivananda’s leadership was the absence of personal travel abroad to disseminate his teachings.117 Probably the greatest missed opportunity was the cancellation of his much vaulted ‘World Tour’ in the mid-1950s. Buoyed by the success of Sivananda’s ‘All-India Tour’ in 1950, arrangements were put in place for an ambitious overseas tour having been spearheaded by Paramananda from 1953.118 Yet, despite the extensive preparations, Sivananda’s heart did not seem to be truly into travelling and this global tour never took place. By this time, he was 62 years old and deteriorating in health, suffering from diabetes, lumbago119 and, in 1954, typhoid (Ananthanarayanan 1998[1970]:122). Cancellation of the tour was officially communicated as being on health grounds but a lack of personal volition to travel was more likely; as Satchidananda recollects, Sivananda always used to say, ‘Why go round? If the flower has plenty of honey, should it send invitations to the bees?’120 Several of Sivananda’s diary entries reinforce this view, showing a clear preference for remaining in the ashram: It is a disadvantage to always be touring. One can awaken a few people by lecturing…but unless you immediately give them permanent inspiration in the form of books, they will soon forget all about the lecture in the din and bustle of their daily world life, If I had been always touring I would not have been able to write these books.121 This proved a watershed moment in the organisation’s history that signalled a retreat from expansionism and set in motion a more conservative tone thereafter. Arguably, the field of global posture practice may well have looked quite different had a charismatic Sivananda decided to make a personal splash across the globe, at a time when Western audiences were becoming more interested in Eastern spirituality and practices.122 Failure to capitalise on the interest generated abroad left the door open for other yogis to surpass him transnationally, such as BKS Iyengar who at the time was far less organised, relatively inexperienced, poorly financed, far lower in profile and without the same solid base of support.123 In the second half of the 20th century, it is possible to trace a definite narrowing of focus brought by the rise of conservatism in The Divine Life Society. Whilst Chidananda still made trips abroad, I argue that a shift is detectable whereby leaders prioritised a less extensive focus in order to concentrate on its core market in South Asia and a focus towards boundary maintenance. The DLS came to more closely embody the aims of the Ramakrishna Mission by switching towards a goal of national longevity.124 Its success at recruiting domestic, Indian support can be traced back to the 1930s, at a time when Sivananda started to incorporate

36  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society a revivalist tone into his publications and lectures.125 Befitting of the mounting patriotic spirit of the time, an association with the cause of Indian nationalism was useful in growing Sivananda’s organisation. Not least by providing a beneficial base of support from wealthy, ruling class groups in India who became a source of significant patronage.126 Towards the end of the 20th century, this orientation towards a domestic agenda became pronounced with close linkages discernible between the DLS and Hindu Nationalist bodies, such as the staunchly right-wing Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP; est. 1964) (McKean 1996:164–170).127 At one point, Chidananda was even a member of the Central Advisory Council of the VHP (Altglas 2014:147–148). Equally, a leaning towards Indian Hindus was reflected in recruitment. Chidananda advocated an increasingly ‘selective’ approach towards choosing which individuals may receive initiation rites (Gyan 1980:169), resulting in an even stronger bias towards selecting male, Indian Hindus as sannyasins. This tighter selection process was a departure from Sivananda’s penchant for initiating everyone he could convince,128 with the DLS historically proffering a very inclusive stance that promised all castes and religions as well as both males and females the ability to become DLS sannyasins.129 The net result of this policy was that female (both Indians and non-Indians) and non-Indian male sannyasins became somewhat of a rarity towards the end of the 20th century.130 The scaling down of global ambitions led in turn to decreased innovation and rising inertia within the DLS. In the 1960s, The Divine Life Society was beset by the loss of a charismatic founder and experiencing the onset of organisational maturity. And as time went on, following Williamson (2013b:111), this yoga organisation ‘tended to ossify’. My reading of this dynamic was that change in itself was perceived as high risk given that it deviated from Sivananda’s direct example and so, even if the context had changed, there seemed little appetite of his disciples to innovate. One manifestation of this trend was deficiencies in the presentation of practices in view of time having moved on but Sivananda’s teachings were not adapted and his legacy was left untouched as if set in stone. Thus, it became ever more apparent that the packaging of Sivananda’s yoga practices was less appealing and failing to resonate with the needs and preferences of modern transnational audiences. The lack of branding observed in the DLS was unhelpful in this regard. Part of the issue is that Sivananda’s presentation of his style of yoga was fairly woolly and less recognisable to consumers as a cohesive practice. After all, ‘Sivananda Yoga’ was an invention of his disciple Vishnudevananda rather than Sivananda himself – who instead referred to his form of yoga practice less famously as ‘Synthetic Yoga’ and the ‘Yoga of Synthesis’ (Sivananda 1929:211). Sivananda would later use these terms interchangeably with the phrase ‘Integral Yoga’ but this was not, apparently, an attempt by Sivananda to brand his form of yoga practice. As one of his leading disciples explained, ‘it is not a special Yoga called Synthetic Yoga, Yoga of Synthesis or Integral Yoga, but Yoga. Yoga means integration, there can be no specialisation in Yoga’ (Venkatesananda 1998b[1980]:64). An implication of this approach was that Sivananda’s direct teachings on posture practice were not so readily identifiable as one unified practice distinct from others. The set of postures he taught were not as rigorously systematised as other styles that

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  37 would become popularised, such as Ashtanga Yoga. Vishnudevananda made far more concerted efforts to strongly brand and systematise these teachings under the banner of ‘Sivananda Yoga’ so that they would become a globally recognised style of practice. Over time, Sivananda’s literature and organisation appear to have become demoted with the first port of call for participants to learn about Sivananda instead becoming Vishnudevananda’s yoga organisation headquartered in Canada. In line with the decreased innovation of leaders, there appears to have been no appetite to protect the key terms espoused by Sivananda with trademarks. I have found that no trademarks were registered in North America or Europe by The Divine Life Society and that ‘Synthetic Yoga’ was not a trademark owned by the DLS.131 ‘Integral Yoga’ was trademarked in the US by Sivananda’s disciple Satchidananda as early as 1977 (73138920) and Vishnudevananda even registered the term ‘Sivananda’ in 1979 in the US (73219333). A turn-off for consumers of yoga products has been the apparent decline in prominence of posture practice within The Divine Life Society since Sivananda’s passing. Whilst asana remained part of the daily ashram routine in Rishikesh, in my experience, classes were only attended by temporary residents (mainly visiting foreigners). A lack of motivation amongst resident, Indian brahmacharins and sannyasins to practice asanas was highlighted by guru Vimalananda in 2011 at evening satsang, where he chastised them for their indifference towards posture practice and firmly reminded them of Sivananda’s emphasis on the importance of maintaining the physical body as well as spiritual development. Thus, one interpretation of waning interest has less to do with a diminished theoretical importance of asanas within the DLS and more to do with poor enthusiasm amongst ascetics in situated practice.132 Elsewhere, Bevilacqua’s (2018:17) research finds modern sadhus (renunciates) commonly express no need to practise physical techniques unless necessity arises; for instance, in order to alleviate physical problems. A related problem in the DLS concerned the quality of asana teaching, which was typically of a fairly mediocre standard.133 Largely, this stemmed from a paucity of suitably qualified or motivated staff to teach. The loss of Vishnudevananda in 1957 was a blow in this respect, who was demonstrably its most talented practitioner and adept asana teacher, as since his departure the standard of posture teaching appears to have substantially declined.134 Supplying replacement teachers apparently became even more difficult after Chidananda asked one individual to leave in the seventies for teaching in the Rishikesh ashram in an ‘unorthodox’ Iyengar-inspired way that utilised ropes (Strauss 2005:66). The general reluctance towards practising posture practice is somewhat surprising given Sivananda’s early and sustained commitment throughout his lifetime for the need for daily asana practice; as depicted in Figure 2.5 where Sivananda teaches a 1940s class at the ashram. His advocation of asanas even predates foundation of The Divine Life Society, first appearing in the late-1920s when he distributed pamphlets containing his Twenty Spiritual Instructions, for which asana represented its second rule (Sivananda 1933:276–278).135 Even the efforts of popular guru Chidananda in 1993 to bolster the importance of practising asanas and pranayama failed to

38  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society

Figure 2.5  Sivananda teaching a class of asanas in Rishikesh circa 1940. (Unknown photographer)

make much of a lasting difference. To this end, Chidananda enlarged Sivananda’s foundational Twenty Spiritual Instructions from a one-pager to 38-pages, giving enhanced guidance on its practice and upgraded asana and pranayama to the first obligatory observance on the Resolve Form.136 Such moves represented an attempt to bring the DLS more in line with a proliferation of transnational yoga practice movements of the time that were foregrounding posture practice (e.g. Iyengar Yoga, Ashtanga Yoga) and were gaining popular support amongst practitioners in the West. The fact remained that the DLS teaching of asanas remained highly embedded within Hindu religious structures and were thereby out of step with a general preference amongst transnational audiences for a secular presentation of yoga practice. Though Sivananda devoted a lot of time and resources to reaching out overseas and promoting ‘universalism’,137 his organisation had an overt affiliation with Hinduism, catering mainly to Indian-based Hindus and the Hindu diaspora. With religious functions being carried out alongside the teaching of posture practice, the Sivananda School was distinct from the Krishnamacharya School, which very clearly foregrounded posture practice above all else. The visible manifestation of religious symbols and monks shrouded in ochre robes reinforced this sense of religiosity that was disconnected from the ways of living of Western audiences. They were also discouraged by the fairly onerous obligations required of followers, including maintenance of a Spiritual Diary and regular completion of a Resolve Form (2011; Rule 18).138 Quite simply, this complex presentation jarred with the simple, streamlined format deployed by other

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  39 modern yoga organisations. Indeed, with so many other (non-posture) teachings being disseminated, it is plausible that Sivananda’s clear and systematised asana teachings were lost in a sea of information. One of the biggest oversights of Sivananda’s yoga organisation is the failure to offer teacher accreditation in the style of practice. The Divine Life Society was unusual in advocating a systematised posture practice for the last 90 years but never having developed a teacher training course or way of formally accrediting teachers to drive forward transnational dissemination. This omission is unexpected given that Sivananda’s overarching aim, stated in 1936, was to train spiritual aspirants in Yoga and Vedanta (Sivananda 2011[1958]:37) and his clear mandate, as incorporated in the original Trust Deed; ‘To disseminate spiritual knowledge – by establishing centres for yogic training…with systematic training in asanas, pranayama…’ (point 1c; DLS 1938).139 Moreover, one of the most successful yoga teacher training courses in the world was introduced by his former disciple, Vishnudevananda, as early as 1969 and was based upon Sivananda’s teachings.140 Even when mainstream developments in the global field rendered the teacher training format a norm, the DLS still refused to offer aspirants a means to show proficiency in posture practice. I would speculate that this intransigence may stem partly from the virtual power deadlock between Chidananda and Krishnananda (as described above) that scuppered any possibility of introducing any farreaching initiatives between 1963 and 2001. The absence of teacher accreditation goes some way to explaining the comparatively constrained geographical reach of The Divine Life Society as it greatly restricted diffusion of teachings; with just 11 countries having DLS representation (as of 2020) compared with 164 countries for Vishnudevananda’s SYVC and 35 for Satchidananda’s Integral Yoga.141 In electing not to adopt the teacher training model, so commonplace in modern transnational yoga, there was instead a reliance instead upon religious organisation as a means of imparting knowledge on yoga practice. Unsupportive organisational environment Factors external to The Divine Life Society greatly influenced its ability to expand overseas, particularly after Sivananda’s death. Looking beyond the internal dynamics of the organisation, a dramatic reduction in its ability to spend overseas occurred on account of the knock-on effects from a shift in government policy towards liberalisation of the Indian economy. In this way, the financial position of most Indian-based institutions was severely impaired by two major devaluations of the Indian Rupee in 1966 and 1991, followed by a relaxation of exchange rate controls in 1993. The total impact of this disruption was a precipitous loss of purchasing power for the Indian Rupee overseas, meaning that whilst 3 rupees could buy one US dollar in 1937, it would only buy 4 US cents in 2020.142 This 96% loss in value(!) meant that the DLS was far poorer (in relative terms) post these measures in spite of receiving a rising level of donations and income in local currency over time. Being beyond the control of ashram authorities, the shift in economic climate made expansion abroad even less likely and dramatically more costly than before. More pressing, it actually tilted the power

40  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society balance away from Indian-based yogis towards those located overseas who could subsequently enjoyed a comparative financial advantage; notably, this shift coincided with Vishnudevananda and his Canadian-based operation buying up (the now comparatively cheap) Indian real estate to open new ashrams and centres.143

Summary A respected authority on yoga and Vedanta, Sivananda Saraswati was a major figure in the field of modern yoga practice, proving a tour-de-force in generating and sustaining support for his teachings by building a large, complex organisation to further his initiatives. The Divine Life Society ranks as one of the oldest organisations in the field of modern postural yoga but its role in presenting Sivananda’s systematised practice and advancing uptake through provision of classes and texts tends to be largely forgotten. After a decades-long commitment and successes in generating interest in yoga practice in India and abroad, Sivananda was on the cusp of global fame in the mid-1950s but cancelling his planned ‘World Tour’ prevented Sivananda from being the one to personally realise global influence for his teachings. Just like Krishnamacharya, Sivananda had an early-mover advantage and his teachings were well-placed to succeed abroad but he did not make the most of his privileged position and today, ‘Sivananda Yoga’ is best known through his disciple, Vishnudevananda. Part of this outcome stems from presentations of Sivananda’s legacy that tended to deemphasise or leave out entirely his contributions on posture practice, being overshadowed by the marketing of him as a standard bearer for Hindu nationalism in India. Hopes of achieving a leading role for The Divine Life Society in global posture practice realistically died with Sivananda’s passing in 1963, stalling the momentum that had been building around the world. Certainly, his successors proved capable but they took their cue from his last decade of relative inertia rather than his preceding years of pushing boundaries, by prioritising maintenance of existing boundaries over a strategy of expansionism abroad. However, it was Sivananda himself who sounded the death knell for the DLS having a large, direct influence in shaping the field of transnational yoga practice as he failed to establish a strong, lasting network outside of Asia. History depicts for us an impression of a conflicted guru; on the one hand, spurred on by great ambitions of world domination but, on the other hand, held back by his own lack of motivation over the last decade of his life, not matching the same boundless energy as BKS Iyengar in expanding the reach of his practice in his twilight years. Perhaps Sivananda’s most widely recognised legacy is his contribution to laying the groundwork for the globalisation of practice that subsequently occurred in the late 20th century. One overlooked aspect of this promulgation is that it was partly attributable to the early example of organisation that Sivananda advocated. That is, to teach householders, strongly market and widely communicate a yoga practice, establish new centres for this purpose, delegate authority to others to further transmission and, crucially, to encourage their own students to do the

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  41 same. An historical analysis shows that this set in motion a virtuous cycle of transnational diffusion of asana teachings in the field by inspiring yogis for decades thereafter. Whilst Sivananda was not able to fully realise his vision personally, an important contribution was his recruitment and tutelage of a handful of disciples to this vision who became some of the most influential yogis in the history of modern yoga – as will be discussed in the next chapter.

Notes 1 Vijayananda (1978:247). Average height in India in 1914 was only 4 foot 11″. 2 Though the DLS appears to consciously avoid the word ‘charisma’ in its descriptions of Sivananda, a reading of the many documented letters written by his students, following Copely (2006:219), gives a strong impression of Sivananda as a highly charismatic figure. 3 Around this time, 33 mostly hagiographical biographers of Sivananda were documented around the world (Padmanaban 1953: Plate 1). 4 In this chapter, much information comes from the archives of The Divine Life Society located in the Sivananda Ashram in Rishikesh. Included here are many inhouse publications, such as editions of Divine Life Magazine (aka The Divine Life), DLS Annual Reports, financial reports (accounts) and other forms of DLS literature with dates ranging from 1936 to 2011. See also Bartos (2017). 5 I have found no explicit reference to members of Sivananda family being either part of a Shaiva or Vaishnava lineage although the Tamil Nadu Iyers are typically Smartha Brahmins who worship both Shiva and Vishnu and follow the tenets of Advaitism, maintaining that Shiva is the Supreme God (Gough 1956:828). 6 See Ananthanarayan (1998[1970]:5). Many DLS pamphlets and magazines skirt the issue of formal medical qualifications by referring to ‘precious knowledge’ or ‘medical training’ garnered by Sivananda. 7 Little is known about Vishwananda, who is almost a mythical figure and, as Miller (1980:91–92) notes, we do not know if he was a monastic resident in Rishikesh or merely a wandering ascetic. 8 In 1937, a district law court judgment in Hooghly, West Bengal (no.147, 27:8:1937) stated ‘…no person is a sannyasin unless he performs Viraja Homa’ (cited by Sadānanda Giri 1976:69). 9 Krishnananda (2000:7). 10 Registered as a ‘Trust’ in Lucknow on 25 October 1933 (Venkatesananda 2006[1985]:94), the aims of the Sadhu Sangha were to redress grievances of sadhus, render medical aid to the sick, hold meetings to discuss philosophical problems, conduct kirtans in Swarg Ashram, train sadhus and disseminate spiritual knowledge (Sivananda 2011[1958]:75–76). 11 Moving out of Swarg Ashram with a small group of disciples into nearby Ram Ashram was purportedly due to bullying by the new Mahant based on ‘jealousy’ of Sivananda’s fame (Gyan 1980:32). More plausible is that Sivananda’s efforts to establish a group of disciples was simply not permitted by Swarg Ashram authorities. 12 Sivananda’s students were recorded practising asanas (including sun salutations) under his personal guidance (YouTube: DLS n.d.). In the 1950s, daily sessions in ‘yoga and physical culture’ (asanas) were available in the ashram for visitors at 7am (Padmanaban 1953:n.p.). 13 A ‘Trust’ legal structure was problematic in restricting membership to a maximum of 11 persons. It is likely that the Trust structure, recommended by an advocate in Ambala (Venkatesananda 2006[1985]:102), was chosen for practical reasons as Sivananda was returning from a tour with just a few disciples and a ‘Trust’ required only two founding members versus seven signatures for the legal structure of a ‘Society’.

42  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society 14 Sivananda (2011[1958]:103); Venkatesananda (2006[1985]:104–105). Since 1939, a dual structure has co-existed of a ‘Society’ that is the working organ and public name alongside a ‘Trust’ that is the legal owner of properties of the Society, including its copyrights (The Divine Life 2011:20). 15 DLS Membership Booklet (1949). 16 See Wilford’s (2007) study on Tamil identity in Malaysia that contains references to the history of Neo-Hindu organisations, including the DLS and Ramakrishna Mission. 17 These stipulations were intended to supplement the Twenty Spiritual Instructions. 18 See Alter (2004) and Singleton (2010). 19 Sivananda’s fund-raising was part of his first ‘lightning tour’ to Dampur in 1925 and regular tours around India thereafter. See Bartos (2017:82). 20 Excerpt from Sivananda’s writings; available at: http://www.sivanandaonline.org/ ­public_html/?cmd=displaysection§ion_id=660&format=html (accessed September 2012). See also Venkatesananda (2006[1985]:229). 21 Divine Life Magazine (1938). 22 Divine Life Magazine (1938). It gave a considerable push to the efforts of the DLS, dwarfing public donations in 1937 of INR 632 (DLS Accounts 1937–1938). 23 DLS Annual Report (2011). 24 Sadhus received dry food every fortnight (Sivananda 2011[1958]:71) from the KaliKambliwala Kshetra in Rishikesh (ibid:92). 25 The Maharaja of Tehri donated this plot of land (Venkatesananda 1957:51). 26 Founder of the East–West Cultural Center in Los Angeles in 1953. 27 DLS Schedule of Activities. Upon arrival at the Sivananda Ashram in 2011, I was given a ‘Daily Programme’ as part of my initial registration at the main office. Attendance at activities was optional but highly encouraged. 28 ‘Yogic exercises’ are described in the report as asanas (postures), pranayama (breathing), mudras (hand gestures), bandhas (locks) and kriyas (‘esoteric ritual’) (DLS Financial Report 1959:8). 29 As cited by McKean (1996:201). Having visited over 30 ashrams, Sister Vandana (1980[1978]:3–14, 96) from Pune deemed it one of the most ‘cosmopolitan’ and her favourite. 30 Visitors to the DLS ashram had to abide by the Rules for Attendance, including a ban on non-vegetarian food, drinking alcohol and smoking, alongside general ashram rules contained within the Handbook of Information. 31 Sivananda’s early views on philosophy, as detailed in Philosophy of the Mind (1925b), and repeated in hundreds of books, recommended freeing oneself of attachments through the practice of various religious practices. An important component in achieving self-realisation is predicated, for Sivananda, on the ‘aspirant’ having need for a guru (Sivananda 2004[1957]:vi) and the pre-eminence of sadhana (spiritual practices) – of which yoga is just a part. 32 See Strauss (2005:9). 33 Sivananda (1929:229–245). 34 Satwalekar (n.d.) presents the same number of postures (11) as Practice of Yoga but only four of these postures are identical; Sarvangasana, Padmasana, Paschimothasana and Halasana (Sivananda 1929:229–245). 35 See also Alter (2004:81–108) on Kuvalayananda, who carried out scientific testing at the Lonavla Institute in Maharashtra from 1924. 36 Absent from Sivananda’s (1929) initial book are two half postures (half locust pose; half fish pose) and ‘twisted pose’ (Vakrasana) when compared with Kuvalayananda’s (1933) guide. A summary of Kuvalayananda’s earlier articles and asana chart from Yoga Mimamsa is produced in his 1933 and 1935 main guides to practice. 37 Sivananda (1929:229); Kuvalayananda (1933: Fig.27). 38 Sivananda (1929:232); Kuvalayananda (1933: Fig.35).

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  43 39 Practical Guide for Students of Yoga was originally published by the Hong Kong branch of the DLS where Vishnudevananda was staying in 1957. It is from Hong Kong that he continued his travels East before eventually settling in Canada. From his first port of call in San Francisco, he made a brief stop in Miami en-route to New York (Carrico 1997), where he permitted a second printing run of his manuscript. 40 See Newcombe and Deslippe (2020) on English language as an influential medium in modern yoga. 41 Book sales became increasingly central to the financing of activities, growing from 9% of total income in 1938 to almost a quarter of all income by 1997 (DLS Accounts 1938–1997). 42 Sivananda’s pen signature is still apparent on a number of these texts, now housed in the British library. 43 Interview of Geeta Iyengar on 5 November 2012 at RIMYI in Pune, Maharashtra. 44 Letter from Yorke to Unwin (12 March 1964) as cited by Newcombe (2020:38fn100). 45 Interview with Professor Karel Werner on 9 December 2011 at SOAS, London. 46 In this year, he also studied with Pattabhi Jois in Mysuru (1964). 47 Representatives of the National Federations met in Switzerland in 1971 to create what is known today as the ‘European Yoga Union’ and has 19 national members. See Newcombe (2020:68–69) on the British Wheel of Yoga’s involvement. 48 Demonstrations on the film included Suryanamaskara and ‘yogic kriyas’ (Venkatesananda 1998a[1957]:n.p.). 49 See Syman (2010:247–248). Folan (1976[1972]) was both a student of Chidananda and Vishnudevananda (Leviton 1990:54) and sold over 250,000 copies of Lilias, Yoga and You in 1972 (Leviton 1993:69). 50 Data on tours comes from a range of DLS texts, including magazine reports in the Rishikesh archives, Chidananda (1991, 2007), Venkatesananda (1998a[1957], 2006[1985]) and Sivananda (2011[1958]). 51 DLS Annual Reports (1948–1967). 52 Sent to members of the DLS from September 1938, this monthly magazine published articles from senior sannyasins, detailing regional activities and fundraising drives as well as providing updates on Sivananda’s tours. Regional languages were added gradually over time, such as Urdu, Tamil, Telugu, Karanese and Gujarati. 53 Sivananda (1962). 54 Divine Life Magazine (1949) and DLS Financial Report (1959). 55 See Divine Life Magazine (1939:75–77). 56 A student of Dikman, Marion McConnell (2016:3), notes that Dikman developed links with a few high-profile yogis alongside Sivananda. His ‘Scientific Centre of Yoga’ was known variously; as a branch of The Divine Life Society, of the SelfRealization Fellowship of Paramahamsa Yogananda (‘Yogoda Satsanga Society’) and latterly was linked to the Sri Yogendra Institute. 57 Divine Life Magazine (1938:24). Sakharov is spelt variously in DLS literature although ‘Sacharow’ is most commonly used. See also Strauss (2005:41–42). 58 Venkatesananda (1998a[1957]). 59 Divine Life Magazine (1938:51). 60 The Divine Life (1958). Many of his followers were proficient linguists, including Dikman who was proficient in multiple languages; Latvian, English, German, Russian, French, Bengali, Sanskrit, Hindi and Polish (McConnell 2016:5). 61 ‘Yoga Vidya’ is a non-profit organisation (est. 1992) promoting the teaching inspired by Swami Sivananda that claims five city centres, over 70 co-operative yoga centres in Germany, over 12,000 teachers trained and ‘at least 500,000’ practitioners out of 3 million in Germany. 62 Sivananda had actually started initiating disciples prior to foundation of the DLS from 1930 (Padmanaban 1935).

44  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society 63 Clark (2006) provides the most comprehensive account of the Dashanami structure and organisation, estimating around 100,000 members of the order in South Asia. Gross (2001[1992]:124) estimates there are around 7 million ascetics, in total mostly distributed across North India, although estimates vary widely amongst scholars. 64 A rare exception to this rule is the case of Sivananda-Radha (1981:188), a German female who later migrated to Canada, who claims that Sivananda granted her permission to initiate others into sannyasa. 65 Episode 20 (0.27m) of a documentary on Chinmayananda; available at: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=Kq__erzvNNI (accessed June 2020). 66 Within the DLS, the brahmacharin is afforded an intermediary status between the sannyasin and general base of paid members. In my experience, most DLS brahmacharins elect to live outside the ashram and visit periodically, reflecting their desire to continue to remain engaged in society. Those residing permanently in the ashram are known emically as ‘resident sadhaks’. 67 Interview of Vimalananda Saraswati on 17 November 2011 at the Sivananda Ashram in Rishikesh, Uttarakhand. Whilst there is an abundance of DLS publications on the topic of sannyasa, little has been written on the procedures and rules relating to the formal initiation process (diksha). 68 See Clark’s (2006) excellent study for an overview, which details the organisation and practices of the Dashanami order (Daśanām.ī-Sam.nyāsīs). 69 Ghurye (1953:93) notes that this is in keeping with traditional initiations of noviates. 70 See Olivelle (1981:272). 71 Names were given in the form ‘Swami +_ananda Saraswati’; e.g. Swami Gurupadananda Saraswati. 72 Interview of Jitamohananda on 11 October 2012 at the Chidananda Ashram in Puri, Odisha. 73 Sivananda’s prescriptions broadly overlap with Dashanami rules; see Khandelwal (2004:29). 74 Taking Finke’s (2004:20) definition of ‘vitality’ as ‘an organisation’s ability to attract and retain members and to generate commitment from these members’. 75 Divine Life Magazine (1949:13). 76 Like the ‘middle-class’ gurus of Mata Amritanandamayi and Sathya Sai Baba (Warrier 2005; Copeman and Ikegame 2012), Sivananda recruited within India and abroad from the educated and professional classes, as evidenced in countless literature from the DLS archives. 77 Divine Life Magazine (1938); DLS Annual Report (1938). 78 Resident brahmacharins and sannyasins were paid in kind by being fed and sheltered rather than being formally remunerated. 79 See Sadānanda Giri (1976) and Beckerlegge (2000, 2006). 80 Initiation certificates from the 1940s to 1963 stipulated entry into the ‘Sacred order of Dasanama Sannyasa of Shrimad Shankaracharhya Shringeri Mutt’, including Satyananda’s certificate (see Fig.3:2). Sivananda referred to his sannyasa candidates in 1947 publications as becoming part of the ‘Paramahamsa order’, a sub-group of the Dashanamis known as ‘non-staff holders’, including Pranavananda who is listed as initiated into the ‘Paramahamsa Order’ of the Dashanamis on 2 July 1959. See Clark (2006:28–47) on Dashanami sub-groups. 81 Typically, various characteristics associated with the Shringeri Math are listed on these later certificates. See Bartos (2017:104) for discussion of a 1997 DLS initiation certificate. 82 For the Ramakrishna Mission (and also female guru Mata Amritanandamayi), linkage is traced through the ‘Puri’ branch of the Dashanamis. For the Arya Samaj, an initiate of the ‘Saraswati’ branch was the founder, Dayananda (1824–1883). 83 This may be interpreted as a new form of Westernised monastic yoga organisation that, following Sinha and Saraswati (1978:57), exhibits ‘new kinds of charismatic asceticism’.

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  45 84 ‘Non-renunciation’ is a term coined by Madan (1987). 85 See also Miller (1981:104–105). The original wording in 1936 was ‘vow’ (rather than ‘pledge’) and an individual gave their ‘word of honour’ (now removed) (Chidananda 1993:52). 86 See also Gyan (1980:102). 87 Over recent years, my archival research finds that only full membership was listed on documentation although personal experience in the ashram reveals that the subscription only membership remained an unpublicised possibility. 88 The package comprises Sivananda’s (1947) publication, Essence of Yoga (or Yogasara in Hindi), along with a ‘Spiritual diary’ conferring rules and expectations of conduct. 89 Rule no.26(b) of the ‘Constitution, Rules and Regulations of the Society’ stipulates the AGM as a forum to for elections (DLS Annual Report 1997). 90 Periodically, 21 Heads of Departments were appointed by leaders and not subject to a voting process. 91 Historically, ‘Secretary’ could be understood as a ‘guru-in-training’ role, who sooner or later became the President and guru; as seen with Chidananda (Secretary 1948, President 1963) and Vimalananda (2004, 2008 respectively). A recent exception is Padmanabhananda (b.1935) who became Secretary in 2008, but upon Vimalananda’s death in 2019 continued as Secretary. 92 The President occupies the top position of Chairman of the Board of Trustees, the General Secretary is also Secretary of the Board of Trustees and so on. 93 See Weber (1978[1922]:242) on personal charisma attributable to a master (or guru) whose followers obedience is based upon perceptions of the master’s superhuman qualities, as a distinct model of operation from rational, bureaucratic organisation. 94 DLS Annual Reports (1997–2003). Donations for the year totalled USD $962,000 (as per 2004). 95 Including ‘pending’ branches (i.e. where dues were not yet paid), this would have totalled 537 branches in India in 2003. 96 With the Indian economy on the brink of collapse, the International Monetary Fund provided an economic bailout sparking the introduction of wide-reaching liberalisation measures in India. Wealth was redistributed via privatisation of major sections of the economy, increasing investment into the coffers of companies who were incentivised by tax breaks to make charitable donations. 97 A major benefit of being registered as a ‘Society’ in 1939 was being exempted from paying taxes in India by qualifying as a charity under section 15(B) of the Indian Income-Tax Act 1922. 98 The announcement stated that: ‘…the general public and all the members of the DLS are hereby informed that all the programme of Gurupriyananda in India and abroad are of his own and the DLS is in no way connected with it’ (The Divine Life, August 2011, p.21). 99 DLS update, 16 January 2011. First, ‘an unfortunate incident’ occurred in 1999 at The Divine Life Society Conference in Mumbai. In 2001, the DLS publicly condemned Adhyatmananda for ‘attempt at molestation’ (DLS update, 27 April 2007) and then took further steps to distance itself, warning supporters to disassociate themselves from him and the Gujarat branch in 2007. Finally, in 2011, the DLS threatened him with legal action for copyright infringement. 100 See Scott (2003:74). 101 As cited by Venkatesananda (2006[1985]:289). 102 Interview Vimalananda (2011). Full membership and ‘subscription membership’ were qualitatively different. Crucially, subscription members were unable to vote in the annual AGM on key matters, such as the appointment of senior posts. 103 These types of informal structures supplement, erode and transform formal structures in a number of ways (Scott 2003:59). 104 My interview of Padmanabhananda took place on 16 November 2011 at the Sivananda Ashram in Rishikesh, Uttarakhand.

46  Sivananda and The Divine Life Society 105 Chidananda was General Secretary from 1948 until touring extensively, including the US in 1959. His absences from the ashram prompted Sivananda to nominate Krishnananda into the role in 1961. 106 In our interview (17 November 2011), Vimalananda said he was a long-time ashram resident since 1953. Born as S. Nagarajanin in 1932 (Chamarajanagar, Karnataka), he participated in the ‘Quit India Movement’ as a student. He became a trusted assistant of Sivananda and undertook a similar role for Chidananda post-1963, being initiated as a sannyasin in 1972 by Chidananda. Eventually, he became General Secretary in 2004 and President in 2008. 107 Coming to reside in the ashram only recently (2008), Padmanabhananda was born in 1935 to a Brahmin family in Kottayam, Kerala. Previously an engineer, his work as General Secretary has included visiting DLS branches around the world, with a marked acceleration since Vimalananda suffered ill-health (throat cancer). 108 In the DLS archives, there are comparatively few references to UK supporters post-1963. 109 Recorded in Sivananda’s diary entry for 18 May 1948 (Venkatesananda 2005[1961]). Her sizeable donation to help enlarge the ashram is recorded on a plaque in the Sivananda Ashram (as of 2011). 110 In 1954, Nixon went onto offer a fully illustrated correspondence course in the UK on yoga practice, as published in Health and Strength magazine (Newcombe 2011:16). 111 The Divine Life (2010:12–13). There is also a record of visits by Chidananda in July 1993 and Bhaskarananda in August 2005. 112 The phone number listed in 2020 has not been operational since April 2000 (prefix ‘0171’). Fortuitously, I met ‘London Branch’ representatives in Rishikesh (2011) who recalled Vimalananda visiting their flat in 2010 to perform a religious ceremony of puja (worship). From our discussions, it was clear that this ‘branch’ was essentially a family with a personal historic link to the ashram rather than an active centre organising regular public activities. 113 Official site of Krishnananda: https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_194. html (accessed December 2014) (see Clark 2006:28–47 on sub-groups). 114 Though permission (from the General Secretary) is initially required to establish a DLS branch, this is usually straightforward. Ad-hoc oversight is carried out from time to time via the visits of DLS sannyasins to local branches, where host branches are expected to arrange a series of events. 115 Interview of Padmanabhananda (2011). 116 This includes fully paid-up branches and excludes those with membership ‘pending’. 117 Sivananda’s only travel outside of India was his work in British Malaya (1913–1923) and a few days to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) in 1950. 118 Venkatesananda (2006[1985]:406). See also Ananthanarayanan (1998[1970]:171). 119 Sivananda (2011[1958]:174]; Venkatesananda (2006[1985]:200). 120 Satchidananda (1976). 121 As quoted by Venkatesananda (2006[1985]:309). 122 Sivananda had reportedly received many invitations to travel abroad, including to the US in the 1950s (Venkatesananda 2006[1985]:308). 123 See Chapter 6. 124 See Beckerlegge (2000). 125 See Fornaro (1969:9–10, 36). 126 As evidenced by the list of patrons produced regularly in DLS publications, such as Padmanaban (1953: Plate 20–23, 28–29). Miller (1981:105) also comments on the middle-class and wealthy being donors and members. 127 Though the VHP has effectively been erased from DLS rhetoric, an operational connection is discernible; for example, at periodic events such as Chidananda formally inaugurating a major VHP conference of over 10,000 followers in Ahmedabad in 1972 (The Times of India 1972:7).

Sivananda and The Divine Life Society  47 128 Throughout DLS literature, Sivananda is reported as giving initiation ‘almost indiscriminately to young and old’ (Venkatesananda 2006[1985]:159). 129 As Vimalananda emphasised strongly to me (17 November 2011) inclusion for all was paramount with respect to both membership and sannyasa. 130 To put this approach in context, women have frequently been admitted in to the Dashanami Order (Clark 2006:29) despite what Khandelwal (2004:36–37) refers to a lack of agreement across historical periods and textual traditions about women’s eligibility for sannyasa. 131 ‘Synthetic Yoga’ has been a registered mark since 1999 in the US (3880487). 132 As per my own fieldwork observations and interactions with residents. 133 As observed by Strauss (2005:65) in 1992 and Bartos (2017:94) in 2011. 134 This is despite Vishnudevananda training two replacements to lead the teaching of posture practice (The Divine Life 1958:24). 135 Venkatesananda (2006[1985]:85–87) reports that Sivananda distributed his instructions on a tour in Sitapur on 20 November 1932. 136 Chidananda (1974:15) first started to mention the Resolve Form in a letter date February 1964 but it appears absent from Sivananda’s texts prior to that period. 137 Archival analysis in the Rishikesh ashram shows that Sivananda consistently presented the DLS as fundamentally non-sectarian, non-denominational and fully tolerant to attract a wider audience. See Altglas (2014:120–122) on Vivekananda and Sivananda’s universalistic discourse. A tone of ideological inclusivism is common amongst guru-led organisations that seek to address a diverse, multi-cultural and interfaith following (e.g. ISKCON, Siddha Yoga, Transcendental Meditation). See also Warrier (2005). 138 The Spiritual Diary and Resolve Form from 2011 is reproduced in Bartos (2017: 128, 363). 139 See Bartos (2017:106). 140 Yoga Life (2013:26). 141 Pers. correspondence with SYVC in Val Morin, Canada (2020) and Integral Yoga in Buckingham (Virginia), US (2020) and Bartos (2017:270). 142 Efforts of the Indian government to open up the Indian economy to international trade and stimulate exports meant that one US dollar cost 2.68 rupees in 1937 but 17.9 rupees in 1991 and by 2020, it would have cost a massive 76 rupees. 143 Any income received (e.g. donations, fees) from supporters based in Europe and the US was denominated in stronger currencies such as the US dollar or British Pound, ensuring those with greater overseas incomes were better placed for global expansion of their initiatives than those earning predominantly in Indian Rupees.

3 Divine Emissaries Sivananda’s famous disciples

One of Sivananda Saraswati’s (1887–1963) greatest legacies to the field of modern yoga was his influence in shaping transnational yoga practice, both directly via his teachings and indirectly via a handful of his disciples who achieved worldrenown in their own right. Sivananda was a guru who created gurus. He shares with Krishnamacharya the legacy of having a few of his students become hugely influential in the global field of posture practice and setting up their own, independent institutions to teach yoga practice. Proliferation of these lineages led to major growth in the numbers of people practising yoga as well as expediting geographical expansion over the second half of the 20th century. This chapter looks into a transformative episode in the history of the Sivananda School where the dissemination of Sivananda’s teachings became a shared task split between a handful of geographically dispersed disciples. Members of this cohort of senior disciples formed an important group of second-generation gurus, or ‘second wave’ (Forsthoefel and Humes 2005:4),1 whose activities furthered modern postural yoga in the West. Taking place from the mid-1950s to the 1970s, this period of separation from the parent organisation in Rishikesh saw the establishment of certain organisational structures and functions that paved the way for scission from The Divine Life Society as part of driving forward their own independent paths.2

A brief history of disciplic departure To set the scene for a more in-depth discussion, I shall briefly recap on the circumstances leading up to the disciples’ departure from The Divine Life Society in Rishikesh. By the mid-1950s, Sivananda had recruited thousands of supporters worldwide but relatively few had met him in person. Typically, they engaged in regular correspondence with him, were avid readers of his books and a considerable number had even received ‘initiation-by-mail’.3 Buoyed by the success of his ‘All-India’ 60-day tour, Sivananda was experiencing a purple patch, with an ascending profile that fed through to additional patrons and a rising income for his organisation, as outlined in the previous chapter. Though great strides had been made over the preceding two decades to disseminate his teachings far and wide as part of his ‘Divine Mission’, Sivananda cherished his original, ambitious goal to achieve a ‘world-wide revival of spirituality’ in

Divine Emissaries  49 order to ‘awaken all men to the fine and lofty purpose of human life’ (Divine Life Magazine 1949).4 However, by the mid to late-1950s, it was becoming apparent that his advancing age and illness (e.g. diabetes, lumbago) would be a barrier to conducting a global campaign of teaching and travel abroad.5 The final years of his life would still prove transformative. Sivananda’s refusal to abandon his overriding objective created an opportunity for motivated, competent and trusted individuals to step into the breach, precipitating a rush to send ‘Divine Emissaries’ (The Divine Life 1957:14) to carry out worldwide dissemination in his place. The decisive moment was cancellation by Sivananda of the fully-planned World Tour.6 Changing his mind about embarking on an extensive personal tour overseas set in motion a wave of disciples being dispatched from Rishikesh in his stead. Indubitably, this move appears motivated by a desire to compensate for his own inability to spread his particular system of teachings on yoga and Vedanta. The early-1950s to 1960s were an intensive period of travel for Sivananda’s senior sannyasins (renunciates). Archival research shows that a few of these disciples had an official remit for travel for which teaching in Sivananda’s name was validated by the DLS either in its publications or in lectures made by senior leaders. These included Vishnudevananda, Satchidananda, Chidananda, Venkatesananda and Pranavananda. The fact that Sivananda actively sent some disciples established an officially sanctioned path of missionary-like travel to teach yoga practice abroad. An implication being that those sannyasins who did not enjoy the blessing of Sivananda were given a convenient pretext for leaving and a presumed mandate. With quite a few senior renunciates on the road during the 1950s and 1960s, it is likely that the prevailing opacity surrounding some of their departures afforded the rest a near-equivalent level of legitimacy as those who were officially sanctioned departees. A case in point is Omkarananda, whose exit was motivated by conflict (Strauss 2005:103–104) arising from his thwarted expectations of attaining a role in the DLS after Sivananda’s death. Yet, leaving under a cloud due to disillusionment and disaffection did not impair his ability to attract and recruit supporters and he was seemingly afforded a level of validation commensurate with the others (at least initially). By the late-1950s, some of Sivananda’s best-educated disciples soon came to be dispersed around world. Initially, the contribution of ‘emissaries’ to Sivananda’s cause was immediately evident, with the creation of many local centres, seemingly closely-linked to Rishikesh authorities and solely focused on his teachings. Schools of yoga practice and Neo-Vedanta were established in nearly every corner of the globe. Somewhat confusingly for the public, a multitude of names were used rather than a single uniform appellation; for example: Sivananda School of Yoga (Montreal), Sivananda School of Hatha Yoga (Rio de Janeiro), The Divine life Training School (Australia), Sivananda Aryavarta Ashram (Mexico), Sivananda School of Yoga (Drammen, Norway), Sivananda Press and Assembly Hall (Durvan, South Africa), Sivananda Cultural Association (New Delhi), Sivanandashram (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) and Sivananda University (Havana, Cuba).7

50  Divine Emissaries The impact of this wave of widely spread institutions was undermined by a lack of standardisation, with no clear branding of initiatives. Moreover, the various centres, schools, halls and associations appeared to be offering a range of differentiated activities that were not easily identifiable to practitioners as being linked. The originator of this problem was in fact Sivananda himself, whose approach to growing his organisation transnationally was not so wellconceived. The absence of a predetermined design for disciples to roll-out created a high level of heterogeneity and ultimately diluted the impact of founding a large network. Whilst he laudably encouraged his followers to do something, he provided very limited guidance; ‘I want you to start amongst your friends…a ‘Yoga Society, Vedantic Society and San Kirtan Association…a Philosophical Library’.8 The lack of coherence of Sivananda’s plan for growth did not improve in sophistication in the ensuing decades and produced a global network that was fragmentated into disparate parts. Lacking a well-formulated plan to follow, most of the travelling disciples took things into their own hands, leading to the emergence of a plethora of new yoga ‘brands’ advocated by this small group of Sivananda’s senior disciples. Not all followed this path as several key individuals chose to remain associated with The Divine Life Society. Often, they were rewarded for their service and became important figures in the DLS; for instance, Chidananda, Venkatesananda, Pranavananda and Gurudevananda. Most prominent within this first group of disciples was Chidananda (1916–2008), who travelled extensively from 1959 until 1962/3 and returned shortly before Sivananda’s death.9 His motivation for returning is clear as he was well-flagged as Sivananda’s successor10 and, in the following months, Chidananda was formally elevated from ‘General Secretary’ to DLS ‘President’ and succeeding guru. Similarly distinguished was Venkatesananda (1921–1982) who previously played a vital role in Sivananda’s important 1950’s tour around India, serving as ‘Gurudev’s right-hand person’ (Behera 2002[1981]). He was sent away by his guru in 1961, becoming an instrumental figure in the important DLS branch in South Africa. Periodically he toured abroad making side trips to Perth (1968) and Sydney (1972), where he actually made a demonstration of Iyengar Yoga. Also counted in this group is Pranavananda (1908–1982) who was born as N. Ponniah. After spending time as a resident in Rishikesh in the late-1950s, he was initiated in 1959 by Sivananda before his guru encouraged him to found a branch in his native Malaysia. He is also notable for a worldwide tour in 1969 where he travelled, at the invitation of peer Vishnudevananda, through Europe, Asia, the US and even to the Vatican for an audience with Pope Paul VI (16 November 1969). In growing the DLS operations in Malaysia, Pranavananda helped produce what I consider to be one of the most extensive and active parts of the organisation outside of India. Lastly, German-born Marianne ‘Sita’ Frenkel (1937–2006) left Rishikesh in the late-1950s and relocated to the US where she established a DLS branch in Harriman, New York (1964) and, latterly, in Maryland (Strauss 2005:49–50; Frederick News Post 2006).11 This initiative failed to make any significant impact on growing the power base of The Divine Life Society in the US. Whilst these travelling sannyasins

1940

1950

1960 Sivananda died 1963

1970

Chinmayananda Satchidananda Satyananda Sivananda-Radha Vishnudevananda Jyotirmayananda Omkarananda Shivapremananda

Joined DLS

Initiated

Left/ Sent

Operated a Sivananda Centre

Figure 3.1  Timeline of the Foundation of New Organisations in the Sivananda School

Founded a new organisation

Divine Emissaries  51

Key:

52  Divine Emissaries remained loyal to the DLS and secured their place in his organisation, others left Sivananda’s sphere of influence entirely. Many exiting disciples failed to return to the fold and a wave of definitive actions followed that represented a severance from direct control of The Divine Life Society. Increasingly viewed as teachers and gurus in their own right, these renunciates developed yoga organisations with a wide range of designations and embraced marketing and advertising of their new initiatives. An essential supportive factor for their activities was the fortuitous timing of these series of breakaways, marked by an upsurge in interest and familiarity amongst Western audiences for all things pertaining to Eastern spirituality, including yoga practice. Undoubtedly incentivised by the many fruitful exchanges and encounters, plentiful new opportunities emerged in an environment of generally greater receptivity for their teachings. Information on the timing of exit of these disciples who permanently left the DLS is summarised below (Figure 3.1). What is most striking in terms of timing is the amount of activity that took place in the immediate aftermath of Sivananda’s death in July 1963. With most disciples already undertaking activities in a set locale, it acted as a green light to accelerate pursuit of their own agendas, whether this be registration of a new organisation or to institute a rebranding. Whilst there was no longer risk of criticism directly from their guru, Sivananda, these ventures were not without risk and carried a certain liability of ‘newness’ (Singh, Tucker and House 1986). For disciples in the Sivananda School, such a risk may have been mitigated to a degree by virtue of their connection to the respected figure of their guru.

Proliferation of new yoga organisations Public promotion of a linkage to an established figure, such as Sivananda, was a common method deployed by the exiting disciples. For example, Satyananda (1923–2009) consistently publicised his links to Sivananda to reinforce his orthodox credentials. Satyananda came to the Rishikesh ashram in 1943 and was initiated by Sivananda in 1947, departing in 1956 to commence a 7-year period of ‘wandering’ as a mendicant around India, Afghanistan, Nepal, Burma and Sri Lanka (BSY 1994b). Upon which time he founded the ‘International Yoga Fellowship Movement’ in 1963 and the ‘Bihar School of Yoga’ (aka Satyananda Yoga) in 1964. I find the commentary on him in DLS literature to be brief and slightly dismissive; for instance, whilst praising him for his achievements, the wording is a little off-hand in calling him a ‘little boy when he came’ (to Rishikesh) and exhibited surprise that ‘devotees somehow recognised some value and worth and intrinsic merit in him’.12 One of his peers, Chinmayananda (1916–1993), was born as P. Balakrishna Menon in Ernakulam, Kerala. The son of a judge and with postgraduate degrees in law and literature, Balan was working as a journalist when he came to the Rishikesh ashram to write a story in 1947. After several visits, he was initiated by Sivananda on 25th February 1949.13 Shortly thereafter, Sivananda instructed him to study with Swami Tapovanam (1889–1957), an 11km walk upstream along the Ganges. In 1953, his followers chose to set up the Chinmaya Mission in

Divine Emissaries  53 his name in Mumbai. He later collaborated with M.S. Golwalkar, S.S. Apte and Keshavram Kashiram Shastri to establish in 1964 what would become a popular and controversial Hindu nationalist movement, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). The DLS makes no official mention of linkage to the right-wing group but historical links are evident,14 not least as similar patriotic and nationalist overtones pervaded a number of Sivananda’s public talks. For instance, on 2 March 1948 he lectured that ‘patriotism is the first step to universalism…love of one’s own nation in time leads to cosmic love or the love of God’.15 Both ascetics, Satyananda and Chinmayananda, formed part of a second group who left Rishikesh but remained in India to pursue their own independent initiatives. A third group took permanent residence abroad where they founded new institutions. One of the most famous is Satchidananda (1914–2002). Born in Tamil Nadu (Chettipalayam) as C.K. Ramaswamy Gounder, he came to Rishikesh in 1949 and was initiated in the very same year; as pictured in Rishikesh with Sivananda (Figure 3.2). In 1953, Sivananda sent him to assist a female sannyasin to teach the locals in Sri Lanka. Over a decade later, he accepted an invitation from artist Peter Max to come to New York (Woo 2002) and set up his first ‘Integral

Figure 3.2  Satchidananda standing next to Sivananda in Rishikesh. (Credit: Photo courtesy of Satchidananda Ashram/Integral Yoga® Archives)

54  Divine Emissaries Yoga Institute’ on the Upper West Side in October 1966. It was at this point that Satchidananda is reported as having ‘severed links with [the] DLS’ (The Telegraph 2002). Just 3 years later that he shot to fame by giving the opening speech at the Woodstock Festival in 1969 to an audience of 400,000 and moved his New York centre to Greenwich Village (Springston 1986:1) in 1970. Filing a trademark for ‘Integral Yoga’ in 1977, he was to site the headquarters for ‘Integral Yoga’ in 700 acres of Buckingham County, Virginia in 1979 under the name, Yogaville, which has since grown to a network of two ashrams (Virginia, Sri Lanka), seven Institutes and twenty-three centres globally.16 Around the same time as Satchidananda came to the US,17 Jyotirmayananda (b.1931) settled in Florida and sited his centre in Miami in 1969, which is today known as the ‘Yoga Research Foundation’.18 He had come to Rishikesh in 1952 after seeing Sivananda during his ‘All-India Tour’ a couple of years earlier and was subsequently initiated into sannyasa on 3 February 1954.19 Lauded as a gifted writer and speaker, Jyotirmayananda departed from Rishikesh in 1962, at the comparatively late stage in the exodus of Divine Emissaries, travelling first through Europe before spending several years teaching yoga in Puerto Rico. Overlapping Jyotirmayananda’s residence at Rishikesh, German national Sylvia Hellman (1911–1995) was pioneering for being one of the first Western women recorded as being initiated into full sannyasa (Paul 1981:26). After a 6-month stay, Sivananda carried out her rites of initiation in 1956, bestowing the name Sivananda-Radha. Of interest, her initiation came prior to the possibility of women being initiated into sannyasa in the women’s arm of Vivekananda’s Ramakrishna Mission (Sarada Math) that occurred in 1959.20 Sivananda-Radha left for British Colombia soon after and went on to establish the ‘Sivananda Ashram’ in 1958 (Burmaby, BC), relocating to Yasodhara Ashram in 1963 and later developing several ‘Radha Centres’ from 1982. Vishnudevananda (1927–1993; né Kuttan Nair) elected to establish a ‘Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centre’ firstly in Montreal (shown below in Figure 3.3) and, secondly, in New York during the course of 1959.21 When he subsequently failed to satisfy US immigration procedures in New York, he chose to settle permanently in Canada (Altglas 2014:41) and purchased land in Val Morin for his first ashram in 1962 with financial help from his students (Krishna 1995:xvi). Vishnudevananda had first came to Sivananda in 1946 after reading DLS publications that ‘appealed to [his] intellect’.22 It is likely that he was initiated by Sivananda on the same day as Chinmayananda on 25 February 1949.23 After ­appointing his own replacement as ‘Professor of Hatha Yoga’ in the DLS ‘Yoga Vedanta Forest Academy’ in 1957, he travelled extensively, including to Malaysia, Hong Kong, Indonesia and Australia (The Divine Life 1958).24 Vishnudevananda was demonstrably one of Sivananda’s most successful and flamboyant disciples worldwide.25 It is also worth mentioning Shivapremananda (1925–2019), in part due to his interaction with Vishnudevananda. Intent on entering the Indian civil service, Sukhendu Ranjan Ray instead visited Rishikesh at aged 19 and ended up staying for a decade (Sill 2019) until becoming a sannyasin in 1954. He departed in 1961, ­initially running a ‘Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centre’ in Milwaukee, Wisconsin26 before founding centres in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay, also described as ‘Sivananda

Divine Emissaries  55

Figure 3.3  Vishnudevananda outside the first Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centre in 1959. (Credit: Courtesy of the Executive Board Members of International Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres)

Yoga Vedanta Centres’ in 1962. Returning to the US, he lived in New York from 1964–1970 running the centre that Vishnudevananda had founded in 1959 (DLS 1987:225) and returning to South America thereafter. By the early-1990s, he was reported teaching 300 regular practitioners in Argentina (Sharma 1993:10). It was only in 1992, after three decades of apparent titular overlap with Vishnudevananda’s global organisation – but no apparent functional linkage – that the names of his centres were changed to: Shivapremananda Foundation (Argentina), Shivapremananda Centre of Yoga Vedanta (Uruguay) and Shivapremananda Centre (Chile).27 Lastly, and more ominously, is Omkarananda (1929–2000) who was initiated in 1947 by Sivananda but eventually left The Divine Life Society disaffected in 1965 after being overlooked for advancement in the shake-up following Sivananda’s death. Whilst he was claimed to be a ‘headquarters swami’ (The Divine Life 1966) as well as Sivananda’s ‘favourite’ (Strauss 2005:103–107), he never did return.28 Instead, Omkarananda went to Switzerland at the invitation of Hanna Hermann and founded the ‘Divine Light Zentrum’ in 1967, where he claimed to subsequently initiate around 170 individuals into sannyasa. But, in 1975, he descended into disgrace for his involvement in a bomb plot and was sentenced to 14 years in prison for attempted murder (Associated Press 2000). After an unsuccessful appeal in 1981

56  Divine Emissaries (no.8118/77), Omkarananda was ultimately expelled from Switzerland for serious public order offences and later established himself in Austria, near Bregenz.29

Motivations for independence In the initial stages of departure, disciples typically exhibited behaviours in line with serving as loyal agents of Sivananda. Over time, they appeared to become increasingly informed by their own interests and asserted greater autonomy over the ­dissemination of teaching. Although their individual underlying motivations are often difficult to pin down, part of the reason for seeking greater independence seems rooted in the practical realities they faced. Disciples were usually travelling alone for long periods of time, residing in unfamiliar locations and covering many miles of territory. In many ways, this was a lonesome task. Being sent on extended missions cut them off from the provision of support and social reinforcements of group identity (Bromley 2004:300); a situation that Vishnudevananda recalls, ‘I had just a passport, no money, no sponsors and a long journey’ (Krishna 1995:37). Under such challenging conditions, it is perhaps unsurprising that most of the disciples tended to drift away – if only, for the pragmatic reason of basic survival with the need to feed, clothe and house themselves as well as to find meaningful social ­support. Not merely faced with the issue of self-­financing their travels, these missionary disciples were essentially left to their own devices, being removed from direct contact with their guru and interaction with like-minded peers. Given that a sense of close community leads many to join an ashram in the first place (Lofland and Stark 1965), removal is undesirable for individuals habituated to its routine and confines. The actual trigger for organisational separation frequently evolved from the increasing time spent away from Sivananda’s domain and his central headquarters in Rishikesh. Vishnudevananda’s perspective is illuminating and perhaps indicative of the experience of the whole group in that it marked the commencement of a new phase in their lives; ‘from then onwards, I entered a new dimension of spiritual life. There was no more support or shade from the teacher. I was alone’ (Krishna 1995:36). Over time, these new yoga organisations sought to assert distinctive identities with their own eponymous lineages. Though initially highly collaborative, there may well have also been an element of competitiveness between these educated and ambitious individuals. Looking back to experiences in the Sivananda Ashram, the environment was punctuated by periods of jealousy between disciples. Reports emerged of an undercurrent of competition in the ashram environment when Sivananda started paying more attention to Chinmayananda and his departure was a direct result of the acrimony cause by other disciples being jealous of his relationship with Sivananda (Patchen 1989:34). In seeking to understanding why these new yoga organisations were founded in the first place, rather than sticking with the existing branch structure of The Divine Life Society, it is helpful to also consider Sivananda’s personal entrepreneurialism. Inspiration from the eventual scission from the DLS can be traced back to the example set by Sivananda himself, as rather than merely espousing his teachings, disciples often elected to emulate the entrepreneurship of Sivananda who struck his own path and built an extensive institution independent from others.

Divine Emissaries  57

The aftermath of separation The impact of those who remained permanently abroad – and effectively exited The Divine Life Society – represented an immutable loss to the DLS by dispersing some of its brightest and best people. The transfer of skilled persons outside of the parent organisation may be interpreted as a ‘brain drain’ leaving the DLS with a very real issue of plugging gaps in knowledge and capabilities that could not be adequately filled from those left behind; especially given the seniority of disciples who left. The wide implications of this situation were that the decline of the DLS on the global stage was inextricably linked with the departure of its best educators, innovators and future leaders. The heavy loss of intellectual capital and organisational resources prompted by disciplic departures may be viewed, in Turner’s (1957:328) terminology, as a ‘point of crisis’ with the DLS coming to be overshadowed at a transnational level by this second generation of gurus. Not betraying an inkling of loss, the coverage of the travelling disciples was presented in almost heroic terms by The Divine Life Society. Vishnudevananda was celebrated as achieving ‘a tremendous fillip’ (The Divine Life 1959:n.p.) by visiting 51 branches on his world tour, including founding a centre in London in 1957 (The Divine Life 1958:24).30 As President Vimalananda (1932–2019) described to me, this was perceived as an exciting time of opportunity with many of the remaining resident sannyasins wishing to go on similar travels.31 Evidently, this presented Sivananda with an acute challenge to avoid uncontrolled waves of disciples departing from the ashram. Vimalananda himself ardently expressed his desire to travel but Sivananda sternly replied that he must stay, as his typing skills were required in the ashram.32 Presenting the developments abroad as an exciting time of expansion and taking credit for their initiatives, the DLS proclaimed itself to be ‘one of the most efficient and powerful Divine Life organisations in the world’ (The Divine Life 1959). Consistent with its warm coverage of the disciples, the response of the DLS to the foundation of their separately branded yoga initiatives was to emphasise fraternity by fawning over the so-called ‘sister organisations’. This is congruent with how a parent body often ‘seeks to retain the schismatics within the fold’ (Ammerman 1987:8151) so as to convey an external impression of unity and to minimise damaging criticism from what may be a competing body. Equally, describing the disciples as ‘Divine Emissaries’ (The Divine Life 1957:14) appeared part of this strategy to view their activities as an extension of The Divine Life Society. The cordiality continued in person with several former peers meeting at Vishnudevananda’s Canadian ashram in 1969 for his ‘True World Order Festival’, including Sahajananda (Head of the DLS South Africa), Pranavananda and Venkatesananda. Figure 3.4 shows another meeting in 1975, this time at his ashram in the Bahamas with Vishnudevananda (left) seated next to Sivananda’s heir, Chidananda, and on his right, a now famous Satchidananda. Over time, however, I would argue that the DLS started to appear conflicted in relation to how it should respond to these new developments. Informing this rethink was the emergence of a raft of copycat organisations set up by ‘outsiders’ with no linkage to Sivananda whatsoever, who had jumped upon the bandwagon in the hope of benefiting from Sivananda’s esteemed reputation. In response,

58  Divine Emissaries

Figure 3.4  Vishnudevananda, Chidananda and Satchidananda in the Bahamas in 1975. (Credit: Courtesy of the Executive Board Members of International Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres)

The Divine Life Society introduced a public listing of ‘officially sanctioned’ affiliate yoga organisations in the 1960s (Strauss 2005:104). Publication of this list could be interpreted as an attempt to quash a litany of false disciples and fictitious claimants. However, it also conferred a level of credibility upon the newly independent yoga organisations founded by former disciples. The practice gave a degree of legitimation for their separate ventures by communicating externally what appears as an explicit seal of approval. Part of this forbearance may be explained by the fact that, unlike the schisms in Maharishi Mahesh’s Transcendental Meditation in 1980s (Humes 2005), similar initiatives were not established on its doorstep and therefore less immediately threatening. This did not mean, however, that this rearrangement of the field left The Divine Life Society unscathed as, ultimately, it was destabilising. Schism often leads to the weakening of parent body (Lewis and Lewis 2009:6) and a negative consequence was the loss of a monopoly over Sivananda’s teachings. The Divine Life Society came to find itself complemented, or in competition depending on one’s perspective, by new groups that served to increase the number of gurus repackaging Sivananda’s teachings and marketing it under a range of different banners. During fieldwork, I encountered a degree of confusion amongst practitioners (particularly outside of India) in light of the appearance of close alternatives, with many overlooking The Divine Life Society altogether and presuming that Vishnudevananda was the official successor and his organisation was the conduit for Sivananda’s yoga practice. The presence of multiple voices not acting in any coordinated fashion can be interpreted as the DLS failing to

Divine Emissaries  59 exert control over the exiting disciples, who instead nurtured their own separate identifies rather than being subservient to former authorities. A host of other factors contributed to the scaling down of its global ambitions, including the loss of its charismatic leader with Sivananda’s passing in 1963 and, as discussed above, the onset of organisational maturity with an attendant growth of conservatism amongst its leaders and general inertia.33 Quite simply, I found that the DLS had disengaged from competing to capture the attention of international audiences. At this stage, with around 30 years of operation, The Divine Life Society had a lot to lose by focusing on transnational dissemination itself, not least the risk of alienating its staunch group of supporters among the educated, conservative, Hindu establishment and monied classes. In contrast, the departing disciples had very little to lose and much to gain by innovating. On a more theoretical note, it is perhaps unsurprising that an incumbent (DLS) came to be eclipsed by a flurry of new entrants, as whilst an organisation may be stable in the short-run, it will not necessarily retain its distinctiveness in the long-run (Carley 1991). The underlying rationale is that the uniqueness of the DLS was lost not necessarily through fresh ideas being discovered but by being diluted through mere replication with the emergence of copycats or viable alternatives led by his former disciples. The meteoric rise of the yoga organisations of Sivananda’s disciples vastly eclipsed the performance of the DLS over the last half-century.34 Sivananda succeeded in gaining long-term traction in India (as discussed in Chapter 2) but he was unsuccessful in capitalising upon his connections with interested foreigners in the same way as many of his disciples. Nevertheless, Sivananda’s organisation was useful as a ‘prototype’ and his framework was copied and adapted35 but also extended as these individuals became decidedly entrepreneurial; a factor shown to be supportive for the success of religious groups (Pearce et al. 2010). In effect, they were ‘special entrepreneurs’ (Eisenstadt 1995:132) in the sense that they were part of an elite who were ‘able to offer solutions to [a] new range of problems’. Travel in itself would have brought new encounters and experiences to the emissaries that would have reshaped their understandings and contributed to their differentiated presentations of Sivananda’s teachings. Benefitting from an almost total freedom to steer their own course, they demonstrated not just the personal ambition that propelled their independent actions but the requisite level of skill in being able to read their newly-found audiences, present teachings accordingly and build institutions to suit differentiated social, legal and cultural systems. From a field perspective, this shift of influence towards the new entrants instituted a rebalancing of power on the world stage amid the rise of competing sources of authority on Sivananda’s teachings. The different trajectories of guru (parent) organisation versus disciple organisations was most strikingly demonstrated with Sivananda’s DLS failing to fully capitalise on the global surge in popularity of yoga practice in the late 20th century. Such efforts to distinguish themselves and adapt to fresh circumstances was not historically unusual, as they ‘stand near the end of a long line of innovators’ (White 2012:27). Similarly, as Miller (1980:83–96) notes of pre-modern yoga, ‘gurus of Hindu tradition have continually established religious and monastic institutions in an attempt to bring about practical applications of their teachings, adapting and changing both their institutions and teachings to better fit the times in which they were living’.

60  Divine Emissaries The fact remains that these developments can be seen to be advantageous to the Sivananda School as a whole. Losing pace with the new entrants mattered less from the perspective that dispersing of Sivananda’s brightest and best educators acted to boost overall global dissemination through enlarging the provision of Sivananda-inspired teachings via accessible, locally-based classes in the style. Taken together, the work of these sannyasins proved an outstanding success in significantly enlarging the geographical spread of institutions advancing Sivananda’s form of teachings. As, thanks to their efforts and contributions away from the DLS, it ultimately became the most important school of posture practice in the world in terms of numbers of total teachers trained globally.

Vishnudevananda’s training powerhouse Most triumphant was Vishnudevananda who espoused ‘Sivananda Yoga’. He was tremendously successful as a result of presenting a credible alternative to the Rishikesh-led packaging of Sivananda’s teachings and stimulating sustained levels of interested in yoga practices initially in North America and, subsequently, in various locations around the world. Vishnudevananda was instrumental in the field of modern yoga practice for his development of a global organisation that was to become a teacher training powerhouse. Krishnananda (DLS General Secretary, 1961–2001) provided an accurate assessment in 1987 by proclaiming that ‘Vishnudevananda’s people are taking over’.36 To date, his yoga organisation, the International Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres (SYVC), has certified 47,441 people as teachers over the last 50 years.37 With rising demand for teachers over the period, this equates to a total of 2,334 people trained in 2018, which is almost four times as many as the number of Ashtanga Yoga teachers who have ever been officially accredited by the KPJAYI.38 As far as I have been able to establish, the SYVC have trained and certified by far the largest number of teachers of posture practice worldwide of any single organisation or body. Research here suggests that the impressive global achievements of Vishnudevananda’s yoga centres was predicted on transitioning away from Sivananda’s model of social organisation, in which initiation into sannyasa represented the sole mode of guru association and means of signalling competence in yoga ­practice. Electing instead to embrace a pure teacher training model to professionalise yoga training had more in common with the Krishnamacharya School. By implication, the role of religion in organising posture practice diminished in view of a strategic reorientation towards providing a system of teaching qualifications and expanding the training of members of the general public. This period was important for transforming postural yoga in the popular consciousness so that yoga praxis was no longer confined to an esoteric presentation understood solely by a social minority or elite that included institutionalised monks, religious adherents and scholars and ceased being associated with asceticism, extended spells of ashram residence and the renunciation of family links and worldly goods. Rather, from the mid to late-1960s, yoga teaching started to be recognised more widely as a profession open to non-Indians and householders, distinct from recognising sannyasins (monks) as the principal repositories of knowledge on yoga practice.

Divine Emissaries  61 The importance of renunciation did not disappear altogether, as two tracks persisted. On the one hand, sannyasa was of continuing importance as initiated sannyasins occupied the most senior organisational and spiritual positions in the SYVC but, on the other hand, the organisational focus was devoted to developing expertise in yoga practice via certification. Put together, I interpret this situation as forming a hybrid that offered a blend of the two distinct approaches with features that appealed to two very different sections of the public. With just 100 followers initiated into sannyasa by Vishnudevananda from the 1960s to 1993 (Krishna 1995:75) versus tens of thousands of teachers trained, the weighting between them was very clearly skewed towards catering for mainstream (secular) demands. One should be cautious, however, not to misunderstand this deemphasis of the religious component as a SYVC strategy that was uniformly applied worldwide, as it was necessary to account for diverse religious landscapes in each country. For example, SYVC authorities followed a decade long application process to become legally recognised by French government authorities as a ‘religious congregation’ in 1997 (Altglas 2014:179–182). This ‘remarkable achievement’, which was sought for reasons of attained legitimacy and to avoid the label of ‘cult’ has, according to Altglas (2014), involved ‘insisting on the religious nature of its teachings and organisation’ and may be interpreted as managing two contradictory forces, namely, the ‘institutional pressure to accentuate the reference to Hinduism’ and a ‘universalistic ideology’ that appeals to its large base of Western practitioners (ibid:183). The training model Highly influential in this case was the precise design of the training model, which was at the heart of its effective transnational dissemination. Geared towards posture practice, the development of Vishnudevananda’s teacher accreditation format from 1969 turned out to be a winning formula (Figure 3.5).39 From an initial 6-week course, he pioneered the comparatively short, 4-week course format and gave flexibility in offering to take the residential course in one of his multiple locations; initially in Canada, then the Bahamas and latterly in India, Europe, Asia, South America and Australasia. By delegating teaching of the short course to a trusted staff from the mid-1970s,40 he opened up the possibility of systematically teaching large numbers and, as a relatively early pioneer of the combination of tourism and training in the field of yoga, he introduced the possibility of a yoga holiday to gain accreditation. The present cost of attending the course is presently between USD $1,876–4,660 including accommodation ranging from a tent or shared dorm to a private room. Similarly, design of the training format was a driver of growth for Satchidananda’s ‘Integral Yoga’ organisation as it led to success in recruitment. From introducing certificated 1-month residential programmes in its Yogaville East ashram (Connecticut) in the mid-1970s, it has certified 6,000 teachers (as of 2020) through its 200-hour and 500-hour programmes. Teacher training was provided at the Yogaville headquarters as well as across its network of institutions in a similarly contracted format (4-week programmes or two 2-week sessions)

62  Divine Emissaries

Figure 3.5  First SYVC teacher training course that took place in Canada in 1969. (Credit: Courtesy of the Executive Board Members of International Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres)

and costs $2,400–3,800 in 2020 (excluding accommodation). Unlike the SYVC, it provided a measure of flexibility on its advanced course with a modular format that was particularly attractive where trainees had ample choice from over thirty modules for up to 300 hours of the 500-hour programme. To provide an important signal of the quality of tuition, just like in Sivananda Yoga®, authorities in Integral Yoga® sought external validation for their courses and their graduates automatically qualified for registration with America’s largest governing body, Yoga Alliance USA; or the ‘International Association of Yoga Therapy’ for yoga therapy teachers. Historically, its programme was offered in fewer locations than Vishnudevananda’s course, which may well account for a lower number of accredited teachers; however, the group still managed to train a comparable number of teachers as the total for Iyengar Yoga worldwide (4,934 as of 2016). Irrespective of the sizeable numbers attracted to complete these courses, such a teaching format was not without critique. For the SYVC, a sticking point emerged over the perceived quality of teachers graduating from the courses. It shared with Iyengar Yoga the positive traits of a high degree of standardisation of courses and delegation of accreditation powers but the SYVC’s prerequisite for a candidate’s standard of personal practice was far lower prior to embarking on training. The knock-on effect being that the designation ‘qualified teacher’ encompassed a very wide range of teaching abilities based upon variable standards of teaching and depths of experience at the outset. A problematic voiced in 2010 by the founder of one of the largest teaching establishments in Europe, Jonathan Satin (Triyoga in London), was that he would not hire teachers with certification from the SYVC.41 This was founded upon concerns over inferior knowledge due to the brevity of

Divine Emissaries  63 the course compared with the 18–24+ month courses favoured elsewhere (e.g. The British Wheel of Yoga). That said, Satchidananda and Vishnudevananda’s attempts to train supporters were vastly superior to that of their guru, who did not offer a specific teacher certification course at all. Rather, supporters of The Divine Life Society who wished to become accredited as teachers had to do so elsewhere or instead attend its only course offering available, if they were eligible; namely, a 2-month course in yoga practice (asana and pranayama) for Indian men aged 20–65 and with the criterion of being ‘preferably graduate[s]’.42 The main beneficiary was SYVC who became the best-known exponent of ‘Sivananda Yoga’, with Vishnudevananda proving adept at the business side of managing a large transnational organisation. Of note, he was quick to secure a dominant position by trademarking ‘Sivananda’ in the US in 1979 (73219333) – which is a very early stage compared with others in the field – and, subsequently, in the UK (1431858) in 1990 and European-wide (194720) in 1996.43 As Strauss (2005:97) rightly asserts, of all of Sivananda’s disciples it is Vishnudevananda who ‘best exemplifies the commodification of yoga, Indian spirituality and the guru in the world market’. Governance With an eye to the future stability of his organisation, Vishnudevananda took prudent steps to ensure that ‘Sivananda Yoga’ would outlive him, such as setting up a managing board ‘trained by him to direct the organisation after his departure’ (Yoga Life 2001:2). Post his passing in 1993, the running of global operations no longer relied on a solitary decision-maker at its helm but instead became directed by a committee. The Executive Board was comprised of seven of Vishnudevananda’s closest disciples and now encompasses a range of (nonIndian) nationalities. Given the stellar growth of its teacher training programme since that time, this has evidently been a highly successful move for transnational dissemination. The SYVC has not apparently suffered from the issues usually associated with introducing a board structure into a guru organisation, where boards fail to be impactful and not able to curtail the actions of a powerful individual such as a guru or leader. A relevant case is Sivananda, whose monopoly on decision-making continuing unabated for 30 years with The Divine Life Society Board of Management and Board of Trustees serving merely to rubberstamp his dictates and seemingly unable or unwilling to assert themselves.44 For the SYVC, the ability of the leadership structure to preside over a period of impressive growth worldwide could well be linked to the absence of a single, official successor, in that there was not a sufficiently powerful individual who could single-handedly derail the workings of the board. Similar developments at ISKCON and Kripalu have been perceived as undermining the ‘usefulness of continuing the guru-disciple tradition’ (Chapple 2005:33). In theory, the introduction of effective institutional structures to marginalise (or remove) a guru role should have assisted in dealing more capably with abuse claims and other infractions. This is the case even though violence and abuse remain a deeper structural issue within society related to pervasive power inequalities

64  Divine Emissaries (Jain 2020b). Yet, the case of the SYVC highlights that even without a guru, problems relating to abuses of power persisted with allegations of sexual abuse in the 21st century being levied at a senior member of the executive, Maurizio Finocchi (Mahadevananda), and staff member, Thamatam Reddy (Prahlad).45 These public revelations come on top of destabilising allegations of sexual abuse perpetrated by Vishnudevananda himself by his former personal assistant Julie Salter in the eighties alongside practitioners Lucille Campbell and Pamela Kyssa in the seventies.46 Most damning for the present organisation is the charge that those in authority knew of these incidents for years and did little to properly investigate, together with multiple reports of intimidating communications by lawyers acting for the SYVC.47 So, whilst the SYVC was one of the most successful organisations at disseminating its teachings of ‘Sivananda Yoga’, it did not escape the wave of abuse scandals that have prevailed across the field of yoga practice. This is in spite of de-emphasing the guru-centric hierarchical structures that many claim are responsible for the abuse. Reaching far and wide The phenomenal success of the SYVC teaching format in terms of recruitment was similarly matched in terms of ‘reach’, in that teachers were accredited in 164 countries. In comparison, this study finds that for other popular methods of posture practice, the number of countries with accredited teachers was less than half this reach, with the next highest being Iyengar Yoga on 73 countries.48 A salient question is whether a downside of this overtly adaptive strategy is to make it less readily accessible for Indians to participate in a particular style of yoga. It is notable that whilst yoga was being popularised transnationally it languished as a fairly unfashionable practice in India until its relatively recent revitalisation. Askegaard and Eckhardt’s (2012) examination of ‘Glocal Yoga’ looks at the re-appropriation of modern yoga practice in India, as an outcome of multi-directional global cultural flows where a process of ‘sanctioning’ takes place by crossing (and recrossing) of cultural boundaries that has resulted in the importation of yoga practice in suitable forms that appealed to Indian urban elites.49 Yoga’s resurgence of popularity in cosmopolitan India has thereby been influenced by, what Varman (2018:53) terms, ‘circuits of commercialisation and Westernisation’. With regards to the SYVC in India, Klepinger-Mathew (2015:12) identifies a number of structures and constructs she finds inherent in globalised yoga that ‘fail to make sense to Indian students’, especially with regard to discourse where (non-Indian) audience members boldly respond to a guru/leader’s question rather than exercising the humility and deference to which Indian students are commonly socialised. This study finds that since 1978 the SYVC actually accomplished one of the most successful importations back into India of a yoga practice rigorously adapted into a fashionable format for consumption. Data collated here reveal that Vishnudevananda proved adept at attracting the Indian educated elites as his adaptations did not prove sufficiently alienating to restrict the number of Indian participants. For example, it is interesting to find over a quarter of trained teachers in the SYVC (as of 2018) came from India (28%; 13,207), which is

Divine Emissaries  65 Africa 1% South America 4%

Australasia 1% ROW 1%

Europe 36% North America 23%

Asia 34%

Figure 3.6  Worldwide distribution of accredited Sivananda Yoga teachers (2018)

nearly double that of its next highest country, the USA (15%, 7,440). This figure forms an unusually large hub amongst transnational yoga organisations that were popular outside of India; for instance, Indian teachers represented a mere 0.7% in Iyengar Yoga, 2.5% in Ashtanga Yoga and 7% in Viniyoga of their total teachers trained worldwide.50 Typically, hubs of regional practice are located elsewhere, either situated in North America or mainland Europe; with this study finding a preponderance for Iyengar Yoga in the UK, for Ashtanga Yoga in the USA and Viniyoga in Germany. An overview of the regional hubs of SYVC teachers are shown in Figure 3.6, with Europe the largest regional hub at 36%, closely followed by Asia 34%, then North America 23% and South America 4%: For the SYVC, part of its success in India is attributable to visibility and immediacy of teachings, in that there has been an institutional presence on the ground for over 40 years, with a series of centres and ashrams being opened around India from 1978.51 In addition, one may conjecture that attraction is based upon being an internationally-grown organisation with deep roots in India (via Sivananda) and with a high attendance rate of non-Indians conferring a perception of high quality. Elevated levels of respect for yoga imports into India was a trend similarly identified by Bikram Choudhury, who declared to his London audience in 2011, ‘when I try to offer an Indian teacher in India…they always want a foreigner instead’.52

Summary Though in many ways, this transformative period represented a degree of disruption (i.e. dis-organisation) in the history of Sivananda’s Divine Life Society,

66  Divine Emissaries the series of schismatic departures can be interpreted as positive at the level of the Sivananda School (i.e. multiple groups supporting similar teachings), in the sense that the departing disciples stimulated the overall growth of Sivananda-inspired teachings. The founding of independent yoga organisations gave improved public accessibility and awareness of teachings on yoga. An implication being that this process of segmentation may be viewed as a tide lifting all boats, given that it aided the general popularisation of posture practice. What the achievements of Sivananda’s disciples neatly demonstrates is how the differentiated strategies they employed to present and disseminate his teachings reaped far greater attention and success at recruiting supporters on the global stage. Evidently, it was not that Sivananda and his teachings were not popular but rather that his packaging and presentation did not resonate with mainstream transnational audiences. His disciples created institutional networks to organise the practice and practitioners in a more dynamic and responsive manner, better able to flexibly appeal to non-Indian audiences, which they subsequently repackaged and reimported to appeal to an expanding Indian consumer audience. In short, the second-generation disciples were far more accomplished at popularising posture practice whereas Sivananda – like Krishnamacharya – was advanced in years by the time yoga really took off abroad and appeared to lack the volition to take their teachings and make a personal face-to-face impact. A convincing case can be made that without the efforts of these breakaway individuals, a significant portion of latent demand would have gone unmet and overall levels of involvement in yoga practice may well have been lower – or at least slower to climb. These events placed transnational dissemination on a more enduring and organised footing that was ultimately to the benefit of Sivananda’s legacy – albeit consigning Sivananda’s Divine Life Society thereafter to a backwater in the field of globalised yoga practice.

Notes 1 For Forsthoefel and Humes (2005), the first wave included Vivekananda (1863– 1902), Paramananda Yogananda (1893–1952) and Krishnamurti (1895–1986); I would add Sivananda Saraswati (1887–1963) and Krishnamacharya (1888–1989) to this grouping. 2 Key names omitted include: 1.) ‘Temple of Fine Arts’ founded by Shantananda (1934– 2005) in 1981 (Singapore), given its orientation towards dance and the arts rather than yoga. Initiated in the early-1950s, he left for Malaysia in 1971, later extending his influence to Australia and India, 2.) Kailashananda (1913–2011), famously known as Yogi Gupta, who was not initiated by Sivananda (or his heirs) but worked as a doctor in Sivananda’s hospital in the late-1940s before founding ashrams in India and the US (Dharma Yoga™), and 3.) Sivananda-Rita’s centres are no longer in operation: Sivananda-Rita Ashram, Sydney; Divine Life Training School, Brighton-le-Sands. She received sannyasa initiation from Sivananda c.1952. See Rawlinson (1997:18). 3 Sivananda (2011[1958]:138). 4 All references to Divine Life Magazine and The Divine Life relate to in-house publications of The Divine Life Society that were consulted during archival research in the Sivananda Ashram in Rishikesh. See Bartos (2017). 5 Ananthanarayanan (1998:171). 6 Venkatesananda (2006[1985]:406).

Divine Emissaries  67 7 The Divine Life (1959:15). 8 As cited by Venkatesananda (2006[1985]:83). 9 Chidananda is reported variously as returning to Rishikesh ten days before Sivananda’s death (Gyan 1980) or months prior, in March 1962 (http://www.dlshq. org/saints/chida.htm; accessed July 2013). 10 Chidananda (1954:67). 11 En-route, Sita directed Vishnudevananda’s Centre in Montreal. After decades of teaching, she became a sannyasin in 1990 (Frederick News Post 2006). 12 DLS website, available at: http://www.dlshq.org/saints/satya.htm (accessed May 2012). 13 Balan’s first visit in 1947 was for one month and he returned later that year for three months to assist with Sivananda’s 60th birthday celebrations, followed by several intermittent stays for spiritual camps. 14 The VHP has effectively been erased from DLS rhetoric. Still, beyond a disciplic link through Chinmayananda, an operational one is discernible with Chidananda formally inaugurating a major VHP conference of over 10,000 followers in Ahmedabad (The Times of India 1972:7). See also McKean (1996). 15 As cited by Venkatesananda (2005[1961]). On Indian nationalism in Neo-Hindu organisations (including the DLS), see McKean (1996). 16 Pers. correspondence with Integral Yoga in Buckingham (Virginia), US (2020). 17 The introduction of the ‘Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952’ loosened previously stringent restrictions on Indian settlement in the US and cleared a path for the abolishment of the national origins quota system by 1965. However, Deslippe (2019) notes that this did not prevent entrepreneurial yogis from Asia participating in the nascent American yoga scene. 18 Jyotirmayananda’s first centre was the ‘Sanatan Dharma Mandir’ (est. 1962) in Puerto Rico, relocating to Miami in 1969 and initially named as the ‘International Yoga Society’. 19 Confusingly, Sivananda reused sannyasin names and Jyotirmayananda had in fact been used 5 years earlier when Sivananda gave the name to S. Rajagopalan on 25 February 1949. 20 See Sinclair-Brull (1997:74–75). 21 Though Vishnudevananda founded this centre, it was run in the early-1960s by a then 23-year-old Sylvia Heck and 20-year-old Sita Frenkel (Leviton 1990:53). 22 Cited by McKean (1996:237). 23 DLS website, available at: http://www.dlshq.org/saints/vishnu.htm (accessed May 2012). A photo in the DLS archives also shows Vishnudevananda pictured alongside Sivananda, Chinmayananda and four other newly initiated sannyasins on what is described as initiation day. 24 SYVC website, available at: http://www.sivananda.org/teachings/swami-vishnudevananda.html#west; accessed January 2011. See Krishna (1995) for further details on the life of Vishnudevananda and Altglas (2005) for a detailed study of his centres (alongside Siddha Yoga) in relation to the rise of ‘Westernized Hinduism’. 25 Strauss (2005:99) labels Vishnudevananda a ‘showman’. 26 DLS website, available at: http://sivanandaonline.org/public_html/?cmd=displaysect ion§ion_id=1499 (accessed February 2012). 27 See Shivapremananda’s (2005) DLS text, An Insight into Yoga, for further details on his organisations. 28 Omkarananda held a senior post within the DLS publications department, where he edited and authored ‘a majority of the booklets produced at the ashram during his tenure’ (Strauss 2005:103–107). Post his departure, these books ceased to be offered for sale in the DLS together with no further public mention of his yoga centres. 29 See Mayer (1993:312–317). 30 Fourteen years later, a ‘Sivananda Vedanta Ashram’ was founded at 44 Ifield Road in London (Newcombe 2020:168–169) as the ‘…the home of the new English ashram of the Sivananda Yoga Society’ as cited in Yoga and Health magazine in 1971 (ibid:29). 31 Interview Vimalananda (2011).

68  Divine Emissaries 32 It was not until 1968 that Vimalananda fulfilled his dream of travelling abroad whilst working as Chidananda’s personal assistant. From this point onwards, his travel was almost frenetic going on trips for over 35 years, including being introduced to four prime ministers of India (Interview Vimalananda 2011). 33 See Chapter 2 on the increased conservatism amongst DLS leaders post-­Sivananda and its retreat from overseas expansion alongside a strong orientation towards domestic Indian, middle-class audiences. 34 Data show quite clearly that this was detrimental to Sivananda’s Divine Life Society in terms of recruitment and the less extensive geographical reach of the organisation. See Chapter 2. 35 Replication of certain features of the DLS that were familiar to the disciples was commonplace, from teachings or structure of organisation to borrowed symbols and motifs; see the parallel between the DLS and SYVC logos (Bartos 2017:380). 36 As cited by McKean (1996:201). 37 Pers. correspondence with SYVC in Val Morin, Canada in September 2019. To adjust for the present number of SYVC teachers, I would conservatively estimate that there are around 33,000 people currently accredited. This takes account of the 50-year period of accreditation (since 1969), adjusts for mortality rates and assumes a rise in demand giving more weighting for teachers trained per annum in the 21st century. 38 As of 2016, there were 603 Ashtanga Yoga teachers listed, which does not include a number of individuals previously accredited who have since been removed from the official list. 39 Yoga Life (2013:26). 40 Altglas (2005:42). 41 Talk given to a course of teacher trainees in 2010 at Triyoga Soho in London. 42 Pers. correspondence with Registrar of the YVFA in January 2016. 43 Whilst there was no registered mark for ‘Sivananda’ in India for books or training courses (classes 16 and 41), a failed attempt at registration in 2015 (3010328) suggests that it would not be possible register ‘Sivananda’ in this area. 44 See Chapter 2. 45 Both cases are presently being investigated by the crowd-funded SATYA Project, which has published the first stage of its investigation; mainly levied at Maurizio Finocchi (Mahadevananda) who is alleged to have sexually abused at least seven people. 46 In December 2019, Julie Salter, former assistant to Vishnudevananda for 11 years, posted an account on Facebook claiming that he sexually abused her for 3 years. This posting prompted two further claims to be voiced; from Lucille Campbell who said that she had ‘sexual relations’ with Vishnudevananda in the 1970s and knew of several other women who also did and Pamela Kyssa who claimed that he raped her in 1979 at a retreat in the UK. See Remski (2019). 47 The SATYA project contends that the institution did not take action until over a decade later, having known since at least 2000 due to complaints being reported. See Merchasin and Pankhania (2020). 48 Available at: http://bksiyengar.com/modules/Teacher/teacher.asp (accessed February 2016). 49 See also Nichter (2013:223) who finds that in recent history yoga has ‘become a part of the modernity project…shaped to fit new conceptions of self’ among urban, elite, Indian females. 50 My calculations based upon data collected in this study on accredited teacher numbers; for more detail, see Chapter 6 on data for Iyengar Yoga and Chapter 7 on Ashtanga Yoga. 51 The SYVC network in India consists of three rural ashrams – in Neyyar Dam, Kerala (est. 1978), Uttar Kashi (1993) and Madurai, Tamil Nadu (2005) – and various urban yoga centres located around India. 52 Lecture at the Institute of Education, London on 8 April 2011. Choudhury noted significant demand for Bikram Yoga in major Indian cities where foreign (non-Indian) teachers were thought to offer something new and fashionable.

4 Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga

Our attention turns to one of Sivananda’s famous disciples, Satyananda Saraswati (1923–2009), who from 1963 created his own eponymous brand of yoga – Satyananda Yoga – and established the ‘Bihar School of Yoga’ (henceforth BSY).1 Satyananda is a particularly intriguing case. Despite having established an extensive global yoga organisation and being a renowned religious figure in India,2 his contribution has hitherto been relatively overlooked in relation to the historical development of transnational yoga practice. Of all of the Indian greats of postural yoga under research, only Satyananda’s heir, Niranjanananda Saraswati (b.1960), and BKS Iyengar share the distinction of receiving the Padma Bhushan, the third-highest civilian award in India; joining an esteemed group of only 1,254 people in history.3 Yet, their profiles in global yoga were markedly different. Both, however, harboured grand ambitions of spreading their yoga teachings but they took quite divergent paths to try and achieve it. This chapter examines attempts by Satyananda and his heirs to popularise the yoga practices of the BSY, for which Satyananda pioneered a reinvigorated form of sannyasa and pursued the education of renunciates as the thrust of global diffusion.

A brief history of Satyananda Satyananda was born in 1923 in Almora, Uttaranchal as a member of the Kshatriya caste.4 At the age of 19, he left his home and went in search of a spiritual guru, arriving shortly thereafter in Rishikesh (1943) where he became a resident of Sivananda’s ashram (Satyananda 1981:157). After a period of 4 years when he worked for much of the time as a general labourer constructing ashram facilities, Satyananda announced that he had accepted a job as a newspaper sub-editor of the Tribune in Lahore and was going to leave (Satyananda 2011[1982]). We gain an insight into just how persuasive and charismatic Sivananda apparently was, as instead of leaving, he convinced Satyananda to become initiated into the Shaivite Dashanami Order of Sannyasa (12 September 1947) and to remain in Rishikesh. This situation was described in a speech by Satyananda (1983) as having initiation almost imposed upon him by his guru. Then, in 1953, Sivananda granted his request to withdraw from ashram work and so Satyananda left to study in Gujarat

70  Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga and Samashtra, eventually returning to Rishikesh in 1955. The following year he left Rishikesh for good, wandering as a mendicant (parivrajaka) across the ‘entire Asian subcontinent’ (Yogakanti et al. 2009a:8). Satyananda claimed to have been charged with a mission from his guru to ‘spread yoga from door to door and shore to shore’ (Satyananda 1981), although I have found no record validating this instruction within the archives of The Divine Life Society (DLS). Not long after leaving the Sivananda Ashram, Satyananda arrived in Munger in 1956 (BSY 1994a).5 It was an area with which he had some familiarity, having personally visited there in 1950 whilst accompanying his guru on his high profile ‘All-India Tour’ over 60 days (Sivananda 1951:492–496; The Times of India 1950:3). Munger was still relatively rural and even jungle-like, despite a colourful history and serving as an important frontier post in the 18th century. By 1956, the locale was becoming mired in poverty and today Bihar remains one of the poorest parts of India. Shortly thereafter, whilst in Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), Satyananda is recorded as floating his idea of setting up a global yoga fellowship to one of his supporters, Satyabratji (BSY 2006a). Yet, he would not formalise this vision until several years later and, in the interim, he would leave and return to Munger many times wandering as far as Burma and Afghanistan for a period of seven years in total (1956–1963). One may speculate that Satyananda eventually came to settle permanently in Munger in part due to his awareness that there would be an existing base of support for Sivananda’s style of teachings, with a DLS Branch operating there since October 1938 (Divine Life Magazine 1938:41).6 To formalise Satyananda’s ambitions, the ‘International Yoga Fellowship Movement’ (IYFM) was firstly registered in 1963 (The Times of India 1963a:7) in Rajnandgaon, intending to act as a coordinating centre for his future activities aimed at developing a global fraternity of yoga (BSY 2006a).7 Describing itself as a ‘charitable and educational institution’, its five aims were centred on the dissemination of teachings by establishing yoga training centres and clinics, publishing texts, conducting yoga research and introducing yoga into schools and colleges (Satyananda 2006[1965]).8 As a next step, one of his initial disciples, Ma Yoga Shakti, established a ‘International Yoga Fellowship Centre’ in Mumbai (The Times of India 1963b:9). It was not, however, until after the passing of Sivananda on 14 July 1963, that Satyananda took a more demonstrably ambitious step of founding his own school of yoga that would be distinctly separate to The Divine Life Society. This was to become his main initiative and was registered in January 1964 as the Bihar School of Yoga.

Establishing a home for Satyananda Yoga It was at this juncture that Sivananda formally inaugurated a home for Satyananda Yoga by opening up the doors of his ashram to the public on 19 January 1964. Doing so was made possible by his successful visit to Mumbai beforehand where he raised monies from his patrons and sponsors: To have an ashram one needs so many things. I collected bedding, money and other items, loaded a goods wagon and came to Munger.9

Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga  71 Evidently, Satyananda had been planning this strategic move for some time and one may speculate that he was waiting for the first opportunity in 1964 to officially commence new activities; that is, with a date that provides a clear separation from the death of Sivananda in 1963. Establishing a permanent site and headquarters also ushered in a period during which time many local BSY centres were established across India by Sivananda’s followers, including Swaroopananda who told me that he founded the Sambalpur Ashram (Odisha) in 1965.10 The Munger ashram initially had humble beginnings and only relatively rudimentary facilities. For almost a decade, Satyananda tried to secure a loan to buy a parcel of land that would complete the present ashram site, but it was not until 1976 that he succeeded.11 Today, leadership and administration of the BSY resides on this purchased land, in a main office known as the Ganga Darshan sitting atop a large hill that looks imposingly over the Ganges and dominates the ashram grounds. It effectively separated administrative affairs from the rest of the ashram activities (e.g. practical and spiritual practices). Ashram attendees would typically spend most of their time in the rest of the grounds. Visitors to the ashram followed a set routine from 4 am to around 7.30 pm punctuated with group activities of chanting, satsangs (spiritual gatherings) and various forms of yoga practice (hatha, karma, raja and jnana). The expectation was that residents would volunteer labour for a defined (usually short) period in centres and ashrams as part of their selfless service (seva). For Satyananda (1984[1982]:278), shortterm residence was an opportunity to ‘live like a poorna sannyasin’ by shaving one’s head, sleeping on the floor, performing yoga sadhana (spiritual practices), not smoking and so on; in a manner, that Aveling (1994:67) has described as engaging in ‘temporary sannyasa’. My personal experience is that the main BSY ashrams in Munger (Bihar) and Rikhiapeeth (Jharkhand) offered a warm and, at times, almost celebratory ambience that was markedly more welcoming than the more austere tone of the ashram of Satyananda’s guru in Rishikesh. Living in the ashram has been described by practitioners that I have encountered as peaceful and spiritual, providing a profound and transformative experience. A far different light is cast from recent public reports of more negative experiences, ranging from rudeness of staff members and a lack of care over persons falling ill to allegations of mistreatment and sexual abuse.12 Outwardly, both Satyananda ashrams operated according to rules that guided the behaviour of residents; e.g. rules for conduct, ethnical rules, Dashanami rules and rituals, bureaucratic rules relating to procedures and roles. The flouting of ashram regulations by visitors was usually dealt with quietly by one of a host of appointees (usually renunciates); for example, a dormitory monitor may correct minor infractions such as failing to observe silence at mealtimes. This also includes for ashram visitors and yoga practitioners rules considered basic for salvation. Conversely, observance was generally thought as more of a personal matter for the individual to deal with alone with rule-breaking interpreted as a form of religious sanction instead of an organisational matter.13 Hinting at a less tolerant attitude of leaders was the experience of long-time supporter, Uma Dinsmore-Tulli, who was expelled from a teacher training course

72  Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga in 1999 purportedly for ‘acts of defiance’, which in practice meant ‘asking too many difficult questions’.14 The Munger and Rikhiapeeth ashrams were very popular with local Indian populations – who would periodically form long queues outside the ashram to attend special events – as well as many non-Indian visitors, some of whom would attend its paid courses. Marked by a truly cosmopolitan feel due to the number of different nationalities present, I would estimate the number of annual visitors at around 12,000, assuming a similar quantum to those at Sivananda’s Rishikesh ashram (12,114 in 2011).15 Based upon my fieldwork, the proportion of nonIndian attendees was in excess of 50%, versus only 7% recorded at Sivananda’s ashram. Typically, BSY visitors heralded from Europe, South America and Australia where there had been a long historic presence of Satyananda Yoga teachers and centres.

Dissemination of teachings Satyananda’s consistent focus on ‘imparting yogic knowledge’ was in the apparent hope of prompting a ‘mass return to the ancient science of yoga’.16 In broad terms, Satyananda’s approach to teaching displayed a high degree of similarity to Sivananda’s focus on Neo-Vedantic perspectives, with both of them emphasising the notion of ‘integral yoga’ to promote spiritual growth with yoga conceived as a vehicle towards ‘God realisation’ (BSY 2006b). Satyananda extended the four-fold message he inherited (jnana, bhakti, raja and karma yoga) by foregrounding kriya yoga and gave a rendition of sitting and standing postures that was especially clear. It drew upon Sivananda’s (1929) core message and conceptualisation of ‘yoga of synthesis’ yet gave a far more detailed presentation to aid practitioners. Satyananda’s most well-known and impactful text is the classic Asana, Mudra, Pranayama, Bandha (1969). In this systematic guide to practice, almost 150 postures are outlined alongside breathing techniques (pranayama), locks for channelling energy (bandhas), hand gestures (mudras) and cleansing practices (shatkarmas) (Satyananda 2002[1969]:10). These practices are intended as a series of progressive steps towards an integrated system of daily practice and commences with asanas, pranayama and meditation (Niranjanananda 1999). He also followed Vishnudevananda’s (1959) example by adding the dynamic sequences of sun salutations (surya namaskara) (Satyananda 2002[1969]:159– 161).17 One of its best-known teachings is Yoga Nidra®, a form of deep relaxation or sleep-like meditation (yogic sleep) (Satyananda 2009[1976]) where the mind remains awake but the body sleeps in a ‘hypnogogic state’ (Bhushan 2001).18 In all, writing and distribution of Satyananda’s systematised practices has been fairly successful, authoring over eighty books, many of which were translated into multiple languages to cater for the broadening interest in Satyananda Yoga (e.g. Italian, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Greek and Farsi). Yet, despite the systematisation of the method and distribution worldwide, Satyananda did not achieve the same exposure as Iyengar’s (1965) Light on Yoga or Vishnudevananda’s (1959) Complete Illustrated Guide to Yoga.

Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga  73 Touring far and wide Like many other modern yoga gurus, Satyananda employed an established formula of making personal lecture tours to reach out to audiences, making speeches across the world from 1968 to 1982.19 Surprisingly, the first major BSY tour was actually not undertaken by Satyananda himself but by Ma Yoga Shakti and took place from March to October 1966. Yoga Shakti was instructed by Satyananda to first go to Finland, after which time she visited Norway, UK, US and various unspecified countries in ‘…Africa, Arabia, W. Europe, S. Asia’ (Yogakanti et al. 2009a:25). Her goal was apparently to recruit people who would come to Munger for Satyananda’s training course in 1967. The following year Satyananda commenced a period of regular travel and his personal contribution was fairly successful in terms of spreading his teachings across the globe. Most notable were his ‘World Tours’ of 1968 and 1982, several European tours and a 6-month residency in Australia in 1983 (Bartos 2017:397). However, the idea of using disciples to undertake tours abroad was a persistent strategy to diffuse teachings, as typified by Atmananda who spent time in the UK and Belgium from March to June in 1971 (Yogakanti et al. 2009a:59). By 1973, the burden of longhaul travel and touring was regularly shared with travelling disciples, including Yogashwarananda who toured the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Hong Kong in March 1974 and Akhandananda who went to Australia (December 1974). The combined effect of all these travels is that BSY representatives visited at least 47 countries to disseminate Satyananda Yoga teachings. Though successful in increasing the number of countries reached, this strategy of outsourcing tours arguably sacrificed quality for quantity. Sending a cohort of less charismatic disciples was qualitatively different than a dynamic Satyananda going himself, both in terms of stimulating interest as well as ability to recruit supporters.

Educating yogis A lynchpin of Satyananda’s strategy for dissemination was the education of his disciples. Indeed, one of the founding principles of the Bihar School of Yoga was to ‘impart yogic training to householders and sannyasins alike’.20 In practice, however, the heavy emphasis on training within the BSY was skewed towards the formal education of sannyasins for their long-term betterment, which took precedence over equipping ordinary householders (non-renunciates) to deliver yoga classes in their local communities. Holding formal education in the highest regard, the BSY was one of the first organisations to systematically train foreign sannyasins.21 A unique approach within the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools, it reflected Satyananda’s belief that renunciates would benefit from formal training to realise their potential. Much of Satyananda’s drive to educate can be traced back to his own frustrations at the relative lack of formal education under the tutelage of Sivananda. As despite a whole chapter in Sivananda’s (2011[1958]:87–88) autobiography entitled the ‘training of sannyasins’, my research has unearthed very little organised training took place in the Rishikesh ashram; save for led classes in asanas.

74  Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga Satyananda’s solid commitment to the importance of formal tuition was to define his yoga organisation. Drawing upon his own period of intensive study outside of the Rishikesh ashram22 gave him the impetus to design training programmes. These aimed not just to equip his disciples with suitable knowledge but to provide rigorous training founded upon his wider belief on the merits of research and scientific approaches. The historical development of training courses was rather by trial-and-error with courses being introduced and phased out during the sixties that ranged in length from 15-day, 9-month and 3-year formats. For example, the first formal yoga courses began in 1964 as 15-day residential courses held semi-monthly that were open to all nationalities alike and were conducted in both English and Hindi (Yogakanti et al. 2009a:8). By 1967, an ambitious and demanding 9-month yoga training course had been introduced for 30 international students (ibid:28, 52), which was notable for its course materials forming the basis for what would become the core text, Asana, Mudra, Pranayama, Bandha (Satyananda 1969).23 Then in 1970, a 3-year course was launched that attracted 108 individuals through advertising in local newspapers (BSY 1983). Despite this encouraging start, it proved disastrous as the stark realities of harsh ashrams life led numbers to plummet to just 20 within a few weeks (Kaivalyananda 1999; Yogakanti et al. 2009a:52). Undeterred by such a miscalculation, Satyananda and his heir, Niranjanananda (b.1960 in Rajnandgaon) continued to tinker with course offerings. By the 1990s, courses had become fairly successful in terms of numbers and reach, with 125 students participating in a 6-month residential course from 16 countries (Yogakanti et al. 2009b:92).24 Seeking to meet the expectations of a growing wave of transnational interest, Satyananda opted to introduce a far less demanding, shorter version that was more geared towards householders. From his initial lofty aspirations of long, comprehensive training courses, the 1-month teacher-training course would become a feature of institutional life from 1980 onwards with courses being offered both in English and Hindi. Usually, those aspiring to become a ‘Certified Teacher’ aimed to teach part or full-time and relevant BSY courses tended to appeal to a preponderance of female attendees. Outside of the main centres in Bihar and Jharkhand, teachers were trained by a select group of followers with advanced teaching skills, whose elevated rank was recognised with the title of ‘Acharya’. According to UK sannyasin Pragyamurti, this award was designated by Niranjanananda (henceforth Niranjan) and permitted an individual to conduct teacher-training courses in their home countries.25 By delegating the authority to train teachers, leaders gave priority to the ongoing perpetuation of Satyananda’s teachings. A university of yoga The pinnacle of Satyananda’s educational ambitions was when his ashram became the site of his own university after a lengthy application process of 6 years. Though spearheaded by Niranjan, this step represented a culmination of Satyananda’s aim to formally educate yogis and was impressively billed by the Indian University Grants Commission as the ‘first deemed to be university

Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga  75 of Yoga in the world’ (UGC 1999:10–11). Quite unique amongst transnational organisations disseminating posture practice, it reflected a desire for external validation as a higher educational institute and not merely a centre for yoga practice. Being officially recognised as ‘deemed university’ in June 2000 permitted its Munger-based institution, the ‘Bihar Yoga Bharati’ (est. 1994) to award undergraduate and post-graduate degrees in yoga-related topics and, for a time, courses were offered in yoga philosophy (MA), applied yoga science (MSc) and yoga psychology (MA/MSc). Despite the significant investment of time and energy into becoming a ‘university’, the designation was later dropped, perhaps due to the ongoing administrative burden or as a result of the problem identified early on that ‘faculty strength’ was considered ‘weak’ (UGC 1999).26 This disappointment aside, the Bihar Yoga Bharati has continued to offered structured and certificated training courses, such as the 1-year Diploma in Yogic Studies and 2-month ‘Orientation in Yogic Science and Lifestyle’; although it has since been eclipsed as a site for yogic education by Baba Ramdev’s vast ‘University of Patanjali’ that was founded in Haridwar in 2006.

Building a global yoga organisation Historically, the transnational dissemination of Satyananda Yoga has rested very much on firm organisational footings, with the headquarters in India coordinating its branding on a global basis since the 1960s. To support the dissemination of Satyananda Yoga, income was drawn from multiple sources, with monies being raised from selling publications and donations or gifts-in-kind being paramount. Fees were also received from participants attending courses at the main ashram. Whilst there was no direct charge for tuition provided for these yoga courses, boarding charges were levied at time of admission for accommodation and meals that varied with the duration of each course; for example, a charge of US$1,300 (2011) was levied for the popular 4-month ‘Yogic Studies’ course. This served to ensure that there was a steady source of income to maintain the ashram, carry out welfare work to local communities and continue its activities in supporting the rest of the global network. During his lifetime, Satyananda incrementally enlarged his main ashram and institutional framework in India and abroad. By the 21st century, the transnational dissemination of Satyananda Yoga was being supported by a large, complex organisation, with five main sub-organisations under the umbrella institution, the International Yoga Fellowship Movement.27 The structure was rather conglomerate, with each of the six organisations being a distinct legal entity and having their own separate executive board; or in the case of the Yoga Publications Trust and Yoga Research Foundation, an appointed set of trustees (BSY c.2011a:24–45). One would expect that having separate mini-organisations and multiple leaders would lead to increased friction and conflict, or at least some level of ­competition. Yet, in practice they were apparently deferential to the orders of the President of the Bihar School, the highest executive role in the official hierarchy. For many years, Satyananda occupied the dual roles of ‘President’ concomitantly with that of the ‘guru’. Interestingly, at the very beginning, the first to occupy

76  Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga the role of ‘President’ of the BSY was surprisingly not its founder and guru Satyananda but Ma Yoga Shakti; about whom comparatively little is known, save for her being his ‘chief disciple’ at the time and, as mentioned above, playing an important role in recruiting the first non-Indian students to come to the ashram in the late-1960s.28 For Satyananda, fulfilling duties of spiritual leadership alongside heading up a web of bureaucratic institutions has not been without complications and it reportedly ‘led him into many difficulties’ (Yogakanti 2009b:14). Not least because of the complicated, broad-ranging challenges brought by managing dual roles that required two differentiated skillsets to perform religious functions and teach yoga practice alongside co-ordinating a transnational organisation. There are parallels here to Sivananda’s position in the hierarchy of The Divine Life Society, in that Satyananda carried out two overlapping roles concurrently, with religious duties (Dashanami lineage) not always clearly discriminated from duties and organisational structures pertaining to the BSY. From 1983–2008, the role of ‘President’ was occupied by Niranjan, who was apportioned significant powers by Satyananda to manage the daily running of the BSY. Niranjan ushered in a more business-like leadership style (Yogakanti et al. 2009b:25), embraced new technologies and shifted the organisational culture to incorporate a ‘more democratic approach’ by initiating meetings to solicit input from the staff of the BSY.29 Such modern bureaucratic methods caused upset as they were considered to be ‘un-guru-like’ and not typically associated with a religious leader (Yogakanti et al. 2009b:25). Resistance was eventually overcome and Niranjan went on to create much of the institutional framework we see today, including systematising operations concerning administration and publication.30 During this time, the top two roles were split with Satyananda remaining as guru and adopting the new title ‘Founder President’. Finding it necessary to personally appoint and oversee his successor, he justified the strategy as one that would allow Niranjan to ‘master the work thoroughly’ (Satyananda 2009); which is consistent with Suryaprakash’s explanation that, ‘Niranjan said he didn’t know anything about running the institutions and he had been away for a long time. So, for five years…Satyananda was in the background giving him advice’.31 Electing to pursue a strategy of overlapping mandates ensured a measure of stability in the 1980s by rendering it as a less risky, protracted handover of responsibilities and bestowing a degree of guru charisma and legitimacy on to his chosen heir. Since being appointed in 2008, the current ‘President’ of the Bihar School of Yoga has been Suryaprakash (b.1982 in San Francisco), who described the task to me as being in charge of a ‘complex organisation’ that ensures the ‘new generation…learn systems and maintain discipline’.32 Once again, an overlap of ­mandates took place with a future successor (anointed by Satyananda), this time with Niranjan providing guidance to Suryaprakash as the new appointee in Munger. It appears, however, that this is not necessarily a straightforward, oneway handover of responsibilities. Curiously, since 2012, Suryaprakash has resided in Rikhiapeeth as personal assistant to Satyasangananda and his name is strangely low-­profile in officialdom. At the 2013 World Yoga Convention, he did not give a single address to the 5,000 delegates over five days whereas just 18 months earlier, Niranjan (2012) had feted Suryaprakash as the actual host of the whole event.33

Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga  77 Two sites, two leaders Another potential issue stemmed from the fact that since 1988 there have been two main sites, with the ‘head’ in Munger and ‘heart’ – as it is affectionately known – being located in Rikhiapeeth in the neighbouring state of Jharkhand. This situation only emerged in the last 25 years when Satyananda departed Munger on the auspicious date of 8/8/88 and resettled 150km away in the small village of Rikhia. Having two main sites created a situation where there were two main ashram leaders, both highly visible; with Rikhiapeeth being directed by Satyasangananda (b.1953) as ‘Peedhadhishwari’, a direct disciple of Satyananda, and guru Niranjan being based in Munger.34 Importantly, the Rikhia site was imbued with a certain specialness and grew in importance as Satyananda spent the last 20 years of his life there (1989–2009), performing the 12-year ceremony Rajasooya Yajna35 from 1995 to 2007 and attracting many followers to the rural location.36 Over time, Rikhiapeeth grew into a thriving ashram with its own staff of resident sannyasins and was ceremonially inaugurated as an official BSY site in 2006.37 From this point, there was an increased focus on hosting yoga camps and being devoted to the formal instruction of sannyasins. Following a vision of Satyananda regarding sannyasa, the ashram was enlarged and new initiatives (Sannyasa Peeth) were introduced aimed at ‘strengthening the Sannyasa Parampara’ (Niranjanananda 2010). Though having two separate and arguably equal poles of influence was potentially destabilising and risked a schism, conflict appears to have been largely avoided through their collaborative efforts. Navigating succession It was at the Rikhiapeeth ashram that Satyananda passed away on 5 December 2009. By this time, Niranjan had been in formal charge of the school for two decades. For Satyananda, justifying his choice of Niranjan as successor may not necessarily have been straightforward at the outset given that he was not the most experienced of Satyananda’s disciples and selection was therefore not made on grounds of seniority. This situation was not entirely dissimilar from that of Sharath Jois (grandson of Pattabhi Jois), whose selection was not wholeheartedly embraced for reasons of relative inexperience.38 Yet, in the case of Ashtanga Yoga, justification for leadership was predicated on Sharath’s status as part of the familial lineage (bindu parampara). If hearsay is to be believed, the similarity between the two cases may well be closer than it initially appears. A persistent refrain in the rumour-mill of the BSY relates to the possibility of Niranjan being the son of Satyananda, rather than the child of a couple who were devoted disciples.39 If Niranjan was indeed a blood heir rather than part of a ‘sound lineage’, considerations of experience or seniority would have been secondary. Though no concrete evidence has been unearthed, a few comments made to me in 2011 by Suryaprakash give faint support to this conjecture; ‘Niranjan was selected even before he was born. It is said that his mother was one of the first disciples of Swami Satyananda from 1950s–1960s. She apparently wanted to have a child and he said that her baby would be important and a future leader.’ Reading tentatively

78  Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga between the lines, and without any further official commentary, the story is not implausible in that it confirms that Satyananda knew Niranjan’s mother prior to the birth, she knew him well and she desired a child. Satyananda was to take a very active and immediate interest in the child and there is never any mention of her husband despite a male figure being shown in the only photo made public of Niranjan’s family with Satyananda. One should be circumspect with potentially circumstantial evidence but it may have been a case of biological succession.

Recruiting Indians and non-Indians Running a large transnational organisation undoubtedly relied upon the ability of its leader to recruit a sufficient number of staff to fill all posts. As there was no option of being a paid member to the BSY (as was the case for The Divine Life Society), the main way to express support for Satyananda Yoga was by becoming initiated. Satyananda chose to focus fully on formal initiation as a mode of association and to adapt it as a means to recognise different levels of commitment from his supporters. Certainly, his efforts at recruitment were helped by his persona that was purportedly a blend of charisma and pragmatism. Probably the greatest contribution made by Satyananda in this area is that his presentation of initiation may be associated with making renunciation more relevant and practically accessible to a wider audience. As an aid to recruitment, it served as an example of maximising access of modern, global consumers to sannyasa. In line with this inclusive approach, the BSY has historically drawn from a potentially large pool of individuals as technically anyone is eligible irrespective of religion, caste, gender, nationality or marital status.40 Unlike the Ramakrishna Mission there was no minimum or maximum age limit in the BSY for taking sannyasa, whose candidates had to be at least 27 years of age.41 Claiming a direct link to the Dashanami Order of sannyasa, Satyananda’s yoga organisation located itself within an order of sannyasins that is based upon a tradition stretching back many hundreds of years, purportedly to Adi Shankara. Publicly referring to its Dashanami heritage as a ‘sannyasa parampara to which we belong’ (Niranjanananda 2000), it sought to emphasise orthodox credentials to underpin its existence. In common with the DLS, persons initiated by senior leaders are considered to have entered into a tradition of sannyasa associated with the Dashanami order and, specifically, into the Saraswati lineage – that is, one of the 10 ‘names’ possible within the sect. Strictly speaking, initiates were concomitantly a member of two separate institutions; namely, an order of sannyasa and a yoga organisation, each with their respective own hierarchies, rules and regulations. However, within the case of the Sivananda School, I have found that linkage to the yoga organisation itself was of primary importance and Dashanami authorities had minimal practical relevance. The four-stage structure runs from the brahmacharin (first stage) to the jignasu sannyasin (second stage), then karma sannyasin (third stage) and finally poorna sannyasin (fourth stage). The categories of jignasu and karma sannyasin were inserted into the traditional Dashanami structure that consisted of just two stages, the brahmacharin and poorna sannyasin.42 They may be viewed as

Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga  79 watered-down forms of sannyasa and their introduction offered, depending on a candidate’s ambitions, either a preparatory step or an alternative to the rigors of full sannyasa.43 Each level confers a particular status upon the initiate within the yoga organisation itself and is associated with ascending levels of spiritual attainment and commitment. For this first level of initiation, the brahmacharin, most candidates were householders living full-time with their families, carrying out a job and remaining fully engaged with society.44 They would perform practices at home (e.g. meditation, asanas, observances) and volunteer their labour at local centres, visiting the ashram periodically. Access to the first level of initiation required merely filling out a very short form, with a tick-box to request a spiritual name.45 Many brahmacharins would subsequently move on to the second level of jignasu sannyasa. A jignasu is described as an ‘aspirant, spiritual seeker’ and the ‘preliminary stage of sannyasa’ (Niranjanananda 2005[1993]:452).46 This status level represented a preparatory stage that could theoretically lead to karma sannyasa and was accessible after waiting 1-year post initiation as a brahmacharin. A weightier form of commitment was denoted by the third stage of karma sannyasa. Here, candidates were expected to adopt a change in outlook and philosophical stance befitting of a heightened level of understanding of the sannyasa tradition. Karma sannyasa served as a further intermediate step and was accessible for a jignasu after a further 1-year waiting period. Official justification for introducing karma sannyasa was made by the BSY with reference to the Bhagavad Gita (Satyasangananda 1984:3–4). Used sparingly in the late-1970s, the designation became more prominent in the 1980s with the institutionalisation of the title taking place in 1984 upon publication of a 300-page text, Karma Sannyasa, penned by Satyasangananda at the behest of Satyananda.47 To the observer, this ‘partial renunciation’ (Aveling 1994:67) appeared to coincide with the look and behaviour of the householder, as few physical or outward signs distinguish the householder for the karma sannyasin; save for the periodic wearing of geru (orange) robes that may well only occur in private (Niranjanananda 2005[1993]:95) and a distinctive form of address, with ‘Sannyasi + spiritual name’.48 More of a commitment still, the ultimate stage of initiation led to poorna sannyasa (proper transcription purna)49 literally meant ‘full sannyasa’ (Niranjanananda 1990b). Requirements were markedly more onerous than other stages as one was expected to abandon their worldly life and live in full submission to the guru (Niranjanananda 2005[1993]:98–102).50 In practical terms, this meant adhering to strict rules prescribed for living that may include foregoing a bank account, not being attached to one’s name, leaving relationships behind, not earning money and so on (Niranjanananda 2005[1993]:98–102). Aspirants were expected to demonstrate a wholehearted spiritual commitment and ideal behavioural characteristics as well as an established connection with the guru (Niranjanananda 1997).51 Ascension to poorna sannyasin was a matter reserved for the guru who decided when (if ever) a candidate was ready based upon grounds of suitability.52 Given the high level of commitment required,

80  Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga a relatively small group occupied this final level compared with other status categories, as Niranjan (2001) contents, it was ‘not given to many people’ with him having ‘initiated many but remain[ing] very selective about poorna sannyasa’ (ibid). This fourth stage was commensurate with the DLS category of ‘sannyasin’ – a second and final stage of renunciation – in respect of the nature of the role and general activities undertaken as well as the term of address, ‘Swami + spiritual name + Saraswati’. In terms of their contribution to the yoga organisation, all of these recruits freely gave their labour. Brahmacharins and visitors to the main ashrams contributed their labour to administrative and non-administrative work (e.g. cleaning) but were rarely given supervisory responsibilities.53 Initiation acted as a gateway to accessing more senior roles. Not only did it signal a greater spiritual commitment (to oneself and to the guru) but it represented a deeper personal engagement on a practical level with the yoga organisation itself. As with Sivananda’s DLS, day-to-day duties were coordinated by resident male and female monks (sannyasins). Generally, it was the karma and poorna sannyasins (both Indians and non-Indians, males and females) that occupied higher ranking roles affording greater responsibilities both in Satyananda ashrams and in the wider global network to supervise others, dealing with finance and running entire departments.

Reinterpreting Dashanami membership Hand-in-hand with the modification to the traditional schematic of sannyasa was the series of changes enacted by Satyananda and his successors to the format of traditional initiation ceremonies.54 A pretext for these changes rests in the belief of authorities in Satyananda Yoga that traditional sannyasa was altogether too demanding for modern consumers of yoga. Quite simply, orthodox interpretations of renunciatory practices were incompatible with modern lives: The traditional approach to sannyasa was absolute separation of the individual from society, but few could follow it. So, the propagators of the sannyasa way of life decided that as long as the aim remained the same, it would be acceptable to allow different modifications to the process of sannyasa, which would permit other people to have the belief, lifestyle and discipline of sannyasa. (Niranjanananda 2001) It was as a proposed solution that Satyananda added complexity to the status categories by adding the two new positions, yet he concurrently simplified the process of initiation by omitting a large portion of the traditional Dashanami rites. In practical terms, this meant condensing initiation to a fairly rudimentary process whilst attempting to retain the essence of the original ceremony. The adaptations made to the traditional model did not change the underlying characteristics of the institution of sannyasa in being fundamentally a religious model of organisation and soteriological pursuit, entailing an onerous path of renunciation. For a Western audience, it persisted in being an esoteric activity that was not easily

Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga  81 congruent with mainstream lifestyle choices and, as a result, barriers remained in place to greater participation. Mass initiation ceremonies have tended to be the norm where a large group of individuals (c.300) would receive initiation in the Munger and Rikhia ashrams, or occasionally abroad. Occurring on one of seven auspicious dates each calendar year, a separate ceremony was performed for each of the four groups, commencing with the lowest status level of brahmacharin candidates and finishing with the highest level of poorna sannyasins. Given that multiple number of ceremonies were performed in one sitting, initiation involved only a very short interaction with the guru. In the past, titles were bestowed by Satyananda with the mantel being passed on to Niranjan and his deputy, Satyasangananda, to do the same. The ceremonies for each group were not identical, as more elevated levels of sannyasa are associated with increasing degrees of ceremonial complexity. Many standard component parts of the traditional ceremony remained intact. Terminology, at least in theory, for the first (brahmacharin) and last (poorna sannyasa) ceremonies conformed to received wisdom with reference to the pancguru-samskar ritual (five-guru ceremony) and the viraja-homa (or ‘rite of the hero’), respectively, according to Satyasangananda. Similarly retained, a variety of pre-ceremony observances – such as fasting, living in isolation, special diet – were carried out within the BSY, with the precise set of observances being dispensed by the guru based upon individual circumstances. For poorna sannyasa ceremonies (viraja-homa), an important component retained relates to the symbolic performance of their own funeral rites, which was considered necessary to become initiated as a ‘full’ sannyasin. For Olivelle (2011:68), it is the renouncing of fire that signifies a ‘rejection of life-in-the-world in its totality’ and a denial of the value systems of society. Another integral part of the ceremony to enter into full sannyasa is the removal of the sacred thread (upanayana) for dvija or ‘twice-born’ (i.e. Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas). Discarding items of ritual life in this manner (e.g. sacred thread, topknot, sacred fires) represents an abandonment of emblems and rites (Clark 2006:87).55 For the BSY, there was some flexible interpretation over time, however, and in Australia it is reported that sometimes fire ceremonies were carried out and sometimes not (Royal Commission 2016d:2). Recitation of mantras (sacred utterances) remained an essential element of the ceremony for all four status categories. A number of core mantras were used every time (‘common mantras’) for mass initiations, supplemented by a range of selected mantras (‘specific mantras’) that alternate depending on the time of year and the particular festival being celebrated. In the specific case of mantra diksha (mantra initiation), brahmacharin candidates performed a recitation and everyone received their own mantra. Both poorna and karma sannyasins were required to made various offerings and candidates would receive a spiritual name and a mala (necklace). The exact type of mala apparently depended on the status level of the candidate (Bartos 2017:420). For instance, in recent times, only poorna sannyasins receive the larger necklace of rudraksha seeds with everyone else being given a smaller bead necklace, the tulsi wood mala, whereas previously karma and jignasu sannyasins used to receive the rudraksha mala.

82  Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga In fashioning a curtailed format of the consecration ceremonies – versus the time-honoured rites of the Dashanamis – Satyananda made selective departures from orthodoxy. A few new practices were introduced such as the giving of a book containing a symbol and mantra that was specific to each initiated person.56 On the whole, Satyananda eliminated far more aspects than he introduced, including removing some core elements of traditional ceremonies. For example, there was no obligatory immersion in the Ganges or hours of compulsory meditation or tracing of the Sanskrit mantra in the sand57 and at the end of the ceremony, no option existed to take a few symbolic steps north until called back as a means of representing a ritual suicide. The final act in the renunciatory ritual for the full sannyasin was usually to take possession of the emblems representing his/her new state; namely, an ochre robe, water pot, begging bowl, pot hanger and staff. However, the BSY historically omitted this step and did not give out such items, save for ochre robes being given to the poorna sannyasin. My research finds that no danda (staff), pot, mustard seeds, sesame seeds, water pot, pot hanger or begging bowl were usually given to sannyasa initiates before or during the BSY ceremony. Like his guru, Satyananda did award some certificates to full initiates for a while but this practice was subsequently discontinued. Satyasangananda recalls how she was given a certificate by Satyananda at her initiation on 6 July 1982 but asserted that too many certificates are given these days and ‘sannyasa is not a university degree’.58 Questions of authenticity Adapting religious organisation brings to the fore questions of authenticity. What is unequivocal is that there has been significant diversity between ascetic communities historically and that sannyasin conduct was not standardised,59 being subject to considerable variation and evolution over time. Against this backdrop, the BSY’s treatment of sannyasa and initiatory rites does not appear inconsistent in that it was considered a process that would evolve over time (Niranjanananda 2001). It also signified a definitive move away from the stratification of roles pertaining to renunciation that Satyananda experienced under Sivananda in Rishikesh; brahmacharin, sannyasin. To put this in a wider context, ascetics ordinarily form a ‘separate structural segment’ of society (Gross 2001[1992]:198) with an overall collective life-style that is ‘sufficiently distinct’ from that of the non-ascetic population. By introducing two additional stages between them, the BSY produced a less distinct delineation of the categories of sannyasin and householders. More widely, I have found that making such changes was a common occurrence in the Sivananda School and, even as part of the same teaching lineage where direct disciples shared a common guru, subsequent generations of disciples differentiated inherited teachings and organisational structures. That said, certain aspects i­ ntroduced in the BSY were clearly at odds with historic practice, such as the institutionalised time limits between restricting movement to higher status levels; e.g. 1-year waiting times mandated at brahmacharin and jignasu before progression to the next level. This contrasts with candidates simply approaching a mahant (head priest) of a math (monastery) at any time to personally request initiation and, according to Clark (2006:89), demonstrating a ‘sincere desire to renounce and honour a guru’.

Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga  83 Within the BSY’s own (adapted) schematic, leaders application of rules in practice evidenced a degree of flexibility. Some levels were completely missed out, such as Pragyamurti going from brahmacharin straight to poorna sannyasin in 197960 or, as Aveling 1994:169–170) notes, formal initiation being dispensed with altogether by conferring karma sannyasa initiation by post in 1987 (e.g. Kaialayananda and Hariguari). Still, whilst emphasising a flexible, non-stable engagement with traditional rules, concerted efforts were made within the BSY to situate initiation within the context of an ancient, venerated institution; as summarised by Niranjan (2010): …we have taken initiation, we have become part of an order and we have lived our own life in our own way without adhering to a traditional, classical system of principles and lifestyles of sannyasa. His comments underline a desire to cement the authenticity of the practice (i.e. linkage with the Dashanami order) and legitimate departing from inherited tradition to innovate for a host of new, practical realities of the day.61 Hence, a continuing sense of authenticity was claimed that was predicated upon its initiation ceremonies retaining the basic framework and essence of the Dashanami initiatory model. Of interest, whilst adopting a linkage to the Dashanami order, Satyananda made no reference to his sannyasins being a Paramahamsa or part of any other sub-grouping of the Dashanamis (Niranjanananda 2000), which is surprising given that Sivananda (1963[1947]:158) made explicit reference to initiating all of his sannyasins into the ‘Paramahamsa order’ of the Dashanamis. Correspondingly, Satyananda’s certificate unambiguously states that he was initiated by Sivananda into the ‘Paramahamsa Order’ of the Dashanamis; as depicted in Figure 4.1:

Figure 4.1  Satyananda’s sannyasa initiation certificate from 1947. (Credit: Author’s photo)

84  Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga Unlike his guru, Satyananda made only selective application of the term and reserved it solely for leaders to designate elevated status; e.g. Satyananda, Niranjan and Satyasangananda. Hence, he did not employ the term to express affiliation with one of the three sub-divisions of the Dashanamis (dandi, paramahamsa and naga)62 but rather for special recognition based upon the supposition that, ‘… the order of Paramahamsa…is higher than sannyasin’ (Satyananda 1983:159). The BSY interpretation was that Sivananda awarded the designation due to Satyananda’s potential rather than being significative of any branch affiliation (Interview Satyasangananda 2012). Tinkering with the traditional rites of initiation had potentially meaningful implications given that for the Dashanami Order it is the performance of the correct rites that ‘validates’ sannyasa (Clark 2006:83). By making only selective observance of the usual rites, the reforms enacted by the BSY separated it from strict affiliation to traditional rules of the ascetic order. In this respect, Satyananda’s approach to initiation rites may be considered somewhat reductionist. Moreover, this shift was not without controversy within the BSY itself in that Satyasangananda (Satyananda’s deputy at the time) asserted to me that she expressed reservations to him when he voiced his proposal to introduce new status categories and simplify the Dashanami ceremony; ‘at the beginning, I was not sure about it and questioned him on initiating people who were not properly qualified to receive initiation’.63 It seems, however, to have been less controversial for participants who seemingly did not question the changes. Interestingly, the vast majority of (non-Indian) initiates that I met during fieldwork were unaware of the changes carried out, not being conversant with many traditional Dashanami practices or terminology and failing to recognise the seminal importance of aspects such as the ‘ritual death’, etc.64 With scant official explanations provided, the absence of many facets of the full ceremony appears to have escaped entirely unnoticed. Certainly, the institution did not appear to suffer any perceived loss of legitimacy from making his own changes to Dashanami traditions. Rather, Satyananda’s strategy of ‘sowing a seed’ was successful in giving these practitioners a flavour of belonging to an ancient order of renunciates. Enhancing appeal The driving force behind making these changes was a motivation to widen the appeal of the practice and recruit greater numbers of persons to the cause. As Satyasangananda has contended, ‘the initiation process and levels were adapted over time – mainly due to the increasing numbers of people who wanted initiation’.65 Given that the immediate impact of simplifying rites of initiation was to considerably speed up the process, adaptations were decidedly pragmatic and indeed far-sighted as this was amenable to initiating large numbers of candidates within a relatively condensed time frame (e.g. mass initiations). Moreover, aspirants were able to become full sannyasins fairly quickly in comparison with other yoga organisations such as in the Self-Realization Fellowship, where it can take over 10 years, or in the Ramakrishna Mission where around 15 years is normal.66

Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga  85 Crafting a schematic that incorporated intermediate status categories or ‘diluted versions of sannyasa’ afforded greater accessibility due to the lower levels of commitment were required; making it suitable for those who ‘lacked time’ or ‘were not of the correct bent of mind’.67 It represented an attempt to maintain the glory of association with a venerated institution (e.g. Dashanami order) and a recognised pole of authenticity but without the requisite commitment and inconveniences brought by full renunciation; e.g. cutting all ties with society, giving up assets and relationships. In doing so, the BSY sought to maximise access to the basic tenets of renunciation to as many suitable candidates as possible. In respect of gender, a parallel can be drawn with the Dashanami Order and some other ascetic communities, as Clark (2006:28) notes the presence of a significant number of female renunciates in spite of certain traditional, Brahmanical restrictions that deny women the opportunity to take vows of sannyasa (Olivelle 1984:114–115; Khandelwal 2004:36–37). What was particularly appealing to wider audiences was the enhanced levels of transparency due to the fixed time limits mandated between each stage of initiation offering certainty and visibility. Such changes may be considered an active response by leaders to the altered composition of its audience members over time that encompassed a shift from an exclusively Indian Hindu audience to include a rising number of predominantly white, middle-class, females from a wide range of countries and with a diversity of religious and cultural worldviews. Put simply, it offered a better fit of inherited practices with the needs and preferences of yoga practitioners by giving greater accommodation to modern lifestyles, with global consumers customarily valuing choice, visibility, transparency and measurable progression. In this respect, the BSY was broadly in line with historical developments across the field of modern yoga practice in seeking to selectively modify inherited practices and approaches as part of an emergent consumer culture and accelerated popularisation of yoga practice worldwide in the 1990s. This pick and choose approach towards inherited structures and processes evidences a certain plasticity faced with diverse cultural contexts, audience preferences and environments. It also reflects how devotees perceive encounters differently ‘depending on how they interpret [the gurus] (and their own) location in a global context’ (Warrier 2005:136). An anecdotal measure of the success of this approach has been the greater diversity of persons becoming initiated versus Sivananda’s Divine Life Society, with a far higher percentage of sannyasins who were female, non-Hindu and from overseas.

Exportation of yoga practice Introduction of a systematised, multi-level approach towards sannyasa and its institutionalisation within the BSY represented an important milestone for the spread of the brand. The new status levels of jignasu and karma sannyasin facilitated new waves of representation for Satyananda Yoga that hitherto did not exist and effectively enlarged its presence outside of Asia. Standard practice was that supporters returned to their home countries upon receiving initiation, apparently without the need to remain in proximity to their guru or reside in the

86  Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga ashram on a more permanent basis. Therefore, they avoided the need to try and navigate the onerous practical constraints brought by Indian visa regulations that meant living indefinitely as a monk alongside the guru in India was near impossible for most non-Indians without overcoming manifold hurdles to gain the relevant government papers. Such difficulties were most acutely felt in 1985– 1986, when many (non-Indian) sannyasins were forced to leave the main ashram in India due to a tightening of visa regulations (Yogakanti et al. 2009b). Whilst a ‘point of crisis’ at the time, this disruptive situation ultimately acted as a catalyst for transnational dissemination due to the return of a group of trained, experienced and motivated sannyasins to their respective localities around the world. The strategy of sending out trained representatives is actually over half a century old in the BSY. With education a cornerstone of Satyananda’s strategy, realisation of a presence on the ground across multiple continents was pioneered by a group of fully trained and decidedly committed individuals. To achieve this transnational footprint, Satyananda sent out his envoys (usually sannyasins) to dispersed locations across India and abroad from the late-1960s onwards. This method served to jump-start the establishment of centres and ashrams outside of India by placing a skilled messenger in a set location to represent Satyananda Yoga who could recruit others locally and be able to raise sufficient funds for the purpose. Being entrusted with a designated mission to disseminate Satyananda’s teachings far and wide, a parallel may be drawn with Sivananda’s senior disciples, known as ‘Divine Emissaries’ (The Divine Life 1957:14),68 who left Rishikesh from the 1950s–1970s as propagators of Sivananda’s teachings to new lands. A characteristic of Satyananda’s envoys is that, in being formally trained, loyal and socialised to the values of the BSY, they could facilitate high standards of yoga practice and the quality of dissemination could be better assured across the network. Qualitatively, this represented an advance over the first branches of The Divine Life Society, whose leaders taught others solely from Sivananda’s books received in the post and often had affiliations to multiple gurus, as did Harry Dikman who was based in Latvia. A particularly fertile time for the dispatching of these envoys by Satyananda came in the late-1960s and 1970s. A flurry of local activity was led by sannyasins immediately in the wake of his first trip to Europe, and then accelerated after the 1968 World Tour (Satyananda 1974). Of note, the first branch opened in Europe in 1968 with a centre founded in Norway followed shortly thereafter by the Sivanandashram in Paris (Devatmananda 1977). An exemplar of the envoy phenomenon was Atmananda (1939–2003). After refusing marriage at a young age, she left her family and spent years in Munger before leaving to establish a centre in Belfast in 1969. She taught students both north and south of the contentious Irish border and a young Niranjan stayed with her as part of his apprenticeship before she moved to Singapore to set-up a centre and, in 1974, one in Sydney; all these locations were previously unfamiliar to her. In most cases, however, envoys returned to a familiar or home location, such as Janakananda (b.1939) who founded a centre in Denmark in 1970 that mushroomed into several separate branches. Envoys were also requested by local aspirants. The case of Colombian supporters is illustrative, where Mr. Fernando Sanz told me that he began to

Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga  87 correspond with Satyananda after watching a cinema newsreel in Colombia reporting on Satyananda’s trip to Europe in 1968.69 Inspired by this charismatic figure, Sanz went to meet him in Paris 3 years later, leading Satyananda to send Amritananda to Colombia to help Sanz and his two colleagues establish a yoga school in Medellin.70 One of the most enduring centres has been the first centre for Satyananda Yoga in the UK that was founded in 1971 by Laya Garady in South London.71 From running a model agency in fashionable Kensington during the ‘swinging sixties’, things would progress quite quickly after meeting Satyananda in 1969 whilst in Le Mans and receiving mantra diksha (initiation). Upon returning from France, Satyananda instructed her to set-up a yoga centre. Dismissing this initially as a crazy idea, she encountered further signs that it was the right path and one that Satyananda was ‘pushing’ her towards. She eventually commenced yoga classes in March 1971 after moving with her two children to a detached house on a quiet road in Balham in January 1971, now an affluent suburb of London. There she found people arriving at her door to enquire about classes, even without any advertising of the new centre. In 1979, Laya was eventually initiated into poorna sannyasa by Satyananda whilst in Dublin and given the new name Pragyamurti. Becoming, in her own words, ‘the first authentic British swami’, she recalls being the subject of much enquiry and interest. The envoy method of dissemination was successful in transmitting knowledge that solidified support for Satyananda Yoga on the ground. Satyananda astutely perceived an opportunity to meet geographically dispersed demand for teachings and capitalised upon the nascent rise in enthusiasm amongst local audiences in the West who began to increasingly view yoga as a familiar and acceptable practice. The combined strategy of choosing to send emissaries and responding to invitations led to an extensive reach for Satyananda by the mid-1970s, with a network of 54 ‘major yoga ashrams and yoga centres’ under the guidance of the BSY (Satyananda 1975:99).72 By 1993, there was a reported 500 branches of the BSY (The Times of India 1993:A3), many of which were local in India but a sizeable number were abroad, including in Australia, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Greece, South Africa, Spain and the US. A boost to the international programme was made by Niranjan in the early 21st century, with ‘Satyananda Yoga Academies’ created to offer teacher training certification and other yoga courses in Australia (Victoria and New South Wales), South America (Bogota, Colombia), North America (Ohio, US) and Europe (various sites). By 2012, there were around 48 centres outside of India, frequently clustered around regional urbanised towns and cities, with a large hub being located in Europe.73 Cohesion between these geographically dispersed centres was fundamentally attributable, as Persson (2007:47) contends, to the ‘shared commitment to some form of self-evolution through the practice of yoga’, which in this case accords a central role to modern postural yoga. I find a ‘sense of belonging’ particularly identifiable amongst middle-class Indians and Westerners who had become karma and poorna sannyasins in that association has made their lives more meaningful. Toffin (2011:144) notes that such belonging is typically experienced by sect adherents, who share strong emotional ties, expressive of spiritual brotherhood

88  Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga and a common fraternity centred on the memory, teachings and parentage of a sacred person, and a spiritual teacher or a prophet. These sannyasins are therefore united by a common frame of reference, discourse and communication with strong feelings of attachment fostered amongst sect members and expressed via adherence to a shared set of rules. In situated practice, the BSY community who ran centres interacted on a regular basis having got to know each other at the Munger ashram or during one of the guru’s tours abroad.74 More formal attempts to solidify these linkages culminated in the introduction of a ‘Yoga Charter’ in 1993. With its intention to represent ‘a direction, an affiliation, spiritual and moral between all yoga centres’ (Yogakanti et al. 2009b:104), the charter aimed to extend the strong sense of community and interconnection experienced within a number of regional hubs, such as the UK. Formally affiliated and governed by the IYFM as ‘incorporated associations’,75 frequent (largely ad-hoc) communication took place between the Munger headquarters and local centres, especially when permission was sought from the guru to introduce new initiatives.76 For instance, Pragyamurti asked Niranjan to grant permission for her to commence teacher training in the UK in the late-1980s. One particularly important area of linkage concerns Intellectual Property rights. The IYFM asserts ownership of Intellectual Property rights relating to ‘Satyananda Yoga’® and ‘Satyananda Yoga Nidra’® and may grant permission for trademark usage at local levels – as was the case in the US.77 Peculiarly, the guru or yoga organisation in India does not hold national or regional trademarks for ‘Satyananda Yoga’ but, instead, they are nearly all held by an Australian registered charity, the IYFM Ltd.78 There is no registered trademark in India for ‘Bihar School of Yoga’ or ‘Satyananda Yoga’ in contradistinction to other yoga organisations that protect their brand; e.g. Ashtanga Yoga, Iyengar Yoga, Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres.

Problems of organisation The growth of Satyananda Yoga has been steady over the latter half of the 20th century and into the 21st century, founded upon a solid institutional base. Basic building blocks for transnational dissemination were in place to underpin its popularisation; including a central institution, a hierarchy of authority and defined roles, functional specialisation, defined regulations and sanctions, a network of local centres and a range of accessible modes of association for supporters with the organisation itself. Put together, these facilitated the ongoing provision and coordination of a systematised practice for Satyananda Yoga worldwide. However, despite the success in gaining a wide geographical reach, with provision of classes recorded in around 28 countries, there was a muted level of success worldwide compared with other styles of posture practice, or indeed others in the Sivananda School; notably, Satchidananda’s Integral Yoga gained teacher representation in 35 countries and the SVYC in 164 countries.79 An historical analysis across the field suggests that a barrier to greater mainstream success was Satyananda’s heavy prioritisation on training renunciates as a means to transmit his teachings around the world. By institutionalising his

Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga  89 adapted version of sannyasa and making initiation the core activity in the BSY, he elected to eschew prioritising the promulgation of asanas, pranayama and nidra to the masses. In contrast, Vishnudevananda’s presentation of ‘Sivananda Yoga’ became synonymous with posture practice and he recruited vastly more individuals by overwhelmingly concentrating on teacher certification. In doing so, Vishnudevananda elected to consign initiation to more of a side-line. The presentation of yoga practices by Satyananda and his heirs was simply out of step with his most successful peers ostensibly due to reasons related to the centrality of religious practices. In contrast, as Jain (2015:67) observes, BKS Iyengar, Bikram Choudhury and John Friend entirely omitted traditional Hindu rules relating to alms, celibacy and scriptural from society as part of massmarketing of their yoga brands towards health and fitness goals. The visibility of religious motifs (e.g. dress, symbols), rituals, terminology and content in the BSY undoubtedly appealed to a narrower audience. Even its popular range of yoga practices, that were afforded general importance transnationally, remained embedded within a thoroughly religious context and therefore did not conform to secular preferences of most consumers of the time. Arguably, the sheer breadth of teachings from the BSY partially obscured what was the jewel in its crown – namely, its systematic teachings on asanas, pranayama and yoga nidra. This overshadowing was further compounded by a general lack of advertising of the available activities offered by the BSY. Where teacher training was offered, there seems to have been a significant degree of variation with regards to the format and timescale. In the UK, courses complied with very stringent requirements of the official UK governing body for yoga practice, The British Wheel of Yoga.80 Conversely, requirements were far less stringent for Satyananda Yoga teacher training courses in India where the one-month training course was the norm for certification as well as the Rikhia ashram having offered a 3-week course in Hindi and an equivalent course in English over a seven week period. Elsewhere, Satyananda Academies have offered a range of course lengths from 200hr. and 500hr. in North America, a 21-day residential course in Europe and a four-week course in Greece. Lack of standardisation can act as a hindrance to greater uptake as practitioners grapple to understand the different offerings and unclear metrics for certification. A major drawback of the chosen expansion strategy is that it was not particularly focused but rather scatter-gun. The resultant patchwork of centres emerged in an ad-hoc manner rather than by more strategic design, being the indirect result of two leadership policies; firstly, as a response to invitations from interested persons wherever they were located (e.g. Colombia)81 or, secondly, encouraging sannyasins to return to their home locations to set up centres (e.g. UK, Italy, Greece, Australia), wherever that may be. The combined effect of these strategies was to create significant gaps in global coverage, with some key areas missed out altogether. It was also a form of expansion that was fairly protracted, given that it relied upon waiting for invitations or being opportunistic by prevailing upon sannyasins returning from India to their homelands. A case in point is North America where the BSY was slow to establish a permanent presence. Historically, there appears to have been a comparatively low

90  Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga level of interest in the US, which is somewhat unexpected in light of the personal tours made there by Satyananda in 1968, 1970 and twice in 1982.82 The first foray on American soil was made by Niranjan who organised the foundation of a nonprofit organisation in California (St. Mateo) during his visit there in 1980 and a trademark was filed for ‘Satyananda Ashrams of the USA’ in 1989. Yet, the centre failed to stimulate the growth of Satyananda Yoga and, according to Melton (2014[1977]), it catered mainly to the ‘Indian-American community’. Even with a massive upsurge in interest in yoga practice in the 1990s, Satyananda Yoga had an underwhelming impact on the yoga scene and, in Atmarupa’s words, ‘no one had heard of the Bihar School’ in the US (Yogakanti et al. 2009b:162). The most active centre in the US has been the Atma Centre in Cleveland, Ohio that was founded by Atmarupa in 1997. A salient factor potentially affecting its fortunes in North America is that some of Sivananda’s most famous and successful disciples had already chosen to establish themselves there. It is likely that Satyananda Yoga lost out to these early movers, with competition for public attention from the yoga organisations of Vishnudevananda and Satchidananda, who had already gained momentum having established centres initially in 1959 (Montreal) and 1966 (New York), respectively. Even so, given the early start to touring and the number of tours undertaken, it is surprising that there was not more of a lasting impact in these locations. Part of the problem may have centred on the format of tours which – rather than focusing on demonstrations or classes of posture practice and breathing exercises – were primarily lecture-tours on a wide range of relatively dry subjects for those new to yoga teachings; e.g. ‘Awakening Faith’, ‘Guilt’, ‘Combatting Disease in the Ashram’ (Satyananda 1984[1982]). Additionally, these tours sought to cover as much ground as possible in terms of the number of countries visited, which translated to short visits and fairly superficial relationships in each location. This thinly spread approach to touring was distinct from the highly successful yoga tours of Pattabhi Jois and BKS Iyengar, who targeted just a few locations to build up solid regional hubs in the US and the UK, respectively. Governance and the Australian ashram Even with a few misguided strategies that hindered dissemination, I find that the BSY has been remarkably successful in disseminating posture practice, considering that it pursed a strategy of niche appeal. It was far less successful, however, in the realm of governance and oversight in situated practice. A longrunning scandal in Australia was recently played out in public before the Royal Commission, which examined in 2014 allegations of child sexual abuse at its Mangrove Mountain ashram site in NSW and other Satyananda Yoga locations from 1974 to 2014.83 Recollections of abuse date back to the 1980s in Australia and centre on the abuse perpetrated by Akhandananda (d.1997), a disciple sent by Satyananda in 1974 to run a centre in Sydney who went on to became Director of Satyananda Ashram Ltd. In 1989, Akhandananda was found guilty of child abuse and sentenced to 2 years 4 months imprisonment, spending 14 months in jail before his conviction was overturned on a technicality in 1991. The initial phase

Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga  91 of the scandal saw the closure of over 20 ashrams in Australia in the late-1980s.84 At the time, scholar Aveling (1994:205) deemed the Satyananda movement to have been ‘destroyed’ in Australia. Yet, whilst its ashram system was slimmeddown, it proved remarkably resilience with the creation of multiple yoga therapy centres in urban and rural locations – led by ‘the Munger Swamis’ (ibid:162) – paving the way for popularisation in the region.85 What precipitated revisiting the scandals almost 30 years later was a government investigation into institutional responses to child sexual abuse in Australia. It looked into the case of the BSY, which the Commission ultimately deemed ‘…did not properly prioritise the welfare of survivors over the interests of the ‘brand’ of Satyananda yoga’ (Royal Commission 2016a:86). Sending out shock waves through the global network, the inquiry served a devastating blow for its public image, compounded by disturbing reports from former inmates detailing a cult-like atmosphere that were widely reported in the Australian press.86 The knock-on effect was that this former stronghold of Satyananda Yoga fell into disarray, prompting the mass exit of former supporters and the sale of much of its real estate to pay for reparations.87 From an institutional perspective, what can be observed is that the official organisational response was woefully inadequate. By examining organisationallevel features, this is not intended to distract from recognising that a major contributor to abuse and violence remains underlying structural drivers in society and that it is not an individualised problem unique to a specific guru or devotional context; that is, not simply the ‘bad apple’. With an awareness of the role of prevailing attitudes of sexism and heteropatriarchy in perpetuating abuse (Jain 2020a), one may assume that, with a given set of societal constraints, the analysis of micro-level structures, processes and interactions remains helpful in providing lessons from historical events. To date, there has not been any public acknowledgement or apology on behalf of the BSY for abuses from the powers-that-be in India.88 In the 1980s, Satyananda was apparently informed of the problems at the time, ostensibly sending Niranjan in 1988 (Yogakanti 1989:158) to investigate what was becoming a major crisis; although Aveling (1994:171) notes that he was ‘remarkable ineffective against his older and more wily foe’ (i.e. Akhandananda). In fact, things were allowed to carry on as normal (with the removal of Akhandananda) and the abuse was hushed up. Many years later, in response to the new inquiry in 2014, Niranjan wrote a letter to the Australian BSY leaders noting his ‘disgust’ at the series of allegations of misconduct and sexual abuse (Browne 2014), threatening to renounce all ties and ban use of the terms ‘Bihar School of Yoga’, ‘Swami Satyananda’ or ‘Swami Niranjan’.89 However, this gave the false impression of previous ignorance of the abuses and seemed to ignore the fact that the worldwide trademarks for Satyananda are apparently held in Australia, not India.90 What is most damning to come out of the Australian inquiry is testimony of Bhakti Manning (formerly Bhaktipoornananda). It detailed the history of the issues within Satyananda Yoga in Australia and also uncovered allegations of abuse against Satyananda occurring whilst he was in Australia and in the Munger ashram. Her testimony also raises questions concerning abuses of guru power,

92  Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga with her evidence relating to sexual relations with Niranjan in the Munger ashram throughout 1983.91 With social media acting as a platform for further revelations, multiple claims of abuse were put into the public domain, including most shockingly the account of Dutchwoman Machteld van den Brink (Janaki), who detailed systematic sexual abuse and beatings by Satyananda dating back to 1967 when she came to the Munger ashram with her mother (Yogeshwarananda) to attend the first yoga course for non-Indians. In response, there has been no engagement by the BSY headquarters with these allegations specific to Satyananda and Niranjan, including in its submissions to the Commission inquiry, which instead sought to ring-fence the complaints solely to abuses perpetrated by Akhandananda and his assistant, Shishy.92 Almost in complete denial of the furore in Australia, the Indian Prime Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, made the award of the Padma Bhushan to Niranjan in January 2017 (Singh 2017). Coming a matter of months after the release of the Royal Commission report (April 2016), it may be interpreted as reactionary and advancing Hindu nationalist agendas in defence of yoga as an Indian cultural product against perceived foreign attack.93 In an apparent attempt to further rehabilitate the brand, Indian President, Narendra Modi – a regular practitioner of Satyananda yoga nidra – sent a supportive tweet to his 60 million followers on Yoga Day 2019 (22 June) attesting to the continuing relevance and high profile of the BSY in India; noting they, ‘merge ancient wisdom with modern trends with an aim to improve fitness’ and that ‘their yoga programmes and publications are widely popular’. A contributing factor to the prevalence of abuse in the confines of the ashram was its organisational culture. Testimony of former residents cites expectations of ashram leaders of ‘surrender, submission’ (Royal Commission 2016a:11), with one resident noting that devotion was heavily encouraged, involving ‘having to obey without question’ (Royal Commission 2016d:6). Guru veneration was observed during fieldwork in Munger, not just during ashram activities but resulting from the cultivation of an inner circle who would act as gatekeepers interacting with practitioners on his behalf and carrying messages. I found such attempts to regulate guru contact to foster an aura of exclusivity and scarcity that assisted in sustaining an air of charisma around the leader. It was also a source of complaint for some sannyasins that I encountered, whose ‘proxemic desire’ (Lucia 2018:971) viewed closeness to the guru as necessary both for spiritual transformation and social recognition. A consequence of the high levels of deference associated with its devotional organisational culture is one explanation for how the events that transpired in Australia in the 1970s–1980s could remain an open secret and, according to insiders, circulated with a sanitised version for decades. As seen with other scandals of abuse not just in yoga organisations but more widely, the denial, justifications and dismissal of socially invested persons are commonplace; in this case, asserting that Satyananda was ‘too naïve and innocent…to deal with it’ or ‘corruption was not of his doing’ and so on.94 One must be cautious here as it would be overly simplistic to reduce incidences of abuse to guru scandals or authoritarianism alone as it obfuscates the wider, societal set of structural issues, not least as violence towards children and women is an endemic societal problem not just restricted to yoga.

Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga  93 Looking more closely at official organisational structures reveals that governance measures were of low importance. For a yoga organisation that underwent significant adaptation of the sannyasa model and was pioneering in shaping yoga training to suit transnational audiences, it is arguably surprising that authorities were so inflexible when it came to embracing methods of oversight and conforming to international norms of governance. The BSY succeeded in developing an extensive bureaucratic structure and institutionalised many processes over the years but the guru continued to enjoy a total monopoly on decision-making and, crucially, was held to account by no-one inside or outside the institution in situated practice (i.e. non-governance). The lack of a credible, institutional mechanism for oversight was a contributory factor in the mismanagement that occurred. What this case highlights is that it was not just the presence of structures that counts but how they operated and whether they could do so without interference from the guru to further transparency and functional oversight. Satyananda and his heirs established multiple governing boards for the various sub-organisations within the umbrella organisation of the ‘International Yoga Fellowship Movement’, but board member appointments appeared largely honorific and did nothing to challenge the guru. This is not uniformly the case across the field of modern yoga organisations, such as in Iyengar Yoga, where complaints of abuse concerning one of its most senior US teachers were ultimately subject to an independent inquiry appointed by the US National Association, in defiance of the will of the Iyengar family in Pune who remained at the helm of the eponymous style of yoga practice.95 Part of the problem was not just the absence of effective governing structures but that leaders themselves appeared unmotivated to fully address the issues and engage with complaints; for example, by refusing to answer a letter by disciples to the headquarters in India on the matter.96 Compared with other scandal-hit yoga organisations such as Ashtanga Yoga’s KPJAYI in Mysuru, the BSY had in place a far more complex transnational framework with defined structures and procedures, yet it largely sat on its hands and failed to deal with these issues until forced to address them in the face of a public outcry.97 In concordance with Pankhania and Hargreaves (2017:9), a problem of cognitive dissonance appears entrenched amongst leaders and a ‘culture of silence and denial prevail[ed] at the highest levels’. In many ways, leaders in the BSY sought to survive the fallout by largely ignoring it.

Summary Satyananda had a clear plan and went about recruiting disciples with much energy and determination. Unlike some yogis, such as Pattabhi Jois, he did not wait for people to find him but actively went out and recruited around the world for his first training courses in his Munger ashram. This purposeful tone, set early on, was to characterise what grew into a global yoga organisation. From a small band of disciples, decades of incremental institutionalisation have created a large, complex set of institutions and persistent network with an extended geographical reach. In short, it bore all the hallmarks of a successful transnational yoga organisation.

94  Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga Nevertheless, despite clear achievements and the wide appeal of Satyananda’s teachings, the BSY was nowhere near as well-known on the world stage nor as successful in terms of reach and number of trained teachers compared with other styles of yoga practice, such as Iyengar Yoga, Sivananda Yoga (SYVC) or Integral Yoga. Essentially, as an historical analysis of the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya schools shows, it ultimately pursued the wrong strategy for capturing the popular imagination: its overarching focus on sannyasa acted as a barrier to greater participation. No matter how skilful leaders were at building institutions and managing a global organisation, the fact remained that sannyasa was relatively unappealing for mainstream audiences who preferred to consume yoga without religious overtones or making a permanent commitment. Basically, the pool of potentially i­nterested persons was far smaller and, hence, even success at attracting and initiating hundreds into sannyasa – whilst a great achievement – was never going to have the same impact on the field as accrediting many thousands of teachers. In many ways, this path appeared to target a middle ground, trying to appeal to both Indians and non-Indians. Yet, in trying to be all things to all people, it did not as closely embrace the needs, preferences and cultural contexts of those propelling the explosion of interest in posture practice as successfully as other yoga organisations.

Notes 1 ‘Satyananda Yoga’ is a trademark of the ‘International Yoga Fellowship Movement’ and is used ‘under licence’ by other parts of the Satyananda network. 2 The BSY has attracted many high-profile patrons and visitors, including influential politicians such as the then President of India Abdul Kalam in 2003, Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and members of Bollywood star Salman Khan’s family. In 2011, Geeta Iyengar, told me that she had been invited to visit Munger by Niranjanananda but did not feel well enough to go. 3 BKS Iyengar subsequently received the Padma Vibhushan in 2014; awarded to only 314 people in history. 4 His birth name was undocumented in all the archival documentation that I consulted. 5 The date Satyananda permanently left the Rishikesh ashram is often incorrectly cited as 1954. See Bartos (2017:391fn534) for a discussion of the evidence. 6 Consulted in the Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh. 7 Confusingly, dates are often cited variously on websites and in official literature, with different dates even contained within the same publication; notably, foundation of the IYFM is stated as 1962 inside a dust jacket but 1963 in its preamble (Satyananda 1984[1982]). 8 This version is based upon a restatement of official IYFM Aims and Objectives in 1965. 9 Satyananda (1983). 10 Interview of Swaroopananda on 12 October 2012 at the BSY Centre in Bhubaneswar, Odisha. He later established the Bhubaneswar ashram in the early-1990s. 11 Satyananda (2013:2). 12 Such reports are largely online and often are anonymous. 13 Interview with several initiates and attendees to centres and ashrams in Munger, Bihar (2011) and Rikhiapeeth (2012). 14 Uma and her husband, Nirlipta, had a long history with the BSY traced back through Nirlipta’s mother, Suryabindu, a swami in Rikhia (1993–2001). Satyananda even organised their wedding in 1997 in Rikhia and he reportedly ‘identified Uma publicly as his ‘daughter-in-law’.

Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga  95 15 DLS Annual Report (2011). 16 Bartos (2017:402–404). 17 This was first described by Sivananda in his 1929 text as ‘Synthetic Yoga’ (Sivananda 1929:211; Venkatesananda 1956:131–136). 18 See Dinsmore-Tuli and Tuli (2014) for a discussion on Satyananda’s presumed ownership of yoga nidra versus teachers operating outside of the Bihar School, including The Yoga Nidra Network, Richard Miller and The Himalayan Institute. 19 For a full breakdown of tour activities, see Yogakanti et al. (2009a, 2009b). 20 Bartos (2017:402–404). 21 As far as I have been able to establish and as claimed by the Bihar School of Yoga (1983). 22 Prior to Satyananda’s (2011[1982]) departure from Rishikesh in 1956, he was permitted the ‘highly unusual step’ of breaking from physical labour for 3 years to devote himself fully to his studies on a variety of subjects, including on the Rig Veda, all other religions and books on the ‘Gandhi[an] age’. 23 According to Dutchwoman Machteld van den Brink, it was not possible to apply for a place but attendees were hand-picked by Satyananda’s head disciple, Ma Yoga Shakti. Attendees heralded from Austria, Brazil, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland and the US. 24 In 1991, students hailed from Australia, Bulgaria, Colombia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, UK, Uruguay and the US (Yogakanti et al. 2009b:92). 25 Interview of Pragyamurti on 22 May 2012 at the Satyananda Yoga Centre in Balham, London. 26 The Bihar Yoga Bharati is no longer included on the UGC website for those deemed to be universities (as of 2020). 27 The Bihar School of Yoga (est. 1963); Yoga Research Foundation (1984); Sivananda Math (1984), a charity supporting rural communitities in India; Bihar Yoga Bharati (1994), an institute for teaching on yoga practice, the Yoga Publications Trust (2000). There were also a number of smaller initiatives, including the Bal Yoga Mitra Mandal (Children’s Yoga Fellowhsip), Sri Panchdashanm Paramahamsa Alakh Bara and Sannyasa Peeth (BSY c.2011a:52–55). 28 Despite the senior roles she occupied, the BSY affords a rather low profile to Ma Yoga Shakti; not least as in over 50 years of publications in its magazine, Yoga, I found only two references to ‘Ma Yogashakti’. This may be due to the fact that she subsequently left the organisation. The YogaShakti Mission was founded in the US in 1977; although biographies make no reference to any connection to Satyananda or the Bihar School of Yoga. However, both her date of initiation, 1965, and her full initiated name, ‘Saraswati’, coincide with her time spent with Satyananda. 29 Interview of Suryaprakash on 23 October 2011 at the Ganga Darshan in Munger, Bihar. 30 As detailed throughout Yogakanti et al. (2009a). 31 Interview Suryaprakash (2011). 32 Suryaprakash told me he was born into a “reasonably well-off family” who immigrated to the US from Europe. His original link to the BSY was through his grandparents, who were from an area that now forms part of Pakistan but moved to India (Ranchi) shortly after partition before relocating to Spain. Suryaprakash remarked to me that his own passion drove him to come to Bihar for good in June 1999 and all teachings followed naturally. A disciple of Satyananda, he was initiated into Dashanami on 14 January 2000 (Interview Suryaprakash 2011). 33 A pattern of hosting this all-important ‘World Convention’ was outlined by the BSY with Sivananda in 1953, Satyananda in 1973, Niranjan in 1993 and Suryaprakash proposed for 2013. Reassuringly perhaps, Suryaprakash appears in the background of two photos (page 9, 12) in the 108-page report (BSY 2014). 34 Satyasangananda (‘Satsangi’) is reported as being initiated into the ‘Dashanami tradition’ on 6 July 1982 and initiated into the ‘Paramahamsa Order’ on 1 January 2007.

96  Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga 35 ‘Rājasūya’ is an ancient Vedic ritual usually performed by a conquering king. See Heesterman (1957). 36 Satyananda’s retirement from worldwide co-ordination of Satyananada yoga, at the age of 65, saw him fully engage in transcendental duties by adopting kshetra sannyasa; i.e. to confine oneself to a single place to attain a higher, universal state of consciousness (Niranjanananda 1990a). 37 Activities in Rikhia fell into three broad areas; as a place for spiritual growth (Sivananda Ashram, est. 2004), offering charity to rural communities (matha) and as a site for the performance of rituals, such as havans, yajnas and yoga purnima. 38 Some considered him of a junior standing, with a long-standing Ashtanga Yoga practitioner noting he was ‘barely even a peer’ (McLean 2012). 39 Though undocumented, the story has been retold that a childless woman came to see Satyananda as she wanted children and that he impregnated her, telling her that any child would be his. What is certain is that Niranjan came to live at the ashram aged 4 years and there is a photo of the couple with him as a baby alongside Satyananda. 40 Interview of Satyasangananda on 24 October 2012 in Rikhiapeeth, Rikhia, Jharkhand. 41 Interview of Vitasangananda Giri on 13 October 2012 at the Ramakrishna Math in Bhubaneswar, Odisha. 42 See Clark (2006) on the organisation of the Dashanami Order. 43 Interview Suryaprakash (2011). 44 Interview of karma sannyasin (anonymous) – a dormitory monitor in the Munger ashram (2011). 45 Bartos (2017:416). 46 See also Niranjan (2005[1993]:103–105). Monier-Williams (1872) dictionary translates ‘jijnasu’ as ‘desirous of knowing, examining, inquiring into’. In older Indian ascetic traditions, reference is made to ‘jijñāsuḥ’ in chapter seven of the Bhagavad Gita as a seeker or enquirer. Sivananda (1925a) translated jignasu as ‘spiritual aspirant’ in one of his pre-DLS publications. Hence, the notion of jignasu being akin to a period of apprenticeship or studentship has had a long history within the Sivananda School. 47 Bartos (2017:410fn573). 48 Ideal behaviours to be cultivated by the karma sannyasin include control over craving, selfless service, being calm and collected, self-observation, independence and an agreeable disposition or positive frame of mind (Niranjanananda 2005[1993]:105–107). 49 Several meanings are found in ancient Hindu texts, such as full, finished, accomplished and capable (Monier-Williams 1872). 50 A caveat here is that Niranjan (1990b) has also commented that in some ways ‘karma sannyasa is…more difficult…because in full sannyasa there is total dedication to the guru and he manages all your affairs’. Nonetheless, they have greater freedoms than the poorna sannyasa and remain fully engaged within society, continuing to carry out his/her duties as a householder such as having a job, earning money and maintaining family obligations. 51 Specific qualities are considered essential to this stage of development; obedience, discipline, adaptation, dedication and surrender (Niranjanananda 2005[1993]:107–110). 52 Interview Satyasangananda (2012); Interview of several karma and poorna sannyasins in the UK and India (2011–2014). 53 Interview with several initiates and attendees to centres and ashrams in Munger, Bihar (2011) and Rikhiapeeth (2012). 54 The following section on initiation draws heavily from interviews with senior leaders, Satyasangananda (2012) and Suryaprakash (2011) alongside several initiates, including Durga Shakti (21 October 2012, Rikhiapeeth), Pragyamurti (2012) and Shaktimurti (22 October 2012, Rikhiapeeth) plus many residents and visitors (Indian and non-Indian) to ashrams and centres that are not separately listed here. 55 See Clark’s (2006) erudite study on the Daśanāmī-Sam. nyāsīs, which details their organisation and practices.

Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga  97 56 The mantra is traditionally whispered in the ear of each noviate during the ceremony (Interview Shaktimurti 2012). 57 As Krishna 1995:24 maintains was Sivananda’s practice. 58 Interview Satyasangananda (2012). 59 Even at the time of early modern yoga, precedent abounded for departures from orthodox behaviours with scholars documenting renunciates engaged both in society (e.g. being married) and business in a meaningful way. See Burghart (1983a, 1983b), Gold (1999), Van der Veer (2001) and Clark (2006). 60 Interview Pragyamurti (2012). 61 Making such changes risks an organisation being deemed ‘inauthentic’. Authenticity becomes ever more problematic, following Alexander (2011:4), ‘as societies become more complex, more divided vertically and more fragmented horizontally…[then] they lose their metaphysical anchoring’. 62 See Clark (2006:8). 63 Interview Satyasangananda (2012). 64 Interviews Visitors to BSY Ashram Munger (2011); Interview UK sannyasin in Rikhia (2012). Thus, with scant institutional explanations provided, the absence of many facets of the full ceremony appears not to have been noticed. 65 Interview Satyasangananda (2012). 66 Interview of Atmaprabhananda on 13 October 2012 in the Ramakrishna Math, Bhubaneswar, Odisha. 67 Interview Satyasangananda (2012). 68 Consulted in the Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh. 69 Interview of Mr. Fernando Sanz and colleagues on 17 October 2011 at the Ganga Darshan Ashram in Munger, Bihar. 70 Satyananda subsequently went to visit Colombia in 1980. See also Gyanshakti (1977) who corroborates Sanz’s version of events. 71 Based upon the personal account of Pragyamurti (Interviewed in 2012). 72 Jones and Ryan (2007:201) report that ten BSY ashrams were established in India during the 1970s. 73 As only the Munger and Rikhia sites are publicly advertised and no public list of accredited centres of teachers in India or abroad was published, the 2012 figure is based upon my own calculations. 74 Interview Pragyamurti (2012). 75 Persson (2007:46). 76 Interview Pragyamurti (2012). 77 As shown on: http://www.atmacenter.com (accessed June 2015). 78 The IYFM Ltd. was founded as an Australian public company in 2000 (ABN.82.095.043.093) and subsequently listed with the charities commission for tax concessions. As of 2020, its directors were Diana Bizos, Alexander and Susie Whitehead-Pope, about whom very little information is publicly available. It is a separate legal entity from the IYFM founded in India in 1963 and I have discerned no formal, legal linkage between the two. 79 Pers. correspondence with Integral Yoga in Buckingham (Virginia), US (2020) and 80 Interview Pragyamurti (2012). The UK governing body of yoga, The British Wheel of Yoga, suspended its registration of Satyananda Yoga in 2017 as a response to findings of the Royal Commission inquiry (Pankhania and Hargreaves 2017:5–6). 81 In response to a request, Satyananda sent a sannyasin to the US in 1977 to work at a notorious prison in California (San Quentin) where they worked for at least 5 years (Satyananda 1983). 82 In May, Satyananda went to Los Angeles and San Francisco, then returned in August and visited several cities including New York, Washington D.C, Ann Arbor, Denver, LA, San Jose, San Francisco (Niranjanananda 1993). 83 See findings of the Royal Commission (2016). 84 Aveling (1994:9).

98  Satyananda and the Bihar School of Yoga 85 Representation for Satyananda Yoga became split into two groups by the early-1990s. The Australian ashram system (now Academy of Yoga Science; formerly Satyananda Yoga Academy) was supplemented by a new yoga network set up in 1994 by (exMunger swamis) Muktananda and Tapasmurti. See Aveling (1994) for a history of Satyananda Yoga in 1980s Australia. 86 Over 40 such articles were published on the matter in Australian newspapers (2013–2016). 87 Assets sold include its Manly centre (Sydney) for AUD$3.1m (US$2.3m) and its 99-hectare Mangrove Mountain Ashram for AUD$3.8m (US$2.8m). Proceeds from these sales were used to pay reparations to the survivors of abuse as part of a ‘Settlement Agreement’ offered by the Academy of Yoga Science (Pankhania and Hargreaves 2017:8); details of which have not been made public. 88 Royal Commission (2016c:111–114). 89 For a summary of email exchanges, see Royal Commission (2016a:85). 90 The most important trademarks worldwide for Satyananda Yoga are held by the IYFM Ltd., an Australian public company that was founded in 2000 (ABN.82.095.043.093). 91 Royal Commission (2016b). 92 Royal Commission (2016e). 93 See Gautam and Droogan (2018) and Jain (2015). 94 These comments are based upon the experiences of Nirlipta, who had a decades long experience with the BSY (Dinsmore-Tuli and Tuli 2014:4). 95 See Chapter 6. 96 As reported by Pankhania and Hargreaves (2017:4). 97 Pankhania and Hargreaves (2017:5) report that Satyananda Yoga worldwide has now implemented effective child protection policies.

5 Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga

A relatively small group of world-renowned teachers were responsible for the practice of yoga asanas becoming a mainstream activity. Krishnamacharya (1888–1989) is attributed with having ‘arguably…the greatest influence on radically physicalised forms of yoga across the globe’ (Singleton 2010:176).1 Often uncritically referred to as the father of modern yoga, this underplays the monumental contribution of Sivananda and his disciples to transnational dissemination of posture practice, alongside others. What sets Krishnamacharya apart is his curious lack of fame, as evidenced by the lack of general familiarity with his name amongst general practitioners of yoga, and at best his influence has been known indirectly via references made by his lauded pupils to their guru; BKS Iyengar and Pattabhi Jois. Explanations that draw upon analysis of the history of social organisation of the tradition are particularly useful for understanding the fortunes of the tradition; not least as Krishnamacharya was already 88 years old when the first institutions appeared in his name and he personally refused to engage in marketing of its practices abroad or to train teachers in any systematic fashion. In this chapter, I examine the relatively late start to organising diffusion of the practice to global practitioners and discuss the steps taken by Krishnamacharya’s family members to embrace branding and commercialisation of the practice. To aid our discussion of its historical development, it is useful to identify four broad phases in the dissemination of the style of yoga practice, starting with a Krishnamacharya Phase (1930s–1980s), then a ‘Viniyoga’ Phase (1983–2002) of TKV Desikachar, followed by a Post-Viniyoga Phase (2002–2006) and finally, a Transnational Institutionalisation Phase (2006–) propelled by Kausthub Desikachar.2

A brief history of Krishnamacharya Tirumalai Krishnamacharya was born in 1888 into a family of Iyengar Brahmins in South India (Muchukundapuram, Karnataka) who belonged to the Vadakalai sect of Shri Vaishnavism.3 Purportedly descended from Nathamuni, the author of Yoga Rahasya (Desikachar 2010[1995]:xv) and the 10th-century founder of the Shri Vaishnava School, his family had strong linkages to the Vaishnava Sri Parakala Math in Mysuru (formerly Mysore) where Krishnamacharya’s

100  Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga great-grandfather was a former head of the math. His yoga education started from an early age, being taught 24 asanas at the Shringeri Math when he was an ‘urchin’.4 An erudite young man, he obtained degrees in grammar, Ayurvedic medicine, music, astrology and the six philosophical systems of Hinduism from universities in Allahabad, Mysuru, Patna, Kolkata, Benares and Baroda (Dars, Papillault and Dars 1989:20m15). Krishnamacharya’s penchant for learning and validating qualifications was a consistent theme and he went onto receive many awards and titles during his lifetime.5 A seminal period of his life was his trip to Mount Kailash in 1919 on the advice of Yogacharya Ganganth Jha, where he sought to learn yoga practice from Ramamohan Brahmachari – a hatha yogi of some repute (Krishnamacharya 1984:3).6 According to his own report, Krishnamacharya spent 7 years under the tutelage of this avowed guru before leaving Tibet, taking with him an instruction to ‘teach and preach yoga’.7 Back in India, he was to receive the honour of being offered the post of Pontiff at Parakala Math, partly as he was considered a hereditary successor due to his aforementioned family connections. Yet, whilst this path was laid out for him, he turned down joining this revered religious institution and lived out his life as a householder. The early years as a yoga teacher were characterised by struggle and poverty in light of the teaching of yoga practice not being widely accepted as a valid profession in 1920s India. After his arranged marriage to BKS Iyengar’s sister, T. Namagiriamma in 1925, a very highly qualified Krishnamacharya was forced to take work as a foreman at a coffee plantation, obliging him to squeeze his public demonstrations of yoga practice into his days off (Iyengar 2007a[2000]:52). A slightly different light was cast by Krishnamacharya himself in 1984, when he claimed that the Maharaja of Jaipur had appointed him principal of the ‘Vidya Shala’ (Centre for Instruction in Philosophy and Yoga) around this time but he gave it up as it did not suit his ‘free spirit’ (Krishnamacharya 1984:3). In 1926, a sea change in fortunes came upon meeting the Maharaja of Mysore (Krishnarajendra Wadiyar IV) in Varanasi, who subsequently financed his demonstrations of yoga asanas around India (Desikachar and Cravens 1998:87; Mohan 2010:6). It was these demonstrations that sought to popularise yoga by displaying supra-normal abilities, such as suspending his pulse, stopping cars with bare hands and lifting heavy objects with teeth (Ruiz 2001:100). Eventually, Krishnamacharya found a salaried teaching job in May 1932 at the Sanskrit College of Mysuru (Srivatsan 1997:49). Most fruitful of all was Krishnamacharya’s period at the Mysore Palace. Appointed to the post of resident instructor at the Jaganmohan Palace to teach the ‘Yogic System of exercises’ (Sjoman 1999[1996]:50–51; Singleton 2010:179), Krishnamacharya had a mandate to teach yoga practice from 1933 to the e­ arly1950s. This foundational period set the tone for the physicalised yoga that would come to dominate the field of transnational yoga practice from the second half of the 20th century. Yet, yoga practice remained deeply unfashionable in India, being ‘subject to ridicule and scorn’ as BKS Iyengar (2007a[2000]:60) recollects. Against this backdrop, practice at the Mysuru yoga shala mirrored an emerging trend towards physical exercise to maintain health and fitness, incorporating gymnastics, calisthenics and martial arts (Sjoman 1999[1996]); Singleton 2010).

Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga  101 Royal patronage was a supportive factor in the realisation of, what White (2009:246) deems to be Krishnamacharya’s self-recognised ‘improvised tradition’. Krishnamacharya’s lecture tours and demonstrations of posture practice outside of the Palace were facilitated by this patronage (Ramaswami c.1980; Iyengar 2007a[2000]:60) although such dissemination was almost entirely confined to an Indian audience. Given the sparse public backing for his endeavours (Iyengar 2007a[2000]:60), it is likely that without this precious endorsement of the Wadiyar family he would not have been financially free to make such innovations. Promotion of yoga formed part of the wider devotion of the ruling family to cultural innovations, education and the furthering of a physical culture movement, as befitting of the social currents of the time with an ascendency of Indian Nationalism and portrayals of a strong India.8 Wadiyar IV is also likely to have been motivated by his belief in yoga’s healing power to alleviate his diabetes (Donahaye 2010:xviii). Unfortunately, with the ruler’s death in 1940 came succession to a less interested nephew and patronage waned dramatically (Desikachar and Cravens 1998:94). Though the shala limped on for a number of years, closure eventually came in the early-1950s due to a lack of funding and a shift in political climate in the post-colonial era (Krishnamacharya 1984:4; K. Desikachar 2005a:107). Responding to an invitation from a leading jurist,9 Krishnamacharya opted to move to Chennai in 1952 where he took over evening classes at the Vivekananda College (Dars, Papillault and Dars 1989:19m45). During the 1960s and onwards, Krishnamacharya continued to take on students – including A.G. Mohan, Srivatsa Ramaswami and Mala Srivatsan – teaching them asana, Vedic chanting and various strands of philosophy (e.g. Vedanta, Samkhya, Mimamsa).

Systematisation of posture practice In terms of his teachings, Krishnamacharya was inspired by his Shri Vaishnava heritage, most notably through the incorporation of devotionalism (bhakti) in his teachings (Nevrin 2005:66). He was also a vital figure in establishing Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras (Pātañjalayogaśāstra; Mallinson and Singleton 2017: xvi) as the primary source of authority in modern transnational yoga practice (Singleton, Narasimhan and Jayashree 2012:340).10 Nevertheless, his early teachings (1920s–1940s) are associated more readily with the practice of asanas than philosophical teachings and he foregrounded asana practice throughout his career (Singleton and Fraser 2014:87). A film from 1938 of Krishnamacharya practising yoga shows a range of seated and standing postures being demonstrated that are very familiar to practitioners today across a range of styles of practice.11 Until the 21st century, Krishnamacharya’s yoga was ‘unbranded’ (Jain 2015:161), but the postures he taught were organised into a system of practice and a replicable format from an early stage. At the Mysuru yoga shala, Krishnamacharya honed a series of asanas characterised by ‘rigorous’, repetitive movements (Singleton 2010:176) that were systematically linked into a flowing sequence (vinyasas) and taught to his troupe of students; see Figure 5.1.12

102  Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga

Figure 5.1   Krishnamacharya and his yoga students in Mysuru, as shown in Yoga Makaranda (1934). (Credit: 4.0 International CC by 4.0)

This aerobic form of posture practice employed the use of specific breathing techniques and was periodically demonstrated to the Maharaja and his entourage. It is widely understood that Krishnamacharya made accommodations at this time for certain students according to his or her specific needs and body type. One such example was Indra Devi (1899–2002; née Eugenia Vasilyevna Peterson), whom he taught in a gentler, less active fashion compared with the flowing, heatbuilding style of instruction for Jois and Iyengar (Desikachar 1982:8; Ruiz 2007). Unsurprisingly, each student took away a slightly differentiated form of yoga teachings to their own students, which resulted in a variety of yoga practice styles being disseminated. A further source of accommodation was the use of props in that part of his teaching involved assisting students by using ‘certain instruments’ (Dars, Papillault and Dars 1989:32m50) and making adjustments to poses held by students as depicted in photos. A key differentiator of the Krishnamacharya tradition has been the extent of its focus on yoga therapy as a distinct category in its own right, where personalised yoga programmes may be developed based upon anatomy and personal history. This sits in direct contrast to more formulaic and inflexible systems where one size fits all, as exemplified by the Bikram style of practice. The approach of tailoring practice to the individual needs of a practitioner has been continued by his heirs and is most readily associated with the style. However, this was not always the case and the tendency to flexibly apply teachings was to become a much more central thrust of instruction on posture practice over time. During the Mysuru period, personal attention appears to have been absent and the degree to which such individualised accommodations were very limited. For example, Iyengar recalls that Krishnamacharya was a teacher who would ignore his ‘innocent enquiries on yoga’, leaving him with a practice lacking pranayama and philosophy

Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga  103 (Iyengar 2005:ix–xx). In later life, however, this experience differs from student accounts that detail how Krishnamacharya taught in-depth and with a high degree of precision on yoga asanas alongside various strands of philosophy and pranayama (Ramaswami c.1980; Mohan 2010).

Local dissemination: Krishnamacharya phase The first phase in the history of Krishnamacharya’s yoga was notable for his systematisation of posture practice and its regular dissemination in India. Less impressive, it was largely a non-event for dissemination of teachings abroad or development of any meaningful forms of social organisation of the practice. A promising development that provided scope for greater dissemination of his teachings was the publication of his manual entitled, Yoga Makaranda (‘Emerald of Yoga’) in 1934 and also Yogasanagalu (c.1941) thanks to the financial support of his patron.13 Krishnamacharya published a clear set of postures for a practitioner to follow, yet his presentation was not without issues, as Singleton, Narasimhan and Jayashree (2012:339) identify that simple and advanced postures follow one another ‘without apparent concern for graded sequencing’. It was, however, written in just 2 days (Dars, Papillault and Dars 1989:22m) in stark contrast to Iyengar’s (1965) Light on Yoga that was an 8-year Project.14 For most of the yogis discussed in this book, production of a guide to their respective yoga practices was intended as a platform to bring about wide exposure and to accelerate transnational dissemination with an eye towards popularisation. Conversely, Krishnamacharya’s (2011[1934]:1) motivation was merely to satisfy ‘people [who] keep asking…questions’ about yoga practice rather than some other well-honed strategy and the work was freely distributed to the public in India (Desikachar 2011:1).15 Accordingly, it was written in Kannada and was only ever intended for a local readership. It was not until the 21st century, almost two decades after his death, that non-speakers of the regional dialect were afforded greater insight into his direct teachings on postures and philosophical stance. Fully translated in 2006, the delayed appearance of Yoga Makaranda in front of an English-speaking audience goes some way to explaining Krishnamacharya’s historically low profile as it failed to be directly impactful on the course of transnational yoga dissemination. Regardless of how momentous one may consider Krishnamacharya’s input into developing postural forms of yoga practice, the fact remains that he did little personally to publicise his system abroad. As TKV Desikachar (2004b:11) has commented: my father never cared for name and fame…and here in India…if you ask most people who the source of yoga is, they will say Iyengar. The reluctance to capitalise on his early-mover advantage and an existing support base appears linked to an instruction from his guru (Ramamohan Bramachari), whom he studied with in Tibet (c.1919–1925), that he should devote himself to teaching yoga to others and ‘avoid making any professional use of his knowledge or his diplomas…’ (Viniyoga Editions 1989:5).16 Krishnamacharya’s commitment

104  Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga to upholding his vow would become pivotal in the following years as it effectively precluded marketing his brand of practice and any attempt at establishing a formal organisation himself. Nevertheless, Krishnamacharya did not obstruct attempts of his family members to travel overseas and reach out to recruit practitioners to the style of yoga practice. TKV Desikachar (2010[1995]:xviii) has even attributed Krishnamacharya with encouraging his attendance at a conference in Switzerland in 1973 alongside Satchidananda and Satyananda.17 Still, the cautious approach meant that for many decades there was no formal organisation at all representing yoga in the style of Krishnamacharya and it lagged behind the efforts of his disciples, BKS Iyengar, Pattabhi Jois and Indra Devi in diffusing posture practice to new audiences. Krishnamacharya’s disciples The impact of Krishnamacharya on shaping how global yoga is practiced today on a global basis is largely indirect, being brought to fruition almost entirely by the proselytising efforts of a handful of his disciples who developed organisations to act as coordinating frameworks for teachings. In this manner, information on modern yoga practice was extended beyond the confines of South Asia by these leading disciples of Krishnamacharya. Together they made a substantial contribution towards the popularisation of yoga practice. Save for the handful of overseas visitors who temporarily became his students, there was no direct outreach transnationally by Krishnamacharya. He mainly taught men but he did teach a few women, the most famous of which was Indra Devi18; who was also taught by Kuvalayananda but, contrary to Goldberg (2016:150– 151), I have found no evidence that she was taught by Sivananda.19 It was only with reluctance that Krishnamacharya taught her in 1937, acquiescing due to her friendship with his employers, the Wadiyar family (Desikachar 1982:8).20 Devi was the first of Krishnamacharya’s disciples to found a yoga school abroad, setting up a centre in Shanghai in 1939 before moving to Hollywood to teach a celebrity clientele (e.g. Greta Garbo, Gloria Swanson) that grew to 20 centres teaching 600 students per week (Leviton 1990:51).21 A more lasting impact came from her efforts in Argentina (Indra Devi Foundation) since relocating there in 1982, although her inferior renown on the world stage versus Jois and Iyengar may be partly attributable, following Goldberg (2016:272), to having been taught a slower, gentler and arguably less popular version of yoga by Krishnamacharya.

Reaching out: Viniyoga phase of TKV Desikachar It was principally his son, TKV Desikachar (1938–2016), who popularised these teachings rather than Krishnamacharya himself and whom, as Singleton and Fraser (2014:87) contend, ‘comprehensively articulated’ these teachings for a Western audience. An important contribution of TKV Desikachar is publication of his work, Heart of Yoga (2010[1995]), which presents teachings learnt from his father on postures, breathing, meditation and chanting, becoming the official teaching text for the tradition.

Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga  105 This was a seminal period of dissemination from India for Krishnamacharya’s teachings with the legacy of yoga in this tradition receiving real traction amongst yoga practitioners transnationally through the concept of ‘viniyoga’. Rather than presenting an entirely new system, viniyoga was directly based upon the wider range of teachings that Krishnamacharya taught to students in his later years. Espoused from the early-1980s, the term ‘viniyoga’ was inextricably linked with the presentation of teachings by TKV Desikachar and consisted of five basic elements; asanas, pranayama, chanting, meditation and devotional rituals.22 Translated officially (KYM 2006:35) as ‘appropriate utilisation’, viniyoga was presented as consistent with orthodox Vedic tradition whilst placing emphasis upon ­bhakti-yoga (Nevrin 2005:84). A formative period for Desikachar was accompanying his student and renowned philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895–1986) on a lecture tour around Europe in 1966 (KYM 2006:23; The Hindu 2010).23 The more receptive environment in the West towards practicing yoga in the 1970s and 1980s translated into Desikachar attracting his own loyal followers on his travels abroad. In 1976, he visited the UK ahead of teaching a 1-month yoga training programme in the US. Continuing to tour the world, the rising wave of support prompted Desikachar to consider ways of enhancing unity amongst the dispersed community of practitioners. As his student Gill Lloyd contends, it was ‘all about keeping the sangha together’.24 To facilitate this objective, Desikachar made a key contribution in instituting a home for the teachings in India. The first shift towards formal organisation and global coordination of the practice came on 14 April 1976 with the founding of a main centre for the teaching by Krishnamacharya’s son, TKV Desikachar. A relatively late step in the scheme of things, Krishnamacharya’s disciple Pattabhi Jois had been running his own centre in Mysuru for almost three decades (est. 1948). Perhaps the final impetus for the formal launch of the Chennai Mandiram was inspired by BKS Iyengar’s inauguration of his Pune yoga school (RIMYI) just a couple of years earlier in 1974 although, by this time, Iyengar had well-­established representative organisations in the UK and beyond. The Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram (KYM) was set up as a non-profit organisation and registered as a Public Charitable Trust. As three trustees were required to register the KYM, Krishnamacharya’s students A.G. Mohan (b.1945) and Srivatsa Ramaswami (b.1939) aided TKV Desikachar in this endeavour – who himself became the managing trustee (Ramaswami 1980:22). Initially, the practice space occupied just a small area of the family residence. The centre moved a couple of times within Chennai since inauguration; firstly, by moving into rented premises in St. Marys’ Road circa 1979, then in 1986/7 moving into a larger site on Fourth Cross Street, which was finally purchased in 2006 (KYM 2006:41). The move enabled the yoga organisation to accommodate greater demand from practitioners and, by 2006, staff comprised over 30 teachers (Young 2006:12) and around 20 administrators. The simple aim of the KYM has been to teach yoga practice in the style advocated by Krishnamacharya to anyone who wants to practice it, both to Indians and non-Indians. Its primary activities were providing classes on yoga practice and chanting, training teachers (yoga practice and therapy) and

106  Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga undertaking research in Chennai. Both local Indians and overseas visitors (males and females, Hindus and non-Hindus) would pay fees to attend classes and training courses and monies were also raised from the sale of publications and CDs/DVDs. The centre was relatively easy to access, with classes open to all irrespective of the level of practice ability in contrast to restrictive requirements for years of documented experience in Iyengar Yoga to practice at its Pune headquarters. Visitors to the centre described the modest surroundings and of TKV Desikachar’s approach to all students as being ‘humble, gentle and authoritative’ (Sugarman 2001). During fieldwork, the visiting practitioners I encountered tended to speak of a feeling of privilege to be studying at the KYM and one perceives a reverence for Krishnamacharya and TKV Desikachar that resonates from its walls. To coordinate activities, the KYM was divided into five departments: publications, yoga studies, research, Vedavani (or ‘Healing Chants Department’ offering Vedic chanting) and a charitable department that supported social welfare (‘Mitra’). Operation of the various departments were overseen by seven trustees on the board (K. Desikachar 2004a:3). The only really significant institutional development since this time was the foundation of the ‘Institute of Yoga Studies’ in 1988 to coordinate training courses and award certification for teachers and therapists.

The retreat: Post-Viniyoga phase Just as momentum was building to popularise the practice transnationally, TKV Desikachar firmly applied the brakes. The eighties had seen ‘Viniyoga’ beginning to really take off, particularly in the US and Western Europe where Desikachar recruited many volunteers to the cause who promulgated his teachings locally. Green shoots continued to appear in the West and advocates of the style began founding several institutions as a means to organise practice; including, Viniyoga America, Viniyoga Europe and Viniyoga Australia. Seemingly inspired by the example set by Iyengar supporters in fashioning regional institutions, practitioners in the US set about developing a nascent teacher-training programme in collaboration with TKV Desikachar. By the late-1980s, a 10-week training and ­certification program with Desikachar in Hamilton, New York, was being advertised in Yoga Journal (1988:67). The formalisation of teacher training was in line with general developments in the field of modern yoga during the 1980s, marked by growing demand for recognised accreditation and desires for transparency and the standardisation of training pioneered largely by Vishnudevananda, Satyananda, Satchidananda and BKS Iyengar in the late-1960s. However, Desikachar soon had second thoughts about it all and, as Leslie Kaminoff (2012:3m) recalls, surprisingly made an announcement that he would cease involvement in the certification programme in the US. Moreover, he requested that ‘Viniyoga America’ (est. 1986) should immediately dissolve itself. Understandably, this new stance was met with an angry reception by senior students who had already made considerable efforts to lay the groundwork to organise transnational practice. Perfectly poised for mass popularisation, this volte-face scuppered what was destined to become a major teacher training and accreditation programme in the US and beyond.

Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga  107 Shortly thereafter, in 1989, Krishnamacharya was to pass away at the age of 101. In terms of motivations, one wonders whether the shadow of Krishnamacharya had loomed large for Desikachar, as it would help explain his reluctance to deviate far from his father’s approach of non-commercialisation of the teachings. Continuing to harbour misgivings in pushing ‘viniyoga’ as a brand of yoga practice, Desikachar became increasingly concerned that the teachings were becoming divorced from his original intentions, although this did not prevent him from entitling his 2001 guide to practice as, The Viniyoga of Yoga. By 2002, the term was being employed around the world to denote a particular style of yoga in its own right, as ‘Viniyoga’, and commercialised by individuals acting independently from Krishnamacharya’s family’, such as Gary Kraftsow’s ‘American Viniyoga Institute™’ (est. 1999).25 Disturbed by the perception of personal fiefdoms and a more protectionist environment, Desikachar retreated from usage of the term entirely and encouraged practitioners to reorganise their activities and in 2002 and 2003 emailed senior teachers requesting the term be dropped altogether.26 TKV Desikachar (2002:4) made clear his strident objections during an interview at the time: I think they should destroy this word Viniyoga!… There is no style…It’s branding. It’s an identification. I’m sorry but they’ve destroyed the spirit of viniyoga by using the word Viniyoga…It is not only limiting, it separates… The moment you call it a style, you’re killing the spirit of viniyoga…. In some ways, Desikachar’s new stance appeared antithetical to popularisation of the teachings, not just in eschewing branding and teacher training but in selectively restricting diffusion of his teachings. For instance, McCall (2003:171) reports that he regretted publishing pictures of asanas in his 1999 book as it perpetuated a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach and he feared that practitioners may ‘…try things on their own without personalisation and proper supervision’. By insisting upon accommodating the practice for specific body types and personal histories, in theory at least, he was adding layers of complexity and creating a bespoke practice that hindered transmission of the practice. An inherent problem with mass dissemination of such a highly individualised approach to yoga teaching is that it potentially rendered the practice more challenging to replicate compared with rigidly standardised styles (e.g. Ashtanga Yoga, Bikram Yoga). History finds that Desikachar was swimming against the tide and his opposition to systematised training and caution around texts merely consigned the style to a lesser role in the field of posture practice. A refusal to temper this strong viewpoint led directly to disagreements over what to do next amongst practitioners. This point of crisis directly led to schism into a few camps and a fragmentation of worldwide support for the practice. Some stopped using the term altogether and created completely new local organisations, whilst others persisted but retreated from prominent usage, so that ‘Viniyoga Britain (1992–2002) gave way to ‘Association for Yoga Studies’ (est. 2003) with the tag line a ‘Viniyoga community’. Others continued using the term ‘Viniyoga’ unabashedly, such as the ‘Viniyoga Schools’ of La Federation

108  Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga Viniyoga Internationale27 (est. 1983) and the ‘American Viniyoga Institute™’ (est. 1999). A consequence of the division of previously unified support was in slowing momentum and undermining dissemination of the practice, with multiple organisations representing the practice that were independently run and governed by outside bodies (e.g. Centre for Yoga Studies in the UK). Desikachar’s abdication of a leadership role for Viniyoga activities represented a loss of central control as he retreated from an active role in shaping the social organisation of the practice.

Phase of transnational institutionalisation A new chapter came in 2006, with TKV Desikachar’s son, Kausthub (b.1975), starting to assert himself with a few new initiatives. By now, entrepreneurialism and the packaging of yoga practices into brands were commonplace in the field of modern yoga as demand for classes was rising dramatically. With his father increasingly less involved due to some serious health issues (Singleton and Fraser 2014:84), Kausthub Desikachar was the most active figure during this period of accelerated institutional growth and transnational popularisation. In what would become a decisive year, Kausthub – backed by his father – embarked on a new phase of institution-building whereby he sought to rapidly extend the influence of ‘yoga in tradition of Krishnamacharya’, as it was known at the time. At the heart of this strategy was creation of the ‘Krishnamacharya Healing and Yoga Federation’ (henceforth KHYF), an ‘umbrella organisation’ founded with the express intention to ‘link all certified teachers and students worldwide who study and teach in the holistic teaching tradition of T. Krishnamacharya’ (KYM 2009:2).28 A few regional branches of the KHYF were charged with training teachers and operating workshops, such as ‘KHYF Europe’ being responsible for activities in mainland Europe and with the UK run as a separate grouping entitled the ‘KHYF UK’ (2006–2013). With the blessing of TKV Desikachar, support in the UK for the new framework grew out of the existing support base captured within ‘Viniyoga Britain’ that had emerged in the mid-1990s.29 It was a professional organisation to represent teachers and was organised along the lines of a non-profit group. Though financially independent from the KYM, ultimately the new body was deferential to the central authorities based in Chennai and its most senior teacher of TKV Desikachar. Staffed entirely by volunteers, the KHYF(UK) was run mainly along informal lines rather than prescriptive procedures. Compared to Iyengar Yoga in the UK, it was at a far earlier stage of development with relatively little official documentation, operating according to draft constitution and fairly rudimentary rules, designated roles and procedures. My own interactions with the group were typified by impressions of warmth, close association and of brotherhood. A view supported by former ‘Director’ Gill Lloyd’s description of its periodic committee meetings that she finds were characterised by a strong sense of community amongst adherents.30 This flurry of activity meant that it was only in the 21st century that there was an attempt to catch-up on the ground lost to Krishnamacharya’s disciples,

Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga  109 BKS Iyengar and Pattabhi Jois in terms of recruitment and dissemination of posture practice. Finally swimming with the prevailing currents in the field of modern yoga practice, progress was swift. By 2012, a total of 852 teachers were listed as accredited across 22 countries.31 This momentum generated from 2006 to 2012 was achieved through the institutionalisation of teacher-training, the accreditation of teachers and creation of a hierarchy of qualifications and delegation of certification to a select group of local teacher trainers. Importantly, delegation of teacher certification meant that – unlike in Ashtanga Yoga – students were not required to visit India in order to receive accreditation as a teacher. Four levels of accreditation for yoga teaching were originally introduced, providing clear metrics for measurable progression; Yoga Teacher (500–750 hours of training), Yoga Teacher Trainer (1500 hours, 5 years of teaching experience), Yoga Therapist (2000 hours, 7 years teaching experience) and Yoga Therapist Trainer (3000 hours and 5 years therapy practice).32 Only the most senior designations of ‘trainer’ were permitted to deliver teacher training courses (KYM 2009). Requirements to access a teacher designation were markedly more demanding than those in other modern yoga organisations; with the minimum bar being 500 hours gaining any sort of accreditation versus 140 hours in Iyengar Yoga (‘Introductory Certificate’), 200 hours for Vishnudevananda’s Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres and Yoga Alliance or 300 hours for The British Wheel of Yoga (Certificate). Nevertheless, training courses proved very appealing to practitioners as teacher accreditation offered the only possible recognised mode of association with TKV Desikachar and the direct teachings of Krishnamacharya. By not offering formal initiation into a teaching lineage or any option of paid membership to either the headquarters in Chennai or a local branch, teacher accreditation held a special appeal as it represented a recognised form of participation.33 Looking at the most recent data available,34 the popularity of teacher-training programmes was indisputable. One of the most striking aspects, however, is that only 5% of teachers came from North America and the vast majority of teachers in the tradition were located in Europe (73%). There was a particularly large hub of practice in Germany (34% of total teachers worldwide), followed by France (21%) and then the UK (13%), as shown in Figure 5.2. The remaining teachers came from Australasia (10%) and Asia (8%), plus 4% from the rest of the world. The Euro-centric representation may partly stem from a longer history of association with TKV Desikachar visiting Europe from a slightly earlier stage (1973) and more frequently than he did elsewhere. However, in the case of the US, the strength of alternative groups transmitting the teachings in the tradition may be an important explanatory factor for the low figures. Notably, the American Viniyoga Institute (AVI) listed 514 accredited teachers (as of 2016), dwarfing the presence of KHYF recognised teachers at just 31. In terms of reach, dominance by the AVI was principally a regional phenomenon as non-US based teachers accounted for just 6% of its total (i.e. 34 out of 548 teachers across 13 countries) versus a reach of 25 countries for the KHYF. Evidently, whilst there are no data available regarding ethnicity or religion, what is clear that qualified teachers for yoga in the tradition of Krishnamacharya

110  Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga Asia 8%

ROW 4%

Australasia 10% North America 5%

France 21%

Rest of Europe 5%

UK 13%

Germany 34%

Figure 5.2  Worldwide distribution of KHYF yoga teachers (2012)

heralded overwhelming from outside India. The data highlight how other nationalities played a central role in the teaching of this style, with Indians representing a mere 7% (60 teachers). Yet, this was still considerably higher than in Iyengar Yoga where Indians were only 0.7% of the total teachers in the style worldwide and Ashtanga Yoga at 2.5%.35 The shortfall may well be attributable to a general disinterest of Indians historically in taking up these forms of yoga practice36 or a function of a policy of modern yoga organisations more geared towards attracting a non-­Indian audience both to diffuse their teachings more widely and/or earn a greater income. In fact, the growth of the style globally was all the more remarkable in light of the enormous fees charged for accreditation costs by the KHYF. Course fees for the ‘Yoga Teacher’ training programme (based at the KYM) were USD $5,590 (2014) for non-Indian citizens. To give some perspective, this was three times the average per capita income in Tamil Nadu that year ($1,832). Becoming a qualified teacher in the style was therefore not accessible to the vast majority of practitioners (Indians and non-Indians). Yet, this high bar did not prevent large numbers of persons from undertaking training courses either in Chennai or in their home regions. Appeal Much of the appeal of the style to 21st century consumers of yoga products has been attributable to the strict focus on asanas and the integration to a lesser extent of other elements into mainstream classes, such as breathing exercises and chanting. The absence of religious rituals or motifs and deemphasis of philosophical teachings relative to the Sivananda School adheres to the general preferences of transnational audiences for a secular presentation of yoga practice. This relates to how, for Krishnamacharya, practicing yoga did not have anything

Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga  111 to do with religion (Srivatsan 1997:51–52), nor, as Singleton and Fraser (2014:95) assert, did he insist that his students adopt his own sectarian allegiances but rather he adapted practices to ‘suit the culturally influenced needs of the individual’. The level of success is perhaps surprising given the relatively late-timing of these developments. The fact remains that by the time the teacher training programme was designed and promoted, the field of modern yoga practice was saturated with an endless array of yoga brands and no apparent limit to innovation. But, unlike many of these alternatives, it benefitted markedly from being considered as one of the most ‘authentic’ brands as a result of Krishnamacharya’s increasingly recognised role in the development of posture practice in the 20th century.37 Generating significant interest and a certain level of veneration for the style has been respect towards the legacy of Krishnamacharya, as a teacher of famed students Iyengar and Jois. One can even make the argument that the late start in providing a teacher training course actually allowed these programmes to be tailored for maximising its appeal globally. As a form of mimetic isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell 1983:151),38 a course could be carefully curated in full knowledge of what actually worked in practice with leaders simply emulating the tried and tested (successful) formulae pioneered by peers in the field. Undoubtedly, institutional factors played a part in unpicking why the style of yoga practice was relatively niche for decades as the absence of certain basic features of social organisation appeared to hold back its progress in spite of the proven popularity of its teachings. The founding of a central institution was undoubtedly helpful for diffusion of its posture practices by providing a focal point but this was insufficient in itself. It is only with recourse to institutional factors that one can fully explain why leaders in the early 21st century managed to rapidly accelerate transnational dissemination of its teachers and recruiting people worldwide. Development of organisational structures and functions at the centre and periphery went hand-inhand with ever increasing visibility to consumers and growth of its profile as a training establishment. Yet, this golden period of transnational expansion was to give way to a period of disarray and stagnation, as will be discussed.

Handing over power A potential problem inherent in any family-run organisation is that the top leadership roles are based upon a criterion of blood lineage, which meant selection may be complicated by multiple, eligible candidates or, alternatively, a very small pool of unsuitable candidates. Krishnamacharya had six children39 and taught yoga practice to all of them (K. Desikachar 2011:91). Many members of his immediate family (both males and females) were active in disseminating his teachings, usually via yoga displays and by teaching classes commercially. Third son, Sribhashyam (b.1940) says he began teaching yoga with his father in 1956 before later establishing a yoga centre in Belgium under the name ‘Yogakshemam’ in 1982 to ‘ensure the continuity and transmission of Krishnamacharya’s teachings in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland’. But, it was TKV Desikachar (1938–2016) who was perceived as the successor to his father’s legacy

112  Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga of teachings. The next generation was spearheaded by Kausthub Desikachar (b.1975), whose younger sister Mekhala (b.1978) was also a yoga teacher and has contributed two audio recordings, including Krishnamacharya’s Yoganjalisaram (Vedic chants) with her father and Sheela Shankar.40 Groomed as the next official successor and charged with perpetuating Krishnamacharya’s work, Kausthub Desikachar became an ‘Executive Trustee’ of the KYM in 2002 (K. Desikachar 1997) and named ‘Chief Executive Officer’ of the KHYF in 2006. Kausthub was positioned very much at the forefront of public representation and touring abroad. This handover was protracted and less widely accepted than the previous one. In this regard, I have found that some senior teachers in the tradition distanced themselves from allegiance to him directly; often at pains to emphasise their studentship of his father instead. Historically, the concept of ‘lineage’ has remained a powerful force of cohesion binding practitioners but, in this case, an equal level of deference was not bestowed upon the incoming leader as the charismatic incumbent. Though widely viewed as the blood heir, and self-proclaimed ‘lineage holder’, there were teachers at the KYM who had been teaching for far longer – including Menaka Desikachar and senior colleagues (e.g. Dr. Latha Satish) – and also within the wider network there were teachers who studied with Krishnamacharya for a far longer period, including A.G. Mohan (b.1945) and Srivatsa Ramaswami (b.1939). This situation arose partly from a shifting in organisational culture towards a more overtly commercial approach, including a business-like use of executive titles (e.g. CEO Kausthub Desikachar), that was not agreeable to all. Though any culture change can risk alienating existing, long-time supporters, an encouraging start was made to dissemination in the years leading up to the formal handover and further expansion was planned. At this point, Kausthub’s initiatives were brought prematurely and dramatically to an end. In 2012, a seismic shock to the organisation occurred amid allegations, according to the KHYF (2012), of ‘sexual, mental and emotional abuse’ sparking Kausthub’s removal from office under a cloud.41 The furore centred upon formal complaints made to the Austrian police by four women attending his yoga therapist training course to which both KHYF bodies in the UK and the US reported that ‘he is not denying this’.42 The leadership of Kausthub Desikachar was arguably already on shaky ground as a year earlier claims of plagiarism and violation of copyright had surfaced. Aspersions on his character were publicly cast regarding an alleged unauthorised use of a 2006 translation of the Tamil edition of Krishnamacharya’s 1934 text, Yoga Makaranada, produced by one of the KYM teachers from the 1970s, Lakshmi Ranganantha, together with her daughter, Nandini.43 Particularly concerning was the fact that such claims dated back several years, with a halfhearted attempt at investigation of a complaint in July 2007.44 The account of Mr. Sriram (student of TKV Desikachar since 1977; KYM teacher 1982–1987) suggests a pattern, asserting, ‘this is the culmination of many cases of harassment over the years’ whilst providing detailed summarises of the latest incidents.45 This ‘point of crisis’ led to direct management of the institutions being placed temporarily in the hands of the board of trustees appointed to the KYM in India, who sought to manage the reputation of the yoga organisation amid the tumult.

Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga  113 Transnational initiatives were effectively paralysed leaving dissemination in disarray given Kausthub’s intrinsic role in the KHYF. From the ashes, two new organisations initially emerged in India, the ‘Sannidhi of Krishnamacharya Yoga’ (SKY) headed by TKV Desikachar and his wife, Menaka, and the ‘Yoga Makaranda, the Essence of Yoga’ of Kausthub Desikachar. The ‘Sannidhi’ appeared to continue the work of the KHYF in providing workshops and teacher training courses at the KYM and attempted coordination abroad, referring to itself simply as ‘SKY Yoga’. After charges were dropped in 2014,46 Kausthub would be relisted in 2015 as part of the main faculty for its teaching training courses abroad, although public initiatives were still officially publicised as being led by his father.47 Not long before the passing of TKV Desikachar, there was a reorganisation removing the SKY Yoga brand entirely in an attempt to return to the previous format that ran from 2006–2012 that provided so successful in attracting teacher trainees. By early 2016, Kausthub had essentially returned fully to the fold. At the time, however, key differences were observable, with his reinstallation appearing contingent on a general rebalancing that involved foregrounding the institution of the KYM whilst de-emphasising any single individual.48 Arguably, there has been a discernible movement back to the previous status quo in the years since, with the CEO title being reintroduced and an increasing centralisation of decision-making around Kausthub. Fragmentation of the global network The scandal changed the entire landscape of the practice with considerable fallout impacting the operation of the network worldwide. In the UK, the successful operation of the KHYF(UK) came to an abrupt end in 2013 and ushered in a period of autonomy for teachers in the style. The allegations and temporary removal of Kausthub Desikachar from the yoga organisation in 2012 led to an immediate distancing of local representatives from his direct influence, including institutions that he was heavily involved in managing such as the KHYF. Emerging out of considerable upset and confusion, leading members of the UK branch opted to create a new organisation with the name, ‘The Society of Yoga Practitioners’ (TSYP), as a completely separate initiative.49 De-linking directly from Kausthub, it aimed to provide representation and continuity for teachers in the tradition whilst maintaining an overt association with both Krishnamacharya and TKV Desikachar. An important source of external validation was provided by the UK governing body, The British Wheel of Yoga which recognised the TSYP as an ‘Accredited Yoga Teacher Training Organisation’ being familiar and on good terms with the specific persons in charge. Several institutional failings precipitated the occurrence of these scandals and shed light on how things eventually broke down. A charge one can levy at many modern yoga organisations is that they suffered from inadequate oversight, if any existed at all. For the case at hand, there were clear attempts at governance although this was primarily orientated towards regulating teaching quality, such as a requirement for certification to be renewed every 5 years to ‘ensure continuing education’ (KYM 2006:7). In situated practice, however, this appears to have been more of an administrative matter as no formal test as such was

114  Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga apparently carried out. The work of the KHYF headquarters in Chennai was guided by a board of advisors who, theoretically, provided a function of oversight on operations and the opportunity for critical objective decision-making by nonfamily members. Known as the ‘Council of Advisors’ or ‘Academic Patrons’, they comprised expertise from a variety of fields, including medicine, yoga practice and Ayurveda. Nevertheless, the failure to properly intervene prior to the stage when Interpol were informed by Austrian authorities (2012) suggests a lack of relative power of the board vis-à-vis the blood heir and founding family. The crux of the issue appears to be structural in that governing boards assist in offering oversight only insofar as they have sufficient independence and actionable ability to challenge the leader or guru in charge. In practice, it is difficult for board members to make independent, binding decisions that overrule the guru or most senior teacher for a particular style of practice. Even when bureaucratic structures exist, there are often no workable mechanisms to keep this power imbalance in check. In this setting, any actions taken by the Chennai-based board appeared more of a result of family decisions rather than objective directives. This is especially true, in light of the KYM publicly listed only two trustees (Mr. K.S. Sudhakar and Dr. Latha Satish; as of 2016), which raises questions as to whether this was more of a public relations effort than functional oversight of decision-making and leaders. In this case, it is possible to discern a hierarchy that perpetuates the power asymmetry reflective of a guru–disciple (or teacher–­student) relationship. And, whilst Kausthub was not called a guru in the same way as some other yoga teachers, nor did he or his father conduct formal initiation ceremonies,50 this dynamic operated in a similar way. Being imbued with charismatic authority of office and situated within a venerated lineage, such personages could potentially overshadow any bureaucratic apparatuses meant to contain them. Hence, it is contended here that institutions of oversight only work as far as they are not fundamentally undermined by some overriding power structure that renders them ineffective. The ongoing survival of the central yoga organisation as a source of mass global dissemination was in doubt and, for some time, it appeared to be a blow from which it would not recover. In the years post-scandal, however, the transnational dissemination of the teachings resumed. More recently, and following the death of TKV Desikachar in 2016, a renewed confidence has emerged in marketing the brand with no qualms at maximising the commercial side of disseminating yoga practice worldwide, in line with the general trends in the yoga industry. For example, a step change can be traced towards reasserting ownership of the teachings, with the resurrection of ‘Viniyoga’™ as a brand worldwide and a campaign of trademarking; successful securing trademarks in India but failing in the US, Europe, Australia and Canada. All in all, this was quite a departure from TKV Desikachar’s past rejection of the term ‘Viniyoga’ to denote a specific style of practice.

Summary Krishnamacharya is the greatest figure in 20th century posture practice who failed to establish his own yoga organisation. His profound contribution to the development of modern postural yoga practice was not just by being the guru of a

Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga  115 few mega-gurus, but in contributing towards laying the groundwork for a golden era in its transnational dissemination. However, in failing to formally organise, the legacy of his teachings really only survived beyond his lifetime due to the efforts of his family members and disciples to institutionalise transmission of his practices to the masses. Development was far from linear, going from a slow, highly cautious approach to a rapid burst of institutionalisation and full-charge into exportation and marketing the style as a brand. This case starkly illuminates how the introduction of suitable institutions and systems to organise posture practice could be immediately impactful. The volte-face in strategy towards greater organisation in the early 21st century, by founding new institutions and delegating a systematised course of accreditation, experienced quick, demonstrable successes in raising its profile and recruiting people worldwide until momentum was abruptly cut short in 2012. Surviving the fallout from this period of severe destabilisation, the legacy of Krishnamacharya remains intact but, whilst ostensibly back to normal business, authorities in the tradition appeared to have permanently lost the trust of an important section of its former long-term supporters worldwide. A take-away from this episode touches on a wider, structural transition related to the changing composition and balance of power in the field of yoga practice. Such scandals, which have been pervasive across the field of posture practice of late, have tainted the magic allure that was historically associated with these major lineages – a trend that has fed into the ascent of a glut of well-established and accessible alternatives that are untainted and correspondingly of increasing appeal to yoga consumers.

Notes 1 Many gaps in our knowledge of Krishnamacharya’s life remain, partly as he appeared relatively reluctant to talk about himself. Useful information is provided by four official biographies (TKV Desikachar 1982, 1997; Desikachar and Cravens 1998; K. Desikachar 2005a), two student accounts (Srivatsan 1997; Mohan 2010) and a critical examination by Singleton (2010) and White (2014). 2 This schematic is suggested merely as a heuristic device and its phases are at times overlapping, not intended to be rigidly employed as concrete categories in their own right. 3 The markings painted on Krishnamacharya’s forehead are consistent with the Vadakali sect. 4 Sjoman (1999[1996]:51). 5 These include the following titles, as noted by Iyengar (2001[1987]:4–5); MimamsaRatna, Mimamsa-Tirtha, Sankhya-Yoga-Shikhamani, Vedanta-Vigsha, Veda-Kesari, Nyaya-charya and Professor of Yoga. 6 Little is known conclusively about Ramamohan and this period, which Kadetsky (2004:78) describes as Krishnamacharya’s quest for the ‘lost techniques of Hatha Yoga’. See White’s (2014:206) research that reveals this period of study in Tibet was ‘chronologically impossible’. 7 As translated by De Michelis (2004:196) from Viniyoga Editions (1989:5). 8 Creating ‘the best and most significant period in the history of Mysuru (Ahmed 1988:4, as cited by Singleton 2010:178). 9 Chappelle (2005:31) as cited by Singleton, Narasimhan and Jayashree (2012:338).

116  Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga 10 See White (2014) and Mallinson and Singleton (2017) on the Yoga Sutras. 11 Krishnamacharya (1938). 12 See Singleton (2010) for a well-argued treatise on the influences of a diverse range of popular physical forms on Krishnamacharya’s teachings of asana. 13 Krishnamacharya (1984:4). 14 Interview of Geeta Iyengar on 5 November 2012 at RIMYI in Pune. 15 Excerpts from Yoga Makaranda were published in the KYM magazine Darsanam from 1993 to 1995. 16 As cited by De Michelis (2004:196). Krishnamacharya (1984:4–5) reports that it was on the advice of ‘Yogacharya Ganganath Jha’ that he travelled to Mount Kailash in 1919 to learn yoga practice from Ramamohan Brahmachari (Desikachar 2010[1995]:xvi). 17 KYM (2006:29–31). 18 Aside from Devi, he also taught Yvonne Millerand in the mid-1960s (Singleton and Fraser 2014:95) and, later in the 1970s, he taught Gérald Blitz and Jean Klein (Desikachar 2010[1995]:xvi). 19 Goldberg (2016:150) claims it is ‘extremely likely’ that Devi studied with Sivananda; however, my research suggests that it was probably not the case that she was a direct student of Sivananda - not least as Devi’s description does not fit Sivananda’s modus operandi. Importantly, I have found no supporting evidence in the DLS archives; Sivananda took prescriptive notes about notable persons who came to the ashram and took copious photographs but I have not found any mention of Devi or even a possible fit. 20 See Goldberg (2016) for a biography of Devi’s fascinating life. 21 See also Foxen (2020:252–255). 22 The American Viniyoga Institute defines Viniyoga as ‘asana, pranayama, bandha, sound, chanting meditation, personal ritual and study of texts’ (https://www.viniyoga. com/about/what-is-viniyoga/; accessed May 2015). See also Nevrin (2005). 23 See Singleton and Fraser (2014:95–96) and Williams (2004: 390–392, 454) on Desikachar’s relationship with Krishnamurti. 24 Interview of Gill Lloyd on 25 June 2012 in Croydon, Sussex. Translations of sangha include: community, close contact, a multitude of sages, association and congregation (Monier Williams Dictionary 1872). The term is more commonly associated with Jainism and Buddhism where it has most frequently been employed to describe a collective body or brotherhood of monks. 25 Interview Lloyd (2012). 26 As reported by Paul Harvey, Leslie Kaminoff and Maggie Reagh. 27 Claude Maréchal developed ‘Viniyoga Schools’ from 1971, becoming a network of several linked organisations in France, Belgium, Quebec and Switzerland. He is reported as making over 40 trips to the KYM from 1969–2002 (Singleton and Fraser 2014:97). 28 The relationship of the KHYF to the main ashram (KYM) is described as one of a ‘primary affiliate’, with the KYM acting as the main teaching and yoga therapy centre and the KHYF coordinating teaching courses and operations abroad (KYM 2009:1) 29 According to the first ‘Director’ of Viniyoga Britain, Gill Lloyd (Interview 2012). 30 Interview Lloyd (2012). 31 Note that the figures previously supplied by authorities may well have been augmented by the addition of some teachers that were formally recognised prior to 2006 and included in these statistics. 32 It was also possible to become a recognised teacher of chanting (Vedic mantra) after completion of a 240-hour course held over 3 years. 33 Paid membership was only possible for accredited teachers and trainees in the style; lasting for 5 years and after which time membership would be reviewed (Interview Lloyd 2012; Young 2006:35).

Krishnamacharya and Viniyoga  117 34 Data on the yoga organisation were collated by Bartos (2017) up until 2012, upon which time public listings of recognised teachers worldwide were removed by the KHYF. 35 My calculations based upon data collected in this study on accredited teacher numbers; see individual chapters for further data. 36 See Nichter (2013) and Askegaard and Eckhardt (2012). 37 See Jain (2015) for a general discussion on debates of the origins and ‘authenticity’ in modern yoga. 38 Here, ‘uncertainty is a powerful force that encourages imitation’ (DiMaggio and Powell 1983:151) whereby organisations may engage in processes of modelling that result in greater homogeneity within a specific field. 39 Krishnamacharya himself was the eldest of five and had six children of his own; three daughters, Pundarikavalli, Alamelu, Shubha and three sons, Srinivasan, TKV and Sribhashyam. 40 TKV Desikachar also had an elder son, Bhusan (b.1970). 41 Letter from Anupama Das (Interim Director KHYF), sent 22 September 2012. 42 As reported in a letter to members from the KHYF North America (3 October 2012). A similar letter had been sent earlier by the KHYF(UK) (18 September 2012). 43 As reported on: http://www.yogastudies.org/wp-content/uploads/Yoga-Makarandaupdate.pdf (accessed January 2017). 44 A panel of three persons (TKV Desikachar, Latha Satish and Mr. Sridharan) closed the case against Kausthub after the complainant was a no-show at their three-hour session in Chennai, deeming that a ‘fair chance was given to both parties’ (email 5 August 2007 jointly from the KYM and KHYF). 45 Sriram’s open letter was originally published on 5 November 2012: https://yogasentinel.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/from-sriram-kym-and-khyf/ (accessed June 2014). 46 Kausthub reported that, as of 23 September 2014, his lawyer confirmed that Austrian authorities formally dropped all complaints; available at: http://kausthub.com/legalclosure (accessed June 2014). 47 SKY Yoga Website (now defunct). 48 A code of ethics was introduced in tandem with the removal of official organisational titles (e.g. CEO) in what may be interpreted as part of an attempt to end reliance upon one or two key individuals and instead foreground the institution as a whole. 49 As of 2020, 58 teachers were listed as members of ‘The Society of Yoga Practitioners’ (www.tsyp.org). 50 Later experiences of being a student of Krishnamacharya present the dynamic as being akin to a formal guru–shishya relationship and A.G. Mohan (2010:53–54) reports receiving formal initiation from Krishnamacharya in 1976 ‘in the traditional manner’.

6 The Yoga of BKS Iyengar

Little introduction is required for the high-profile yoga teacher BKS Iyengar (1918–2014), who is widely recognised as playing a leading role in the popularisation of yoga practice to a Western audience. Lauded domestically and internationally,1 the ascendency of this prominent figure commenced with his first visit outside of India in 1954 and ended at the helm of the global organisation he created at the advanced age of 95 years old. Much has been written about Iyengar and his profound influence in shaping the field of yoga practice in the mid to late 20th century. The early years saw BKS Iyengar emerging as a young yoga teacher onto a domestic scene already populated by established peers of postural exercises, such as Kuvalayananda (1883–1966)2 and Yogendra (1897–1989),3 and demonstrably keen to impress a renowned Sivananda (1887–1963); which proffers the question, how did Iyengar manage to eclipse these greats and elevate his profile on the world stage? The answer is partly found by looking at the historical development of institutions and processes in the sense that much of this success may be explained by the specific design and operation of his organisational network. BKS Iyengar had a pronounced preference for formalisation, yet in striking a unique balance between centralised (guru) authority and the orderly delegation of significant powers and control to adherents, he oversaw a remarkably successful period for recruiting and retaining supporters around the world. This chapter seeks to expand upon standard explanations for the popularisation of Iyengar Yoga by taking a closer look at the role of institutional factors both in growing Iyengar Yoga and in dealing with points of crises, such as the destabilisation brought about by the sexual abuse allegations recently (re)surfacing in the US.

A brief history of BKS Iyengar Bellur Krishnamachar Sundararaja (BKS) Iyengar was born on 14 December 1918 in Bellur, in South West India into a family of Sri Vaishnava Brahmins. A fairly weak child, he suffered bouts of tuberculosis, malaria and typhoid (Iyengar 2001[1987]:6–8). Disaster struck at 9 years old when his father died, which plunged the family into dire financial straits (Iyengar 2007a[2000]:16). Yet, their prospects improved markedly upon the marriage of one of his elder sisters,

The Yoga of BKS Iyengar  119 Namagiriamma, to Professor Krishnamacharya. Profiting from this new familial link, Iyengar went to live in Mysuru with his sister and brother-in-law at the age of sixteen (Iyengar 2001[1987]:8–10). By this time, Krishnamacharya was teaching yoga at the Royal Palace to the Wadiyars and Iyengar became one of his students from 1934 to 1937. During his tenure with Krishnamacharya, Iyengar received the honour of being invited by famous, Indian yoga teacher Yogendra to accompany him on tour to America (Iyengar 2001[1987]:14). As his guru did not permit him to go, this may be considered a missed opportunity. Nonetheless, his reception abroad may well have been markedly different on such a tour compared with his fruitful encounters of the 1950s, as yoga practice remained highly esoteric in 1935 and was regarded with some suspicion in the West. A couple of years later, Iyengar was dispatched to Pune to teach at the Deccan Gymkhana Club, largely as he was the only student of Krishnamacharya who possessed any English-speaking skills (Iyengar 2001[1987]:8–27). Feeling initially ‘exiled’ and ‘humiliated’ by being sent away (Smith and White 2014:127), Iyengar made a good fist of it until 1940. At this time, he chose to remain in Pune to become a professional yoga teacher in his own right and began charging fees for classes and therapy. A link with his guru persisted, accompanying Krishnamacharya on lecture-demonstrations around India in 1939 and 1943 (Iyengar 2001[1987]:26, 35).4 From his home, Iyengar engaged with a steady trickle of a fairly educated Indian clientele in and around Pune and received his first overseas student in 1959, Noelle Perez-Christiaens (2012[1976]), who referred in her diary (20 July 1959) to the ‘marvellous kind of gymnastics’ taught by Iyengar. Despite an encouraging start to independent teaching, the early days were marked by poverty. Iyengar (2007a[2000]:37) even had to borrow INR 1,500 from his pupils so that he could get married to Amma in 1943. There was little demand for classes, as ‘very few’ locals showed interest in posture practices (Iyengar 2014[2006]:90) and yoga teaching was ‘not really respected’ by the public (Sen Gupta 2008:5m20). This widespread apathy appears to have motivated Iyengar to try and make yoga more attractive and educative in order to compete with the wrestling that dominated physical culture in 1940s India (Rosen 2008:6m30; Iyengar 2014[2006]:90).5 An uptick in fortunes came in 1954 when he was invited by famed violinist Yehudi Menuhin, to whom he had been introduced by Indian Prime Minister Nehru in 1952, to come to Europe and demonstrate his style of yoga practice (Iyengar 2007a[2000]:76). Positive attention ensued with The Times of India (1956:8) feting him as a ‘well-known exponent of Yoga’. Most importantly, it was the wave of enthusiastic adherents that he garnered in the UK on this trip, as well as subsequent trips in 1960 and regularly thereafter, that laid the foundations for his global success.6 Squarely focused on disseminating his teachings, Iyengar recalls, ‘my mind was to propagate yoga’ (Iyengar 2007b:6m30). Initially, this was an uphill task with yoga practice being a marginal pursuit in 1950s Britain and only three students turning up to his first class (Iyengar 2000:8m). In fact, Iyengar did not feel at all welcome in London at this time and experienced racism and negative discrimination, as being Indian, he was not even permitted to dine

120  The Yoga of BKS Iyengar in public in the hotel where he was staying (Iyengar 2000:6m45; 2007:5m30). Irrespective of these barriers, his efforts continued in the UK and gradually gained traction. It was in July 1961, for Busia (2007:xvi), that Iyengar Yoga was really ‘born’ in the UK when a regular group of practitioners formed in London to practice weekly.

Systematisation of posture practice A central pillar of Iyengar Yoga’s global popularity was the clear systematisation of a posture practice that has been described as ‘full bodied prop-assisted performatic yoga gymnastics’ (Alter 2004:42). The defining characteristics of Iyengar Yoga are a strong focus on anatomical precision and attaining correct alignment, where poses are held for longer periods of time than in most other methods. Classes of Iyengar Yoga usually have a teaching focus on one type of asana (e.g. standing, sitting, back-bending or ‘restorative’ postures) alongside inversions (e.g. headstand, shoulder-stand) (Hasselle-Newcombe 2005:308). As a highly analytical approach to posture practice, it may be contrasted to his peer Pattabhi Jois who advocated a more flowing, vinyasa-style7 of practice as Ashtanga Yoga. The gulf between these styles, however, was not always so wide, as Iyengar used to advise his students to ‘practice vinyasas in a fairly vigorous way’ (Stephan 2004), as demonstrated in a video clip from 1977 where Iyengar leads a class in a very rapid series of fluid, linked yoga movements. Much of the present practice resulted from incremental innovations to the practices that he inherited from his guru, Krishnamacharya. Iyengar recollects that he came to focus on alignment through a process of learning, preferring a ‘yoga of action’ over a ‘yoga of motion’ (i.e. Ashtanga Yoga), explaining ‘I want [the] inner mind to get [the] vibration not the outer mind’.8 Explaining postures systematically sits in marked contrast to Iyengar’s account of his guru, stating he would refuse to answer questions on yoga and ‘simply demand a posture and leave it to his students to figure out how it could be realised’ (Iyengar 2005:ix); in contradistinction, Krishnamacharya presents a depth of information in his texts, Yoga Makaranda and Yoga Sanagalu (1941), which are peppered with photos of asanas, descriptions of benefits and instructions. Still, much of Iyengar’s teachings appeared to have been developed outside of the formal guru–shishya mechanism (teacher–student relationship), including pranayama (breathing exercises) that was never directly taught to him (Iyengar 2007a[2000]:63–64).9 Less well known, Iyengar was influenced by Sivananda, attending all of his lectures in Pune during the famed ‘All-India Tour’ in 1950 and eager to show Sivananda his own asana poses (Iyengar 2001[1987]:55). In the end, it was Iyengar’s friend, Mehra Vakil, who gifted to Sivananda 150 photos of Iyengar performing yoga postures (Iyengar 2001[1987]:39–40, 55). In recognition of Iyengar’s abilities, Sivananda wrote to him in 1952 to award the title ‘Yogi Raja’ (ibid:57), from which time Iyengar became his irregular correspondent, subsequently asking Sivananda questions about pranayama when Krishnamacharya failed to provide information (Iyengar 2007a[2000]:35). According to an interviewee of Strauss (2005:65–66), Iyengar went to see

The Yoga of BKS Iyengar  121

Figure 6.1  BKS Iyengar sitting with Venkatesananda. (Credit: Chiltern Yoga Trust (Australia))

Sivananda in Rishikesh for darshan and visited thereafter to meet with Krishnananda, thereby engaging in ‘regular spiritual fellowship’ with The Divine Life Society. Curiously, I have found no corroborating written evidence for such a meeting, but his daughter, Geeta Iyengar, confirmed to me in no uncertain terms that her father had met with Sivananda and I also located a photo of him with one of Sivananda’s star pupils and main biographer, Venkatesananda (Figure 6.1), who BKS Iyengar subsequently met up with on several occasions.10 The photo of them, shown below, was taken in the 1970s, according to Sushilananda (Susan Thomas) who travelled around the world with Venkatesananda.11 To his credit, Iyengar’s repositioning of inherited teachings on asanas was made with an understanding that exportation of practices from India would require additional explanation of terms and assimilation in a new setting. The process of acculturation was an important characteristic of modern yoga that came to underpin the popularisation of posture practice transnationally (De Michelis 2008:22). For Iyengar, facilitation of this process was aided by use of a specifically scientific terminology that firmly grounded his explanations of postures on what Busia (2007:247) describes as ‘sound biomechanical foundations’. Modifications were often highly pragmatic and succeeded in opening up the practice to a wider audience with the heavy use of props in classes. Rending it a very inclusive form of practice, the use of ropes, belts, blocks and bolsters helped practitioners achieve the correct alignment of poses. Props were first used by Iyengar in 1948 to allow for anatomical differences or accommodate varying levels of physical ability (Iyengar 1982:31).12 Proving rather creative in this regard, he even utilised luggage belts from France at one stage (Maimaris 2007a:11). Though there is evidence that usage of props in yoga practice was not in itself novel, as Krishnamacharya himself used props far earlier (Dars, Papillault and Dars 1989:32m50), the extent to which Iyengar centralised and systematised prop usage was unprecedented. Alongside teachings on posture practice, Iyengar wrote and lectured on a range of classic Hindu texts over time. Consistent with many other schools in the field of 20th century yoga, by far the most heavily foregrounded text as a source of philosophical teachings is the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali.13 Again, such teachings

122  The Yoga of BKS Iyengar did not come from his guru, with Iyengar noting, ‘…if my brother-in-law also had an eye to my deeper spiritual or personal development, he did not say so at the time’ (Iyengar 2005:xix). The general absence of religious motifs and the secular nature of classes was part of the appeal of Iyengar Yoga in that, unlike in the Sivananda School, it was customary to practice yoga without requiring a deeper engagement with religio-philosophical teachings.

Global dissemination of Iyengar yoga Systematisation represented an important building block but it was really BKS Iyengar’s guide to practice that captured significant public attention and situated yoga practice as accessible in the popular imagination. Publication was a major objective for BKS Iyengar and he relied upon his daughters, Geeta and Vanita, as proof-readers to get it done, despite them being barely teenagers when the 8-year project began in 1958 (Interview Geeta Iyengar 2012). According to Geeta, her father used to say, ‘a good book is better than a bad teacher!’ (ibid). In Figure  6.2, Geeta is pictured standing on the far right and Vanita is on the left

Figure 6.2  The Iyengar family in the 1960s. (Credit: BKS Iyengar Yoga National Association of the United States Archives)

The Yoga of BKS Iyengar  123 of BKS Iyengar, next to his son, Prashant; also pictured are his wife, Amma, and daughters, Sunita, Suchita and Savita. Selling over three million copies (Stukin 2005), Light on Yoga (1965) thereby marks a critical juncture in the communication of yoga practice to a wider audience by acting as a catalyst to propel him further into the spotlight.14 Newcombe (2020:33) attributes part of its success to the ‘considerable contribution’ of Gerald J. Yorke in carefully editing the text, who was also involved in bringing Theo Barnard (1941, 1950) and Yesudian’s (1953, 1966) texts on hatha yoga to the English-speaking public (ibid:34).15 Light on Yoga actually followed a slew of detailed guides from Indian yogis predating Iyengar’s guide by some years, with the best examples being from Sivananda (1929, 1934), Kuvalayananda (1933) and Krishnamacharya (2011[1934]). But, Iyengar’s text offered greater anatomical detail and superior captioning versus these early guides to asanas and its sheer popularity was unmatched. Reviews at the time noted how ‘anyone seriously bent on mastering yoga techniques without a teacher is almost certain to find this book indispensable’ (Brighton Evening 1966) and celebrating it as ‘the fullest most practical and best illustrated book on yoga…ever published’ (Western Daily Press 1966).16 It also had the distinction of being distributed by an established UK publisher with an international reach (Allen & Unwin) whereas the others either self-published or used an Indian-based publisher. Arguably, Light on Yoga was a closer parallel to Vishnudevananda’s detailed text, Complete Illustrated Guide to Yoga (1959), published 6 years earlier in presenting more extended descriptions of postures. Though no subsequent book penned by Iyengar would eclipse Light on Yoga, many others would follow, including Light on Pranayama (1990), Light on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (1993) and Light on Life (Iyengar 2005), all being helpful in maintaining interest in Iyengar Yoga. All in all, Iyengar’s books were highly influential globally, being sold in 70 countries and translated into 13 languages (BBC 2014). Promoting the practices The tours of Iyengar were remarkably successful, both in demonstrating postures to larger audiences and in the teaching of classes to male and female Westerners; some of whom were meeting an Indian for the first time. For decades, there was an overwhelming geographic bias of Iyengar’s tours to repeatedly visit Anglophone countries. This strategy of reinforcement saw him initially concentrate on the UK from 1954 and latterly the US from 1973. The delay in capitalising on nascent interest in the US can be traced back to his initial trip of 6 weeks in 1954, where he visited New York and Washington DC at the invitation of Standard Oil heiress, Rebekah Harkness. Unfortunately, he did not enjoy the experience and, according to Busia (2007:xviii), the only people benefiting from his demonstrations were his host, some of her family members and a selection of her close friends. From this point, Iyengar elected to concentrate his attention on initiatives in the UK, only returning to the US in 1973 once Iyengar Yoga was already becoming well-established. BKS Iyengar’s strategy of targeting a handful of countries may be contrasted with that of Satyananda and his heirs in

124  The Yoga of BKS Iyengar the Bihar School of Yoga, where a less focused approach to touring maximised the number of countries reached – to just under 50. Yet, whilst leaders covered more ground, visits were fleeting and arguably less successful in recruiting support and mobilising local audiences.17 Nonetheless, the lack of geographical coverage did not present a barrier to Iyengar Yoga becoming popular, given the presence of various aids to diffuse the teachings such as the wide availability of instructional materials, the increasing provision of trained teachers and accessibility of classes. Attempting to capitalise on this momentum and embrace technologies of the day, dissemination of his teachings was made on the small screen.18 BKS Iyengar’s appearance in 1966 on a BBC news item demonstrating postures was typical as a source of promotion (Curtis 2012[1966]). Marketing of Iyengar Yoga was also carried out through production of a 59-minute video of similar demonstrations in Ann Arbor.19 Yet, in being offered at $50 in the 1980s (Yoga Journal 1984:14), this expensive video was reserved for a select, wealthy audience. Promotion of Iyengar’s systematised practice appeared well-timed to maximise its impact, with his initial success capitalising upon the rising wave of public interest in Indian spirituality and the health-benefiting qualities of yoga practice in the 1960s and 1970s then further boosted by the fitness revolution of the late-1970s and 1980s. These methods of marketing contributed to Iyengar Yoga achieving ‘several million students’ around the world by 1990, with centres operational in the US, UK, Continental Europe, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand and South Africa (Mehta et al. 1990:9). Recruitment To carry out BKS Iyengar’s vision, he needed to recruit others. Initial recruitment in the 1950s was of volunteers from a small but growing pool of regular practitioners in the UK and relied heavily on his personal charismatic authority.20 It was from this group that he chose to recognise the first teachers in the style. What was transformational not just for the growth of Iyengar Yoga but the field of modern yoga as a whole were historical developments that paved the way for external recognition of a standardised teacher training course. The embrace of formal training for yoga teachers took place in a somewhat unique socio-­historical context, emerging in a rather circuitous manner as a by-product of trying to access government-run evening classes in the UK. BKS Iyengar played an instrumental role in gaining acceptance at an institutional level for the holding of yoga classes in the UK. His cooperation from 1967 with the ‘London County Council’ and the ‘Inner London Education Authority’ (ILEA) (Busia 2007:xvii) eventually led to permission being granted for Iyengar Yoga to be taught at evening classes from 1969. Strict formal requirements imposed by these government bodies on Iyengar’s nascent yoga system meant that teachers had to be overtly recognised by him personally (Newcombe 2007:42).21 Crucially, these stipulations would drive forward a path of teacher accreditation in Iyengar Yoga that would go on to become widespread across all-inhabited continents, producing suitably qualified individuals with recognisable credentials.

The Yoga of BKS Iyengar  125 Motivated supporters on the ground began organising themselves, ostensibly to support these training initiatives. This should be unsurprising given that teaching on ILEA courses was highly lucrative, with teachers paid £6 per hour by the government in 1974,22 which compared very favourably with the average full-time wage in the UK of £19 for women and £29 for men per week. Adjusted for UK inflation, teaching just one hour of yoga would equate to an incredible £62.94 today; 70% higher than the present average rate for yoga teaching(!)23 Moreover, with only 50% of British women (18–49 years) in paid of employment at this time, becoming a yoga teacher offered an attractive and viable way into the workforce for women, with BKS Iyengar offering courses as an entry point. Though the appeal of Indian spirituality and health benefits is well-documented by scholars, one should not underestimate the role played by economic considerations in attracting early recruits to disseminate yoga teachings. The first official Iyengar Yoga teacher-training programme was taught in London by Czech-born Silva Mehta24 and, subsequently, the Manchester and District Institute also started training teachers after its foundation in 1971. It was not the world’s first organised teacher training course on posture practice, coming after Vishnudevananda’s 6-week course in Canada in 1969 for over thirty students,25 Satyananda’s 9-month course in India in 196726 for a similar number and the commencement of yoga teacher training in Connecticut by Satchidananda, also from 1967;27 all of which offered a sizeable asana component and were geared towards non-Indians. However, one can assert that it was the first course-based teacher training that had been subject to external oversight (i.e. by local government). Development of this structured teacher training and accreditation method was to greatly accelerate dissemination of Iyengar’s practice system and, by 1976, there were a reported 192 qualified teachers in the UK.28 Various teaching rankings were introduced over the years and the present schematic has four official stages of qualification with division of sub-levels as follows; 1) Introductory (3 part: I, II, III), 2) Junior Intermediate (I, II, III), 3) Senior Intermediate (I, II, III) and 4) Advanced (Junior I, II, III and Senior I, II).29 This arrangement meant that the bar remained set extremely high so that the top rung of teaching qualifications was rarely attained, with just two teachers globally occupying the Senior II standard (as of 2020).30 In contrast, the next rung down was far more populated and even just in the UK, over 100 persons were ranked at the ‘Senior Intermediate’ level of qualification.31 Interestingly, the actual award of certificates did not take place in the UK until 1977, when a reluctant Iyengar acquiesced to the needs of the day; ‘these certificates are not needed from the trust point of view… [but] the world demands it unfortunately’.32 His decision may also have been influenced by peers starting to award certificates for yoga teachers, such as Satchidananda’s commencement from 1975.33 The packaging of teacher training into an ordered and replicable format held a very wide appeal for individuals from a range of different countries. The impressive evolution of the geographical reach saw a rise from 42 countries with representative teachers in 2000 (Iyengar 2000:26m) to 73 counties by 2016.34

126  The Yoga of BKS Iyengar Within India, however, there was a very small number of teachers at just 33 in 2016, representing a mere 0.7% of the global total. Elsewhere, a continuing trend of rising interest in yoga practice spurred increasing momentum, with the greatest number of teachers being registered in the UK and where the body of teachers more than doubled in size from 447 in 1997 to 1,128 by 2016. As a point of comparison, over 4,000 teachers were separately registered in the UK with the official governing body, The British Wheel of Yoga (2015). On a global basis, one finds Iyengar Yoga presently has just under five thousand teachers operating teachers with a wide geographic spread around the globe. Of interest, data collated by Bartos (2017) and summarised below (Figure 6.3) evidences a heavy concentration of teachers in Europe (3,030 teachers; 61% of the worldwide total) and North America (867; 18%): Hubs of Iyengar Yoga have typically coincided with areas experiencing a long history of guru contact, such as the UK (23%) and US (14%) where there have been regular teaching tours of BKS Iyengar since the 1960s and 1970s, respectively. Conversely, a comparatively low proportion of teachers came from Asia (5%), with BKS Iyengar’s only trip to the region (China) taking place in 2011, and from Australasia (7%) where he visited only on a few occasions. One of the greatest ramifications from these developments is that they represented a source of ‘path dependence’ for the field as a whole. As such, innovating and charismatic yoga teachers can be recognised as making decisions that delimited the field for the next generation and became inherited benchmarks.35 In other words, teachers trained on formal programmes set a new (higher) standard that became a norm that practitioners came to expect and postural yoga organisations were compelled to follow.36

ROW 9% Australasia 7%

Asia 5% Europe 61% North America 18%

Figure 6.3  Worldwide distribution of accredited Iyengar Yoga teachers (2016)

The Yoga of BKS Iyengar  127

Setting up an HQ in India Quite unique in modern postural yoga, movement towards formal institutions for Iyengar Yoga began in the grassroots rather than in India. By focusing instead on stimulating and sustaining interest in his practices amongst audiences in the UK and US – as outlined above – a charismatic Iyengar eschewed founding a main headquarters as his first priority. Their progress in growing the network was made by setting up rudimentary organisational structures to represent and coordinate the style locally but it relied heavily upon the personal input from BKS Iyengar alone, without the support of any main centre or parent institution in India. The situation was vastly different to the strategy pursued by Sivananda, who concentrated his efforts on building a very large institutional base in Rishikesh with 21 separate departments with a large, full-time staff. It was also distinct from Pattabhi Jois who, in the absence of developing any kind of formal network of centres abroad, elected for Ashtanga Yoga globally to be directed by a single institution based in Mysuru (KPJAYI). By the time BKS Iyengar came to establish a central institution, three decades of teaching the Iyengar method had passed and he had already gained substantial momentum abroad. Even then, the first foray into running an institution on Indian soil was only made at the behest of Iyengar’s wife Amma (d.1973). Inaugurated in Pune on 19 January 1975, the ‘Ramamani Iyengar Memorial Yoga Institute (henceforth RIMYI) became the headquarters for Iyengar Yoga as well as the new home for the Iyengar family. It was initially set-up with a ‘Committee’ comprising eight members apparently providing oversight, including the Reverend Lobo as Committee President.37 For over 40 years, RIMYI has operated as a yoga practice centre to which students hailing from all around the world come to ‘receive the essence of yoga and learn the values of life’.38 Known informally as the ‘heart and soul’ of Iyengar Yoga, RIMYI has an official aim to ‘promote yogic education and impact yogic instruction’ in accordance with the techniques of BKS Iyengar (2009[2004]:18).39 Operating around 50 classes per week comprising up to 60 or so students, the Pune teaching centre was able to manage its operations with a relatively small and flat hierarchy. Essentially run as a family operation on a daily-basis, BKS Iyengar was historically at the apex of the hierarchy as ‘Director’ and was primarily supported by one of his daughters, Geeta (1944–2018), and his son, Prashant (b.1949). As Co-Directors of RIMYI and its most senior teachers, their role encompassed a double function of carrying out both administrative and teaching tasks. In addition, there was a skeleton staff of trusted non-family members supplementing a core family leadership structure, including those bringing in technical expertise such as the library staff and (non-familial) teachers of yoga classes. Some of these individuals had been working alongside the family for decades and became like part of the family, such as Mr. Pandurang Rao with the official title of ‘Secretary’. Serving as Iyengar’s ‘right-hand man’ (Padnis 2015), he would oversee administration and the handling of applications to attend classes. In terms of organisational culture at RIMYI, the tone was set by Iyengar himself – as patriarch of the family business – who tended not to share his thought

128  The Yoga of BKS Iyengar processes and was a bit of an island in the sense that he did not let his (middleaged) children in on what was happening. Even with the title of Co-Directors of RIMYI, the informality of this operation meant that they were not really that involved, with Geeta acting ‘like a consultant’ to her father who kept a ‘tight rein on the administration’.40 As a result of the minimalist approach to formalisation, the main headquarters in Pune retained a sense of familial life, contrasting markedly with the extensive bureaucracy and office-like feel of the departments of Sivananda’s Divine Life Society and more akin to small, close-knit familial operation of the KPJAYI. Local Indian practitioners and visiting (mainly overseas) practitioners would come into the centre for classes periodically, making for a quietly bustling atmosphere; usually taking a morning taught class plus a 2-hour open practice session. Or, they would read in the downstairs library, acting as informal audiences overhearing BKS Iyengar’s reception of a flow of visitors. Overseas visitors were housed off-site and provided with a prescriptive two-page handout outlining official ‘protocol’ to observe during practice at RIMYI, mostly orientated towards expected behaviour in classes. To practitioners with whom I have spoken, the Pune centre had an air of specialness and veneration, feeling somewhat church-like, arising from the feeling of privilege of attendance. Personally (in 2012), I found a sense of warmth at RIMYI and a ready accessibility of BKS Iyengar, whose presence was not intermediated by any gatekeeper. The occasional prostration of individuals to him added a religious quality to the ambience although it was not demanded by BKS Iyengar, nor were any set terms of address dictated. According to Geeta, there was a progression in the name that people used to address her father: initially starting as Mr. Iyengar – then Masterji – then yoga instructor – acharya – and finally guruji.41 Grassroots institutionalisation The relatively late founding of a headquarters for Iyengar Yoga was unusual in the field but this delay did not hinder its transnational popularisation, which was already well underway by this stage in the grassroots. In a combined effort, locally-based National Associations managed Iyengar Yoga in their respective regions and were strictly guided by the personal input of BKS Iyengar himself based in Pune at the main centre of operations (RIMYI). Together they functioned in a form of partnership to coordinate the provision of Iyengar Yoga worldwide that relied upon continuous collective efforts of, what Geeta referred to in our interview as, Iyengar’s ‘extended family’.42 This is a familiar refrain, with BKS Iyengar himself similarly relating in 1977, ‘I consider you my children, in a way which I term spiritual children’.43 Growth of the practice thereby relied upon the goodwill and enthusiasm of volunteers who were the driving force behind formalising groups of practitioners and teachers.44 The first institutions in Iyengar Yoga were founded in the UK, with efforts to develop Iyengar Yoga being spearheaded by the ‘London Institute’ and the ‘Manchester and District Institute of Yoga’ (est. 1972). These early examples of bureaucratic structures, following Newcombe (2020:105), facilitated

The Yoga of BKS Iyengar  129 Iyengar’s international networks. Holding regular meetings of local members, they would also publish newsletters, maintain a list of qualified teachers and run teacher-training courses. The London and Manchester branches also assisted in coordinating the visits of BKS Iyengar, such as his demonstration in Manchester in 1972 that attracted around 500 people according to Jeanne Maslan (Maimaris 2007:10). After this early period of stewardship by small, local groups and committees, coordination began at a national level.45 Regional groupings started to link up with the London hub and agreed upon a set of basic principles in consultation with BKS Iyengar in Pune (Interview Geeta Iyengar 2012). A national-level institution was founded in 1977 in the format of a professional organisation intended to represent teachers in the style, the BKS Iyengar Yoga Teachers Association (BKSIYTA). Its official aims were to accredit teachers and maintain a national register, as well as to encourage community harmony and unity among teachers in the British Isles and elsewhere.46 An early hiccup was that not all trained teachers who received certificates became paid members of its professional organisation. For instance, by October 1978, 237 teaching certificates had been issued but over 60% of them failed to join the BKSIYTA.47 So, whilst this organisation was intended to represent all teachers in the style, it risked not being fully representative due to gaps in coverage. A decade later, a separate organisation for practitioners was added in the hope of competing with the rising profile of The British Wheel of Yoga, which was recognised in 1995 as the UK’s official governing body of yoga.48 Light on Yoga Association (LOYA)49 sought to represent the interests not just of general practitioners (non-teachers) but to also oversee and regulate the conduct of smaller branches of Iyengar Yoga in the UK, known as ‘Institutes’ and ‘Affiliates’. Building representative institutions was far from plain sailing and, at this point, a major structural issue came to light. A downside of having two separation organisations to represent Iyengar Yoga was that it was ultimately divisive, with a ‘lot of internal discord about who should lead in London and the South’ (Prince 1983:11). The possibility of having two official but differing responses on any issue invariably led to a degree of conflict (Interview Harari 2012). Pragmatically, a remedy was found to the problem of a two-headed hydra in that they were merged in 2003 to create a single non-profit organisation, the ‘Iyengar Yoga Association of the United Kingdom’ or IYA(UK) (Richards 2010:19–20); now, IY(UK). In the early 21st century, a further structural issue was tackled. Since the very beginning, the most senior ranking teachers tended to occupy the highest positions in the hierarchy, whether it be the initial local groupings or later National-level institutions.50 Indeed, progression through levels of teaching qualifications via examinations has been the main way to progress within national Iyengar organisations. For instance, teaching seniority remained a bar to higher office with BKS Iyengar communicating in 2004 that ‘only Senior teachers’ (i.e. Junior Intermediate II or above) who had visited RIMYI at least four times were permitted to sit on an ‘Ethics and Certification Committee’ (Iyengar 2009[2004]:11, 19–20). However, this turned out to be a flawed strategy in the

130  The Yoga of BKS Iyengar sense that teaching seniority and executive ability to run a large organisation were not necessarily congruent. According to its former chairperson in the UK, Philippe Harari, those with teaching ability were often thrust into senior administrative roles that they were not necessarily best-qualified or minded to carry out, which led to an array of organisational problems.51 To the credit of the Iyengar Yoga network, a solution was brokered in the noughties whereby teaching seniority (i.e. training ‘moderators’) and operational seniority (i.e. management) would be decoupled, thereby creating two separate domains with their own respective roles and mandate. In doing so, it reduced the influence of a small group who had enjoyed a very high concentration of power over teaching and training matters as well as the general running of the entire organisation. Seeking to represent all voices, the perceived value of having both teaching and non-teaching members being represented in the executive was made binding in documentation across the entire Iyengar global network in 2004 (Iyengar 2009[2004]:10). Centre-periphery communication Managing across borders, or boundary spanning, for Iyengar Yoga required developing a means of communication between the Pune and regional operations for stability. A functioning working relationship between BKS Iyengar with different local organisations around the globe appeared pivotal in overcoming geographical distance with its attendant feelings of disconnection and the potential for misunderstandings. In the past, fairly regular communication reportedly took place between the headquarters and the Chairperson of the Association.52 For the most part, ad-hoc communication was standard practice to seek permission for a wide variety of initiatives (e.g. publishing internal manuals or pamphlets, introducing new courses) or to seek advice on a wide range of issues as part of their ‘open door policy’. More infrequently, every 2 years or so, this was supplemented by the sending of documents for the updating of teaching and administrative rules, such as making modifications to official guidance on teaching practice. At times, information was hand-delivered by delegates returning from Pune. These tended to be verbal or written communications from RIMYI to dictate certain measures. Affording an essential window into local conditions, the guru was supplied with written annual reports from the UK Association, thereby partially mitigating the problem of asymmetric information between the two geographically distant parties. A key benefit being that the guru could essentially ‘learn’ from the network, with experiences in one region taken as learning lessons that could be profitably applied elsewhere, providing a virtuous circle with the Iyengar family helping to manage the network. Outside of these official channels of communication, the guru remained accessible to those wishing to circumvent local hierarchy, with members occasionally sending letters direct to BKS Iyengar, often relating to some sort of grievance.53 Such complaints were historically dealt with on an individual basis; one suitable example being past issues surrounding disagreements and conflict about the management of Iyengar Yoga in the US (Interview Geeta Iyengar 2012).

The Yoga of BKS Iyengar  131 Growth of the network Communication between local branches has also been instrumental in successfully growing Iyengar Yoga on the world stage. The institutional growth of Iyengar Yoga globally was incremental with experiences in one region being successful employed to break new ground elsewhere. Central to this collegiate strategy, the ‘National Association’ format became a valuable blueprint that ultimately facilitated greater transnational dissemination of the practice and was rolled out worldwide to create regional hubs. In a collaborative manner, more established associations, such as in the UK, assisted younger associations by allowing them to directly copy their core documents and systems. Philippe Harari described how during his tenure as Chairman of the UK body (2006–2012), he acted as a counsel to other association leaders by providing general advice and that this task was not mediated by the guru or his staff at the Pune headquarters.54 At the time of BKS Iyengar’s death in 2014, centres devoted to his practice were claimed to number around 1,500 worldwide (The Telegraph 2014). Asia has been the most recent source of growth for the style, with National Associations being introduced in recent years in China, Hong Kong and Thailand. In total, there are 19 National Associations worldwide (as of 2020) with around 180 Institutes of Iyengar Yoga in over 40 countries. All of these National Associations were formally ‘affiliated’ to RIMYI as the ‘Parent Institute’ in Pune, as stipulated in their respective constitutions (Iyengar 2009[2004]:7 IY(UK) 2012:2). Whilst each Association was fully responsible for running its own financial affairs (e.g. bank accounts, auditing financial accounts), they maintained a financial linkage with RIMYI in the form of a levy introduced in 2004. Payment of an annual fee allowed suitably qualified teachers to use of the official logo of Iyengar Yoga, known as the ‘Certification Mark’.55 Serving as a worldwide signifier of high quality in yoga teaching, its usage was strictly regulated. The bulk of income from the levy was sent to BKS Iyengar (60%) who would also receive fees ($50; 2016) directly from teachers lacking a National Association (Iyengar 2009[2004]:19). The remaining 40% would accrue to the local Association itself and be freely allocated.56 Monies were also raised by RIMYI from sales of publications and fees to attend yoga classes at the Pune centre. From my own fieldwork in India, I would estimate that there were around 80 foreigners practicing at RIMYI during my stay in Pune (November 2012). This represents a gross monthly income of around $36,000 purely from classes (i.e. excluding tour income and sales from books, etc.) based upon fees for participants of $450 (2015).57 National Associations were recipients of income from attendance fees for conferences and workshops plus charges levied on teacher training courses and examinations as well as membership fees.

Membership A defining feature of Iyengar Yoga has been its inclusive approach towards recruitment of supporters. Rather than restricting official recognition to narrow status categories, it sought to bring together everyone who was interested in the

132  The Yoga of BKS Iyengar style via a form of open-access membership. Given that each local organisation required the ongoing presence of motivated volunteers to carry out tasks, the issue of generating sufficient support appears to have been paramount for the organisation to endure. Membership helped alleviate this issue, proving a compelling way to recruit volunteers. Though there was no option of becoming a member of RIMYI directly, membership to a National Association was possible for all. Interestingly, no other yoga organisation under research here, save for Sivananda’s Divine Life Society (DLS), offers membership as a possible mode of association, with most only recognising accredited teachers. Just like the strategy of the DLS, historically the powers that be in Iyengar Yoga cast the net as wide as possible in a bid to maximise support offering a comprehensive schematic for membership. For the IY(UK), there were two main categories of individual membership, teaching membership (£80) and practitioner membership (i.e. non-teaching; £20) that together totalled 2,694 (2020).58 Membership was also possible for centres who provided Iyengar Yoga classes, either in the form of an ‘Institute’ or as an ‘Affiliate’. The distinction between them being that ‘Member Institutes’ had to be non-profit making, have a board and be run collectively by a group of persons, whereas Affiliate Centres can be profit-making, privately run by a single person and must pay affiliation fees (£150 per annum in 2020).59 These Institutes acted as local centres providing activities relating to the method, such as classes, workshops, teacher-training and accreditation. A further possibility for a centre used to be registration as a ‘Friend of Iyengar Yoga’ in cases where registered teachers conduct Iyengar Yoga classes but, for a variety of reasons, fail to meet the criteria to become an Institute or Affiliated Centre. Through offering membership at this local level, it is possible to interpret National Associations as mediating institutions that actually distanced practitioners from direct contact with the guru. This brings us onto a discussion of the nature of authority and control in situated practice.

Authority For the guru, keeping control over the style from afar has meant putting in place various mechanisms and a raft of rules to maintain the integrity of the Iyengar method. One way of assuming control was to be an authoritative voice whilst commercialising the style of practice. In terms of creating a brand, the transnational dissemination of Iyengar Yoga has benefited from being a readily-identifiable and cohesive practice, distinct from others due to several defining features such as centrality of prop usage, length of holding postures and degree to which there is emphasis upon correct alignment. Historically, these features afforded a certain ease to diffusion over the 20th century with mass marketing of the practice as a ‘physical fitness brand…prescribing a rigorous and disciplined form of body maintenance’ (Jain 2015:82), which proved appealing by responding to robust trends in the global fitness market. Part of keeping this branded system of yoga teachings intact has been the increasing efforts of late to trademark the style on the world stage.60 Many gurus in modern yoga have been lackadaisical about securing legal protection for their teachings. Likewise, the first trademarks for the style were not

The Yoga of BKS Iyengar  133 registered by the Iyengars but by the Italian Iyengar Yoga organisation in 1995. Over the last 15 years or so, they have effectively been playing catch up, asserting ownership and recognising the value of the Iyengar Yoga brand. As Geeta Iyengar remarked to me in 2011: …my father never branded his yoga. Others started to call it Iyengar Yoga. Initially it was ‘BKS Iyengar coming to teach yoga’, then it was ‘yoga in the style of BKS Iyengar’ and then others transformed this to ‘Iyengar Yoga’. Now Iyengar Yoga is trademarked as we have to protect themselves from others and this is how it has become known. It was actually The British Wheel of Yoga that led to the term Iyengar Yoga, as The British Wheel of Yoga asked them to clarify what yoga they were teaching and to formalise it. The approach of the Iyengar family to protecting intellectual property has been surprisingly informal by holding trademarks in a personal name – like Kausthub Desikachar61 – rather than following standard professional practice where trademarks are held as an asset of the organisation; notably, for Vishnudevananda’s ‘Sivananda Yoga’, key trademarks have been held by the yoga organisation itself rather than individuals.62 Around 40 trademarks are held worldwide (as of 2020) with a patchwork of ownership by other Iyengar Yoga entities (e.g. ‘Iyengar Yoga Center’ in Mexico), yet the Iyengar family holds the most important ones. In the US, Prashant and Geeta Iyengar are jointly-listed as holders of the trademark ‘Iyengar Yoga’ (76656123) in educational goods, the signature of BKS Iyengar (5137783) and the phrase ‘Certified Iyengar Yoga Teacher’ (5668943).63 In the UK, the IY(UK) was deemed a licence holder and ‘responsible for [its] administration on behalf of Yogacharya BKS Iyengar who owns the trademarks…’ (IY(UK) 2015:41–42). The EU-wide trademark for the word ‘Iyengar’ (002708675) was held previously by BKS Iyengar across multiple areas (including education, books, training, film and the Internet) and now is owned jointly in the names of Prashant and Geeta Iyengar (even though Geeta died in 2018). Overall, the present position is a strong one for the Iyengar family with a total monopoly over the word ‘Iyengar’ (or Iyengar Yoga) in Europe, the US and Australasia, at least in regard to publications, teaching products and services; thereby potentially barring all others from using these terms.64 Alongside ownership of ‘Iyengar Yoga’, equally important for controlling its diffusion were instituting ways of upholding the standards of teaching and to preserve the sanctity of his teachings across time and space. As his daughter contended, BKS Iyengar was always ‘very particular’ about teacher-training (Interview Geeta Iyengar 2012). It is therefore unsurprising that regulation of teaching has long been a prominent feature of Iyengar Yoga. An initial hurdle for new teachers was to sign a commitment to abide by a series of rules in order to receive official permission to teach, which included a ‘licensing agreement’ pertaining to the Certification Mark (IY(UK) 2015:41– 42). Emically, this process has been described in quasi-religious terms as ‘like taking an oath to be honest to the guru’.65 One of the most important rules being the mixing methods policy (ibid:28; IY(UK) 2015:49), which explicitly forbade

134  The Yoga of BKS Iyengar incorporation of other teachings or styles of yoga practice into an Iyengar Yoga class. This policy aimed to retain Iyengar Yoga in its purest form with teachings being passed down intact, by ensuring a high degree of uniformity across geographies and where practices were taught in the same way. It also reflects how BKS Iyengar sought to ensure students were ‘not jumping from one method of yoga to another’.66 To regulate these standards, each National Association was mandated by BKS Iyengar to have an ‘Assessment and Teacher Training Committee’ responsible for organising training, scheduling of exams, providing moderators and ongoing professional development (Iyengar 2009[2004]:2, 24–32).67 One task was to oversee continued professional development with every teacher required to teach a minimum of 25 hours each year.68 Bureaucratisation of Iyengar Yoga Very much since the commencement of its first institutions, a general bureaucratisation of Iyengar Yoga has played a role in protecting the integrity of the practice, characterised by written rules, detailed guidelines and processes. A high priority has been placed upon documentation as a means to propel the formalisation, standardisation and regulation of the network of ‘sister organisations’ around the globe. On a comparative basis, the sheer extent of documentation in Iyengar Yoga institutions is fairly unique across the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools. BKS Iyengar’s introduction in 2004 of 64-pages of rules and regulations as part of an International Constitution was an important document in this respect, as it represented ‘…a common constitution that can be followed by all Iyengar Yoga Associations and Institutes the world over’ (Iyengar 2009[2004]:2). This provided formal guidance to all participants (practitioners, teachers and volunteers) to avoid differing interpretations and increase consistency across space and time. A drawback of such prescriptive mandates is that they tend to leave no room for individual interpretations. However, in this case, the constitution was not intended to be a fixed document rigidly applied to all regions but to frame each national body ‘according to [its] needs and the stage of growth in size and experience’ (Iyengar 2009[2004]:5). Disavowing a rigid, one-sizefits-all approach, this permitted accommodation of the differences between the environments where Iyengar Yoga institutions were located, including adjustment for various legal rules and tax structures as well as specific cultural contexts. One may draw a parallel with Sahaja Yoga in this respect, as it was ‘commune-based’ in North America yet operated through public meetings in the UK and, as Coney (2000:63–64) contends, it is therefore incorrect to assume internal homogeneity across countries. One area where the model constitution served to reinforce guru control was the requirement for any changes to the constitutions of each National Association to be ‘presented for approval’ to BKS Iyengar (Iyengar 2009[2004]:13).69 The emphasis on seeking approval could be interpreted as reinforcing the traditional authoritative role of the guru, ranking hierarchically above his students (Mlecko 1982). Whilst BKS Iyengar was uninvolved in committee meetings and daily

The Yoga of BKS Iyengar  135 management of Iyengar Yoga in each country, his superior authority (and that of RIMYI) appears to have been widely acknowledged. These powers were formally enshrined in written documentation, including his role as ‘President’ of each Association (Iyengar 2009[2004]:9), explicit support expected for RIMYI’s aims (ibid:7) and teaching certificates remaining the legal property of RIMYI (ibid:7, 24). A fairly onerous stipulation was that assets held locally were required to be transferred to Pune should an Association be dissolved (ibid:14): 15) a) The Association shall be dissolved, following a proposal by the Executive Council,70 by either: i) a resolution approved by three-quarters of members…ii) a resolution…in a postal ballot, iii) Or, at the insistence of the President of the Association, Yogacharya BKS Iyengar. (note: my italicisation) A fairly dictatorial rule, it gave a solitary (unelected) individual residing far away – the guru – the ability to single-handedly overrule a board of 11–13 elected office bearers drawn from a local membership base. Whilst there have been some reorganisations in the US and South Asia in the past, this ‘nuclear’ button of total dissolution appears never to have been pushed. Its existence reflects the highly centralised decision-making structure in this transnational yoga network where BKS Iyengar remained the final arbiter. Put together, such stipulations illustrate how the title of ‘Honorary President of the Association’ was not merely symbolically important or an honorific title but conferred actual institutionalised powers as written into local constitutions.71 Retention of ultimate control by the guru has been a consistent feature throughout the history of Iyengar yoga. A manifestation in situated practice of BKS Iyengar’s supreme powers was his position at the apex of the teaching hierarchy, with an ability to designate senior teachers since the 1970s.72 In the past, all senior levels (I and II) were only awarded in Pune, subject to personal recommendation from BKS Iyengar, assessment at RIMYI, completion of a long essay on philosophy and photographs evidencing adjustments to students’ postures (Maimaris 2007:13–14). More recently, just the very top honour of ‘Senior Advanced Certificates’ has been reserved for sole consideration by the directors of RIMYI (IY(UK) 2015:35; Iyengar 2009[2004]:7). This split of powers between the centre and periphery had the effect of reinforcing the superior authority of RIMYI (and the guru) as ruling over the entire network of practitioners and teachers. A desire to maintain supremacy of decision-making at the top was tempered by the real need to inspire and enthuse participants from afar to support the style. Successfully building a global organisation was more a question historically in striking the right balance between centralised control of the teaching message and social organisation versus decentralisation of powers. So, whilst power rested largely in the hands of the guru, some trickling down of autonomy to local levels in situated practice allowed Iyengar Yoga to growth and solidify a local base of support. This act of delegation in itself brings to the fore questions

136  The Yoga of BKS Iyengar relating to modification of the traditional teacher–student relationship (guru– shishya). Across the field of modern yoga, the sphere of influence of many gurus of posture practice (usually based in India) was extended far beyond the mere maintenance of one-to-one teaching relationships (i.e. with a manageable number of students) and instead gave way to coordination of thousands of supporters, distributed transnationally. Representing a synthetic version of the traditional guru–disciple relationship, Huffer (2011a:375) interprets this development as an ‘active distancing from Hindu religiosity of their roots’. As Miller and Wertz (1976:88) contend, ‘the further one is from the centre…the less one feels the intimacy and warmth of the guru’. This continual gravitation or ‘pull’ towards a living guru located at the heart of the organisation reflects portrayals of the guru in the literature as ‘sacred’ (Sahoo 2005:78). Whilst acknowledging that it is the presence of the guru that underpins his/her ‘real power’ (Burley 2000:67), our analysis finds the absence of physical proximity to the guru was not a barrier to rapid uptake by individuals of posture practice and many of whom had never met the guru or founding teacher; i.e. taking classes locally or engaging in selflearning via books or online classes, etc.73 In Iyengar Yoga, the prominent use of delegated powers may have acted to dilute the guru–shishya relationship but regular interaction with an authority figure was still desired.74 What is unique was the degree to which the guru entrusted others to organise the dissemination of his teachings. Though BKS Iyengar undoubtedly had an energetic, hands-on approach and apparently ceaseless energy until his advanced years, delegation of decision-making has been particularly relevant for Iyengar Yoga. On a comparative basis, it has exhibited unusually high levels of devolved power to local levels whereas other styles of yoga practice were typically more centralised, such as Ashtanga Yoga, which only awarded teacher status in Mysuru, India. Against this backdrop, delegated authority was employed fruitfully to perpetuate Iyengar Yoga on a transnational basis, supporting the work of local institutions in a variety of ways. This included permitting local representatives to make critical modifications to overcome any practical constraints in order to run Iyengar Yoga regionally. Analysis here suggests a positive correlation between adaptation of this core teacher–student relationship and rising numbers of practitioners transnationally. This was in part due to the patterns of allegiance in Iyengar Yoga where a strong sense of deference to authorities in Pune has consistently been observed across the network. The cohesive organisational culture here has been helpful to the success of a partially devolved power structure, as high socialisation to norms and values among geographically dispersed groups has resulted in close consensus historically among participants around the basic rules of the game. I posit that the necessary flexibility afforded to local organisations arguably rendered acculturation more successful by way of (re)interpretation by local administrators/office holders.75 From a practical standpoint, overcoming the distance from the original source of teachings appeared less important where a practice with great appeal had sufficient institutional systems in place for its ongoing dissemination, coordination and regulation. Doing so relied on the proper functioning of these institutions, where a measure of stability was derived from enforcement of rules

The Yoga of BKS Iyengar  137 with sanctions. This tone was set early on, with Geeta Iyengar recalling her father’s ‘strictness and precision’.76 Unlike Sivananda, Iyengar did not hand out pamphlets with a list of rules to follow but practitioners primarily learnt about teachings and socialised to the rules of practice by attending classes either with him or his accredited teachers.77 Together, the organisational structures, functions and processes outlined here formed a basic template of social organisation that propelled the global spread of Iyengar Yoga; as has similarly been found to underpin the popularisation of other modern yoga organisations examined in this study. The history of Iyengar Yoga attests to the most institutionalised procedures and systems in the Krishnamacharya and Sivananda Schools, with a heavy concentration of rational-legal type bureaucracy amongst periphery institutions.78 As we have discussed, these are multi-faceted and complex in nature encompassing a range of types of operation, being both a teachers’ organisation, members’ organisation and volunteer organisation as well as being run on a professional (non-familial) basis.

Constraints on dissemination What did not help accelerate transnational dissemination was the relative inaccessibility of classes at the home of Iyengar Yoga. For many practitioners this was problematic with demand for places increasingly outstripping supply and access to classes becoming subject to stringent rules. For UK practitioners, one was required to submit their requests to study at RIMYI via the UK Association evidencing a minimum of 8 years of study.79 Even after acceptance, the waiting period for slot was usually a couple of years due to this bottleneck. Elsewhere, applications could be made directly to the Pune centre, as advised by the National Associations in Australia and the US. Yet, RIMYI remained an exclusive centre almost inaccessible to most practitioners and for whom the determined few had to scale relatively high barriers for access compared with other modern yoga centres (e.g. the Mysuru centre in Ashtanga Yoga). The waiting list system gave rise to an entire generation of new teachers worldwide who had never had any interaction with BKS Iyengar or his family.80 Back in the early-1990s, there was a more relaxed approach with 3-week intensives offered every January, August and October for non-Indian students (US $325).81 Still, demand was clearly high with advice to go ‘whenever you can get in’ (Ortega 1991:66). After overcoming these manifest hurdles, those who have attended classes at RIMYI arguably were conferred some level of prestige given the significant requirements and long waiting list to do so. Fees were not inconsiderable either as for non-Indians to attend classes for 1-month cost $450 (2015) which – although significantly in excess of the average monthly wage in Maharashtra of INR 9,533 (c.$140) – was lower than other attendance fees in India, including Ashtanga Yoga ($530; 2015). As Iyengar Yoga has become popularised around the world and yoga practice has grown exponentially as a practice, there has surprisingly been no expansion of the Pune centre to accommodate more students.

138  The Yoga of BKS Iyengar High standards The elevated standards maintained in Iyengar Yoga could be interpreted as both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, the style is recognised as providing teachers of high quality, yet, on the other hand, dissemination of the Iyengar method could have plausibly been greater and more influential on the field by adopting a different approach. Several features of the organisation of Iyengar Yoga have limited the number of teachers that could be trained. Rapid progression was not possible with the strict application of minimum waiting times between each stage and students having to observe a minimum of 1.5 years before progressing between more advanced teaching levels.82 Geeta related to me that her father’s message was one of caution and it was important that a practitioner must be patient.83 That said, many practitioners find this path overly constricting and instead chose other courses where they need not wait years and years. As a comparison, the Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres has trained over nine times as many students to become teachers.84 There are many common factors between the two yoga organisations, including, but not limited to, Englishspeaking gurus, systematised teacher training courses, an entrepreneurial founder, a global network of local institutions on the ground, accessible classes, celebrated publications and so on. Though there has undoubtedly been great success in training Iyengar Yoga teachers, a crucial point of difference relates to structural reasons. For Iyengar Yoga, the bar is set far higher in that aspiring teachers must complete a minimum of 3 years training with a designated ‘mentor’ and, prior to initial assessment, be practising regularly for a minimum of 6 years, with a high standard personal practice of asanas and a ‘preliminary awareness of the subtlety of Iyengar Yoga and its philosophy’.85 Conversely, there were no such rigorous requirements for Vishnudevananda’s Sivananda Yoga and aspirants simply needed to complete a 4-week (usually residential) training course.86 By implication, BKS Iyengar constrained the supply of certificates for the sake of elevating teaching standards in contrast to the SYVC’s catch-all approach, fully embracing the supply of training courses to the masses. The strategic choice to place a lower weighting on commercialism and maximising dissemination is tied to his determination to preserve relatively high standards and may well, in part, stem from Iyengar’s historical efforts in proving to local authorities that his teachings were of a sufficiently high standard to conduct evening classes. Unflagged succession A further limitation related to the management of succession. Though officially retiring in 1984, BKS Iyengar continued to teach yoga, tour and write books well into his nineties, remaining the spiritual head of Iyengar Yoga until his passing on 20 August 2014. In his final years, leading the organisation technically became a task increasingly shared with his children.87 Unhelpful to the ongoing stability of his organisation, no public designation of an official successor was made88 and Iyengar was averse to explicitly naming any single person; ‘I never thought of this and I can’t think of this…A yogi cannot develop favouritism’ (Sharma 2013). The upheaval that frequently occurs with the loss of a revered guru was

The Yoga of BKS Iyengar  139 partly mitigated by the high degree of formal structures of dissemination and institutions, with clearly defined processes at the local level; so that each local region could continue its activities almost uninterrupted. Moreover, our analysis supports Newcombe’s (2014:162) contention that teaching in Iyengar Yoga has been sufficiently institutionalised so that it may be transmitted in the personal absence of its guru and founder; albeit one must add an important caveat that this is subject to certain conditions. In practice, institutionalising teaching was not enough by itself but, to be successful on an ongoing basis, it required maintenance of a broad-based consensus amongst disseminators and the ongoing support provided by a cohesive and unified set of institutions. Fragmentation or major schism has historically appeared to be low risk in light of decades of comparative stability.89 Indeed, since late 2014, the headquarters of the Iyengar Yoga continued to operate without a top layer of yogacharya or ‘guru’ being steered by senior family members instead. BKS Iyengar’s granddaughter and apprentice, Abhijata Sridhar, was groomed as a successor and her profile was in the ascendancy as the public face of Iyengar Yoga, notwithstanding the fact that there were a host of more experienced yogis in the style. I find that the remarkable stability is partly a function of the goodwill of its members who have supported decisions of the Iyengar family. This is certainly true given that, in an anomaly to Iyengar’s usually diligent, bureaucratic approach, he apparently failed to incorporate a constitutional mechanism to ensure Pune authorities could dictate their chosen successor over all institutions and territories. In theory, each association would have been able to designate a different successor without breaching their individual constitutions.90 Notwithstanding these considerations, a powerful underlying factor was that ownership of the trademarks (in most Anglophone and European countries) meant that not submitting to the will of RIMYI theoretically risked loss of the right to use the term ‘Iyengar’ or ‘Iyengar Yoga’ entirely. Thus, dynastic lineage remains inextricably intertwined with the continuing transmission of Iyengar Yoga, if not solely due to trademark ownership.91 I suggest this status quo may continue up until the point that groups of practitioners elect to rename the practice, as was seen with local proponents of Bikram Yoga who renamed it as ‘Hot Yoga’ or some other trope, or the Iyengars elect to drop their trademark protection. Harm The style of Iyengar Yoga was not without critics. From an early stage, BKS Iyengar’s methods were often perceived as ‘harsh’. An assessment by the Secretary of The British Wheel of Yoga in 1976 is illuminating, where after attending Iyengar Yoga classes in London he describes how Iyengar was ‘thumping students’ and that ‘it was all very odd’, leaving him ‘feeling disquiet and resentment about “Iyengararism”’ (Iyengar 2001[1987]:259). Yet, such concerns did not appear to hold back the growing popularity of the Iyengar method, with Iyengar countering in 1985 that he was ‘an intensive teacher, not an aggressive one (ibid:225). Nevertheless, a video from one of his demonstrations shows bullying behaviour, when he impatiently strikes his assistant on the back in frustration.92 Practitioners

140  The Yoga of BKS Iyengar have related stories of similar mistreatment by their guru, which Silvia Prescott (2014), a student of BKS Iyengar’s from the 1970s, wrote of his teaching style and its common reception, ‘it’s true he might give somebody a slap, but that slap would wake up that part of the body so you didn’t forget it’. A related criticism has concerned the incidence of injuries. Of note, Diane Clifton reported in a letter to BKS Iyengar in 1975 that two practitioners in Oxford had been taken to hospital, although the aftermath saw collaborative efforts between them in developing a set of syllabuses with ‘an emphasis on safety’.93 Institutional attempts to enhance the safety of the practice have centred on prescriptive regulations applied by Iyengar Yoga institutions worldwide, such as stipulations that teachers were not permitted to exceed the syllabus for which they are certified to teach or to teach in a ‘poor or dangerous manner’ (Iyengar 2009[2004]:34). Of particular relevance for Iyengar Yoga (as with Ashtanga Yoga), the force of hands-on posture adjustments by teachers and the role of these practitioner adjustments in prompting injuries has been a topic of ongoing debate. The real point of institutional crisis came from allegations of abuse brought to the National Association of Iyengar Yoga in the US (IYNAUS) in 2018. Ann West made a complaint in March 2018 to the US Iyengar Yoga Ethics Committee alleging that Manouso Manos inappropriately looked at and touched her during a workshop in San Diego in 2013, which was dismissed due to ‘insufficient information’ in September 2018.94 Her intention to appeal the decision and the revelation of further complaints95 led to the appointment of an impartial investigator by the board of the IYNAUS (10 October 2018) on the basis that neither the Ethics Committee nor anyone else in the Iyengar community appeared ‘capable of rendering an unbiased decision’ due to the seniority of Manos (IYNAUS 2020). As David Carpenter (President of IYNAUS) communicated to RIMYI in 2018, it was necessary to assure all members and protect the reputation of Iyengar Yoga in the US, fearing that the scandal ‘could have destroyed Iyengar Yoga in the United States if we had refused to conduct an independent investigation in order to protect a senior member of the Iyengar Yoga family’ (IYNAUS 2018). This was a watershed moment in the history of Iyengar Yoga, as up to this point it had been entirely self-governing on a global basis with outright resistance from its leaders to recognising outside sources of governance. Appointment of an independent investigator was therefore unprecedented. After interviewing 38 persons and thousands of pages of documentation, seasoned investigator for the US Congress and Department of Justice, Bernadette Sargent (2019:1), found that, on a standard of clear and convincing evidence, ‘accusations of sexual abuse by Manouso Manos have been substantiated’ against six women. The report was published just after the formal resignation of Manos (8 March 2019) from the National Association (Duane Morris 2019). So, how did things escalate to this point? Unlike in Ashtanga Yoga, there were official mechanisms for dealing with complex issues as the Iyengar Yoga global network had developed one of the most extensive set of structures and processes of governance in the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools. National Associations were generally run along modern lines of governance with a web of boards and sub-committees and systems to ensure that power was not overly

The Yoga of BKS Iyengar  141 concentrated into the hands of any one person or group of persons. The structure of the UK body was illustrative where sitting atop the body of local members is a Board, known as the ‘Executive Council’, which carried out oversight over duties of management, administration and finance (IY(UK) 2015:4–5). It was comprised of a Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, Membership Secretary and their respective Deputies, as well as a Constitution Officer and a few representatives drawn from its Ethics and Appeal and Assessment and Training Committees.96 The organisational design was outlined in BKS Iyengar’s (2009[2004]) ‘International Constitution’, which was introduced to guide Associations across the globe. Time limits restricted the duration of certain appointments, such in the US where officers served for up to two 4-year terms (IYNAUS 2019:6–7, 15) or in the UK, two 3-year terms (IY(UK) 2015:9–10). One of the committees answerable to the Board was the ‘Ethics and Appeals Committee’, dealing with complaints, appeals and protecting the Iyengar Name. The detailed written procedures developed by National Associations were principally aimed at resolving three main types of conflict, namely, complaints by members of the public against Iyengar Yoga teachers, complaints by members against other members and those levied at the organisation itself (IY(UK) 2015:26–33). Any member – whether a practitioner, teacher or centre – considered by the ‘Investigations Panel’ to be in violation of the rules would be subject to disciplinary action in the form of a written warning, withdrawal for the ‘Certification Mark’ for a defined period or the ultimate sanction of exclusion from membership (IY(UK) 2015:31).97 For an Institute or Affiliated centre, this could include withdrawal of approval to offer teaching qualifications or temporary suspension of the ability to issue certificates or register candidates (ibid). Geeta recalls how her father previously had to relieve certain individuals from heading National Associations when faced with non-compliance and disagreements98 although this tactic of withdrawing support appears to have only been used in rare circumstances. The threat of censure was often sufficient to provoke a change; for example, the threat of disciplinary action led to withdrawal of a video entitled ‘Iyengar Yoga’ that contained some practises not part of the Iyengar tradition (Bartos 2017:208) and thereby contravened the ‘Mixing Methods Policy’. However, the case concerning Ann West was considered sufficiently serious to warrant outside intervention. Complaints about abuse in Iyengar Yoga predate the establishment of institutional structures in the US; where moves to form a national-wide organisation gained momentum in 1989 and a couple of years later resulted in formation of the Iyengar Yoga National Association US (IYNAUS).99 Abuse allegations first surfaced publicly in the 1980s concerning multiple claims of ‘improper sexual touching’100 of students by Manos Manouso (Frost 1991) and investigations were carried out by a committee specifically formed for the purpose who handed over its evidence to BKS Iyengar (Carpenter 2018). The power to decide appeared to rest solely in the hands of the guru, who elected to rehabilitate his star pupil rather than expel him, along with restricting his teaching temporarily and having him publicly apologise at the 1990 US Iyengar Yoga convention.101 Giving the benefit of the doubt and keeping certain

142  The Yoga of BKS Iyengar individuals in the fold appeared to be a priority, protecting those considered part of its inner circle. A similar tone was adopted in a letter from the Iyengar family to the IYNAUS concerning the latest episode of the scandal, as discussed below (Iyengar et al. 2018). Proving divisive within the Iyengar community, the response from the guru, BKS Iyengar, was perceived as inadequate by many, being disconnected from Western norms and expectations of governance of the day. It was to usher in a period during which rumours of sexual misconduct by Manos continued to circulate in the Iyengar Yoga community for many years.102 It was also a period in which a group of leading teachers saw fit to provide a more robust response that went beyond that offered by the guru. For example, the Californian Teachers Association introduced its own ‘code of professional standards’ in 1995 specifically intended to address confusion about ethical issues in a Western context but, seemingly in a nod to complaints levelled at Manos and BKS Iyengar, noted that ethics applied ‘…regardless of how revered, renowned or technically able the teacher’ (Lasater 1995:136–137). Such an initiative can be interpreted as an early example in the history of Iyengar Yoga as instigating two tracks; guru or headquarters response versus local action. From the perspective of social organisation, this series of incidents brings to the fore a case of systemic failings, whereby two increasingly disconnected centres harbour highly differentiated understandings and responses to the same situations. Communications between the US National Association and RIMYI in Pune starkly illuminates the problem, with the Iyengar family failing to engage with the seriousness and wider implications of the abuse complaints. In the space of two pages, their letter in response labelled the IYNAUS action as unfair, irresponsible, unreasonable and hot-headed, accusing the body of going ‘out hunting for reasons to tarnish Manouso’ (Iyengar et al. 2018). A charged and personal response – ‘we are hurt’, ‘we all know him’, ‘IYNAUS…should have gone out of its way to protect its family members’ – the overriding concern appeared to be to protect a ‘very senior member of our family’ (Iyengar et al. 2018) rather than immediately expressing concern for the welfare and safety of its large body of practitioners. The crux of the matter was a pronounced clash of organisational cultures, with the RIMYI response betraying a basic objection to external oversight and ardent desire to keep things in-house. It reveals an intrinsic disconnection between the small, family-run centre and its modern bureaucratic branch in the US, situated in quite different legal, social and cultural milieus. Concluding ‘an animosity… is driving all this’ in their letter (Iyengar et al. 2018), the personalisation of the issue by the Iyengars was at odds with what was elsewhere considered an organisational matter (i.e. depersonalised), with the US authorities instead adopting, in Weberian terms, a legal-rational approach103 to emphasise social and legal obligations alongside duty of care. The scandal exposed a vast divide in how to handle crises and suggested how an emotional, subjective approach was incompatible with the complexities of running a global network of yoga organisations. To put this episode in a wider context, physical and sexual abuse is not a new issue, either within Iyengar Yoga or in the field of posture practice as a whole,

The Yoga of BKS Iyengar  143 and indeed abuse is an entrenched systemic issue that has long pervaded societies worldwide. In yoga, published objections go back decades with, the then President of the California Yoga Teachers Association, Judith Hanson-­Lasater (1995:136), noting ‘serious ethical violations at some level in all of the systems of yoga currently taught in the US today’, which includes physical, sexual, emotional and verbal abuses. Asymmetrical power relations, however, were not just an Indian guru problem but the threat of violence and abuse of power was ubiquitous, potentially affecting any interaction with some level of power  disequilibrium (e.g. teacher and student relationships). With structural power imbalances pervasive across society, yoga organisations – like all other fields – required adequate mechanisms to manage risks on an ongoing basis in order to survive, let alone thrive. One concern is that the Manos case took so long to resolve, in part due to the fact that not a single complaint was made to IYNAUS for over 25 years (1992–2018).104 To overcome a fear of reporting that often characterises such situations and expunge the culture of silence, a first step (of many) is for people to believe that it is safe to report. The case of Iyengar Yoga demonstrates the role of bodies external to the organisation to assist in this regard as, even with extensive institutional structures and some of the most prescriptive documentation in the field (Iyengar 2009[2004]), internal arrangements may exhibit bias that may support a status quo. Crucially, this was achieved even without the backing of the Pune authorities, leading to a charge levied that ‘it [was] clear this organisation was no longer aligned with the Iyengars’ (Manouso 2019). In this vein, the affair exposed a structural and cultural vulnerability of the transnational framework in which authorities at RIMYI found it challenging to anticipate the mood of far-removed audiences. At best, this required significant efforts of both centre and periphery to overcome the disconnect. At worst, being out of step could lead to marginalisation whereby BKS Iyengar’s heirs risked being relegated to acting merely as a figurehead for the global institution or being consigned to a footnote in history. Doing so would represent a de-emphasis of the historically monopolistic role of the guru and founding family, a path long resisted by leading figures in the Krishnamacharya and Sivananda lineages.

Summary Transitioning from a solitary teacher eking out a living in urban India to running a transnational yoga organisation has involved a series of careful steps, the first of which was spearheaded by BKS Iyengar in cooperation with a small number of committed groups in the UK. Many aspects underlying the success of Iyengar Yoga were not unique – such as a systematised practice, publication of a pictorial guide with instructions, tours and demonstrations abroad, local supporters – and part of his success may be explained by fortuitous timing. It was really only with the development of structures and processes of organisation that uptake was accelerated, acting to sustain public interest for years. One of Iyengar’s greatest contributions was the precise design of his organisational network and the extent to which he was committed to overseeing and maintaining it was almost unparalleled in the field. By balancing central control with significant delegated

144  The Yoga of BKS Iyengar powers, he allowed the practice to thrive at local levels through systematised teacher training and by establishing benchmarks for consistency across the world. History attests to the building of formal institutions as important, not just for popularisation but, crucially, to ensure ongoing survival when things go wrong. Indeed, as Jackson (1994:38) suggests, whilst charisma may attract followers, some sort of permanent structure is ‘absolutely essential to the survival of any movement beyond the passing of its founder’. Yet, this is also true during times of destabilisation by providing something to fall back on. The negative consequences of having few structures or procedures was best demonstrated by Ashtanga Yoga where recent scandals, involving the now-deceased Pattabhi Jois, severely impaired the legitimacy of the KPJAYI. An important shift observed in the wake of abuse scandals in Iyengar Yoga has seen how regional associations could credibly challenge the central authority of the guru or his heirs – unlike elsewhere (e.g. The Divine Life Society, Ashtanga Yoga) where disagreement typically led to expulsion. Irrespective of the recent evolution of centre-periphery relationships, supportive institutional factors continue to underpin the dissemination of Iyengar Yoga as one of the world’s leading styles of yoga practice.

Notes 1 BKS Iyengar received a litany of awards. In 2004, Time magazine recognised him as one of the top 100 ‘most influential people in the world today’ in 2004 at no.80 (Time 2004) and, in 2014, he received the 2nd highest award for a civilian in India (Padma Vibhushan) (Kumar 2014). 2 Kuvalayananda found the Kaivalyadhama Institute in 1924 in Lonavla, near Mumbai. See Alter (2004). 3 Yogendra was also known as Manibhai Haribhai Desai (aka ‘householder yogi’), he founded ‘The Yoga Institute’ in 1918 in Santa Cruz and published Yoga Asanas Simplified in 1928. 4 Prior to this, Iyengar had toured with Krishnamacharya in September 1935. Later he conducted his own tour around Mysuru in 1937 (Iyengar 2001[1987]:10–20). 5 See Alter (1992) and Singleton (2010) on wrestling as part of the physical culture in India. 6 See De Michelis (2004), Busia (2007:xv-xxiv) and Newcombe (2014, 2020) on the history of Iyengar Yoga in the UK the 1960s–1980s. 7 ‘Vinyasas’ are described as a ‘series of movements’ by Smith (2004) or ‘sequences of poses synchronised with the breath’ by Cushman (1999). 8 See BKS Iyengar discussing yoga styles: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=CYsn2H26hkE (accessed January 2020). 9 It was only by chance that Iyengar learnt pranayama as Krishnamacharya ‘never did pranayama in the presence of anyone’ although one day Iyengar (2007a[2000]:63– 64) saw his guru practising in the hallway and how he placed his fingers on his nose. 10 Interview of Geeta Iyengar on 5 November 2012 at RIMYI in Pune, Maharashtra. 11 This photo was either taken in the early-1970s in Mauritius or the late-1970s in Johannesburg or Lesotho (Pers. correspondence with Richard Levy and Sushilananda, August 2020). 12 See also Ortega (1991:65) and De Michelis (2004:234fn38). 13 Date of compilation of Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras is put variously, usually either 200 BCE or around 350–400 CE. White (2014:5–6) contends that the ‘modern yoga subculture’ (i.e. gurus and their followers) focuses ‘almost exclusively’ on the eight-part practice of the Yoga Sutras, despite scholars identifying that posture practice is only a small portion of the text.

The Yoga of BKS Iyengar  145 14 See also De Michelis (2004:199). 15 See Newcombe (2020:29–34) on the role of Gerald Yorke. 16 As cited in the Inaugural Souvenir of Ramamani Iyengar Memorial Yoga Institute; ‘Extract from Reviews on Light on Yoga’, 19 January 1975. 17 Over his lifetime, BKS Iyengar taught in a dozen or so countries, focusing primarily on the UK and latterly the US. He also taught in Australia, Belgium, China, France, Italy, Japan, Kenya, South Africa, Switzerland and the USSR. At the advanced age of 93, Iyengar even conducted a personal tour to China (Guangzhou) in June 2011 where he was received by 1,300 attendees at a ‘China-India Summit’ (Krishnan 2011). 18 See Newcombe (2020:176–202) on the impact of television in growing yoga practice in the UK. 19 ‘The Ultimate Freedom Yoga’ was shot in 1976 at the YMCA, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 20 During a visit to RIMYI in 2011, I personally found BKS Iyengar to be a highly charismatic individual. This view is shared by numerous commentators, including Smith and White (2014:136) for whom his ‘public presence and charisma are evident from the outset’. 21 An official stipulation that classes must be taught only by suitably qualified individuals (Iyengar 2001[1987]:194), Additionally, Peter McIntosh (ILEA 1969) issued a requirement that yoga instruction be confined to asanas and pranayama. 22 As reported by Vi Neale-Smith (Newcombe 2020:114). 23 I calculate that on average UK yoga instructors today earn around 70% less at £21.50 per hour (as of 2020; according to PayScale) compared with the 1974 ILEA pay rate. However, the range of hourly rates is very wide at £8–£35. 24 The Paddington Institute programme started either in 1970 (Busia 2007:xviii) or in 1971 (Newcombe 2020:103). 25 Yoga Life (2013:26). 26 Yogakanti et al. (2009a:28, 52). 27 In Integral Yoga, yoga teacher training courses were rather informal from 1967–1974 and only became certificated from 1975 (Pers. correspondence with Integral Yoga authorities, July 2020). 28 Manchester and District Institute of Yoga Newsletter, Issue 5, December 1976 (RIMYI Archives, Pune). 29 A further designation conceived by BKS Iyengar was the ‘Most Senior Leading Teachers of the UK’ that was awarded to 7 teachers in 2012 to recognise attainment. 30 Patricia Walden (awarded in 2002) and David Meloni (2018). A third teacher, Manos Manouso, held this designation from 2002–2019. 31 Pers. correspondence with IY(UK) in June 2015. 32 In South Africa, certificates in Iyengar Yoga were awarded around 2 years earlier, in October 1975 (De Michelis 2004:202). 33 Pers. correspondence with Integral Yoga authorities, July 2020. 34 See full teacher listings: http://bksiyengar.com/modules/Teacher/teacher.asp (accessed February 2016). 35 We take Sewell’s (1996:262:263) interpretation of path dependency as ‘that what has happened at an earlier point in time will affect the possible outcomes of a sequence of events occurring at a later point in time’. A further case of path-dependence in modern yoga was the introduction of the now widely accepted standards of 200-hour and 500-hour training for certification, where it would be very difficult to establish a new field-level benchmark. See David (2007) on path dependence. 36 An additional incentive observed over time has been that teacher training course provision has become a major source of income for many yoga organisations. 37 As cited in the Inaugural Souvenir of Ramamani Iyengar Memorial Yoga Institute (Extract from Reviews on Light on Yoga, 19 January 1975). 38 As cited on RIMYI’s website: http://www.bksiyengar.com/modules/Institut/RIMYI/ rimyi.htm (accessed November 2010).

146  The Yoga of BKS Iyengar 39 For a full list of the 17 aims and objectives of RIMYI, see Iyengar (2009[2004]:18). 40 Geeta described how she would make suggestions to him, often retelling ideas that came through her students and at times, she provided him with guidance on certain matters, whilst Prashant was less involved (Interview Geeta Iyengar 2012). 41 Interview Geeta Iyengar (2012). 42 Interview Geeta Iyengar (2012). 43 BKS Iyengar Teachers’ Association Newsletter, October 1977, p.5 (RIMYI Archives, Pune). 44 For instance, the IY(UK) was almost entirely ran by individuals who volunteered their services, save for a handful of part-time administrators who were remunerated to carry out basic tasks, such as typing, to lighten the administrative load (Interview of Philippe Harari on the 12 January 2012 in Cambridge, UK). 45 See Busia’s (2007:xv-xxiv) personal accounts of the development of Iyengar Yoga in the UK. 46 Manchester and District Institute of Yoga Newsletter, Issue 7, February 1978 (RIMYI Archives, Pune). 47 BKS Iyengar Teachers’ Association Newsletter, October 1978 (RIMYI Archives, Pune). 48 See Bartos (2017:460–464). 49 Interview Harari (2012); De Michelis (2004:205). 50 Interview Harari (2012). 51 In other words, the highest qualified teachers may not make the best managers of the organisation. 52 Information here is based upon the UK case. A significant amount of helpful information on the regularity and nature of communications with RIMYI came from an Interview with the then Chairman of IY(UK), Philippe Harari in 2012. 53 Much information on the UK National Association comes from archival sources and interviews, including Philippe Harari, its Chairperson at the time, interviewed on the 12 January 2012 in Cambridge. 54 Interview Harari (2012); Iyengar Yoga News, 12, Spring 2008, p.46. 55 Iyengar Yoga News, 11, Autumn 2007, p.56. Only teachers qualified above a certain level of seniority (Junior Intermediate 2) could use the official designation, providing they were also a paid up ‘Teacher Member’ of the IY(UK). 56 Iyengar Yoga News, 7, Autumn 2005, p.53. 57 Based on a cost to participants of $450 (2015) for classes. This equates to an annual (gross) income of RIMYI at around $378,000, excluding all income from tours and publications, if one assumes closure of the centre during the hotter months. 58 Iyengar Yoga News, 36, Spring 2020, p.37. Practitioners may also become members of local ‘Affiliated’ centres of Iyengar Yoga directly, such as the ‘Iyengar Yoga Institute’ in Maida Vale, London (est. 1984), which is a UK-registered charity, separately-run by its own board, with senior teachers who themselves full affiliated to the national body (Interview Harari 2012). 59 Iyengar Yoga News, 36, Spring 2020, p.35; Interview Harari (2012). 60 See Fish (2006, 2014) and Jain (2012, 2015) on the role of intellectual property and branding in modern yoga. 61 Whilst the logo for the ‘Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram’ was held by an organisation (KYM in India), all other trademarked terms and logos were held personally either by TKV, Menaka or Kausthub Desikachar; e.g. Viniyoga in India and KHYF in India, Europe and the US. 62 Notably, ‘Sivananda’ is held in multiple jurisdictions by the Val Morin headquarters of the SYVC in Canada. 63 Registered in 2006, 2013 and 2018 respectively. 64 A caveat being that defending any trademark infringement would be very costly and time-consuming, one wonders whether there is enough appetite or ability of the Iyengar family to actually globally enforce these trademarks in practice.

The Yoga of BKS Iyengar  147 65 Iyengar Yoga News, 2, Winter 2002, p.12. 66 Iyengar Yoga News, 11, Autumn 2007, p.57. 67 A moderator would appraise all students undertaking official assessments in the UK for teaching qualifications. The first group of moderators were originally selected by BKS Iyengar who was personally familiar with each person (Interview Harari 2012) but, ever since, new members were selected through formal procedures (IY(UK) 2015:14). 68 Iyengar Yoga News, 7, Autumn 2005, p.56. 69 Changes to regulations or standing orders in a National Association were a matter for local Executive Councils, with the lesser requirement that a copy of those changes be given to authorities in Pune. 70 The Executive Council has been responsible for membership, administration, events, media and yoga research (IY(UK) 2015:4). 71 From 14 July 2016, Geeta and Prashant Iyengar were both listed as ‘Honorary Presidents’ in the Constitution for the National Association (‘Byelaws’) of the United States (IYNAUS 2016:7). 72 This practice stretches back over 30 years, with Newcombe (2014:161) noting that, by 1979–1980, ‘elementary’ and ‘intermediate’ levels were certified in Britain whereas ‘advanced’ levels were not. 73 Officially published teachings were a source of authority and tended to be fully accessible to all with no limitations placed upon status or experience, with hardcopy or electronic media either supplementing contact with a guru or acting as a proxy for direct contact. 74 Iyengar did not take on disciples in a formal guru-shishya relationship through initiation, as seen with Sivananda and Satyananda. 75 De Michelis (2004:205–207) has identified acculturation as a developmental phase in Iyengar Yoga from the late-1980s onwards. 76 Interview Geeta Iyengar (2012). 77 After 1965, it was also possible to learn about rules and norms of behaviour in his seminal tome, Light on Yoga. 78 See Weber (1978[1922]) on forms of bureaucracy and authority types. 79 The IY(UK) has stated, ‘…individual applications sent directly to the RIMYI will not be accepted’. However, RIMYI’s own website has stated that it welcomes direct applications, subject to certain prerequisites: http://www.bksiyengar.com/modules/ institut/rimyi/register.htm (accessed May 2020). 80 Newcombe (2020:103) makes this point with regard to UK-based practitioners, as it was possible to gain a teaching qualification within 6 years entirely within the UK. 81 Or $612 in today’s money (adjusted for inflation). 82 As detailed on: http://www.bksiyengar.com/modules/Teacher/certeach.htm (accessed May 2020). 83 Interview Geeta Iyengar (2012). 84 Iyengar has 4,934 registered teachers (2016) and the SYVC has around 33,000 teachers presently registered (my calculation with adjustments for mortality rates, retirements etc.). 85 IY(UK) (2020). 86 Equally, the German yoga organisation, Yoga Vidya, has trained over 12,000 teachers (i.e. more teachers than Iyengar Yoga globally) and has operated with a four-week teacher training course. 87 Day-to-day operations (e.g. teaching classes at RIMYI) were increasingly taken on by his son, Prashant (b.1949) and his daughter, Geeta (1944–2018). She also took over making appearances at most international events in the 1990s (De Michelis 2004:201). 88 An apparent weakness of the International Constitution – a template for National Associations outlined in 2004 – is that a successor designation process was not stated and therefore selection was opaque (Bartos 2017:213).

148  The Yoga of BKS Iyengar 89 There have been isolated instances of instability but these have generally been overcome. 90 This assumes that national constitutions were based upon the ‘International Constitution’ (Iyengar 2009[2004]), which was written in such terms that it referenced the powers held by BKS Iyengar in his name only and not being conferred to a particular title of office. If documentation had been drafted in such a way as to refer to a title of ‘Director’, then RIMYI would merely have been able to name a new Director and this would have been binding upon National Associations. In its absence, designation of a successor would potentially be resolved by determination of local laws (e.g. the country where each National Association is located). Importantly, this required no consultation with authorities in India and local members could instead formally designate the next successor themselves. 91 To clarify, in the narrow sense that it is possible to transmit these teachings without its founder or lineage-holder, I concur with Newcombe (2014:162) that ‘…transmission…has become something independent of the dynastic lineage’. The caveat being that transmission is subject to support from the trademark owner(s) or these teachings must be rebranded. 92 At the 26 minute on a video available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=2F9uptI0LE0 (accessed July 2020). 93 As cited by Newcombe (2014:160). 94 IYNAUS (2020). 95 See Leitsinger (2018) on Charlotte Bell’s claims from 1988 and also Remski (2019:261–264). 96 Iyengar Yoga News, 36, Spring 2020, pp.40–41. 97 See also Iyengar (2009[2004]:35–36). 98 Interview Geeta Iyengar (2012). 99 Pers. correspondence with IYNAUS in September 2011. Momentum for a representative organisation for Iyengar Yoga was gained at its 1990 convention. The IYNAUS was first incorporated in California in 1991 and became a national non-profit organisation in 1992. 100 A term employed by IYNAUS: https://iynaus.org/clarifiying-statement-responsemanouso-manos-and-his-lawyers (accessed May 2020). 101 See Carpenter (2018). This is reported as BKS Iyengar asking for Manos to be forgiven and the San Francisco Iyengar Board voting to reinstate him in October 1990 (Frost 1991). 102 Recollections of abuse as an open secret abounded in the 1980s and 1990s, with Yoga Journal electing to ban him entirely (including his advertisements) after receiving several credible allegations (Farhi 2019). 103 That is, based on ‘rational-legal’ and ‘bureaucratic authority’ rather than ‘traditional authority’ according to the treatise of Max Weber (1978[1922]:215–226). 104 Carpenter (2018).

7 Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga

Krishna Pattabhi Jois (1915–2009) played a seminally important role in shaping the field of modern yoga, with the flowing vinyasa-style he advocated ranking as one of most popular styles of posture practice in the world today. The history of Ashtanga Yoga is a fascinating case as its growth has been comparatively less organised – or even disorganised – compared with other yoga styles under research. Lacking a network of official yoga centres and with only relatively few persons officially permitted to teach, it sits in stark contrast to the strategy of expansion pursued in Iyengar Yoga of half a century of institution-building across the globe. Ordinarily, where there are major areas of structural weakness our analysis finds such examples lead to failure.1 So, how then are we to understand the sheer popularity of Ashtanga Yoga worldwide? Ultimately, this study finds that transnational organisation was critical to the popularisation of this yoga style. Yet, whilst fundamental features of organisation were indeed developed by the Jois family, their ‘light’ organisational approach was markedly unhelpful to disseminating the teachings and maintaining control. What is particularly unusual is the way in which these deficiencies were overcome by a variety of other means for decades – at least until a wave of allegations of physical and sexual abuse threatened to derail the authority of the Jois family entirely. With this in mind, it is the complex interplay of a few institutional features unique to Ashtanga Yoga and the invaluable role played by its grassroots supporters that we shall explore in this chapter.

A brief history of Pattabhi Jois Hailing from a Shivaite Smartha Brahmin family, Pattabhi Jois was born in 1915 in a small village called Kowshika (Southern India). At the age of 12, he witnessed a yoga demonstration at his school by Tirumalai Krishnamacharya (1888–1989). It was this chance encounter that radically changed the course of his life by bringing him into contact with the man who would become his guru (Sharath Jois 2010:xiii; Stern 2010a:xv). Jois subsequently commenced a 2-year tutelage under Krishnamacharya’s guidance from November 1927 until moving to Mysuru (formerly Mysore) to attend the well-regarded Sanskrit University (Jois 2004:9). He managed to reconnect with his guru the following year when

150  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga Krishnamacharya was giving a yoga demonstration at Jois’ place of study (ibid). According to Sharma,2 intercession by Jois’ father led to an invitation to study yoga practice at the Mysore Palace, providing access to a ‘closed circle’ as a result of his common religious affiliations with Krishnamacharya. Some years later, Jois was asked to perform his own demonstrations for the Maharaja (Stern 2010a:xvii). This exposure afforded him a prestigious offer in 1937 to head a new yoga department at the Sanskrit College from one of the world’s wealthiest men of the time, Krishnarajendra Wadiyar IV. Jois accepted the position and retained it until retiring in 1973. Separation from Krishnamacharya apparently came with the guru’s blessing and Jois continued a level of contact thereafter, citing an ‘inner attachment’ between them (Iyengar 2007a[2000]:58).3 Ten years into his work at the Mysuru-based college, Jois took his first independently minded foray. At Lakshmipuram (Mysuru), he established his own yoga organisation as the ‘Ashtanga Yoga Research Institute’ (AYRI) in 1948; although I have found no historical evidence that scientific research was ever carried out beyond Jois’ own note-taking.4 Contrary to the grand title, it was initially a humble abode comprised of two rooms together with a kitchen and bathroom until being extended in 1964 to include a yoga hall.5 The real catalyst for greater dissemination came with a move in 2002 to the present site, in the more upscale suburb of Gokulam (Mysuru); Figure 7.1 shows Pattabhi Jois at the entrance to this new shala. Far more students could be accommodated in the new location as capacity increased from 12 to 60 practitioners at any one time (Jepsen 2005). Latterly, the institution would be renamed in the 21st century as the ‘Sri K. Pattabhi Jois Ashtanga Yoga Institute’ in his honour (KPJAYI). It effectively served as the (spiritual) home of Ashtanga Yoga and, over the last couple of decades, has more actively sought to coordinate its global practice.

Systematisation of posture practice One of the definitive successes of Pattabhi Jois was his popularisation of a jumping style of yoga practice, the basis for which stems from Krishnamacharya’s verbal teachings to classes at the Mysore Palace.6 The philosophy claimed to underpin this practice is from the ancient text by Vamana Rishi, the Yoga Korunta.7 Jois was highly consistent in presenting this specific vinyasa-style of practice. The practice itself is characterised by a dynamic flowing series of postures that creates heat or ‘tapas’ in the body (Jois 1999[1962]:14–15), being known as an ‘intensely physical practice’ (Smith 2004:2). It involves the systematic coordination of movements with a breathing technique (ujjayi pranayama), just as Krishnamacharya taught.8 Ashtanga Yoga is fashioned in a prescriptive format offering a rigidly sequenced set of poses arranged in four ‘series’ known as primary (first), intermediate (second) and advanced series (third and fourth).9 Traditionally, it is practiced in the ‘Mysuru style’ where a practitioner undertakes daily practice (usually in the morning) in one of the series according to their abilities, either independently or under the guidance of a qualified Ashtanga Yoga teacher.10 Teaching by Jois also took the form of guided practice and hands-on

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  151

Figure 7.1  Pattabhi Jois in Mysuru, India. (Credit: CC BY-SA 4.0 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guruji_white.jpg)

adjustments to student postures. I have not been able to unearth any accounts of him personally demonstrating the moves and various accounts attest to him having given up practice at least since the early-1970s.11 Unlike some his peers, there was no use of props at all by Pattabhi Jois as they were perceived to disrupt the flow of energy during practice. Though Jois claims he precisely taught teachings inherited from Krishnamacharya (Medin 2008), he did make some refinements by grouping some of the sequences of postures into a clearer, systematic format, drawing upon years of personal observation and practical experience.12 Some changes to the practice can be traced from the early-1970s with the original series being subject to significant revision through the addition and removal of postures (Gilgoff n.d.;

152  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga Smith 2008:155)13 and Jois used to move people through the practice much more quickly at this time than is customary today.14

Dissemination of teachings The exceptionally systematised practice of Ashtanga Yoga was outlined by Jois in 1962 with publication of Yoga Mala. Predating publication of his peer BKS Iyengar’s (1965) feted guide to practice (Light on Yoga), Yoga Mala was potentially well-placed to take advantage of a rising wave of emerging transnational interest in personal fitness, health, beauty and stress reduction through bodily practices as well as non-Western influences as part of an increased consciousness linked to ‘New Age’ themes. Whilst teachings benefited from being presented in a clear and replicable format, a major handicap was that it was written in his regional dialect, Kannada, seemingly intended for local audiences and not geared towards transnational dissemination. This proved to be somewhat of a strategic misstep. Much like Krishnamacharya’s (1934) Yoga Makaranda, in according low importance to translating his work into English, Jois failed to capitalise on his early efforts or maximise their impact as his teachings were inaccessible to English-speaking audiences. The potential of this missed opportunity is plainly highlighted by the massive global success of Iyengar’s (1965) text, which sold over three million copies (Stukin 2005). In 1999, Yoga Mala was finally translated to English and it remains Pattabhi Jois’ sole publication save for a booklet, Surya Namaskara (2005), detailing the postural sequence of sun salutations. The low priority historically accorded to publication is a direct contrast to Sivananda’s conveyor belt of publications, DVDs and films.15 It also encapsulated by the view of Sharath Jois, expressed to me in 2012, that books are ‘no substitute for contact with the guru’, being ‘mostly nonsense’, ‘mostly commercial’ and ‘forget about the guru-shishya relationship’16; which sits in contradistinction to BKS Iyengar’s assertion that a ‘good book is better than a bad teacher’.17 Alongside the depiction and explanation of his postural sequences, Jois (1999[1962]) devotes 28 pages to philosophy. Whilst drawing from the Rig Veda and Bhagavad Gita, by far the most prominent reference in his writings is to Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras and its eight-fold system of astanga yoga (eight limbs or ange) (Jois 1999[1962]:6–15).18 Being part of a Smartha Brahmin family, he also followed the teachings of Adi Shankara to whom he referred whilst writing on pranayama (breathing exercises) (ibid:18, 24). Additionally, he is reported as teaching from many of the Upanisads and from Swatmarama’s Hatha Yoga Pradipika (Sharath Jois 2010:xiii). There was, however, a tenuous link of this ideology to the delivery in classes of Ashtanga Yoga in the manner prescribed by the guru himself. In situated practice, although Jois taught selectively from the eight ‘limbs’ detailed in Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, he significantly foregrounded asana and placed a heavy weighting upon practice over philosophy. For the advanced practitioner, he taught pranayama although this become more infrequent over time according to students.19 The presentation of Ashtanga Yoga shares with the field of modern yoga practice more generally some level of de-emphasis of

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  153 the centrality of teachings of philosophy. My experience was that most teachers of Ashtanga Yoga did not typically engage in teaching these aspects directly in practice sessions, nor did the KPJAYI advocate that they should indirectly weave these messages in. With an almost exclusively asana-focused presentation, teachers were principally confined to correcting alignment and the repositioning of limbs. Little official guidance on these matters was ever forthcoming from the legitimate head,20 save for Jois oft-quoted epithet that ‘Yoga is 99% practice and 1% theory’ (Sharath Jois 2010:xiii). Local visitors Lacking a written guide accessible to English-speaking audiences, Pattabhi Jois still proved remarkably adept in getting the message out in person and persuasive in recruiting supporters to commit to the practice. Such a task was considerably eased by his ‘legendary charisma’ (Fortini 2009).21 As David Life (2001:75), founder of Jivamukti Yoga, enthused, ‘part of Pattabhi Jois power as a teacher is his ability to make every one of the hundreds of people in the room feel like he is there for them alone’. It was through personal contact rather than publication that the spread of Ashtanga Yoga from its localised foothold really gained traction. Momentum rose during the 1970s, firstly via the informal method of foreign yoga students exporting the practice back to their home countries from Mysuru and secondly via his regular trips abroad to teach. An important early inroad was made not by Pattabhi Jois but through his eldest son, Manju (b.1944). Travelling to Southern India in 1972, Manju’s demonstrations of asanas to Indian audiences (Donahaye 2010:xviii) had the unintended consequence of establishing a nascent international link. It was his demonstration at Swami Gitananda’s ashram in Pondicherry that prompted two Americans, Norman Allen and David Williams, to travel to Mysuru later that year (Smith 2008:141–142; Donahaye 2010:17, 138). The first non-Indian to study with Pattabhi Jois was actually Belgian André Van Lysebeth (1919–2004) who came for 2 months in 1964, having previously studied in Rishikesh with Sivananda in April 1963 (Bajaj 2009; Stern 2010a:xvi). Van Lysebeth went on to publish a yoga guide, J’Apprends le Yoga (1968), which exposed Jois to a wider audience by publishing his address.22 A subsequent 4-month trip by David Williams and Nancy Gilgoff in 1973 to Mysuru was especially rewarding, ending with them being given a few sheets of paper with typed instructions for four different sequences of postures to be practiced over the course of 4 years (Gilgoff 2010): Primary, Intermediate, Advanced A and Advanced B series (Jois 1973). Touring abroad Benefitting directly from these early connections, Jois was invited to come to the US. Fortuitously, this venture coincided with increasing visibility and consumption of yoga practice transnationally during the 1960s and early-1970s. Pattabhi arrived in California in 1975 where he embarked on a teaching tour with Manju in tow (Stern 2010a:xviii; Donahaye 2010:5, 17).23 Several visits to the US

154  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga were to follow that succeeded in raising awareness of the systematic Ashtanga Yoga series’ and attracting new practitioners in each location (Donahaye and Stern 2010:35, 212, 339–344, 412). Doing so was not always straightforward and whilst Gilgoff (2010:35) comments that Pattabhi Jois ‘…loves to tour and be a tourist in new environments’, he is recounted elsewhere as being reluctant to do so (Dunham 2010), apparently finding travel difficult. In the end, Pattabhi Jois ended up travelling considerably, often accompanied by his daughter Saraswathi Jois (b.1941; formerly Rangaswamy) and her son Sharath (b.1971), personally teaching Ashtanga Yoga in over 16 countries from 1974–2008.24 From the 1990s, a trend was discernible towards widening the tour schedule to incorporate new countries (‘World Tours’). Such expansion was further accelerated under the leadership of Sharath Jois. Indeed, as Jois’ travelling companion Joseph Dunham (2010:342)25 attests, it was in the 1990s that everything changed and ‘… there was a tidal wave…everything started’. As a Californian magazine noted at the time, ‘trend scouts for several magazines have identified Ashtanga as a Next Big Thing’ (Burgess 1996:70).26 At this point, significant attention was being gained through celebrity endorsement (e.g. Sting, Madonna, Gwyneth Paltrow) and Ashtanga Yoga was very much in the ascendancy, gaining a strong foothold in yoga studios or shalas across the West (Landers 1997:22; De Brito 1998:29).

Building a central institution Seeking to capitalise on green shoots of early interest from a handful of visitors to Mysuru and welcoming receptions on teaching tours to the US, the main initiative of Pattabhi Jois was to simply do more of the same. That is, the small headquarters institution acted principally as a site for coordinating overseas tours of the Jois family and running a centre to receive practitioners. In this sense, its activities were predominantly reactive in the sense of responding to invitations from practitioners for him to tour various locations and dealing with the influx of visitors who, until fairly recently, just arrived wanting to practice. With no wider institutional framework, decision-making was heavily centralised in the hands of the guru and his immediate family. Historically, the running of Ashtanga Yoga in Mysuru remained a family affair, with Pattabhi Jois the head of the family and leading teacher supported by immediate family members. Though Jois was one of nine children, he had just three of his own and so all of whom were roped in to teach Ashtanga Yoga. In the past, students were taught by his youngest son Ramesh, who tragically committed suicide in 1978. This left the legacy in the hands of Pattabhi Jois’ eldest son, Manju (b.1944), based in California and his daughter, Saraswati (b.1941) in Mysuru, alongside her two children Sharath (b.1971) and Sharmila (b.1969) who was formerly based in Bangalore before relocating to Mysuru. Clearly, the most important criterion for becoming a senior figure in the KPJAYI was nepotistic in nature, being solely based upon familial ties or bonds. Beyond this proviso, selection of titles appears opaque. Despite the heavy involvement of family members from two previous generations, Sharath Jois voiced his concern solely for the general education of his own children, saying that the ‘rest is up to them…if they want to do yoga, then fine’.27

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  155 Befitting of a small Indian family operation, there was a very low division of labour with few hierarchical categories and titled roles at the KPJAYI. At its apex was the role of ‘Director’ (formerly its founder, then Sharath), supported by his mother (Saraswathi) who was the sole individual to hold the title, ‘Senior Teacher’. Leadership roles were supported by a paid administrator (‘Secretary’), who carried out bureaucratic duties such as registering practitioners’ details, taking monies and general secretarial tasks. In these respects, there are some close parallels between the structure and operation of the Mysuru centre and that for Iyengar Yoga at Pune (RIMYI). However, each adopted a radically different approach to transnational management of their respective styles in the past, with the total absence of local institutions in Ashtanga Yoga contrasting against the Pune centre sitting atop an extensive networked structure of committees and local representation within each of its National Associations (e.g. Iyengar Yoga (UK)). Despite not being as extensive as other yoga styles in terms of institutional structure, the growth of Ashtanga Yoga was built on solid (albeit rudimentary) foundations. The presence of certain basic features of formal organisation can be seen to have underpinned efforts to disseminate the yoga practice worldwide; including but not limited to, development of a central institution; established hierarchy of authority; defined roles with functional specialisation; rules and sanctions; and a mode of association (e.g. accredited teacher).28 Nonetheless, Ashtanga Yoga was by far the most limited of the examples discussed in this text in terms of organisational size and scope. And, whilst there were many notably achievements that furthered transnational dissemination, a significant handicap in doing so was the comparatively disorganised, rather ad-hoc and reactive ways of going about it. Protecting Ashtanga Yoga Though Pattabhi Jois had a laissez-faire approach to trademarking, his grandson was intent on placing the family’s efforts on a more secure, institutional footing. While Sharath found it possible to register a trademark in India for ‘K Pattabhi Jois Ashtanga Yoga Institute’ on May 2016 (1965470), he found himself in competition regarding ‘Ashtanga’ (2878531), with a person unrelated to the Jois family (Amit Kumar Soni) who was also vying to register the term. Though Kumar managed to do so first (2160303) in 2011, his registration was later ‘refused’. Part of the difficulty in trademarking this term appears attributable to historical reasons in that a ā ga yoga is firmly associated in the common (Indian) consciousness with the ancient religious text, the Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras; the best-known early expression of yoga (Mallinson and Singleton 2017:xvi). Indeed, there remains no registration of ‘Ashtanga Yoga’ in class 41 (training and education).29 Yet, it was eventually possible for Sharath to secure trademark protection in India for the term ‘Ashtanga Yoga’ in class 16 (books, publications) after a 2-year delay (November 2018). For quite different reasons, there have historically been few registered trademarks for ‘Ashtanga Yoga’ in the US and Europe.30 Most applications

156  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga came at a fairly late stage of popularisation, many decades after the style was originally conceived and when the term was already in wide usage across these geographies. Such outcomes demonstrate how, in most jurisdictions, ‘Ashtanga Yoga’ was treated by trademark authorities not as a brand per se but as more of a generic term, in the sense that it could not be concretely ‘owned’ by any individual or group.31 The term has therefore remained largely non-proprietary and so anyone was free to teach ‘Ashtanga Yoga’ without express permission from its founder or heirs. Authorities in Mysuru could not preclude other teachers from calling themselves Ashtanga Yoga teachers and being accredited by other bodies (e.g. Yoga Alliance, The British Wheel of Yoga) or naming their centres with the moniker. Unable to formally demarcate Ashtanga Yoga from the rest of the field of yoga practice – save for books in India – the KPJAYI thereby lacked any (legal) mechanism to prevent distortions or misrepresentations of the style.32

The role of mis-communication The task of exercising control over Ashtanga Yoga worldwide has proved challenging due to the physical distance of practitioners from authority figures such as Pattabhi and Sharath Jois. Undermining efforts to coordinate the practice transnationally, distance risked rendering the guru-shishya (teacher–disciple) form of authority less effective. The increasing need for effective mass communication exposed a number of deficiencies, as reported frequently on online forums by practitioners. Poor communication from the Mysuru institution hampered efforts to induce discipline, with coordination usually taking the form of infrequent statements posted on the KPJAYI website and, to a lesser extent, emails, letters and phone calls to specific individuals. Historically, this has created some confusion and a lack of transparency with practitioners struggling to interpret rules changes and fully gauge their impact. For example, a few additional rules relating to teaching and practicing Ashtanga Yoga were published in August 2008 on the official website but were removed a few years later without public explanation.33 Such changes usually went unexplained and sparked much online debate and speculation in the Ashtanga community. A number of the teachers that I met during fieldwork were confused by these types of volte-face, expressing that the withdrawn rules remained important to them.34 In light of these type of inconsistencies in official communication, I have observed unwritten rules and tacit understandings amongst practitioners becoming a feature of transnational dissemination of Ashtanga Yoga. Ineffective communication has also risked alienating existing support. A case in point was the disarray caused by the mixed messages emanating from the Jois family concerning their relationship with those behind ‘Jois Yoga®’. Proving controversial within the wider Ashtanga Yoga community (McLean 2012), many practitioners were concerned that centres opened by Sonja Jones35 and Salima Ruffin under the rubric, Jois Yoga®, represented official branches of the KPJAYI. This appears to have been based upon a communication by Pattabhi Jois himself to his ‘beloved students’ in November 2006 that stated, ‘with great pleasure, I am proud to announce the opening of my new yoga centre in Florida’36 and

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  157 reinforced by the 93-year-old guruji being flown in from India by private jet for the 2008 inauguration ceremony (Jepsen 2008). No statement from the KPJAYI was forthcoming to clear up the speculation and disquiet, even after a high-profile Vanity Fair report that the Jois family had ‘partnered’ with the Joneses (McLean 2012). Face-to-face communication was crystal clear, however, with Sharath telling me that ‘it is not linked in any way with the KPJAYI’, adding, ‘this is just a person who wanted to open a centre and dedicate it to Guruji and the Jois family. We do not sponsor it or work on it at all…’.37 The inability of authorities in Ashtanga Yoga to correct misinformation was a clear failing.

The appeal of something different Irrespective of certain institutional failings, suffice to say that Ashtanga Yoga has proved sufficiently appealing to audiences in the fundamental sense that individuals have continued to want to take it up. This was true not only of the few, pioneering yogis in the 1970s but it was equally valid for mainstream practitioners in the 21st century, choosing the style from a marketplace crowded with an endless list of yoga brands. Many of them must have been attracted to a physically vigorous and acrobatic style of posture practice that was packaged in an accessible format and presented with little emphasis on any broader religious aims. A more nuanced explanation for what has been appealing recognises how a differentiated social organisation can in itself be a source of attraction. A positive – although likely unintended – effect of the uniqueness of its setting was that Ashtanga Yoga offered a distinctive alternative for practitioners. Notably, it was dissimilar from its peers in having few accredited teachers, the absence of local (official) centres, no teacher training course and an overwhelming emphasis upon studying directly with the guru amongst others. Crucially, this created an aura of exclusivity about Ashtanga Yoga that in itself proved greatly appealing and, for Byrne (2014:108) heighten perceptions of the ‘perceived purity’ and exclusivity of the practice. A perception of distinctiveness is rightly identified in research by Nichter (2013:202) who finds ‘going to the source’ to be a major motivating factor for studying at the KPJAYI and, similarly by Maddox (2014:2), who pinpoints the search for ‘authenticity’ as important to Ashtanga Yoga practitioners. Open access to the Mysuru centre Part of the appeal of Ashtanga Yoga has also been its open access to the guru and the spiritual home of teachings in Mysuru, in the sense that anyone could practice there. Relative to the high barriers set for most practitioners of Iyengar Yoga, things were fairly simple for Ashtanga yogis, subject of course to international travel, sufficient time and a little planning. From being merely a trickle of visiting practitioners through the 1970s and 1980s, there was a significant jump in the number of attendees by the end of the 1990s.38 Undoubtedly, the quantum of visitors, as with teacher accreditation, was directly related to mainstream interest in Indian bodily practices amongst non-Indians that commenced largely in the 1960s and accelerated in the 1990s.

158  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga Attendance was also bolstered by the importance placed by Pattabhi Jois on having a personalised, face-to-face guru–shishya (teacher–student) relationship. Proximity is desired in authoritarian power relationships with closeness to the guru offering, for Lucia (2018:962), the potentiality for personal transformation whilst representing a special honour revered within a certain community. Spending time with the guru (teacher) directly to receive teachings was intended to ensure that the transmitted knowledge was authentic (Chryssides 2008:590– 591). This aspect has remained a core feature of social organisation in Ashtanga Yoga despite abandonment of other aspects associated with dispensing this form of traditional authority; such as a requirement for full renunciation, performance of initiation rites and the traditional ashram setting.39 As a result, contact with the guru was greatly encouraged, irrespective of length of previous study or attainment, which in turn helps explain the fairly low barriers to attend practice sessions in Mysuru. The ‘feel’ of the present shala is portrayed in two diametrically opposed ways. Practitioners often speak of the ‘warmth’ and the ‘powerful’, ‘special’ atmosphere or a sense of closeness; in the words of one practitioner, ‘the walls feel like they’re alive with the sound of ujjayi breath. These people do not feel like strangers’.40 Others attest to a competitive air, where students wait (often for long periods) to be called in to practice elbow-to-elbow in a crowded room. Carlisi refers to a ‘showroom of exhibitionists’ and a ‘circus’ with a negative change in energy from the early days towards people being less respectful and more concerned with looking good (Johnson 2016). More of a consensus on the ambience is observed prior to 2002, for instance, where Rolf Naujokat recalls a familial, friendly atmosphere in the more modestly sized Lakshmipuram shala, where everyone knew each other (Dohahaye 2010:382). Here, practice itself was reportedly more ‘intense’ with only eight students initially but both Pattabhi Jois and Sharath present, making posture adjustments (­Dohahaye 2010:382). Attempts were successfully made by practitioners throughout the years to replicate the more positive aspects of this ambience in their home centres or classes. Common features abound across their geographically dispersed locations not just in terms of the postures practiced but rather in the styles of interaction, spatial layout of practice spaces and iconography. For Nevrin (2008), such continuities are enhanced via a ‘poeticisation’ of shalas as places conductive to the practice of yoga. This tendency forms part of a larger process associated with globalisation, as identified by Hoyez (2017), whereby therapeutic landscapes (e.g. spaces and places) are produced and reproduced worldwide by practitioners. At Mysuru, the surge in visitor numbers necessitated the introduction of more formalised procedures to regulate the increasing flow of practitioners coming to Mysuru and enhance record keeping. Practitioners could no longer just turn up but they had to be granted a place (i.e. accepted applicants).41 Previously, students were less constricted by rules of attendance although some sent letters signalling their intention to visit Mysuru. Since the mid-1990s, it has been mandatory to apply for permission and, in the 21st century, this has been systematised with

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  159 online registration required 2 to 4 months in advance of travel. In recent years, additional KPJAYI rules stipulated that students must attend Mysuru for a period of 1 to 3 months per trip and multiple trips were only permitted subject to a mandatory gap of 6 months.42 Opportunities for study took the form of joining morning practice in the ‘Mysore style’ with oversight either by Sharath or Saraswathi.43 Unlike at the home of Iyengar Yoga, it was possible to study as a beginner in Mysuru, although I mostly encountered experienced practitioners in attendance who returned year after year. Attending practice in Mysuru was a costly affair. On top of paying for travel, accommodation and board, it was also necessary to pay tuition fees to the KPJAYI. In 2015, fees for a single foreign student to practice with Sharath were INR 34,700 ($530; 2015) for 1 month and INR 23,300 per each subsequent month (including local taxes). From my own visit to Mysuru in 2011, I concur with Maddox’s (2014) assessment in documenting around 200 overseas visitors studying at the shala at any one time heralding from over 20 different countries. The financial success of the Mysuru centre was undeniable; from humble beginnings it developed to become a juggernaut of a yoga business. Based upon the cited figures (2015), I conservatively estimate that total monthly income was a staggering figure of around INR 6 million,44 compared with the average monthly income of INR 7,059 per capita in Karnataka during the same year. In dollar terms, assuming the shala is open for a 9-month period, this equated to a considerable gross income of around $810,000 annually, which was over 750 times the average per capita income for the region ($1,054).45 The successful promotion of KPJAYI, as the hallowed home of Ashtanga Yoga and the only site where one could learn directly from its founder successfully created an aura of prestige around going to Mysuru. This marketing message was carried primarily through word of mouth rather than consumer advertising and, as Maddox (2014:2) describes, the KPJAYI developed into a ‘preeminent site of yoga tourism’ with the search for ‘authenticity’ being a major motivating factor. Veneration as an authentic centre was, in part, due to the fact that teachings are perceived as unmediated and undiluted, coming directly from the guru as per the traditional format. Less important to practitioners that I have interacted with is the general absence of formal initiation or performance of rites by the guru (i.e. as seen in the Sivananda School) that would typically signal the commencement of a formal guru-shishya (teacher–student) relationship. Motivations for undertaking trips to learn directly from the Jois family were varied. Alongside categories of the ‘yoga tourist’ and those intent on ‘going to the source’, visitors could be categorised as ‘yoga professionals’ or ‘yoga travellers’ (Nichter 2013:202) or perhaps a combination thereof. The longevity and regularity of this quasi-institutional ‘pilgrimage’ formed an intrinsic part of the framework of interaction of Ashtanga Yoga authorities with their followers and encouraged growth of the practice transnationally. The process of repeated visits appears to have acted as a pole of cohesion, in providing a platform for individuals to experience a socialisation to, and subsequently internalisation of, the routines and conduct associated with the very essence of Jois’ original vision.

160  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga Targeting an elite audience The rising popularity of Ashtanga Yoga must be set against the cultivation of practice by its leaders of what was just a small, niche group. With attention focused squarely upon the need for a practitioner’s physical presence in Mysuru, leaders were effectively targeting an elite group of persons in terms of numbers. In this respect, little appears to have changed over time from the very early days of modern yoga where yoga organisations in the 1930s–1950s, such as Sivananda’s Divine Life Society, cultivated support from a select, privileged group from overseas who enjoyed sufficient financial resources and time to support themselves away from home on prolonged visits to India.46 In the case of Ashtanga Yoga, leaders seemed to be catering specifically for those who would pay elevated fees – the price of which would have been exorbitant for local residents. Correspondingly, practitioners at the shala have been almost exclusively Americans and Europeans for the last couple of decades, albeit with increasing geographical diversity over time, especially from East Asia. Historically, figures attest to a dramatic imbalance with only 2.5% of accredited teachers being of Indian nationality versus 28% in Sivananda Yoga; yet not dissimilar to Iyengar Yoga at 0.7%.47 For Nichter (2013:223), equally finding no Indians students (or non-resident Indians) studying at the KPJAYI, this reinforces ‘the notion that the yoga valued by so many foreigners [i.e. vigorous Ashtanga style] is not what is preferred by Indians’. As is so often the case, an historical analysis provides a more complex, nuanced picture. If one looks back in the 20th century, this was evidently not the case as a reasonable number of Indians did practice Ashtanga Yoga with Pattabhi Jois. Rather than Ashtanga Yoga being unpopular amongst locals, Indian practitioners were reportedly a dominating force in the early-1970s, with David Williams estimating ‘about 90–100 people were coming each day’ from 4 to 10 am and then 4–9/9.30 pm (Donahaye 2001). Equally, Tim Miller recalls watching ‘a lot of Indians as students’ in the late1970s and 1980s, noting that Pattabhi Jois had a ‘completely different way of teaching them, a lot more relaxed. There was a lot of talking’ (Crooks 2003). The present situation denotes some level of reorientation towards targeting a Western audience. What is plausible is that leaders merely changed tack in order to capture higher income streams by prioritising the teaching of the growing contingent of non-Indians; albeit to the detriment of the existing Indian practitioner base.48 In an interview in The Hindu, Sharath responded to criticism that the Institute favours foreign students over Indians as being ‘baseless’ and inferred that his non-Indian students demonstrated greater commitment to the practice (Sawhney 2019). The recent introduction by Sharath Jois of yoga scholarships for Indians49 appears to be an attempt to redress the historic imbalance.

The importance of being recognised Whilst practitioners who visited Mysuru had limited means of maintaining their personal guru-style relationships once they return home, those who are unable to visit Mysuru had no possibility of linkage with the guru or the main centre at

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  161 all. Despite not making regular jaunts to India, this group considered themselves to be committed to this particular style of yoga practice over other styles. They attended classes of Ashtanga Yoga at local centres or practiced in the ­Mysorestyle but received no official recognition from the main organisation. There was no possibility of paid ‘membership’ either centrally to the KPJAYI or indeed at a local level, as there were no official centres outside of Karnataka. For Sivananda’s supporters, membership of the central headquarters in Rishikesh was possible to The Divine Life Society and for Iyengar Yoga supporter’s membership was possible at local level to a National Iyengar Yoga Association. Volunteering was also not an option for Ashtangis as they were unable to freely offer their services in the same way as permitted in other modern yoga organisations in the field; such as in Satyananda Yoga, Iyengar Yoga or Sivananda’s Yoga Vedanta Centres where volunteers were awarded an array of organisational roles, official titles and designations. As a result, a sizeable group of practitioners worldwide had no formal affiliation to the Ashtanga Yoga organisation at all, being unable to express their support beyond local class attendance. Glorification of teacher certification Teacher status offered the only real possibility of meaningful, on-going association with Pattabhi Jois and his yoga organisation for practitioners; initially as an ‘Authorised’ teacher (Level 1 and then 2) and, at the most advanced level, as a ‘Certified’ teacher. Certificates were awarded by the KPJAYI to students who met the high personal skill level required and paid the associated fees. In practical terms, the distinction between the three levels of teaching qualification rested on the scope of teachings that they were officially permitted to teach. For example, ‘Authorised Level 1 Teachers’, being the most junior, were only allowed to teach the primary series and ‘Authorised Level 2 Teachers’ taught both primary and intermediate series. This division of authorisation into two levels was in fact only a fairly recent innovation enacted over the last decade.50 Lastly, ‘Certified’ teachers remained the most senior position, with the right to teach additional series (i.e. from the four-advanced series), according to specific guidance from the guru. One may interpret designation of teacher status by the KPJAYI as effectively granting to an individual a rent-producing complex of rights (i.e. ability to earn income) or, as Byrne (2014:107) contends, a ‘special kind of capital’. Not only did it confer elevated status upon the recipient but also, as a result of this higher standing, there was an increased potential to earn money with accreditation playing a role in the viability of yoga teaching as a profession. Teachers reaching across the world Since the first actual certificate in Ashtanga Yoga was awarded to Tim Miller in 1982,51 there has been considerable success in recruiting teachers to spread the teachings far and wide, with accredited teachers coming from over 50 countries (as of April 2016).52 The total number of teachers recognised by KPJAYI had

162  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga risen to 603, including 30 teachers in India. By level of accreditation worldwide, this equated to 46 Certified, 303 ‘Authorised 2’ and 254 ‘Authorised 1’. A total of 603 teachers worldwide (2016) represents a leap from 63 accredited teachers in 2002 and 176 in 2006,53 in spite of accreditation being one of the most onerous paths in the field requiring multiple prolonged trips to India. The pronounced rise in the number of individuals seeking out teacher status and being authorised is consistent with a wider acceleration of demand for yoga products brought by the popularisation of postural yoga practice, with US practitioner spending reaching $16bn in 2016.54 Two main regional hubs were Europe (36%) and North America (34%), however, one finds a strong bias especially towards the US with 181 teachers, as shown in Figure 7.2. The rest of the worldwide distribution of teachers was represented by Asia with 18% of teachers, Australasia 7% and ROW 5%. Yet, the total number of Ashtanga teachers in some regions is surprisingly low relative to the general popularity of the practice. Given there that there was an estimated 36.7 million regular practitioners in the US in 201655 and ‘vinyasa or flow’ forms of yoga regularly top lists for preferred styles, one may assume a huge number of US yoga instructors teaching this form of practice were outside of the remit of the KPJAYI; being either registered with external bodies (e.g. Yoga Alliance) and/or with independent teacher programmes (e.g. Power Yoga, Shiva Rea) or simply unregistered. It is not unreasonable to estimate that at least 97% of Ashtanga Yoga or flow-based classes in the US are taught by individuals, disassociated from the Mysuru-based accreditation system,56 although KPJAYI teachers had a disproportionately high influence in the media.

ROW 5% Australasia 7%

Asia 18%

Europe 36%

North America 34%

Figure 7.2  Worldwide distribution of accredited Ashtanga Yoga teachers (2016)

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  163 One may plausibly conjecture that KPJAYI recruitment could have been far higher. A number of barriers constrained growth and the single greatest limiting factor was the total absence of any formal decentralisation of power with regard to the training of teachers. The root of the problem can be traced back to the prominence accorded to the personal guru-shishya (teacher–student) relationship (Byrne 2014:117). Evidently, this structure imposed a natural limit on the numbers accredited in the style by having only one person in the world able to award teacher status. The system of accreditation in Ashtanga Yoga is ‘unique among modern yoga systems’ (Byrne 2014:116) in not being a curriculum-based course format. It is a compelling argument that there may have been greater numbers of accredited teachers if leaders had introduced a system of accreditation based upon a standardised teacher-training course. Indeed, delegation of such a course to regionally based teacher trainers would have enhanced dissemination further – as this study finds was the case in the Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres, Iyengar Yoga and Viniyoga. However, this would have been diametrically opposed to the ethos of the Ashtanga Yoga practice where power was entirely centralised to the guru who enjoyed a monopoly over teacher selection. As expressed by Sharath Jois in our interview, there were basic objections to a time-based course in that it was ‘all against yoga’ and ‘having a course is not parampara’ (teaching lineage) as teacher status should only be designated by the guru.57 This is a somewhat exceptional attitude towards learning posture practice in the field of modern yoga and one I find more reminiscent of the treatment of sannyasa (renunciation) in the Sivananda School, where the guru retained sole authority to select and initiate individuals to become sannyasins (renunciates, monks). The apparent ramification here is that any deviation from learning directly from the founding guru (or his official successor) is inferior. The difference in stance between the authorities in Ashtanga Yoga and the rest of the field is illuminating, where teachings received via a course of dedicated study in the UK or elsewhere (i.e. delegated accreditation) is a standard that has been adopted by nearly all leading modern yoga organisations in the field of postural yoga practice. A further constraint on growth was the opacity relating to accreditation at Mysuru. Designation of teacher status that is subjective and evaluated according to unclear metrics runs counter to the predominant tendency within the field of modern yoga towards standardisation and transparency. Institutionalisation of teaching via certification forms, in Nichter’s (2013:213) terms, a ‘gatekeeping function’ but, in the case of Ashtanga Yoga, I find that the requirements for being able to pass through the gate were far from clear-cut. What is wellestablished is that one must be a highly skilled practitioner who has perfectly mastered performance of the postures.58 Alongside this physical expertise, Pattabhi Jois explicitly stated that ‘long, dedicated study with your guru’ was required.59 Beyond that, it was more of a mystery. During my period of fieldwork (2010–2015), even the few publicly listed criteria for attaining teaching status were removed from official web pages, with the KPJAYI ceasing to provide any explicit public guidance on the minimum provisions required for gaining teaching qualifications.60 Looking back to the early years of certification, the

164  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga process was more relaxed and the role of money less important, as Certified teacher Alexander Medin (2011) recalls: People would ask if they could teach and he’d say, “Yes, yes, no problem”. Guruji never bothered with that. Then Sharath started to take control in 2001–2. People who were certified got a certificate with a stamp from the government. You fill out a letter with your father’s name, your mother’s name then you pay some money. Prior to the advent of certification in the early-1980s, procedures were even more informal still and permission took the form of receiving a ‘blessing’ to teach from Pattabhi Jois; early recipients of this form of permission included David Williams and Nancy Gilgoff in 1974.61

The (dis)organisation of Ashtanga Yoga Over the last 20 years or so, there has been soaring demand for practitioners to become recognised as teachers in the style. That said, compared to the fairly large number of attendees in Mysuru, the rate of awarding accreditation appears to have been low. Based upon fieldwork data, I calculate that only around ten percent of visiting practitioners had received any form of recognised teacher designation over the last decade from the KPJAYI.62 The numerous sacrifices and long-term commitment required from practitioners look particularly arduous when figures suggest that qualification remained only a remote possibility. Certainly, this was beyond the reach of a lot of overseas supporters, with many practitioners expressing to me that they lacked the time and financial resources to complete multiple years of 1 to 3-month trips and be able to support themselves (and families) at home.63 With no guarantee of ever becoming accredited by Pattabhi or Sharath Jois, the option of taking a training course locally (i.e. certified by an external governing body) offered the certainty that was appealing to many. Looking at data from this study across the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools, it is evident that there were comparatively few official Ashtanga Yoga teachers. For instance, in 2016 there were only 603 current (official) teachers of Ashtanga Yoga worldwide compared with 4,934 practising teachers in Iyengar Yoga, 5,000 in Integral Yoga and around 33,00064 in Sivananda Yoga (SYVC) A major issue stemming from this narrow approach, discussed above, has been that not enough teachers were ever accredited by the KPJAYI to meet the burgeoning demand for taught classes in the style. The under-provision of accredited teachers started to become apparent in line with rising demand for Ashtanga Yoga classes in Europe and North America from the late-1990s onwards. Where demand emerged for classes, there was often an absence of anyone officially recognised by the KPJAYI to teach them. A knock-on effect was that this prevented practitioners from studying in Mysuru with Sharath when he stipulated in 2015 (via the KPJAYI website) that every student must have already practiced with a KPJAYIaccredited teacher for at least 2 months; even though this was an impossibility for many.

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  165 The problem of having gaps in teacher coverage was not entirely overlooked by authorities as there was a dramatic acceleration in the rate of awarding accreditations, with the total number of teachers tripling in a decade and rising almost 1000% over 15 years (to 2016).65 Still, sticking to an organisational ‘light’ approach of Ashtanga Yoga was markedly unhelpful to disseminating its teachings, with no delegation of teacher training to local levels, no linked network of centres and a failure to adequately supply a sufficient number of accredited teachers to meet consumer demand. Sparse institutional efforts expended to solve the wider issue of officially governed provision of teachings sat in contrast to the mass-teaching programs that have come to characterise the field of modern yoga practice. Sharath is reported at one stage as having conducted three teacher training courses in Mysuru (Wilkinson-Priest 2013) although the format was subsequently abandoned.66 Compounding this bottleneck was that even the small pool of accredited teachers was disallowed from conducting teacher-training courses. Failure to properly respond to this situation has spurred an active industry in the supply of teacher-training courses in derivative (competing) styles such as Vinyasa Flow, Power Yoga, Rocket Yoga and many others. Problems of leadership Those responsible for developing Ashtanga Yoga seemed unprepared for how the demands of the role would change. At times, authorities in Mysuru appeared not at all confident and I have sympathy with the view that Pattabhi Jois appeared to have ‘…accidently stumbled upon fame and fortune’ (Gauci 2018). Joseph Dunham’s first-hand account backs up this portrayal in giving the impression of a man who was far from an ambitious high-flyer set on global domination but rather a fairly ordinary individual, who was ill-suited to playing his unexpected role of international sensation. For example, in 1992, Pattabhi Jois oscillated repeatedly between agreement and refusal to embark on a fully scheduled teaching tour, until talked back into it by Dunham who agreed to smooth the way by personally escorting Jois (Trepkau 2010). Accordingly, this report paints a picture of someone less worldly, noting that ‘…although he was a very important man to us, he was just a little guy in a sheet in an airport. I could see a lot of problems…’ (ibid). Against this backdrop, the diffusion of this style of posture practice has historically been very much a case of a ‘pull’ from the grassroots in terms of demand for access to this form of yoga practice. Certainly, this has outweighed any ‘push’ (i.e. supply) from the main centre in India. It is possible to discern a half-hearted attempt at institutional growth from David Williams recollections of Pattabhi Jois instructing him in 1974 to open ‘Ashtanga Yoga Research Institutes’.67 However, this did not lead to a network of branded regional branches or a transnational framework on a par with the more systematic attempts at institutional building of other modern yoga organisations; e.g. Iyengar Yoga, Bihar School of Yoga and the SYVC. Another false-start was observable in the 21st century from the aforementioned efforts to establish several centres of Ashtanga Yoga across the US and in Australia under the brand name, ‘Jois Yoga®’.68 Whilst not formally

166  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga linked to the Jois family in any operational sense,69 these proved to be fairly short-lived ‘branches’, with the Islamorada Institute closing in 2012, followed by centres in Sydney (2013) and Connecticut (2015), leaving the only functional centre in Encinitas, California, which had relocated in 2015 but was a ‘ghost of its prior existence’ (C. Brown 2019a:151). This shift formed part of a wider reorganisation towards educational outreach with the ‘aim to get a million kids on [yoga] mats’ (Jones 2015) under the banner ‘Pure Edge’ (previously ‘Sonima Foundation’).70 Likewise, the history of Ashtanga Yoga attests to a general reluctance towards building the institutions or framework necessary to support a global brand. Whether the underlying reason was a lack of ambition or merely inability, Pattabhi Jois showed little impetus in supporting the growth of the style transnationally beyond maintenance of a centralised teaching qualification framework. Sharath echoed the reservations towards bureaucracy shown by his grandfather in professing to me, ‘I don’t want to be a business manager’ (Interview Sharath Jois 2011). From the perspective of popularising Ashtanga Yoga worldwide, it is perhaps less surprising that developments tended to be ad-hoc tinkering rather than wellplanned and implemented initiatives and that any broader implications were not necessarily well-considered. Thus, a solitary, small-scale, 70-year-old institution has been responsible for attempting to organise practitioners and teachers on a global scale.

Plugging the gaps In the absence of certain basic features of organisation (e.g. structures and processes) or where there are areas of major weakness, our historical analysis finds such examples usually fail to thrive and even dissipate over time. Accounting for the successful popularisation of Ashtanga Yoga worldwide, it is necessary therefore to understand how it made up for the significant deficiencies outlined in this chapter. What makes the case of Ashtanga Yoga fascinating is that it illustrates how ‘unofficial’ sources of organisation could be highly impactful on shaping its transnational development. Unpicking the reasons for its worldrenown in spite of several major shortcomings invites an examination of the sources of influence that are external to the organisation itself. It is my contention that the fortunes of a style did not rely solely on decisions made by its leaders but a positive influence emanated from individuals who, strictly speaking, were considered to be ‘outside’ of the formal organisation of Ashtanga Yoga. These ‘outsiders’ were not formally recognised in the official hierarchy of the KPJAYI and operated beyond its organisational boundaries. In these respects, the historical development of Ashtanga Yoga is a special case. Occurring independently of the Jois family, a number of what I refer to as ‘informal solutions’ took place that partly compensated for organisational failings that had led to the under-supply of officially trained teachers, poor communication of authorities and a lack of support for practitioners as well as the absence of official centres and teacher training courses. It is in attempting to remedy some of these problems that an enthusiastic and motivated set of individuals and

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  167 centres stepped into the breach to teach practitioners a common understanding of Ashtanga Yoga. Crucially, they lacked the requisite accreditation and engaged in the unsanctioned organisation of teacher training courses in the style.71 As well as increasing general access to the teachings to more practitioners, they also have shared their knowledge at local workshops, through publications and increasingly via online forums. This largely uncoordinated action led to ‘outsiders’ being prominent in the control and spread of Ashtanga Yoga in situated practice, principally from the late-1990s. Much of the patchy geographical coverage of Mysuru-approved teachers was filled in by these teachers (i.e. unrecognised by the KPJAYI) who satisfied local demand for teaching classes that leaders were unable – or unwilling – to provide. Filling this latent demand of local audiences for Ashtanga Yoga teachings were three different groups; namely, i) those who never had a relationship with the KPJAYI or its leaders, ii) those who attended Mysuru but were not officially sanctioned in its hierarchy, and iii) those whose previously strong relationship with the Jois family quietly went unrecognised by the KPJAYI. Amongst the first and second groups (i.e. never officially recognised), the hurdles to seeking to become a recognised teacher in Mysuru produced a very large body of supporters who sought a range of alternative teacher designations and avoided the onerous path of seeking KPJAYI-accreditation altogether. Instead, they successfully completed teacher-training programmes open to practitioners of all yoga styles, which conferred registration with governing bodies including Yoga Alliance (US) and The British Wheel of Yoga (UK). Such courses covered a range of subjects not taught at the KPJAYI, including anatomy and physiology, safety, ethics and teaching skills. The third, far smaller group (i.e. previously recognised) derived their legitimacy from past linkages to Pattabhi Jois and, therefore, retained signalling power to practitioners of their experience and seniority.72 Many of these ‘influential outsiders’ were respected voices within the broader Ashtanga Yoga community, but essentially did their own thing and their activities were completely independent of the KPJAYI. One may include here several renowned teachers of the style that were not included on its official list of teachers, including David Williams, Nancy Gilgoff, David Swenson, Danny Paradise and Paul Dallaghan, all of whom were all taught by Pattabhi Jois. The power exemplified by individuals in this group has rested upon a perception of their professional expertise that is supported by collegiate authority (i.e. peers) (Blau and Scott 2003[1962]:61). Thereby enjoying a mandate to shape the field of Ashtanga Yoga practitioners, they responded to a perceived need in their communities for information and penned publications that assisted the learning of a wider pool of yoga practitioners, such as Swenson (1999) and Maehle (2007). A high-profile example in this group is Manju Jois (b.1944). Directly connected through his kinship ties to the Ashtanga Yoga legacy, Manju is the eldest son of Pattabhi Jois. Having studied with his father since the age of 7, he was recognised as a foremost authority on Ashtanga Yoga but did not participate in its official hierarchy or general operation and was said, by his nephew Sharath Jois, to have had ‘nothing to do with KPJAYI’.73 Manju, of course, remains part of the extended familial network – a position now familiar to Sharath Jois, whose

168  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga recent establishment of his own centre in Mysuru (e.g. separate to the KPJAYI) potentially places him in a similar role of being part of the lineage but technically an organisational outsider.74 For Manju, the disconnect from the Mysuru-based headquarters is perhaps unsurprising given that he settled in California in the mid1970s during a trip with his father, establishing his own initiatives independent from the family-ran organisation in India, included offering workshops and courses to train teachers in Ashtanga Yoga. By accrediting his own students to teach the series of practice espoused by Pattabhi Jois, his initiatives may be interpreted as forming a highly legitimate and alternative route to a teaching qualification offered in Mysuru. Thus, it is possible to view this as being in conflict with the professed aim of the KPJAYI on having a monopoly on the training of teachers in the style.75 Indeed, few training courses offered the gilt-edged credentials of being taught by the eldest son of the founder. Given the KPJAYI’s desire to be seen as the sole authority on Ashtanga Yoga, the very presence of a credible outsider undermines its claim of exclusivity to govern over teachings and accreditation. However, as with many others offering workshops and teacher training courses, such efforts have gone some way towards offsetting the deficit created by the under-provision of officially recognised (KPJAYI) teachers. The rise of alternative sources of expertise and authority has served to gradually erode the control and influence of the KPJAYI over the practice worldwide. A practical consideration is that the emergence of a host of influential individuals gave rise to assorted (competing) voices, potentially offering different views and guidance to practitioners. It thereby complicated the task of disseminating a singular, coherent message when new rules and standards were being created under the general rubric of ‘Ashtanga Yoga’ by outsiders. A way of describing these power dynamics is as an asymmetry between theory and practice. Put simply, Jois family ambitions of full authority were let down by its ability to secure only limited levels of authority in situated practice. Here, a contraposition is observed between ‘formal’ authority (right to decide) and ‘real’ authority (effective control over decisions) (Aghion and Tirole 1997). This discrepancy was especially visible in the US, with a yogic landscape typified by entrepreneurialism and plentiful examples of grassroots initiatives by both organisational insiders and outsiders; some of whom built up sufficient legitimacy to represent parallel (competing) sources of authority. A contrasting case arises in Iyengar Yoga where ‘real authority’ was found in this study to be almost fully captured within organisational boundaries. Leaders have consistently exercised a high degree of control over the style transnationally (i.e. with low levels of leakage of power to others) so that ‘formal authority’ was near congruent to ‘real authority’ in practice. What can be interpreted as a loss of organisational power in Mysuru was not ultimately negative for diffusion of the teachings. A paradox is discernible in relation to the role of unsanctioned teachers of Ashtanga Yoga; on one hand, the KPJAYI deemed non-conforming teachers to present a problem, yet, on the other hand, this must be set against the undeniable success of the postural practice of Ashtanga Yoga as a whole that is supported by an active network of ‘Ashtangis’ dispersed across multiple continents, whether recognised by central

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  169 authorities as legitimate or not. My analysis suggests that the continuance of the practice owes a significant debt to a dedicated body of support outside of India, with an army of aficionados of the Ashtanga style of practice proving vital to its successful transmission and ultimate popularisation. It is necessary to therefore analyse the sum-total of all efforts to organise supporters (both official and unofficial) to capture the full picture of historical development. The implication being that to analyse the field of modern yoga practice one must consider not just factors relating to official organisation but also sources of informal organisation, including measures of cohesion and specificities of culture amongst those not captured by formal hierarchies. The cohesive force of organisational culture An invaluable source of support for the transnational dissemination of Ashtanga Yoga has been an organisational culture characterised by a few distinctive features. Seeking to maintain the popularity and purity of Ashtanga Yoga worldwide with a relatively contracted organisational structure has relied upon the efforts, goodwill and motivations of individual participants. One unique aspect of this dynamic has been the extent to which leaders have attempted to compel their ongoing support by foregrounding the principle of parampara (teaching lineage) as a preeminent rule to follow. Ensuring the ongoing transmission of teachings over time has been a critical part of organising modern yoga practice across the entire field, yet in most cases, following Gleig and Flores (2014:55), the ‘live transmission’ of yogic knowledge may simply take place from one person to the next. For authorities in Ashtanga Yoga, however, the concept took on special significance where a strict application of parampara represented a ‘bond with the teacher’ (Sharath Jois 2010:188) – that is the guru or lineage holder – and held as sacrosanct for keeping intact the original practice of Pattabhi Jois. Within the Indic traditions, parampara comprises lines of living teachers forming a lineage that collectively composes an oral channel for the personalised transmission of religious knowledge.76 A guru–parampara relationship dictates compliance to an ancient tradition that was a ‘cornerstone of premodern yoga’ (De Michelis 2008:14) and, for Varenne (1989[1976]:6), a process long considered the sole means of knowledge transmission where ‘no other means of communicating…knowledge can exist, since it derives from dharma, the eternal norm’. Trying to assert authority over the Ashtanga Yoga style and protect its legacy, practitioners were therefore expected to be deferential and follow the method precisely without deviation from how it was personally taught to them by its founder.77 Doing so reinforced group unity around a set of core precepts and observance of what were essentially modern organisational rules,78 with the method proving fairly effective in ensuring vast numbers faithfully adhered to the sequences as prescribed. However, it was certainly not always successful. Strident objections to deviations from parampara stretch back decades. A letter from Pattabhi Jois (1995:6) published in Yoga Journal in the 1990s talks of his own ‘disappointment’ at transgressions of parampara, where he laments that

170  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga some students were turning his teachings ‘into a circus for their own fame and profit’; such as Power Yoga, for which founder Beryl Bender Birch sold almost 300,000 copies of her guide to practice and claims to have taught over 100,000 students (1980–2002).79 Rule-breaking was often couched in terms that related to parampara, being perceived institutionally as disobedience or a failure to ‘surrender’ to the teaching lineage. According to Sharath Jois: The yoga tradition exists in many ancient lineages, but today some are trying to create new ones, renouncing or altering their guru’s teachings in favor of new ways.80 The motivations for non-compliance to institutional rules can be broadly split into either strategic reasons (e.g. develop one’s own brand), pragmatic reasons (e.g. need to earn a living), unintentional reasons (e.g. lack of awareness of transgression) or some combination thereof. Transgressions usually took the form of teaching via workshops or ‘intensives’ and holding of teacher training courses, all of which were officially banned; although Richard Freeman commented to me that certain teachers were exempt from this embargo.81 Faced with disobedience, the KPJAYI enjoyed a credible threat of sanction, which could take the form of being struck off the official list of teachers and thereby being de-authorised. At one time, this threat was published on its official website in that a teacher ‘will be removed from our list’ (ibid). In some ways, such a step of delisting was a deterrent as it presented a potential threat to the livelihood of a teacher. However, there are multiple cases of delisted teachers who continue a successful career without apparent impairment, such as Gregor Maehle and Monica Gauci. Part of the difficulty in attaining widespread compliance, as Smith (2008:155) contends, arises from most modern yoga practitioners being disinterested in forms of authority within Indian yoga traditions that resonate with only respected by the most ‘serious or dedicated practitioners’ of Ashtanga Yoga. It is was precisely this select pool of highly committed Ashtangis – many of whom were organisational ‘outsiders’ (i.e. lacking an official title) – that proved pivotal in its transnational dissemination by acting as a crucial link between the approach of the guru in Mysuru to the needs of the local class practitioner. A cultural disconnect was evident between the centre and periphery in that the guru’s insistence on codes of behaviour associated with parampara and the opacity and subjectivity of decision-making were out of step with the preferences of the large pool of mainstream practitioners, who valued transparency, immediacy and secularity. Much was owed to the loyal followers who spanned the divide by translating and marketing the practice abroad into an accessible brand for ease of consumption; that is, boundary-spanning. For instance, I encountered local teachers were selectively flexible in their presentations of the practice by teaching postures not in the prescribed series order, dropping the opening chant, making no references to a guru or parampara, undertaking classes not in the ‘Mysore style’ or other accommodations to suit their specific audiences. One of the more successful results of exportation from Mysuru classes is the ‘common character…apparent

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  171 in the approach of Ashtanga Yoga teachers’ (Smith 2008:151) on a transnational basis. This is encapsulated in the ‘feel’ of their yoga practice spaces. For Nevrin (2008:133; citing Collins 2004), this contributes to shared ‘emotional energy’ amongst practitioners who participate in the common activity and heightens confidence and enthusiasm. What was also helpful in binding practitioners to this common cause was a general agreement on the rules of the game or shared culture. From fieldwork interviews, I have found a very high level of consensus on the basic tenets of the practice with core norms and values that were well-accepted and transparent. This is partly explained by how the hierarchical structure of Ashtanga Yoga – that dictated near hegemonic guru power and authority – not only demanded compliance with organisational rules but individually helped forge a close-knit community aligned along a common culture. One manifestation is seen with practitioners sharing knowledge largely through posting information online in an attempt to fill the void created by a lack of explicit guidance from the centre on a range of matters. Having a cohesive effect, the emergence of this informal structure of linkages and networks provided a kind of self-supporting framework with a space for discussion that worked to reinforce the identity of the group as delineated from other groups of yoga practitioners. Ritual practice was an integral element in building a sense of unity and group integrity. Within these ‘communities’ of Ashtanga Yoga, practitioners and teachers returning from study in Mysuru may be associated with entrenching core values at local levels. In this way, a strong focus on discipline and adherence was transmitted when practitioners return to teach their classes of students outside of India (Smith 2008:151–152). They set the tone for local groups of practitioners by acting as agents who transported a disciplined approach to their practice to home settings. Many similar examples effectively localise guru authority in this way by contributing towards maintaining a sense of consistency and continuity. I found that persons engaged in this process exhibited a high degree of personal motivation and self-sufficiency was required to carry out these tasks over a long period, being entirely voluntary and subject to a need for them to continually bind themselves to particular messages. The fact that ritual standardisation was far stronger in Ashtanga Yoga than in other modern yoga traditions helps explain why popularisation was achieved despite an undersized (and flawed) institutional framework. Hence, whilst lacking any sort of an institutional franchise plan, global dissemination was effective due to the unique culture developed between Ashtanga Yoga practitioners that provided some measure of stability in managing the organisation of the practice. Maintenance of guru control over this geographically expansive network of practitioners and teachers was only possible for a time but without institutional support it remained precarious; as was acutely evident at times of crisis, which will be discussed below. Succeeding Pattabhi Jois Less successful has been the handling of relations with supporters in recent years, with some destabilisation occurring in the years leading up to and post succession

172  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga from its founder. Teaching until his advanced years, Pattabhi Jois passed away on the 18 May 2009 having taught students for over 60 years. ‘Guruji’ was succeeded by his grandson, Sharath Jois, who became a public figurehead for Ashtanga Yoga, assuming leadership of the KPJAYI and, subsequently, adopting the honorific paramaguru. Though he has referred to the yoga organisation as a ‘family business’ – where blood lineage is the basis for leadership – Sharath firmly stressed to me that ‘nothing was automatic’ for him and that he ‘had to struggle’ to prove himself worthy to his grandfather (Interview Sharath Jois 2011). However, he was supported in this endeavour, conceding that his upbringing was very much conducive to learning the family trade and all of his yoga training came from within the family (ibid). Sharath continued in the same vein as his grandfather by regularly touring outside of India to provide face-to-face teaching but he also instigated a definitive shift in terms of the organisational culture. Up to this point, leaders had been relatively slow to institutionalise, with an air of familial informality pervading management of the yogashala. And, whilst there were already attempts under Pattabhi Jois at incremental organisation to deal with the substantial rise in visiting practitioners from the early 20th century, the pace and scope of changes undoubtedly quickened following his death in 2009. What is discernible is that the tone set by leaders has edged closer over time towards that of a bureaucratic organisation in the Weberian sense.82 In the 21st century, the organisation of Ashtanga Yoga can be viewed as a blend of ‘corporate enterprise’ (Nichter 2013:220) and family business with religious overtones; for example, in terms of address, the foregrounding of a plethora of official-sounding titles was more akin to a business (e.g. ‘Director’, ‘Co-Director’) while alongside them persisted a more traditional appellation of ‘guruji’. Yet, in spite of the emergence of some outward signs of a more business-like manner, there was scant evidence of a methodical and professional strategy. Though Ashtanga Yoga remained comparatively less formally organised that many of its peers, after years of an almost laissez-faire approach to transnational organisation, Sharath in particular did attempt to partly address the issue over the last decade. Notably, he has done so by attempting to reassert ‘ownership’ of Ashtanga Yoga, such as the trademarking efforts described earlier alongside more rules and attempts at greater transnational regulation. The result of these increased efforts at organisation did produce some tangible successes in generating a slightly higher degree of formalisation and some areas of clarity via the expansion of the number of levels of teacher status and the setting of additional rules (Bartos 2017:233–234). Nevertheless, the strength of its initial prescriptions ultimately became somewhat diluted as a result of the tendency of the Jois family towards weak implementation of some new rules and abandonment of others. The perceptible shift towards greater levels of organisation was not without controversy and, though not leading to a ‘point of crisis’ per se, it produced a degree of simmering discontent. A general point to make is that any attempt to transition from a relatively informal operation towards a more regimented structure risks stimulating disagreement or even conflict, as existing supporters do not necessarily welcome a change in the organisational culture and dynamics

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  173 to which they are socialised; for instance, those who value informality, friendliness and member-focused activities can be alienated by a marked shift towards formalisation and professionalisation (Chapin and Tsouderos 1956).83 A case in point was a degree of alienation of existing supporters in recent history through another overhaul of the ‘official list’ of qualified teachers in 2018. The apparent tightening of implementation of the official rules and introduction of a new code of conduct generated much controversy and criticism from teachers and practitioners in Ashtanga Yoga, with Sharath introducing a new category of ‘honorary’ teachers and concomitantly removing some very high profile teachers from the official list, including his uncle Manju Jois, Alexander Medin, Guy Donahaye, Mark Robberds plus Mark and Joanna Darby, amongst many others. Even without such an evolving backdrop, succession is often fraught with difficulty; not least as inferior legitimacy is typically afforded by supporters to a successor (i.e. Sharath) in comparison with a charismatic founder (i.e. Pattabhi Jois) (Weber 1978[1922]:246).84 The experiences of Ashtanga Yoga have evidenced that ensuring the transferral of loyalties (i.e. away from a deeply personal bond) is a challenging task, as practitioners studying this method were often personally tied to Pattabhi Jois. The process was complicated further by the fact that the justification of the new successor was made on familial grounds and descendancy (i.e. blood lineage) rather than from a sound lineage (i.e. best qualified person). For example, other practitioners (non-family, non-Indian) were considered more advanced in their practice at this time, with one senior practitioner referring to Sharath as, ‘barely even a peer…’ (McLean 2012).85 A straw poll of senior figures within Ashtanga Yoga suggested that a good number only viewed Jois as their guru and failed to transfer an equivalent level of deference to the much younger grandson. In the case of traditional sampradayas (religious sects), such an entanglement of discourses (blood lineage versus sound lineage) was not at all unusual historically and one solution, not utilised within Ashtanga Yoga, was for teaching to be conducted by the best-educated ascetic and for the guru to carry out leadership functions (command, punish, etc.). Without such a coping mechanism, the running of the Mysuru organisation and the ability of Sharath Jois to enact major changes was rather an uphill battle, not least as it meant adapting a working model inextricably intertwined with what was then a venerated legacy of its founder, Pattabhi Jois.

Things fall apart Most destabilising, the legacy of Pattabhi Jois came to be publicly overshadowed by revelations of multiple incidents of sexual and physical abuse that were allegedly perpetuated by Jois himself. Though dating back to the 1970s, the issue of abuse in Ashtanga Yoga was only recently brought to the fore during the #MeToo campaign with Karen Rain’s tweet in November 2017, her subsequent article the following year (Rain 2018b) and an account by Jubilee Cooke (2018). These were not, however, the first aspersions cast in the public realm as the narrative can be traced back to Jois obituary in The Economist in 2009, with subsequent published photographs and articles questioning hands-on assists by

174  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga Jois86 as well as a highly articulate personal account by Anneke Lucas (2016). It is only with the present, more receptive environment for Rain’s communications that a tsunami of vocal allegations against Jois ensued; including the experiences of 16 women as documented by Remski (2019). The common thread being that the founder of Ashtanga Yoga was accused of assaulting men and women during Mysore-style classes in India and on tours abroad when making physical contact under the pretence of correcting postures and/or repositioning their bodies, including allegations of digital rape. The immediate fallout has seen some schisms with the creation of alternative representative structures outside of guru control and KPJAYI’s sphere of influence. Notably, ‘Amayu’ was founded by former authorised teachers, including Greg Nardi, Scott Johnson and Emma Rowse (J. Brown 2019b), with the aim of setting a new inclusive dynamic based upon cooperative working, ethical standards and transparency.87 At this early stage, scission has not been as radical as seen with Anusara Yoga, where an entirely new yoga organisation successfully was founded in 2012 that successfully took control of global dissemination and saw the removal of its disgraced founder, John Friend, completely from the practice.88 In Mysuru, the abuse allegations appeared to expose lines of conflict within the Jois family, with Sharath setting up his own centre separate from the KPJAYI, registering a trademark for ‘Sharath Yoga Centre’ (4309413) in October 2019 and published his own official list of 541 teachers (as of 2020). A suggestion of this difficult dynamic was alluded to in 2011 when Sharath commented to me, only half-jokingly, ‘it is my sister…I can’t stop her’ in response to being asked why Sharmila Jois Bangalore centre was an ‘official KPJAYI Centre’ if it was operationally separate from the KPJAYI.89 Meanwhile, post its shake-up, the KPJAYI has had to change its website address and maintains a teacher list that significantly overlaps with that of Sharath. To improve our understanding of why abuse scandals have occurred in modern guru organisations and how this manifested transnationally, it would be a glaring omission not to account for the precise role of institutions, including the presence or absence of certain functions. Ultimately, the incidence of sexual and physical abuse can only be reduced with recourse to changing the underlying social structures that perpetuate such violence; that is, by enacting a shift in the attitudes precipitating it (e.g. sexism, misogyny, heteropatriarchy, inequality, gender bias, racism) and the socio-cultural factors that underpin them.90 Nonetheless, whilst I concur that discussing individual stories of guru abuse cannot resolve the deeper societal issues at hand, as suggested by Jain (2020a), our study underscores that it does not negate the usefulness of examining the organisational structures that compounded it. Given that a certain set of societal constraints may prove unchangeable in the short or even medium term, features of organisation can be analysed within such environments so that lessons may be learnt regarding contributing and mitigating factors. Analysing these matters from an institutional perspective exposes profound failings in the organisation of Ashtanga Yoga brought by persistent areas of weak or non-organisation – as detailed above – which contributed not just to burying these issues for so many years but facilitated a near-total refusal to deal with them

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  175 at all. Though there was no official KPJAYI response, Sharath Jois belatedly put out a short statement on Instagram offering a personal apology, which although welcomed, was criticised by senior teacher Gregor Maehle (2019) for a lukewarm apology, blaming others and using language that minimises abuse.91 At this level of analysis, I posit that a fundamental truth was that systematic abuses of power, which according to Cooke (2018) were repeated on a daily basis in the Mysuru shala, could be permitted only if certain conditions persisted at the institutional level. Firstly, it necessitated an organisational culture that upheld the status quo and thereby reinforced the cycle of abuse. The latter is most aptly demonstrated with responses to the latest series of complaints led by Rain, where allegations were initially poorly dealt with by the Ashtanga community; that is, either by taking no action at all or featuring responses beset by denial, justifications and minimisation of sexual assault, including the use of certain terminology such as ‘inappropriate adjustments’ to describe incidents of alleged abuse.92 It must also be set against an historical background where reports of abuse were routinely met with disbelief and were customarily rationalised or dismissed entirely. Such reactions can be partly explained by both the centrality of practice in the lives of Ashtangis – as ‘deeply transformative’ and ‘the bedrock of my life’ (Wilkinson-Priest 2018) – together with a pervasive organisational culture marked by ‘idolisation, projection and worship’ of Pattabhi Jois (Gauci 2018) that refuted complaints about his flaws. It is plausible that scores of other individuals have not shared their negative experiences for fear of being stonewalled or ostracised from the community as is typical in a cultic milieu and identified by scholars in cults and new religious movements. Of note, reports emerged of practitioners being verbally attacked, blocked or discredited by others for speaking up.93 Whilst Ashtangis were not immersed in permanent, communal residential settings (e.g. where pressure is more acute to keep silent), I would suggest that the dynamics operated in a similar, albeit diluted, fashion with high levels of self-binding to the guru and his institution that made speaking up within the group perilous and remaining quiet safe. Distance from the guru, however, can be interpreted as a mediating factor that decreased the immediate risk faced and arguably gives credence to a more individualistic reading; namely, for certain practitioners, turning a blind eye may have been motivated at least partially by concerns of potential loss, both personally regarding their sense of identity and professionally from their ability to earn a living. The resultant culture of silence helps explain why a situation persisted where abuse was very much an open secret amongst practitioners, even dating back over 30 years, with a student of Jois from the 1970s, Beryl BenderBirch, noting that, on his 1987 US tour, ‘everyone knew’ (Cooke 2018). In a similar vein, Ashtanga Yoga was characterised by a pervasive culture of trivialising injuries, as frequently reported by practitioners.94 Even serious injuries caused by certain postures or by teacher adjustments were received as positive signs of going deeper into the practice or brushed off as ‘good openings’ or ‘nice pop’, etc.95 The dangers were well-known yet largely unacknowledged for many years, although a small minority actively discouraged students visiting Mysuru due to fears of injury on the basis of adjustments made to students’ postures being ‘anatomically and biomechanically unsound’ (Gauci 2018). What is striking here

176  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga is the systematic response over a prolonged period to a relatively high incidence of injury amongst practitioners where pain was normalised as a necessary part of salvation and submission, consistent with, what Certified teacher Guy Donahaye (2019) saw as, a ‘cult of devotion around the practice, Pattabhi Jois, Sharath and the institute in Mysore’.96 Standard explanations for abuses of power in guru organisations emphasise the role of guru-charisma and the asymmetrical power relations embedded in the hierarchical structures of the teacher–student relationship. For Lucia (2018:953), the power structure of the guru–disciple teaching relationship creates social situations that are ‘readied forums for sexual abuse’ where the space for critique is extremely limited given that disciples are traditionally expected to fully surrender to their guru, who operates as spiritual guide, mentor, parent and so on (ibid:972). ­Correspondingly, nearly all of the personally reported incidents of abuse in Ashtanga Yoga occurred in a public setting, with supporting witness accounts of abuse being perpetrated to others. Yet, with power concentrated in the hands of one charismatic individual and a culture of deference, many felt it was near impossible to challenge the guru directly; a rare example was provided by Magnolia Zuniga in 2004. Alongside a conducive organisational culture, the second condition contributing to systematic abuses related to modern organisational structures themselves, which in certain formats can mitigate the omnipresent risk of abuses in teacher–student type situations. For Ashtanga Yoga, there was a total absence of any institutional mechanisms (i.e. prescribed structures and processes) that would allow safe reporting and rigorous investigation of complaints by actors who were sufficiently empowered and independent from the guru to be effective. Rather, the heavy emphasis placed upon a guru-centric training approach resulted in the creation of a small framework, heavily centralised around Pattabhi Jois, that was entirely self-governing. In practice, this was problematic due to a lack of institutional mechanisms and no internal or external oversight, no representation of the wider practitioner base and an inability to incorporate concerns or properly deal with issues. The situation may be sharply contrasted with the abuse scandal affecting Iyengar Yoga in the US in 2018, where a complaint from Ann West against senior teacher, Manos Manouso, was dealt with by the National Body (IYNAUS) along prescribed, institutionalised procedures by an Ethics Board and, due to perceived impossibility of impartiality, subject to an external independent investigation.97 The case is instructive in demonstrating that with pre-existing structures and procedures there was a defined path for investigating complaints that gave greater likelihood to the survivability of an organisation post scandal. It can be seen that in situated practice, properly functioning organisational structures and oversight are even more critical at times of crisis to act as a counter-weight to organisational cultures and power asymmetries that encourage silence and dismissal.

Summary Ashtanga Yoga is a special case in the sense that for several decades it managed to overcome the problems caused by areas of weak or non-­existent ­organisation by relying on grassroots supporters, who made up for the shortfalls in official,

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  177 KPJAYI-led attempts of social organisation of the practice and practitioners. The popularisation of Ashtanga Yoga therefore owes a considerable debt to many organisational ‘outsiders’ – teachers, practitioners committed to the practice – around the world. Yet, plugging institutional gaps was only ever a temporary solution even if it weathered remarkably well through the good times. For Ashtanga Yoga, the implication of having a minimalist organisational framework is that, as time has passed, challenges of succession, scandals and familial disagreements have added to the overall fragility of its authority and ability to organise the practice worldwide. What worked during times of growth in numbers of practitioners and transnational expansion – as discussed above – has dramatically broken down in periods of destabilisation. The recent history of Ashtanga Yoga highlights in unequivocal terms how the lack of properly developed and well-functioning transnational institutions was markedly unhelpful and led to the intransigence of its leaders. This distressing chapter in the history of Ashtanga Yoga provides further evidence of how sufficient organisational structures and functions were necessary in modern yoga for a style to endure through periods of growth as well as to survive crises and thus persist over the long term. In this case, their absence led to schism and fragmentation.

Notes 1 Data collated by Bartos (2017) indicate that greater levels of formal organisation are generally associated with better outcomes in popularising a particular yoga practice due to more efficient and systematic approaches to dissemination. 2 As cited by Singleton (2010:184). 3 Examples of continued contact include his daughter, Saraswathi, taking a couple of yoga exams with Krishnamacharya when she was around 16 and 17 years old (Saraswathi Jois c.2014:11m20). 4 An early practitioner, Prem Carlisi, notes that ‘it was ongoing research which he did and we did along with him…Guruji did go up into his office every day and write notes about our classes. He was formulating research for his institute…’ (Johnson 2016). I can find no evidence, however, of this research ever being published or distributed. 5 Stern (2010a:xviii). 6 Stern (2010a:xvii-xviii). 7 Alternatively, spelt karunta, kuranta, gurunda and kuruntam (Singleton and Fraser 2014:92). Its origins, however, have proved a contentious issue as there has been no external verification of its existence or the content of its teachings. See Singleton (2010:184–186). 8 Smith (2007:27) translates this as a ‘victorious breathing technique’ that involves a steady, softly sonorous breath and acts to focus the practitioners’ attention. 9 Reference is also made to a fifth series and sixth series as part of the general level of ‘Advanced Series’ postures (Swenson 2010:89). 10 Ashtanga Yoga is frequently taught in a class format where a group of individuals are led through the various postures. 11 One account attributes cessation to the death of his son Ramesh in 1978 as a form of mourning (Crooks 2003) but Pattabhi Jois had already stopped at least 5 years earlier when David Williams visited in 1973. Williams notes that Saraswathi told him Jois stopped due to a bicycle accident (Donahaye 2010). 12 For White (2009:247), the techniques of hatha yoga as propagated by Jois (and Iyengar) were ‘innovated’ upon over the past decades but still ‘clearly bear the stamp of their guru’s synthesis’.

178  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga 13 Prem Carlisi describes how the Advanced A and B formats taught in the 1970s–1980s later became the third, fourth, fifth and sixth series (Johnson 2016). 14 According to Tim Miller (Crooks 2003:22). 15 Sivananda published over 300 books from 1923–1963 whereas Pattabhi Jois published just two texts on yoga practice; Yoga Mala (1962) and Suryanamaskara (2005). 16 Interview of Sharath Jois on 12 November 2011 at KPJAYI in Mysuru, Karnataka. 17 Interview of Geeta Iyengar on 5 November 2012 at RIMYI in Pune, Maharashtra. 18 In terms of the scriptural authority of teachings, the Yoga Sutras was considered a canonical authority in the system popularised by Jois. See Donahaye (2010:xxiv). 19 Donahaye (2010:xxv). 20 In his later years, Pattabhi Jois collaborated with a handful of individuals on publications on Ashtanga Yoga. Of note, Jois wrote the foreword for both Scott (2017) and Pegrum (2001). 21 Fortini (2009). 22 Early practitioners often visited Pattabhi Jois after being passed his address from other practitioners, as was the case with Joseph Dunham who received the details from Derek Ireland in 1992 (Trepkau 2010). 23 Jois had previously travelled to Brazil to give a lecture in 1974 (Smith 2008:141) at the invitation of Maria Helen Bastidos, who first met him in 1973 (Stern 2010b:xiv-xv). 24 See Bartos (2017:219). Countries visited include: Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, Ukraine and the US (including Hawaii). 25 Dunham (2010:340) initially went to Mysuru for 5 months and ‘…ended up escorting [Jois] and his wife around the world for 6 months and it evolved into a position of… organising all of guruji’s tours…for the next 11 years’. 26 Burgess (1996). 27 Interview Sharath Jois (2011). 28 For a detailed analysis of the division of labour carried out by modern yoga organisations in the Krishnamacharya School, including Ashtanga Yoga, see Bartos (2017). 29 The only class 41 (training, education) trademarks in India are contained within larger wordmarks, ‘K Pattabhi Jois Ashtanga Yoga Institute’ (owned by Sharath) and ‘Ashtanga Yoga Mumbai’ (owned by Suvir Sharma). Several other attempts have been ‘refused’ or are ‘objected’. 30 A number of attempts at registering trademarks with ‘Ashtanga’ in the US, the only one that was successful was the ‘AYC Ashtanga Yoga Confluence’ for its logo alone, with no claim of exclusively over the term ‘Ashtanga Yoga’. In the UK, the most similar trademark was ‘Astanga Yoga London’, registered to ‘Certified’ teacher Hamish Hendry (2332317). 31 Where they are existing trademarks (32), they generally form part of a longer wordmark such as ‘Ashtanga Yoga Japan’. The breadth of countries in this respect highlights the extent of the influence of Ashtanga Yoga; for example, Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, France, Greece, India, Italy, Japan. Mexico, Peru, Portugal, Spain and the US. 32 The only exceptions presently are where there are trademarks for the specific term ‘Ashtanga Yoga’ alone, such as Spain for education and France for both education and, bizarrely, in food and drink. 33 Bartos (2017:233–234). These rules advanced that practitioners ‘must return to India every year and a half to study for months’, ‘must refrain from teaching any series beyond the primary series’ and ‘must refrain from teaching workshops, intensives or teacher training courses’ (ibid:234). 34 Based upon several interviews of Ashtanga Yoga teachers (Anonymous) from 2011 to 2015. 35 Wife of hedge-fund billionaire, Paul Tudor-Jones II; No.343 on Forbes ‘Rich List’ (2019) worth $5.3bn.

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  179 36 As reported: https://ashtanganews.com/2006/11/07/pattabhi-jois-new-shala-in-florida/ (accessed May 2013). 37 Interview Sharath Jois (2011). 38 Interview Freeman on 20 November 2012 at Cecil Sharp House, Primrose Hill, London. See also Donahaye and Stern (2010:xii, 69, 122, 208, 216, 293). 39 See Chapters 2 and 4 on the maintenance and selective adaptation of such features of pre-modern yoga. 40 Scott (2017). 41 Rules of registration are posted on the website and are regularly revised. 42 Bartos (2017:230). 43 Saraswathi Jois (2007) has taught 6 days a week in a room that takes around 70 students at a time and has been teaching on her own since in 1975, having assisted her father before her marriage. See Smith (2008:140–160) for specifics of the Mysuru residential yoga programme. 44 This calculation is a blended average based upon 120 people for the first month and 80 people attending for a second month, using the fee rates from 2015. 45 Nine months is a conservative estimate, in light of practitioner accounts that the shala is, as certified teacher Philippa Asher has noted, ‘generally open all year round’ (http://ashtangaphilippa.com/musings-fun-article-6/; accessed June 2020). Karnataka statistics taken from local government: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease. aspx?relid=123563 (accessed September 2015). 46 See Chapter 2 on early foreign visitors to Sivananda’s Rishikesh ashram. 47 My calculations are based upon data collected in this study on accredited teacher numbers; for more detail, see Chapter 3 on data for the SYVC and Chapter 6 on Iyengar Yoga. 48 During a fieldwork trip (2011), I observed a number of fairly small classes in the main shala taking place in the afternoon comprised of male Indian students. This was dwarfed, however, by the number of non-Indian attendees with allocated slots at morning practice. 49 As mentioned in his interview with Sawhney (2019). 50 Interviews Attendees at KPJAYI (Anonymous 2011); Interview Philippa Asher (Certified Teacher of Ashtanga Yoga) on 9 November 2011 in Mysuru, Karnataka. 51 Crooks (2003:22). Tim Miller (2010:67–68) requested certification from Pattabhi Jois in 1982, which he subsequently received after carrying out a public demonstration shortly thereafter. 52 Bartos (2017:229–230). 53 Figures are from 2002 and 2006 as published on ‘Ashtanganews Website: Data’ where information was drawn from monthly updates on new teacher accreditations. 54 ‘Yoga in America Study’ conducted by Yoga Journal and Yoga Alliance (2016). 55 An overview of several leading studies is found at: www.thegoodbody.com/yogastatistics (accessed March 2019). 56 Based upon my calculations, assuming a total of 36 million regular US yoga practitioners and subject to the conservative assumption that only 20% of them engage in vinyasa or flow-based forms of practice (7.2 million people). Even filling 3% of the total demand for flow classes would mean each of the 181 official teachers in the US teaching 1,168 students each week. 57 Interview Sharath Jois (2011). 58 Interview Asher (2011); Interview Freeman (2012). 59 Letter sent in August 2008; as cited by Byrne (2014:115). 60 In 2008, the KPJAYI had stated minimum requirements to attain certain teaching levels. For example, authorisation required at least four extended trips to Mysuru and proficiency in the primary series; Certification required at least 8 years of trips, over 10 years of daily practice and proficiency in at least the first three series. Byrne (2014:115) also notes that completion of the primary series is a prerequisite to become ‘Authorised’ and completion of Advanced A (third series) to become ‘Certified’.

180  Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga 61 In these early days when there were fewer practitioners, this ‘blessing’ was given to regular students by Jois, often when they requested authorisation (Nichter 2013:212). However, such requests appear to be no longer entertained. 62 My calculation is merely indicative and is based on the following assumptions: a student capacity of 200 per month with 50% of students studying for a full three-month period, teaching provision at KPJAYI for only a six-month period in every year and a student return rate of 40% of capacity at any one time. This estimate conservatively implies 4,800 visiting students over a 10-year period and thus an implied accreditation rate of 9.9% of total practitioners. 63 Several informal interviews of attendees to the KPJAYI in November 2011. 64 Adjusted from official figures to account for mortality over a 50-year period. 65 These figures are based upon 603 teachers worldwide (2016) and the massive jump recorded from 63 accredited teachers in 2002 and 176 in 2006. 66 Byrne (2014:114–115) reports that a special training programme in Mysuru was offered in 2009 to existing KPJAYI teachers but this was by invitation only; see Byrne (2014:114–115). 67 Williams recounts Jois gave him a bronze plaque in 1974 with the instruction to hang it over the door of ‘Ashtanga Yoga Research Institutes’: http://www.ashtangayogi. com/HTML/earlyyears.html (accessed May 2014). 68 Centres were supported by the ‘JOIS Foundation’ that as later renamed ‘Sonima Foundation’ in 2013. 69 Interview Sharath Jois (2011). 70 The Sonima Foundation is notable for its controversial outreach programme ($533k grant for yoga classes provision in schools) that it successfully defended against allegations of incorporating certain religious teachings whilst inhibiting others (Sedlock vs. Baird 2013). See Brown’s (2019) comprehensive summary. 71 Interviews with Ashtanga Yoga Teachers (anonymous) from 2010–2014 of a range of nationalities (mainly Anglophone countries). 72 Signalling power may be provided by ‘credentials’ of authenticity, either derived from designations by a guru or his organisation or, alternatively, from perceptions of the public that attribute significance to longevity of practice and quality of past associations with respected teachers. 73 Interview Sharath Jois (2011). Indeed, Donahaye (2019) claims that Manju experienced estrangement ‘for several decades’ from his father, depicting a degree of underlying familial tumult. 74 Though appearing to be a completely separate initiative, this is at an early stage (as of 2020) and it remains to be seen the extent to which Sharath exerts influence over the continuing operation of the KPJAYI. 75 As was previously a published aim on the website of the KPJAYI. 76 ‘Parampara’ is defined in the Monier-Williams dictionary (1872) as ‘lineage, succession, continuous arrangement’ or as ‘one following the other, proceeding from one to another, successive, repeated’ and ‘successively, uninterruptedly’. The concept of parampara is also relevant in the teaching of music, dance and art in India. 77 Three basic rules relating to the practice included; ‘1. Teach the method as it is taught by Shri K. Pattabhi Jois and R. Sharath at the KPJAYI, Mysuru, 2. Maintain a yoga room or shala to allow for daily, preferably morning ‘Mysore style’ practice, 3. Honour Saturdays and the full/new moon days as rest days’ (Bartos 2017:233). 78 Rule prescription, justified by an underlying rationale to respect ‘parampara’, has principally take the form of: 1.) bureaucratic rules to manage the KPJAYI and transnational network of teachers (e.g. specification of organisational roles and processes), 2.) ethical and/or religious rules for yoga practitioners and teachers; that is, certain observances regarding diet (Jois 1999[1962]:24) and restrictions on personal conduct via ethical and moral codes known as yamas and niyamas (Jois 1999[1962]:6–17), as well as 3.) general conduct whilst attending classes in Mysuru and 4.) teaching rules,

Pattabhi Jois and Ashtanga Yoga  181 including where and when practice should occur, alignment and sequencing of yoga postures etc. 79 As reported: https://triyoga.co.uk/blog/yoga/beryl-bender-birch-power-yoga/ (accessed June 2020). 80 Interview Sharath Jois (2011). 81 Interview Freeman (2012). 82 Weber (1978[1922]:959). 83 Cited by Harris (1998:608). 84 For a variety of religious organisations and social movements, a heightened risk of organisational instability has been associated with succession, particularly upon death of the founder. See Zald and Ash (1966); Barnes (1978); Wallis (1979); Rochford (1985, 2007) and Melton (1991). 85 As McLean (2012) reports in Vanity Fair, “…Sharath is not a teacher to me,” says one old-school practitioner’. 86 Relevant photos and articles were published in Elephant Journal and Yogadork in 2009 and 2010. 87 See: https://amayuyoga.com (accessed July 2020). 88 Post the resignation of John Friend, the ‘Anusara School of Hatha Yoga’ was formed in 2012 by an international group of Anusara yoga teachers and was registered as a non-profit organisation in 2017 in the US. It claims over 970 teachers in the style worldwide (2020). 89 Interview Sharath (2011). 90 See Jain (2020b). 91 Sharath Jois apology was posted to his Instagram account (‘sharathjoisr’) on 11 July 2019 (now removed). 92 Criticisms of Kino MacGregor were levied by Rain (2018a) regarding comments made in a podcast interview by Brown and on her blog (MacGregor 2018). 93 See Maehle (2019) and Remski (2019). 94 See Donahaye (2019) and Charlotte Clews account (Remski 2019). 95 Such adjustments were widely perceived as far more rigorous and intense than in other styles of practice. See Remski (2019:129–136) for a discussion on ‘openings’ with respect to the historical experience of a number of Ashtanga practitioners. 96 As Ezrin (n.d.) contends, ‘I took the pain as evidence that I was going “deeper”… tearing a hamstring,… spraining my neck, and tweaking my knee’. See also Gauci (2018) and Donahaye (2019). 97 See Chapter 6.

8 Conclusion

Fully comprehending how postural yoga practice was transmitted beyond South Asia over the last century necessitates recognising the important role of various forms of organisation and processes of organising. At the time of writing, this is the first study to seriously address the social organisation of modern yoga practice as a primary focus of investigation; that is, the patterned arrangement of institutions, networks, social groups and individuals in the field.1 Adopting a fresh perspective and a critical examination of yoga through the lens of organisation, the text has examined the history of transnational dissemination in the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools and explored the ways in which features of organisation have helped or hindered the transnational dissemination of styles of posture practice. Doing so represents a departure from conventional approaches to studying the history and development of yoga practice that typically offer explanations that emphasise the role of guru charisma, characteristics of specific audiences and social groups, cultural flows, acculturation, the rise of broader trends such as secularisation, globalisation, commodification, commercialisation and so on. Part of the contribution of this text is in examining material that hitherto had not been researched and presenting new empirical data obtained during fieldwork in India and the UK. It thus provides quantitative and qualitative data to add analytical rigour to ground a number of existing assertions and, in some cases, to provide correctives to commonly held assumptions. A contribution is also anticipated through having employed a comparative approach to analyse multiple yoga traditions, in seeking to extend valuable studies that have tended to focus on single styles of yoga practice (Smith 2004, 2008; Nevrin 2005; Strauss 2005; Persson 2007; Newcombe 2007; Lea 2009; Byrne 2014) and to garner results that tentatively permit making observations across the field. In examining the histories of leading gurus and teachers over course of the 20th century, one finds that their actions to promote specific teachings were not equally effective and some were actually ineffectual. The manner in which they organised the dissemination of yoga practices led to their successful transcending of geographical and cultural boundaries and enduring over time, even if they periodically encountered problems, whilst others either dwindled and failed or succumbed to challenges and crises.

Conclusion  183 Together these findings illuminate the importance of the Sivananda School to dissemination of posture practices and, by implication, suggest that the Krishnamacharya School has experienced an exaggerated importance in the literature and common consciousness. To balance the discussion, this study represents the first major contribution on Sivananda and his disciples since Strauss (2005) and additionally offers an original approach to analyse the transmission of posture practice within both the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools. This text is intended as a building-block towards an enhanced understanding of the history of 20th- and 21st-century transnational yoga practice. Unlike pre-modern institutions promoting yoga practice, modern yoga organisations were the first to export yoga teachings and organise yoga practitioners transnationally on a systematic and large-scale basis. Hence, they extended the reach of posture practice to mass audiences who were previously unfamiliar with yoga (i.e. uninitiated persons outside of South Asia; typically, non-Hindu and non-Indian) and were necessarily trans-local. Whilst there were important transnational encounters in pre-modern yoga practice (e.g. Helena Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society, est. 1875), the organisation of posture practice over the last 80 years or so was unique in the sheer scale of transmission achieved and in bringing about a global popularisation of posture practice. Much of the considerable diversity and complexity in the field of postural yoga practice we see today can be traced back to a proliferation of the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya teaching lineages in the mid-20th century. Though still a relatively marginal practice transnationally, the emergence of additional Indian teachers around that time promulgating posture practice outside of India gave rise to the development of certain aspects of organisation that were not exhibited in pre-modern yoga, these include: new ways of defining and packaging yoga, with the construction of brands and active marketing of yoga teachers and gurus; the reinterpretation of forms of traditional renunciatory organisation, including the format of renunciation and initiatory rites that encourage greater participation among non-Indians and extend beyond diasporic Hindu communities; and professionalisation of yoga teaching involving the institutionalisation of teacher accreditation and provision of structured teacher-training courses. Although there were earlier attempts to export posture practice outside of South Asia, research here determines that the most successful attempts at transnational diffusion occurred in tandem with development of certain organisational forms, processes and procedures. Undoubtedly, the trajectory of specific styles of yoga was shaped by the environments in which they were situated, reflecting, in concordance with Jain (2015:19), that ‘what modern yoga systems do share with pre-modern ones is that they are specific to their own social contexts’. Research here indicates that survival of these yoga organisations over many decades has involved successfully negotiating a series of exogenous variables (or ‘field effects’) that were impactful on decision-making and demarcated the terrain. Of note, a number of very general, societal trends emerged that proved conducive to the transnational dissemination of posture practice, including (but not limited to): increasing personal wealth; more leisure time; greater proclivity to travel and general

184  Conclusion worldliness of individuals; rising levels of participation in fitness activities and emphasis upon improving the body; greater interest in external modes of thought, such as Eastern spirituality; advances in technology and communication; an emergent global consumer culture; neo-liberalist constructions of selfhood; and widespread disillusionment with established religions. It is against this backdrop that this study pays close attention to the mechanics of organising to examine how this all came together in situated practice. Achieving an understanding of the nature of contemporary manifestations of yoga practice is predicated upon unpicking how modern yoga practice was structured over time, noting the varied organisational structures, functions and developmental processes of what became the most influential and established schools of posture practice. Within the framework of an historically orientated study, this study has analysed how each one contributed to the wider field of yoga practice alongside the course of developments that led to the present situation. Extensive archival sources in India and the UK were consulted, alongside fieldwork interviews with senior leaders and participants of a wide range of groups.

The role of organisation Initially, one of the primary vehicles for the transnational dissemination of yoga practices was the lone travelling yoga expert who was often highly charismatic, including the entrepreneurs catalogued by Deslippe (2019) in ‘early American yoga’ – nearly all of whom failed to endure and have since disappeared into oblivion. In a similar vein, whilst a solitary yoga teacher may systematise posture practices into a clear and replicable format and teach students, this study finds that proponents needed to develop certain tenets of organisation for a yoga style to be popularised beyond a set locality (e.g. globalised) and successfully sustained over time. This implies that the intrinsic appeal of a yoga style (or brand) may serve as a necessary factor in its popularisation to attract practitioners in the first place but appeal alone was not sufficient to explain worldwide success and guarantee persistence over time. At the very minimum, one surmises from all the cases examined here that to achieve at least initial traction a few basic criteria needed to be fulfilled. It is possible to distil our findings down to three minimum conditions; namely, developing and maintaining a systematised and replicable system of asana practice; disseminating the style of yoga practice to practitioners outside of India on an ongoing basis; and formalising a mode of association for adherents.2 This in-depth analysis elucidates how, over the last century, the presence of representative organisations – both central headquarters and local-level branches – played an important role in enabling predominantly India-based yoga gurus and teachers to cultivate new and enduring groups of practitioners and devotees in several locations outside of India. Beyond these minimum conditions, further development of organising strategies facilitated an accelerated form of dissemination that achieved global participation in a number of different styles of practice, primarily by improving public knowledge and access to teachings on a regular basis. Specifically, transmission of knowledge on postural yoga is correlated with

Conclusion  185 Table 8.1  Basic features of organisation in the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools of yoga practice Organisational Structures: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Central institution Hierarchy of authority and defined roles Functional specialisation Presence of defined rules, regulations and sanctions Official mode(s) of association Transnational institutions or representatives (e.g. officially recognised teachers)

Organisational Functions: 7.

Performance of administrative tasks that support transnational dissemination of a systematised practice 8. Performance of functions subject to decision-making at local level (i.e. delegation by the guru/leader) 9. Ongoing provision of formalised training courses 10. Transnational coordination of teaching

construction of several basic features of organisation that incorporated processes of systematisation and institutionalisation capable of sustaining and regulating their respective practices and practitioners over a dispersed geographical area. I have observed a set of core features of organisation that can be summarised as 10 points, as outlined in Table 8.1. Without formation of basic tenets of organisation, analysis here finds that yoga styles do not become globalised mainstream practices. Rather, they fail to outlive their founders or fade into obscurity as demonstrated by the two examples below. The case of weak and ‘non-organisation’ An exemplative case of ‘non-organisation’ – or areas where there were outright organisational failings – is observable over the history of 20th-century posture practice. The famous American yoga teacher, Richard Hittleman (1927–1991), presented 64 episodes of Yoga For Health in the early-1970s, which was syndicated to 40 channels in more than 20 countries and reached an audience of over 4 million people (Relton 2005).3 Interestingly, despite publishing several popular yoga books and being renowned as a yoga expert, he is relatively unknown today amongst practitioners of posture practice.4 What is especially notable is that Hittleman appears not to have established a yoga organisation to represent his teachings, nor made efforts to systematically organise practitioners on an ongoing basis; e.g. provide a teacher training course, accredit teachers, regulate practice, instigate rules. As Newcombe (2014:152) rightly contends, ‘best-selling books and TV contracts do not make for a long-lasting method of transmitting yoga’. A

186  Conclusion similar case is found with Yogi Sunita (1932–1970; née Bernadette Cabral), who equally highlights the damaging consequences of weak organisation in failing to sustain the popularity of a yoga practice. Like BKS Iyengar, Sunita attained permission from a local government authority in the UK to train teachers but her name hardly figures in the global field of yoga today and the decline of her practice, Newcombe (2014:147) attributes in part to a failure to institutionalise her charisma in the same adept manner achieved by Iyengar. Research by Bartos (2017:387) has extended this analysis by noting that whilst Sunita enjoyed some level of local popularisation, her success was not sustained or widened as she apparently failed to organise practice and practitioners sufficiently, leaving many areas of non-organisation such as an absence of institutional apparatus to transmit her teachings. As a result, her practice was unable to grow to the heights of transnational popularisation seen in the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools. These counter-examples, which experienced only transient popularity, make plain the importance of building organisations (e.g. to support systematisation, stratification, institutionalisation and regulation of a specific yoga practice). The failure to do so may be associated with inhibiting transnational dissemination and lead to non-persistence of a particular approach or brand due to the absence of provision of indispensable ongoing support, organisation and oversight of practice and practitioners. Measuring success Scholarship on yoga practice in the 20th and 21st centuries has been overwhelmingly weighted towards those who did well and became the superstars of yoga, which tends to create a survivor bias as those who failed or struggled were often neglected. There is a tendency to fully attribute what we see today to the remaining survivors, which flattens the narrative by obscuring the multitude of actors and micro influences that took place and ultimately downplays historical complexity. If one is to gain a fuller picture of the history of modern and contemporary yoga practice, it is instructive to look both at those who have since disappeared from the yoga map as well as to closely examine the ups and downs of those who ultimately thrived. Naturally, such an endeavour involves casting a wide net over a variety of different types of actors in the field and extending analysis to many hitherto understudied geographies. From the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools of yoga practice, it is interesting to note that no single model of organising transnational dissemination became predominant through the 20th century, even accounting for a number of common features shared by those successful in popularising their practices (as outlined above). One must be careful not to overlook the complexity of a globalised mainstream yoga practice, in that the field was not only characterised by a heterogeneity of practice styles but, correspondingly, transnational dissemination was historically produced by a range of differentiated structural forms and characterised by quite distinct organisational cultures. Cognisant that the ways in which yoga schools organised themselves were not homogenous, I contend that these points of difference had a direct impact on the

Conclusion  187 level of their popularisation. To evaluate successful transnational dissemination, this study has focused on two key metrics; namely, recruitment, as shown by the total number of yoga teachers certified, and geographical ‘reach’,5 as measured by the number of countries where an accredited teacher or centre is located. All of these styles of practice may be considered successful at transnational dissemination in managing to recruit teachers across multiple continents and in over 20 countries. Part of their success is attributable to the foregrounding of asana in their presentation of yoga teachings within teacher training courses together with a general dissemination to mainstream audiences that was relatively disassociated from religious structures. A critical factor underpinning theses presentations was in developing long-lasting transnational organisations that served as coordinating centres for the stimulation and sustainment of interest amongst fresh audiences in far off locales. Though they all assisted in propelling yoga practice to its current heights, the considerable divergence between their geographical ‘reach’ is instructive, ranging from 164 countries with teachers in the SYVC, to 73 countries in Iyengar Yoga, 51 in Ashtanga Yoga, 35 in Integral Yoga, 28 in Satyananda Yoga and 25 in Viniyoga.6 Our findings indicate that the wide range of outcomes reflects their differing degrees of effectiveness at disseminating teachings, which were specifically influenced by the quality of decisions taken at an organisational level by leaders and their subordinates. A source of divergence in this endeavour related to their individual decisions on resource allocation (e.g. funds, labour) that could ensure the ongoing accessibility of training as well as specific policies chosen by leaders to restrict provision; for instance, setting high standards for accreditation or by mandating prerequisites (e.g. defined levels of personal ability, knowledge or years of practice as a condition to embark upon a course). It is notable that for the Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres, where over 47,000 teachers have been accredited since 1969, a comparatively low bar is set to attain accreditation as a teacher. Summary and synthesis of empirical data To summarise some of the main findings of this study, one may observe that Sivananda Saraswati was an institutionaliser par excellence, building The Divine Life Society (DLS; est. 1936) into a highly respected religious organisation in India and extending his influence around the world through the growth of dedicated practice groups linked to him personally. A pioneering, boundarypushing figure, his contribution to modern yoga practice was momentous and his influence can still be felt around the world today although his institution failed to become the global powerhouse for spiritual uplift that he envisaged. Hovering on the cusp of fame, the cancellation of his ‘Global Tour’ in the 1950s proved ultimately transformative for the field of posture practice as it gave way to a series of Sivananda’s brightest and best educators departing Rishikesh and founding their own yoga organisations independently of Sivananda’s DLS in Europe and Asia as well as North and South America. Whilst these events accelerated the dissemination of Sivananda-inspired teachings transnationally and placed efforts on a more enduring footing that was ultimately to the benefit of Sivananda’s

188  Conclusion legacy, the shift in power effectively marginalised the role of the DLS in the field of globalised yoga practice. Just like Krishnamacharya, Sivananda had an earlymover advantage and his teachings were well-placed to succeed abroad but he did not personally make the most of his privileged position. Today, ‘Sivananda Yoga’ is best known through his disciple, Vishnudevananda, whose organisation has trained and accredited the highest number of teachers of posture practice in the world today of any individual institution. Though in many ways schism represented disorganisation and a ‘point of crisis’ (Turner 1957:328) in the history of Sivananda’s yoga organisation, a compelling case can be made that without the efforts of these breakaway individuals, a significant portion of latent popular demand would have remained unmet and overall levels of involvement of the public in yoga practice may well have been lower – or at least far slower to climb. It was the geographical dispersion of these exiting disciples together with their founding of new yoga organisations that resulted in greater numbers of participants being exposed to this style of yoga practice and its teaching and stimulated overall growth in the field of modern yoga practice. Part of Sivananda’s valuable contribution is undoubtedly via his recruitment and tutelage of a handful of disciples who would become some of the most influential yogis in the history of modern yoga. This cohort of secondgeneration disciples proved adept at popularising posture practice and reaped far greater attention on the global stage. Best exemplified by Satchidananda’s Integral Yoga and Vishnudevananda’s Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres, they employed a range of differentiated strategies to repackage and publicly market a version of Sivananda’s teachings. Another of Sivananda’s impactful disciples was Satyananda Saraswati who from 1963 created his own eponymous brand of yoga – Satyananda Yoga – and established an extensive global yoga organisation under the banner, ‘Bihar School of Yoga’ (BSY). Like his guru, Satyananda did not rest on his laurels but actively recruited supporters from around the world to his cause and enacted decades of institutionalisation to create a large, complex set of institutions and a persistent network with an extended geographical reach; in short, bearing all the hallmarks of a successful transnational yoga organisation. His determined efforts, nevertheless, did not achieve the same heights of popularisation of some of his peers, largely as a result of pursuing a strategy with an overarching focus on sannyasa (renunciation). This policy acted as a barrier to mass participation of non-Indian audiences in spite of considerable adaptation undertaken by the BSY to the structure of sannyasa and rites of initiation as a means to widen its appeal. The prominence of religious connections was a key source of difference across the yoga organisations under research, with initial proponents from the Sivananda School being sannyasins (renunciates or monks) in the ancient institution of the Dashanami Order versus those in the Krishnamacharya School remaining as householders and working as paid yoga teachers. Though the traditional institution for propagating yoga practices (i.e. sannyasa or renunciation) remained an important feature of the organisation of modern yoga practice, it is barely mentioned at all in most studies of modern postural practice in part as it proved far less attractive to contemporary practitioners than the ostensibly

Conclusion  189 secular teacher training models developed largely in the second half of the 20th century. Consequently, no matter how skilful leaders in the BSY were at building institutions and managing a global organisation, the fact remained that sannyasa was relatively unappealing for mainstream audiences who preferred to consume yoga without religious overtones and without making any sort of permanent or binding commitment. Essentially, the pool of potentially interested persons was far smaller and, hence, even success at attracting and initiating hundreds into sannyasa – whilst an achievement – was never going to have the same impact on the field as accrediting thousands of teachers. In many ways, this path appeared to target a middle ground, trying to attract to both Indians and non-­Indians. Yet, in trying to be all things to all people, arguably, it did not as closely embrace the needs, preferences and cultural contexts of Westerners as well as other organisations disseminating posture practice. It appears that Satyananda and his heirs perhaps did not go far enough, especially compared with Vishnudevananda who wholeheartedly embraced the teacher-training model. Historical analysis here suggests that Vishnudevananda proved immensely successful in fashioning a hybrid model of organisation, whereby the overwhelming focus of the organisation was on offering a systematised and commercially packaged teacher accreditation system whilst retaining sannyasa as an important, yet niche and less publicised path. Moving on to the Krishnamacharya School, it is contended here that one of BKS Iyengar’s seminal contributions to popularising postural yoga in the common consciousness was the precise design of his organisational network and his approach to managing it. The extent to which he was committed to overseeing and maintaining this network was almost unparalleled in the field. By balancing central control with significant delegated powers, he allowed the practice to thrive at local levels through systematised teacher training and by establishing benchmarks for consistency across the world underpinned by a virtual bureaucratisation of Iyengar Yoga. Whilst many aspects underlying the success of Iyengar Yoga were not unique – such as realisation of a systematised practice, publication of a pictorial guide with instructions, tours and demonstrations abroad, a body of local supporters, charismatic figurehead, fortuitous timing – it was really only the development of these specific structures and processes of organisation alongside a supportive organisational culture that accelerated uptake and would act to sustain public interest for years. Even when introduced at a relatively late stage, suitable social structures and processes proved equally effective at supporting transmission of yogic knowledge; notably, with concerted efforts to organise the yoga tradition of Krishnamacharya, or Viniyoga as it has variously been known in the 21st century. Though Krishnamacharya made rather lacklustre efforts to organise his practice, his profound contribution in systematising a postural yoga practice and being the guru of a few mega-gurus helped lay the groundwork for a golden era in the transnational dissemination of posture practice. Shifting to a rapid burst of institutionalisation in 2006 demonstrated how a full-charge into exportation and marketing the style as a brand could garner immediate results when facilitated by the introduction of suitable institutions and systems to organise posture practice

190  Conclusion alongside human resources prepared to put the strategy into practice. With a latestart to transnational dissemination in the early 21st century, authorities emulated tried and tested strategies for organising yoga training on a transnational basis to establish new institutions and delegate a systematised course of accreditation, which experienced quick, demonstrable successes in raising its profile and recruiting people worldwide; that is, until momentum was halted in 2012 by abuse allegations. One may conjecture that the impact of the yoga style could have been far greater had TKV Desikachar not retreated from offering a systematised training course in the US in the 1980s and therefore avoided the ensuing fragmentation of his supporters. Turning to Ashtanga Yoga, this study determines that it represented a special case in the sense that for several decades it managed to overcome the problems of weak or non-organisation by relying on its sizeable body of grassroots supporters, who made up for the shortfalls in official, KPJAYI-led attempts of social organisation of the practice and practitioners. The popularisation of Ashtanga Yoga therefore owes a considerable debt to many organisational ‘outsiders’ around the world, including teachers and practitioners with no official title or recognition from Pattabhi Jois or his heirs; however, all of whom were committed to what is one of the field’s most highly ritualised practices, sharing ‘cultural understandings’ (Zucker 1977:742) and being socialised to commonly accepted norms and values. Notwithstanding this vital contribution, plugging the gaps in the flawed official (KPJAYI) strategy only served as an impermanent solution and, as time has passed, the challenges brought by succession, scandals and familial disagreements added to the overall precarity of its authority and undermined its ability to organise the practice worldwide. The spate of scandals concerning physical and sexual abuse that have recently emerged across the field of yoga practice, often extending back decades, were frequently met with a calling into question of the asymmetrical powerrelations indicated by the orthodox teaching format and Hindu institution of the guru–shishya (teacher–student) relationship. Whilst in some ways ‘ritualised hierarchical relationships were essential to the growth of the yoga industry’ (Jain 2020a), the teaching model has long been troublesome for many non-Indians as it entailed a degree of fidelity to a guru that Liberman (2008:110) deems ‘unseemly’ within a postmodern culture and contradicts notions of individual autonomy (Altglas 2005:18). With public condemnations of previously venerated yogis, what had been viewed as antagonistic to (Western) individualism has shifted to become a perceived threat to personal safety and well-being. With structural power imbalances pervasive across society, however, this was not an individualised problem unique to a specific guru or devotional context (i.e. the ‘bad apple’). Rather, it was precipitated by a set of deeply entrenched structural issues in society that render the threat of violence and abuse of power as ubiquitous, potentially infecting any interaction with some level of power disequilibrium; that is, any teacher and student relationship. Physical and sexual abuse has long pervaded societies worldwide, with violence fuelled by prevailing attitudes – sexism, misogyny, heteropatriarchy, inequality, gender bias, racism amongst others – and the socio-cultural factors that underpin them. The systemic

Conclusion  191 nature of the issues at hand does not negate, however, the usefulness of examining the organisational structures that neglected or compounded these incidents, particularly as a certain set of societal constraints may prove unchangeable in the short or even medium term and lessons may be learnt regarding the contributing and mitigating factors within such environments. Analysis of the chain of events arising from scandals and misconduct in the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools of yoga offer valuable insights and bring to the fore the negative consequences of having few structures or procedures to deal with such issues as they may arise. Our findings suggest that the likely perpetuation of systematic abuses and perceived success or failure at handling incidents were both heavily influenced by the nature of social organisation of the practice and its practitioners. For instance, incidents of abuse in yoga teacher– student type situations usually involved an organisational culture conducive to upholding the status quo and thereby reinforcing the cycle of abuse by dismissing legitimate claims, together with a weak or incomplete organisational framework, incapable of investigating complaints. This was most clearly demonstrated in Ashtanga Yoga where allegations of abuse, involving the now-deceased Pattabhi Jois, revealed the inherent fragility of its minimal model of organisation and severely impaired the legitimacy of the KPJAYI. Essentially, what had worked during the times of growing numbers of practitioners and transnational expansion dramatically broke down in the period of destabilisation, leading to fragmentation of support and schism within the KPJAYI. Elsewhere, responses to misconduct were marked by the intransigence of leaders of yoga organisations beset by a failure to deal publicly and transparently with abuse claims; most prominently regarding Satyananda Yoga in Australia and India and, to a lesser degree, Sivananda Yoga (SYVC). Part of such inaction, when faced with damaging claims, relates to the absence of properly functioning governing structures or, where structures do exist, their impotence in being unable to effectively intervene in practice and credibly challenge those in charge. With a range of differentiated outcomes from yoga organisations in the immediate aftermath of allegations surfacing, my findings suggest that those with well-conceived, established processes for handling complaints from the public were not only better positioned to weather the storm but, at least partially, to mitigate the ‘culture of silence’ that historically has hindered efforts at investigation. Whilst Ashtanga Yoga sat at one end of the spectrum, lacking structures and capabilities to engage with the charges laid against Pattabhi Jois, at the other end, the extensive bureaucracy and prescriptive structures of National Associations of Iyengar Yoga permitted the IYNAUS to follow preexisting procedures and, ultimately, to appoint an independent investigator to look into multiple complaints. Not only is a permanent structure essential to the ongoing survival of any movement (Jackson 1994) but developing procedures and engaging sufficiently qualified people to implement them is necessary to withstand periods of crisis. These troubling episodes allude to a wider, structural transition that is discernible in the field that relates to its changing composition and implications for the balance of power. An important shift observed in the wake of abuse scandals in

192  Conclusion Iyengar Yoga has seen how regional associations (e.g. IYNAUS) could credibly challenge the central authority of the guru or his heirs (e.g. the Iyengar family at RIMYI in Pune); unlike elsewhere, such as in DLS or in Ashtanga Yoga, where disagreement with leaders typically led to expulsion. Such scandals have arguably tainted the magic allure that was historically associated with some of these major lineages – a trend that has fed into the ascent of a glut of well-established and accessible alternatives that are untainted and correspondingly of increasing appeal to yoga consumers. Gurus and organisations of the ‘old order’ seemingly became less well-aligned with practitioners needs versus other types of contemporary organisations that were more aggressively geared towards neoliberal capitalism, such as Bikram Yoga or Baba Ramdev’s various institutions. In the past, the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya lineages accounted for nearly all professionally trained yoga teachers outside of India but, for the last decade or so, there has been a deemphasis of their monopolistic role with a rising number of teachers being accredited by governing bodies outside of the direct control of the main lineages (e.g. Yoga Alliance, The British Wheel of Yoga). Additionally, their centrality has been slightly eroded by the rise of independent networks of practitioners in the 21st century that are mutually supportive and, following Wildcroft (2018), benefit from ‘peer-negotiated knowledge’. Arguably, this process of supplementation has been accelerated by the wave of scandals of abuse affecting nearly all the giants of the transnational yoga scene as practitioners look for new sources of legitimation. This should not be taken, however, as a declaration that the dominating influence of the main lineages has come to an end, as that would be premature. At present, data attests to the continuing relevance of the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya School in how the field is organised and how information on yoga practice is transmitted; both directly through the provision of certification and as inspiration for teachings, as well as indirectly, with a high proportion of teachers continuing to express linkage with a teacher or set of teachers who cite influences within one or two degrees of separation from the Sivananda or Krishnamacharya Schools. Linkage with these ‘old lineages’ serves as a point of reference to help attain ‘spiritual authenticity’ (Nevrin 2008) and better communicate with the public. In many cases, the hegemony of founders is also underpinned by the registration of key trademarks in several regions that reinforce legal ownership of a brand and help prevent erosion of their influence, such as in Iyengar Yoga. Within the context of modern yoga, de-linking from a single guru or a particular yoga tradition is not new, with simultaneous discipleship being a feature since its very beginnings, such as Harry Dikman in the 1930s. Disciples leave, innovate and develop their own, independent institutions, as seen in the 1950s–1970s with Sivananda’s disciples and the boundaries of lineages have a tendency to be fluid, disputed and inconsistently drawn across the field of modern yoga practice – just as they have been since time immemorial. Over the last couple of decades, particularly in the US, yoga teachers have often expressed a plurality of affiliations to different teachers and styles as a means to present the diversity of their experiences, personal preferences and entrepreneurship. As a result, the

Conclusion  193 novelty of their own, frequently blended teachings is emphasised and, strictly speaking, they step outside of any specific lineage association to express their individuality. A further interpretation is that these developments reflects the natural growth of an industry in which the provision of teachings from its pioneering founders has not kept pace with the sheer weight of demand to become accredited as a yoga teacher in the 21st century. This is due to a variety of reasons catalogued in this text, not least Iyengar’s desire to keep standards high that restricted accreditation numbers, the requirement to study repeatedly in Mysuru to be recognised in Ashtanga Yoga and the onerous time and cost involved in completing a Viniyoga course in Chennai and so on. Thus, the rise in sources of authority and approval independent of the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools appears less as a trend of purposeful de-alignment with ‘old lineages’ and more as reflection of the basic dynamics of supply and demand. Just as yoga is recognised not to be a ‘static, monolithic tradition’ (Jain 2014:1–19) one notes that the approaches to organising the diffusion of yoga teachings were not fixed in time either. The use of certain terminology (e.g. parampara, sannyasa) and narratives (e.g. claims of lineages tracing back to antiquity) in yoga organisations that reinforced the idea of unchanged tradition and continuity appears somewhat illusory in the face of the numerous areas of adaptation of inherited teachings and approaches to organisation; as seen in Ashtanga Yoga, the Bihar School of Yoga and DLS, amongst others. The guru has frequently served as an agent of change in postural yoga practice, with ways of organising incrementally evolving as part of continuous cycle within which one sees the continuance of existing forms alongside the development of new ones. As part of the strategies adopted by yogis and their supporters to incorporate new information, I have observed different efforts to modify traditions, practices and terminology to better suit the preferences, capabilities and expectations of modern transnational audiences who are diversified along religious and cultural lines. To place this in context, adaptation of existing traditions was not in itself a new phenomenon as the ceaseless revival and reinvention is a familiar trope in this context – with Indian history being replete with examples of innovation and adaptation based upon traditional formulations.7 Modern yoga may therefore be interpreted as another iteration of this continuing trend.

Studying social organisation in modern yoga What this study underlines is that, in seeking to understand the historical development of leading styles of yoga practice, it is essential to examine the individual strategies they pursued to organise themselves and their followers. Our findings show that doing so is not merely a supplementary consideration but is necessary in view of the organising structures and processes that were unique to each case. Conceptualising gurus and their yoga institutions in this way may be regarded in certain quarters with a degree of scepticism but, as with religious organisations, Miller (1999:450) acknowledges that a more constructive view recognises that ‘all organisations – sacred or secular – require resources’.

194  Conclusion In this sense, the field of yoga practice overlaps with both religious and nonreligious fields of activity in that its constituent parts are dependent on material resources that need to be deployed by making strategic choices, structuring relations and managing operations. Typically, one finds in the literature that the methods by which yoga teachers and gurus organised themselves are subject to only superficial analysis, if at all, and more often than not, a deep-seated takenfor-­grantedness predominates. Just as it is overly simplistic to assume that inherent appeal alone dictated the fortunes of individual yoga styles, it cannot be assumed that yogis followed identical strategies or established homogenous institutions to disseminate their teachings. Rather than a uniform approach, this study finds a highly individualised set of responses to a broadly similar set of challenges. Notably, where disciples sharing the same gurus struck out independently and taught closely aligned practice styles, our examination of yoga histories attests to markedly differentiated outcomes being realised. This remained the case even when yogis were situated in common environments and subject to the same general trends that applied pressures and presented opportunities; that is, the various legal, political, social and cultural milieus in which the gurus and their institutions were situated. Much attention has been paid to the wide range of macro-trends shaping the broader environment, particularly over the 20th century, such as globalisation, commodification, commercialisation, secularisation, appropriation and the ­multidirectionality of cultural flows, including those that have contributed to greater receptivity for yoga teachings outside of India. At the field level, I would add that the dissemination of yoga styles across the entire field can be seen to have been influenced by certain isomorphic pressures that have shaped yoga organisations; be they coercive as a response to legal or regulatory pressures, mimetic, the copying of others (i.e. pre-existing solutions) or normative, such as responding to practitioner demands towards professionalism and governance.8 At a micro-level, several influential factors have been discussed over 20 years of yoga scholarship that have both positively and negatively contributed towards the transnational transmission of styles of practice; especially the personal attributes of the leader such as charisma and English-speaking skills (Bartos 2017:272–276; Newcombe and Deslippe forthcoming).9 Taken together, all of these inputs and environments had a hand in facilitating – or working against – the transmission of yoga practices, but one should not misunderstand that this was merely the backdrop for decision-making and direct causality cannot be assumed. For example, Sivananda could not speak Hindi well but the absence of language skills in itself was not a determinant of his fortunes, rather he was highly successful in India because he made specific choices in response to his circumstances, such as organising a translator to be at every touring event, and successfully implementing this choice. To properly account for transnational popularisation, the missing piece of the puzzle is an understanding of precisely how these factors translate into action or, indeed, inaction. Organisation acts as the mechanism for implementing decisionmaking of leaders and other actors (e.g. teachers, participants, volunteers, members) so that actions can be realised that influence a specific style or, indeed,

Conclusion  195 have wider implications for the field. This is the case whether these decisions are made in a planned or ad-hoc manner, by insiders or outsiders to formal organisations, in bureaucratic institutions or in loosely structured networks of relations. For a particular style of yoga practice to succeed or fail depends critically on organisation – that is, the ability to put its responses into action – and is a function of the aggregation of individual inputs and the environments in which they are situated. Thus, yogis responded to broader societal trends in various ways and, whilst valuable to study, these trends in themselves were not deterministic, providing no substitute for studying at the level of the organisation in discovering the full complexity of the historical narrative. What has been revealed through this frame of analysis are several key insights and a depth of supportive information, evidencing the complex and layered nature of this field of activity. For instance, I would like to draw attention to the fact that whilst Sivananda’s most widely recognised legacy is through his disciples, his contribution to posture practice is often overlooked entirely. This is despite Sivananda producing a guide to asana practice in 1929, Practice of Yoga, and continuing to work on his publications over the next three decades, detailing 85 postures from 1935 onwards (Sivananda 1935). Sivananda personally practised yoga, held daily classes of asana in his ashram, recruited supporters in India and abroad to whom he advocated daily asana practice, organised periodic demonstrations and placed posture practice as one of the original aims of his organisation; ‘To disseminate spiritual knowledge – by establishing centres for yogic training…with systematic training in asanas, pranayama…’.10 I posit that the transnational popularisation of posture practice over the mid to late 20th century can be traced back to this foundational principle set by Sivananda in the 1930s, serving as a forerunner of the systematisation of training courses spearheaded by four yogis from the late-1960s – Vishnudevananda, Satchidananda, Satyananda and BKS Iyengar – that would be transformational for the field of yoga practice. In this way, Sivananda’s formula for social organisation paved the way for the global popularisation of posture practice by outlining a basic premise of delegating the mass training of practitioners to others – not necessarily involving a guru–shishya, one-to-one relationship – and empowering them to found centres dedicated to the systematic training of practitioners. We may identify a connection, which has to date been overlooked, in that Sivananda would have been a formative influence on an ambitious BKS Iyengar in the 1950s, who sought out Sivananda and was recognised by him for his yogic prowess. Apparently visiting Rishikesh and becoming part of his orbit meant that Iyengar was exposed to Sivananda’s predilection for formalisation and, more importantly, his consistent advocation to empower others to systematically train practitioners. Iyengar’s interaction with the DLS came precisely at a period in time when the highly influential cohort of Vishnudevananda, Satchidananda, Satyananda were residing in the ashram and subsequently coincided with their attempts to develop their own organisations to disseminate yoga teachings worldwide. I find it unsurprising that BKS Iyengar went on in the following years to export teachings adapted from Krishnamacharya, with the crux of his success being a preparedness to engage in delegation to local representatives and give

196  Conclusion up freely some of his authority – just as Sivananda had done so before him. Such interactions point to greater interconnection between the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools than previously identified. It is from seeking to understand the complex historical development of transnational yoga practice over the last century that one is left with the challenge of unravelling what is a multi-faceted phenomenon that has multiple (contested) meanings to a variety of different audiences. What is evident from this study is that examining the role of organisational factors brings deeper insight and fresh information about the history of modern yoga. Failing to account for the nuances of organisational development ultimately risks overlooking what are some of the most interesting and understudied historical facts and processes that shaped the field of posture practice as we see it today.

Notes 1 By squarely positioning the analytical level of the organisation on an equal footing with agency and field-level perspectives, this approach of this study embraces multiple levels of analysis and affords new perspectives on the transnational development of modern yoga. 2 This is not intended as an exhaustive list of influential factors but a heuristic device to aid our discussion on the comparative analysis of features of social organisation. 3 See also Newcombe (2020:120, 186–191). 4 Relton (2005) notes that the book to accompany the series sold over one million copies and an audience for one of Hittleman’s lectures filled the Royal Albert Hall in London (capacity 3,951 seated, 5,272 standing). 5 ‘Reach’ is a measure also fruitfully employed to evaluate how far particular networks may extend (Hoppe and Reinelt 2010:605) and to assess the degree of influence wielded by a specific person or organisation or connectivity within certain groups. 6 Pers. correspondence with SYVC in Val Morin, Canada (2019) and Integral Yoga in Buckingham (Virginia), US (2020) and Bartos (2017:270); The Divine Life Society has a presence in eleven countries outside of India, however, it does not train and accredit teachers of yoga practice (ibid). 7 Portrayals of this ‘endless cycle or translation and reformulation’ (Gandhi 2009:206) support a view of yoga being ‘nonstable, ever-adaptive’ (Jain 2015:xvii). 8 See DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) classic treatise on institutional isomorphism. 9 Bartos (2017:272–276) considers five factors – guru charisma, travel, publication, English-speaking skills and endorsement – that may be considered broadly supportive of transnational dissemination of teachings in the Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools. Yet, finds that none of these contributory factors were solely – or even principally – responsible for diffusion of posture practices in the cases discussed. 10 Point 1c of the DLS Annual Report and Accounts 1937–1938. See Bartos (2017:106).

Bibliography

Aghion, P. and Durlauf, S. (2014). Handbook of Economic Growth, Vol. 2. Oxford: Elsevier. Aghion, P. and Tirole, J. (1997). Formal and Real Authority in Organizations. Journal of Political Economy, 105(1), pp.1–29. Aldrich, H.E. (1999). Organizations Evolving. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Alexander, J.C. (2011). Performance and Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Alter, J.S. (1992). The Sannyasi and the Indian Wrestler: The Anatomy of a Relationship. American Ethnologist, 19(2), pp.317–336. Alter, J.S. (2000). Gandhi’s Body: Sex, Diet, and the Politics of Nationalism. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Alter, J.S. (2004). Yoga in Modern India: The Body Between Science and Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Alter, J.S. (2018). Chapter 10: Yoga, Nature Cure and “Perfect” Health: The Purity of the Fluid Body in an Impure World. In K. Baier, P.A. Maas and K. Preisendanz (eds.), Yoga in Transformation. Göttingen: V&R Press, pp.441–461. Altglas, V. (2005). Le Nouvel Hindouisme Occidental. Paris: Éditions du CNRS. Altglas, V. (2007). The Global Diffusion and Westernization of Neo-Hindu Movements: Siddha Yoga and Sivananda Centres. Religions of South Asia, 1(2), pp.217–238. Altglas, V. (2014). From Yoga to Kabbalah: Religious Exoticism and the Logics of Bricolage. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Ananthanarayanan, N. (1998[1970]). From Man to God-Man: The Inspiring Life-Story of Swami Sivananda. New Delhi: [s.n.]. Askegaard, S. and Eckhardt, G.M. (2012). Glocal Yoga: Re-Appropriation in the Indian Consumptionscape. Marketing Theory, 12(1), pp.45–60. Associated Press. (2000). Indian Sect Leader Swami Omkarananda Dead at 70. 6 January 2000. Aveling, H. (1994). The Laughing Swamis: Australian Sannyasin Disciples of Swami Satyananda Saraswati and Osho Rajneesh. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Baier, K. (2011). Modern Yoga Research: Insights and Questions. Available at: http:// modernyogaresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Baier-Modern-Yoga-ResearchReview-2012.pdf (accessed January 2014). Bajaj, V. (2009). Krishna Pattabhi Jois, Leading Expert in Yoga, Dies at 93. International New York Times, 20 May 2009. Bartos, H.K. (2017). Organizing Transnational Yoga: The Sivananda and Krishnamacharya Schools. Ph.D. Thesis, SOAS, University of London.

198  Bibliography BBC News. (2014). India Yoga Guru BKS Iyengar Dies. 20 August 2014. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-28862979 (accessed February 2015). Beckerlegge, G. (2000). The Ramakrishna Mission: The Making of a Modern Hindu Movement. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Beckerlegge, G. (2006). Swami Vivekananda’s Legacy of Service: A Study of the Ramakrishna Math and Mission. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Behera, S.C. (2002[1981]). The Holy Stream: The Inspiring Life-Story of Swami Chidananda. Rishikesh, Uttarakhand: The Divine Life Society. Berg, B.L. and Lune, H. (2017). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Harlow, Essex: Pearson. Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1991[1966]). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin. Bevilacqua, D. (2018). Let the Sādhus Talk: Ascetic Understanding of Hat. ha Yoga and Yogāsanas. Religions of South Asia, 11(2–3), pp.182–206. Bharati, A. (1970). The Hindu Renaissance and Its Apologetic Patterns. Journal of Asian Studies, 29(2), pp.267–287. Bhushan, S. (2001). Yoga Nidra: Its Advantages and Applications. Yoga Magazine, March 2001. Blau, P.M. and Scott, W.R. (2003[1962]). Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco, CA: Chandler. Bouiller, V. (2017). Monastic Wanderers: Nāth Yogī Ascetics in Modern South Asia. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. et al. (1991). The Craft of Sociology: Epistemological Preliminaries. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bromley, D.G. (2004). Leaving the Fold: Disaffiliating from New Religious Movements. In James R. Lewis (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp.298–314. Brown, C.G. (2019a). Debating Yoga and Mindfulness in Public Schools. Chapel Hill: UNC Press Books. Brown, D. and Leledaki, A. (2010). Eastern Movement Forms as Body-Self Transforming Cultural Practices in the West: Towards a Sociological Perspective. Cultural Sociology, 4, pp.123–154. Brown, J. (2019b). Amayu Ashtanga – “Reimagining a Yoga Tradition”. Yoga Talks Podcast, 18 February 2019. Browne, R. (2014). Satyananda Ashram Sex Abuse Victims Want $1 Million in Compensation. The Sydney Morning Herald, 10 December 2014. BSY. (1983). The Teaching of Sadhaks and Sannyasins. Yoga Magazine, December 1983. BSY. (1990). The Royal Mendicant: III. Yoga Magazine, January 1990. BSY. (1994a). In Quest of the Divine. Yoga Magazine, March 1994. BSY. (1994b). Chronicles of a Paramahamsa. Yoga Magazine, July 1994. BSY. (2006a). News Reports. Yoga Magazine, July 2006. BSY. (2006b). International Yoga Fellowship Movement (Swami Satyananda Saraswati at the First International Yoga Convention, Bihar School of Yoga, 1–7 November 1964). Yoga Magazine, July 2006. BSY. (c.2011a). Ganga Darshan Yogashram. Munger, Bihar: Sivananda Math, pp.1–56. BSY. (c.2011b). Ashram Discipline. Munger, Bihar: Sivananda Math. BSY. (2014). Yoga Magazine (Edition for the World Yoga Convention 2013 and Golden Jubilee Celebrations), January–February 2014. Burgess, J. (1996). Getting Bent. Orange Coast, April 1996, pp.68–71. Burghart, R. (1978). The Founding of the Ramanandi Sect. Ethnohistory, 25(2), pp.121–139.

Bibliography  199 Burghart, R. (1983a). Renunciation in the Religious Traditions of South Asia. Man, 18(4), pp.635–653. Burghart, R. (1983b). Wandering Ascetics of the Ramanadi Sect. History of Religions, 22(4), pp.361–380. Burghart, R. (1996). The Conditions of Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burley, M. (2000). Hatha-Yoga: Its Context, Theory and Practice. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Busia, K. (2007). Iyengar: The Yoga Master. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications. Byrne, J. (2014). “Authorized by Sri K. Pattabhi Jois”: The Role of Paramparā and Lineage in Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga. In Mark Singleton and Ellen Goldberg (eds.), Gurus of Modern Yoga. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.107–121. Carley, K. (1991). A Theory of Group Stability. American Sociological Review, 56(3), pp.331–354. Carpenter, D. (2018). Letter to Members – IYNAUS. 9 December 2018. Carrico, M. (1997). Practice: A Guide to Yoga Styles. Yoga Journal, July–August 1997, pp.56–66. Ceccomori, S. (2001). Cent Ans de Yoga en France. Paris: Edidit. Chapple, C. (2005). Raja Yoga and the Guru: Gurani Anjali of Yoga Anand Ashram Amityville, New York. In Thomas A. Forsthoefel and Cynthia Ann Humes (eds.), Gurus in America. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp.15–36. Chidananda Saraswati, Swami. (1954). Swami Chidananda: His Life and Work. Sivanandanagar, Rishikesh: Yoga Vedanta Forest University. Chidananda Saraswati, Swami. (1974). Advices on Spiritual Living. Shivanandanagar: The Divine Life Society. Chidananda Saraswati, Swami. (1991). Light Fountain. Shivanandanagar, India: The Divine Life Trust Society. Chidananda Saraswati, Swami. (1993). Twenty Important Spiritual Instructions. Shivanandanagar, India: The Divine Life Society. Chidananda Saraswati, Swami. (1996). Swami Sivananda: Saint, Sage and Godman. Shivanandanagar, India: The Divine Life Society. Chidananda Saraswati, Swami. (2001[1977]). A Message to New Initiates. Shivanandanagar, India: The Divine Life Society. Chidananda Saraswati, Swami. (2007). An Instrument of Thy Peace. Sivanandanagar, India: The Divine Life Society. Chryssides, G. (2008). Parampara. In Denise Cush, Catherine Robinson and Michael York (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Hinduism. London: Routledge, pp.590–591. Clark, M.J. (2006). The Daśanāmī-Saṃnyāsīs: The Integration of Ascetic Lineages into an Order. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill. Clémentin-Ojha, C. (2000). Conférence de Mme: Catherine Clémentin-Ojha. Annuaire École Pratique des Hautes Études, Section des Sciences Réligieuses, 113(109), pp.191–193. Coney, J. (2000). New Religious Movements in the West Led by South-Asians. In Harold Coward, John R. Hinnells and Raymond Brady Williams (eds.), The South Asian Religious Diaspora in Britain, Canada, and the United States. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp.55–74. Cooke, J. (2018). Why Didn’t Somebody Warn Me? A Pattabhi Jois #MeToo Story. Available at: https://decolonizingyoga.com/why-didnt-somebody-warn-me-a-­pattabhi-joismetoo-story-jubilee-cooke/ (accessed December 2018). Copely, A.R.H. (2006). A Spiritual Bloomsbury. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Copeman, J. and Ikegame, A. (2012). The Guru in South Asia: New Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.

200  Bibliography Crooks, D. (2003). Talking Shop with Tim Miller. Yoga Journal, July–August 2003, p.22. Curtis, A. (2012[1966]). BBC News Item from 1966 – BKS Iyengar Demonstrates Yoga. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00qh3qz (accessed March 2016). Cushman, A. (1999). New Light on Yoga. Yoga Journal, Issue 147, July–August 1999, pp.44–49. Dars, S., Papillault, A. and Dars, J.F. (1989). Cents Ans de Beatitude. Available at: https:// videotheque.cnrs.fr/doc=604 (accessed December 2018). David, P.A. (2007). Path Dependence: A Foundational Concept for Historical Social Science. Cliometrica, May 2007, pp.91–114. Dazey, W.H. (1990). Tradition and Modernization in the Organization of the Dasanami Samnyasins. In Austin B. Creel and Vasudha Narayan (eds.), Monastic Life in the Christian and Hindu Traditions. New York, NY: Mellen Press, pp.281–321. De Brito, K. (1998). The Yoga Revolution. Daily Telegraph (Australia), 24 January 1998, p.29. De Michelis, E. (2004). A History of Modern Yoga: Patanjali and Western Esotericism. London: Concordia. De Michelis, E. (2008). Modern Yoga: History and Forms. In Mark Singleton and Jean Byrne (eds.), Yoga in the Modern World: Contemporary Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge, pp.17–36. Delaney, B. (2017). The Yoga Industry Is Booming – But Does It Make You a Better Person? Available at: https://www.theguardian.como/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/17/ yoga-better-person-lifestyle-exercise (accessed July 2018). Demerath, N.J. et al. (eds.) (1998). Sacred Companies. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Desikachar, K. (2004a). Interviewed by Scott Peck in January 2004 in San Francisco. Available at: http://www.yogachicago.com/jan04/desikachar.shtml (accessed January 2016). Desikachar, K. (2005a). The Yoga of the Yogi: The Legacy of T. Krishnamacharya. Chennai, India: Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram. Desikachar, K. (2005b). Being Kausthub Desikachar: Interviewed by Luna Allison. Ascent Magazine, Issue 25, Spring 2005. Desikachar, K. (2011). Prologue. In Tirumalai Krishnamacharya (ed.), Yoga Makaranda: The Nectar of Yoga. Chennai, India: Media Garuda, pp.13–31. Desikachar, T.K.V. (1982). The Yoga of T. Krishnamacharya. Madras: Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram. Desikachar, T.K.V. (1997). Sri Krishnamacharya the Purnacarya. Chennai: Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram. Desikachar, T.K.V. (2002). Interviewed by Lisa M. Cherry in May 2002 at the Omega Institute, NY. Available at: http://www.yogastudies.org/wp-content/uploads/ INTERVIEW_TKV_DESIKACHAR.pdf (accessed February 2016). Desikachar, T.K.V. (2004b). 3 Gurus, 48 Questions: Interviewed by Alexander Medin in 2004 in Chennai. Namarupa, 3(2), pp.6–18. Desikachar, T.K.V. (2010[1995]). The Heart of Yoga: Developing a Personal Practice. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International. Desikachar, T.K.V. and Cravens, R.H. (1998). Health, Healing and Beyond. New York, NY: Aperture. Deslippe, P. (2019). The Swami Circuit: Mapping the Terrain of Early American Yoga. Journal of Yoga Studies, 1(1), pp.5–44. Devatmananda. (1977). Ashrams Around the World: Sivanandashram. Yoga Journal, August 1977.

Bibliography  201 DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W.W. (1983). Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp.147–160. Dinsmore-Tuli, U. and Tuli, N. (2014). Total Yoga Nidra and Swami Satyananda: Where We Stand Now. Available at: https://www.yoganidranetwork.org/article/total-yoga-nidra-and-swami-satyananda-where-we-stand-now-2014 (accessed November 2017). DLS. (1954). Sivananda: His Life and Work (67th Birthday Commemoration Volume). Rishikesh, Uttarakhand: The Yoga Vedanta Forest University. DLS. (1987). The Master, His Mission and His Works. Rishikesh, Uttarakhand: The Divine Life Society. Donahaye, G. (2001). David Williams Interview by Guy. Available at: http://www.ashtangayogi.com/HTML/article6.html (accessed January 2017). Donahaye, G. (2010). Preface. In Guy Donahaye and Eddie Stern (eds.), Guruji: A Portrait of Sri K. Pattabhi Jois Through the Eyes of His Students. New York, NY: North Point Press, pp.xvii–xxix. Donahaye, G. (2019). Ahimsa? Practice with Pattabhi Jois – Pain and Injury. 1 January 2019. Available at: https://www.ashtangayoga.nyc/pattabhi-jois/2019/8/14/ahimsapractice-with-pattabhi-jois-pain-and-injury (accessed March 2019). Duane Morris. (2019). Re: Manouso Manos. 12 March 2019. Available at: https://iynaus. org/sites/default/files/march_12_2019_from_mm_lawyers.pdf (accessed August 2019). Dunham, J. (2010). Joseph Dunham. In Guy Donahaye and Eddie Stern (eds.), Guruji: A Portrait of Sri K. Pattabhi Jois Through the Eyes of His Students. New York, NY: North Point Press, pp.339–347. Eisenstadt, S.N. (1995). Power, Trust and Meaning. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Eliade, M. (1981). Autobiography: Journey East, Journey West (1907–1937). San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row. Eliade, M. (1988[1934]). L’Inde. Mayenne: Les Editions de L’Herne. Eliade, M. (1990[1954]). Yoga: Immortality and Freedom. Translated from French by William R. Trask. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ezrin, S. (n.d.). Why I Had to Break-Up with Ashtanga Yoga. Available at: http://sarahezrinyoga.com/why-i-had-to-breakup-with-ashtanga/ (accessed May 2020). Farhi, D. (2019). The Case of Manos: When Women Become Permissible Collateral Damage. 8 April 2019. Available at: https://www.donnafarhi.co.nz/manouso-manos/ (accessed March 2020). Finke, R. (2004). Innovative Returns to Tradition: Using Core Teachings as the Foundation for Innovative Accommodation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43(1), pp.19–34. Fish, A. (2006). The Commodification and Exchange of Knowledge in the Case of Transnational Commercial Yoga. International Journal of Cultural Property, 13, pp.189–206. Fish, A. (2014). Authorizing Yoga: The Pragmatics of Cultural Stewardship in the Digital Era. East Asian Science, Technology and Society, 8(4), pp.439–460. Flügel, P. (2003). Spiritual Accounting: The Role of the Kalyān   aka Patra in the Religious . Economy of the Terāpanth Śvetāmbara Jain Ascetics. In Olle Qvarnström (ed.), Jainism and Early Buddhism: Essays in Honor of Padmanabh S. Jaini (Part I). [s.l.]: Asian Humanities Press, pp.167–204. Folan, L.M. (1976[1972]). Lilias, Yoga and You. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Fornaro, R. (1969). Sivananda and the Divine Life Society. High Wycombe: University Microfilms.

202  Bibliography Fortini, A. (2009). Ommm Sweaty. New York Magazine, 6 February 2009. Forsthoefel, T.A. and Humes, C.A. (eds.) (2005). Gurus in America. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Foxen, A. (2020). Inhaling Spirit: Harmonialism, Orientalism, and the Western Roots of Modern Yoga. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Frost, B. (1991). Old Temptations in a New Age. West, 26 May 1991. Frederick News Post. (2006). Obituary for Marianne ‘Sita’ Frenkel. 21 May 2006. Gandhi, S.N.D. (2009). Translating, Practicing and Commodifying Yoga in the US. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Florida. Gauci, M. (2018). Why I Left the Mysore Community in 1999 – My Statement. 17 May 2018. Available at: https://chintamaniyoga.com/why-i-left-the-mysore-community-in1999-my-statement/ (accessed July 2018). Gautam, A. and Droogan, J. (2018). Yoga Soft Power: How Flexible Is the Posture? The Journal of International Communication, 24(1), pp.18–36. Ghurye, G.S. (1953). Indian Sadhus. Bombay: Popular Book Depot. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gilgoff, N. (n.d.). Ashtanga as It Was (The Long and the Short of It). Available at: http:// www.ashtangamaui.com/articles-by-nancy (accessed November 2013). Gilgoff, N. (2010). Nancy Gilgoff. In Guy Donahaye and Eddie Stern (eds.), Guruji: A Portrait of Sri K. Pattabhi Jois Through the Eyes of His Students. New York, NY: North Point Press, pp.24–40. Gleig, A. and Flores, C.I. (2014). Remembering Aurobindo and the Mother: The Forgotten Lineage of Integral Yoga. In Mark Singleton and Ellen Goldberg (eds.), Gurus of Modern Yoga. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp.38–59. Gold, D. (1999). Nath Yogis as Established Alternatives: Householders and Ascetics Today. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 34, pp.68–88. Gold, D. (2005). Epilogue: Elevated Gurus, Concrete Traditions and the Problems of Western Devotees. In Thomas A. Forsthoefel and Cynthia Ann Humes (eds.), Gurus in America. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp.219–225. Goldberg, M. (2016). The Goddess Pose: The Audacious Life of Indra Devi. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf. Gorringe, H. (2010). The New Caste Headman? Dalit Movement Leadership in Tamil Nadu. In Pamela Price and Arild Engelsen Ruud (eds.), Power and Influence in India: Bosses, Lords and Captains. London and New York: Routledge, pp.119–143. Gough, E.K. (1956). Brahman Kinship in a Tamil Village. American Anthropologist, 58(5), pp.826–853. Gregoire, C. (2013). How Yoga Became a $27 Billion Industry – And Reinvented American Spirituality. Huffington Post, 16 December 2013. Gross, R.L. (2001[1992]). The Sadhus of India: A Study of Hindu Asceticism. Jaipur: Rawat Publications. Gyan, S.C. (1980). Sivananda and His Ashram. Bangalore, Karnataka: Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society. Gyanshakti Saraswati, Swami. (1977). Ashrams Around the World: Bogota School of Yoga. Yoga Magazine, September 1977. Harris, M. (1998). A Special Case of Voluntary Associations? Towards a Theory of Congregational Organization. British Journal of Sociology, 49(4), pp.602–618. Hasselle-Newcombe, S. (2005). Spirituality and “Mystical Religion” in Contemporary Society: A Case Study of British Practitioners of the Iyengar Method of Yoga. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 20(3), pp.305–321.

Bibliography  203 Hauser, B. (2018). Following the Transcultural Circulation of Bodily Practices: Modern Yoga and the Corporeality of Mantras. In K. Baier, P.A. Maas and K. Preisendanz (eds.), Yoga in Transformation. Göttingen: V&R Press, pp.507–528. Hayes, G.A. (2003). Metaphoric Worlds and Yoga in the Vais   n Sahajiyā Tantric .    ava . Traditions of Medieval Bengal. In Ian Whicher and David Carpenter (eds.), Yoga: The Indian Tradition. London and New York: Routledge-Curzon, pp.162–184. Heesterman, J.C. (1957). The Ancient India Royal Consecration: The Rājasūya Described According to the Yajus Texts and Annotated. S-Gravenhage: Mouton and Co. Heesterman, J.C. (1963). Tradition in Modern India. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, 119(3), pp.237–253. Hinduism Today. (1999). Divine Life Society’s Rising Star: The Charismatic Swami Adhyatmananda. November 1999. Hoppe, B. and Reinelt, C. (2010). Social Network Analysis and the Evaluation of Leadership Networks. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, pp.600–619. Hoyez, A.C. (2007). The ‘World of Yoga’: The Production and Reproduction of Therapeutic Landscapes. Social Science and Medicine, 65(1), pp.112–124. Hoyez, A.C. (2017). From Rishikesh to Yogaville: The Globalization of Therapeutic Landscapes. In Allison Williams (ed.), Therapeutic Landscapes. London: Routledge, pp.49–64. Huffer, A.J. (2011a). Hinduism Without Religion: Amma’s Movement in America. Cross Currents, 61(3), pp.374–398. Huffer, A.J. (2011b). Backdoor Hinduism: A Recoding in the Language of Spirituality. Nidan: Journal for the Study of Hinduism, 23, pp.53–71. Humes, C.A. (2005). Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: Beyond the TM Technique. In Thomas A. Forsthoefel and Cynthia Ann Humes (eds.), Gurus in America. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp.55–80. Iyengar, B.K.S. (1965). Light on Yoga. London: Allen and Unwin. Iyengar, B.K.S. (1982). Interviewed by Carol Cavanagh. Yoga Journal, July–August 1982, pp.30–37. Iyengar, B.K.S. (1990). Light on Pranayama: The Yogic Art of Breathing. London: Allen and Unwin. Iyengar, B.K.S. (1993). Light on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. London: Aquarian/Thorson. Iyengar, B.K.S. (2000). Interviewed by Mark Tully on 7–8 April 1999 at RIMYI, Pune. Omnibus, BBC, November 2000. Iyengar, B.K.S. (2001[1987]). Iyengar: His Life and Work. New Delhi: CBS Publishers. Iyengar, B.K.S. (2005). Light on Life: The Yoga Journey to Wholeness, Inner Peace and Ultimate Freedom. Pennsylvania: Rodale International Ltd. Iyengar, B.K.S. (2007a[2000]). Aṣṭadaḷa Yogamālā, Vol. 1. New Delhi: Allied Publishers. Iyengar, B.K.S. (2007b). Interviewed by A. Rao on 24 October 2007 at RIMYI in Pune. Talk Asia, CNN, Part 2. Iyengar, B.K.S. (2009[2004]). Iyengar Yoga Association Constitution Guide. Pune, India: RIMYI. Iyengar, B.K.S. (2014[2006]). Aṣṭadaḷa Yogamālā, Vol. 6. New Delhi: Allied Publishers. Iyengar, G. et al. (2018). Letter from Geeta, Prashant and Abhijata Iyengar to IYNAUS on 15 November 2018. Available at: https://iynaus.org/sites/default/files/rimyi_letter_to_ iynaus.pdf (accessed May 2020). IYNAUS. (2016). Iyengar Yoga National Association of the United States Byelaws. Available at: https://iynaus.org/sites/iynaus_files/pages/IYNAUS-Bylaws-updatedapproved-July-2016.pdf (accessed September 2016).

204  Bibliography IYNAUS. (2018). Letter from IYNAUS Board of Directors to Geeta, Prashant and Abhijata Iyengar on 27 November 2018. Available at: https://iynaus.org/sites/default/files/iynaus_ board_response_to_rimyi_letter_of_november_27_2018.pdf (accessed May 2019). IYNAUS. (2019). Amendments to the IYNAUS Bylaws Approved by the Executive Council on Feb. 4, 2019. Available at: https://iynaus.org/sites/default/files/2019_ revised_bylaws_with_edits_in_header_31.pdf (accessed June 2020). IYNAUS. (2020). Clarifying Statement in Response to Manouso Manos and His Lawyers. Available at: https://iynaus.org/clarifiying-statement-response-manouso-manos-and-his-lawyers (accessed June 2020). IY(UK). (2012). Iyengar Yoga (UK) Ltd Teachers’ Handbook. IY(UK). (2015). Standing Orders of Iyengar Yoga (UK) Ltd. 29 April 2015, pp.1–61. IY(UK). (2020). Training to Teach. Available at: https://iyengaryoga.org.uk/iy-uk/teacher-training/ (accessed July 2020). Jackson, C.T. (1994). Vedanta for the West: The Ramakrishna Movement in the United States. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Jackson, M. (2009). Interviewed by S. Piser on 29th December 2009 in Sydney. Available at: http://writeon-yoga.com/articles/?tag=martyn-jackson (accessed January 2016). Jain, A. (2012). Branding Yoga: The Cases of Iyengar Yoga, Siddha Yoga and Anusara Yoga. Approaching Religion, 2(2), pp.3–17. Jain, A. (2014). Who Is to Say That Modern Yoga Practitioners Have It All Wrong? On Hindu Origins and Yogaphobia. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 82(2), pp.427–471. Jain, A. (2015). Selling Yoga: Counterculture to Pop Culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Jain, A. (2020a). Self-Love Club: Yoga, Abuse, and Neoliberal Feminism. Abuse in Yoga and Beyond Conference, Webinar, 13 June 2020. Jain, A. (2020b). Peace, Love and Yoga: The Politics of Global Spirituality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Jambunathan, R. (1938). Yoga Asanas, Illustrated. Madras: Sowcarpet. Jepsen, C. (2005). Pattabhi Jois Returns to New York City. July–August 2005. Available at: http://www.yogachicago.com/jul05/jois.shtml (accessed July 2016). Jepsen, C. (2008). Guruji in Florida! A Detailed Account. 27 May 2008. Available at: http://mysore.blogspot.qa/2008_05_01_archive.html (accessed August 2016). Johnson, S. (c.2016). Continuing the Research to Keep Ashtanga Yoga Alive: An Interview with Anthony Prem Carlisi. Available at: https://www.stillpointyogalondon.com/interview-with-anthony-prem-carlisi/ (accessed May 2020). Jois, K.P. (1973). Yoga – Diploma Course: Syllabus and Examination. Typed Instructions for 4 Series of Postures: Primary, Intermediate, Advanced A and Advanced B. Given to Nancy Gilgoff in Mysore by Pattabhi Jois. Jois, K.P. (1995). From Our Readers: Ashtanga vs. Power Yoga. Yoga Journal, Issue 125, p.6. Jois, K.P. (1999[1962]). Yoga Mala. New York, NY: Eddie Stern. Jois, K.P. (2004). 3 Gurus, 48 Questions: Interviewed by Alexander Medin in 2004 in Chennai. Namarupa, 3(2), pp.6–18. Jois, K.P. (2005). Suryanamaskara. [s.l.]: [s.n.]. Jois, Saraswathi. (2007). Interviewed by L. Lalér, L and B. Brundell in August 2007 in Mysore, Karnataka. Jois, Saraswathi. (c.2014). Saraswati Ashtanga in the Temple of Fine Arts, Kuala Lumpur. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjTKzeqpLjg (accessed January 2016).

Bibliography  205 Jois, Sharath. (2010). Foreword. In Pattabhi Jois (ed.), Yoga Mala. New York, NY: North Point Press, pp.xiii–xiv. Jones, C.A. and Ryan, J.D. (2007). Encyclopaedia of Hinduism. New York, NY: Facts on File Inc. Jones, S. (2015). Interviewed by Pimm Fox. Bloomberg, 16 January 2015. Kadetsky, E. (2004). First There Is a Mountain: A Yoga Romance. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. Kaivalyananda Saraswati, Swami. (1999). Reminiscences. Yoga Magazine, July 1999. Kaminoff, L. (2012). Reaction to the Anusara Situation and the Idea of the Guru. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1qD0_ewm-s&feature=youtube_gdata_player (accessed December 2014). Khandelwal, M. (2004). Women in Ochre Robes: Gendering Hindu Renunciation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Klepinger-Mathew, L. (2015). The Site and Meaning of Globalized Yoga: A Case Study on the Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres. Available at: https://globalsouthasia.syr.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2014/06/KlepingerMathew_Yoga1.pdf (accessed February 2017). Krishna, G. (1995). The Yogi: Portraits of Swami Vishnu-Devananda. New Delhi: New Age Books. Krishnamacharya, T. (1938). 45-Minute Silent News Reel. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML9yZd7bIvY (accessed June 2011). Krishnamacharya, T. (c.1941). Yogāsanagulu. Mysore, Karnataka: University of Mysore. Krishnamacharya, T. (1984). The King and the Young Man. Kalaimagal. Translated by Bert Franklin and S. Venkataraman. Available at: https://yogastudies.org/wp-content/ uploads/The_King_and_the_Young_Man.pdf (accessed June 2020). Krishnamacharya, T. (2011[1934]). Yoga Makaranda: The Nectar of Yoga. Chennai: Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram. Krishnan, A. (2011). Indian Yoga Icon Finds Following in China. The Hindu, 21 June 2011. Krishnananda Saraswati, Swami. (2000). Swami Sivananda: A Modern Sage. Shivanandanagar, India: The Divine Life Society. Kumar, V. (2014). Padma Vibhushan for BKS Iyengar, R.A. Mashelkar. The Hindu, 25 January 2014. Kuvalayananda, Swami. (1933). Popular Yoga, Vol. 1. Bombay: Kaivalyadhama, Lonavla. Kuvalayananda, Swami. (1935). Popular Yoga, Vol. 2. Bombay: Kaivalyadhama, Lonavla. KYM. (2006). A Tribute to TKV Desikachar. Chennai, India: Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram. Available at: http://kym.org/tribute/TKVD%20Tribute.pdf (accessed February 2016). KYM. (2009). KYM International Yoga Teacher Training Program: Prospectus. Chennai, India: Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram. Landers, P. (1997). Yoga Anyone? Ancient Postures Find Their Place in the 90s. Philadelphia Daily News, 31 December 1997, p.22. Lasater, J.H. (1995). California Yoga Teachers Association Code of Professional Standards. Yoga Journal, Issue 125, November–December 1995. Lea, J. (2009). Liberation or Limitation? Understanding Iyengar Yoga as a Practice of the Self. Body and Society, 15(3), pp.71–92. Leitsinger, M. (2018). #MeToo Unmasks the Open Secret of Sexual Abuse in Yoga. KQED, 7 September 2018. Available at: https://www.kqed.org/news/11690316/metoounmasks-the-open-secret-of-sexual-abuse-in-yoga (accessed January 2019). Leviton, R. (1990). Yoga in America: How the Swamis Came to the States. Yoga Journal, Issue 91, March–April 1990, pp.40–56, 119–128.

206  Bibliography Leviton, R. (1993). Celebrating 100 Years of Yoga in America. Yoga Journal, Issue 110, May–June 1993, pp.67–71. Lewis, J.R. and Lewis, S.M. (2009). Introduction. In James R. Lewis and Sarah M. Lewis (eds.), Sacred Schisms: How Religions Divide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1–8. Liberman, K. (2008). The Reflexivity of the Authenticity of Hatha Yoga. In Mark Singleton and Jean Byrne (eds.), Yoga in the Modern World: Contemporary Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge, pp.100–116. Life, D. (2001). My Guru, My Self. Yoga Journal, April–May 2001, pp.73–76. Lofland, J. and Stark, R. (1965). Becoming a World-Saver. American Sociological Review, 30, pp.862–875. Lucas, A. (2016). Why the Abused Don’t Speak Up? Yoga City. Available at: https://www. yogacitynyc.com/single-post/2016/03/07/Why-The-Abused-Dont-Speak-Up (accessed June 2018). Lucia, A. (2014a). Innovative Gurus: Tradition and Change in Contemporary Hinduism. International Journal of Hindu Studies, 18(2), pp.221–263. Lucia, A. (2014b). Reflections of Amma: Devotees in a Global Embrace. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Lucia, A. (2018). Guru Sex: Charisma, Proxemic Desire, and the Haptic Logics of the Guru-Disciple Relationship. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 86(4), pp.953–988. McCall, T. (2003). Western Science versus Eastern Wisdom. Yoga Journal, January– February 2003, pp.88–93, 170–173. McConnell, M. (2016). Letters from the Yoga Masters. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books. McKean, L. (1996). Divine Enterprise: Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. McLean, B. (2012). Whose Yoga Is It, Anyway? Vanity Fair, April 2012. MacGregor, K. (n.d.). Ashtanga Yoga – Accountability, Acceptance and Action in the Arena of Sexual Appropriateness and Hands-On Assists. Available at: https://www. kinoyoga.com/ashtanga-yoga-accountability-acceptance-action-arena-sexual-appropriateness-hands-assists-kino-macgregor/ (accessed June 2020). Madan, T. (1987). Non-Renunciation. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Maddox, C.B. (2014). Studying at the Source: Ashtanga Yoga Tourism and the Search for Authenticity in Mysore, India. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 13(4), pp.330–343. Maehle, G. (2007). Ashtanga Yoga: Practice and Philosophy, Novato, CA: New World Library. Maehle, G. (2019). An Apology of Sorts from Sharath Jois. 13 July 2019. Available at: https:// chintamaniyoga.com/an-apology-of-sorts-from-sharath-jois/ (accessed September 2019). Maimaris, D. (2007). In Conversation with Jeanne Maslan. Iyengar Yoga News, Issue 11, Summer 2007, pp.10–14. Malinar, A. (2011). Sampradaya. In Knut A. Jacobsen, Helene Basu, Angelika Malinar and Vasudha Narayanan (eds.), Brill’s Encyclopaedia of Hinduism. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, pp.156–164. Mallinson, J. and Singleton, M. (2017). The Roots of Yoga. London: Penguin Books. Mangalwadi, V. (1977). The World of Gurus. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House. Manouso, M. (2019). Letter of Resignation. 8 March 2019. Available at: https:// static1.squarespace.com/static/57c223111b631b53bee5be4b/t/5c8309db9b747a5e7a3e61b1/1552091649493/March+8%2C+2019+letter.pdf (accessed January 2020).

Bibliography  207 Maréchal, C. (1989a). Guru-Shishya, Père et Fils: Interview de TKV Desikachar. Viniyoga, 24, pp.20–26. Maréchal, C. (1989b). Enseignements. Viniyoga, 24, pp.40–51. Maréchal, C. (1989c). La Demarche du Yoga: Interview de Shri T. Krishnamacharya par Claude Maréchal. Viniyoga, 24, pp.76–79. Mayer, J.F. (1993). Les Nouvelles Voies Spirituelles. Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme. Medin, A. (2008). Sri K. Pattabhi Jois and The Ashtanga Yoga Research Institute. Available at: http://www.ashtanga.com/html/article_medin_alex.html (accessed September 2011). Medin, A. (2011). Interviewed by D. Crooks in 2010 (Winter) in Mysore. Elephant Journal. Mehta, S., Mehta, M. and Mehta, S. (1990). Yoga the Iyengar Way. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf Inc. Meister, M. (1990). Asceticism and Monasticism as Reflected in Indian Art. In Austin B. Creel and Vasudha Narayanan (eds.), Monastic Life in the Christian Traditions. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, pp.219–244. Melton, J.G. (1991). Introduction: When Prophets Die: The Succession Crisis in New Religions. In Timothy Miller (ed.), When Prophets Die: The Postcharismatic Fate of New Religious Movements. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp.1–12. Melton, J.G. (1992[1977]). Religious Bodies in the United States. New York, NY: Routledge. Melton, J.G. (2010). International Yoga Fellowship Movement. In J.G. Melton and M. Baumann (eds.), Religions of the World. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, pp.1483–1484. Melton, J.G. (2014[1977]). Religious Bodies in the U.S.A. New York, NY: Routledge. Merchasin, C. and Pankhania, J. (2020). Project SATYA: Interim Investigation Report 1. June 2020. Miller, D. (1980). Religious Institutions and Political Elites in Bhubaneswar. In Susan Seymour (ed.), The Transformation of a Sacred Town: Bhubaneswar, India. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp.83–96. Miller, D. (1981). The Divine Life Society Movement. In Robert Baird (ed.), Religion in Modern India. Columbia: South Asia Publications, pp.81–112. Miller, D. (1999). Modernity in Hindu Monasticism: Swami Vivekananda and the Ramakrishna Movement. In K. Ishwaran (ed.), Ascetic Culture: Renunciation and Worldly Engagement. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, pp.111–126. Miller, D.M. and Wertz, D.C. (1976). Hindu Monastic Life: The Monks and Monasteries of Bhubaneswar. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Miller, T. (2010). Tim Miller. In Guy Donahaye and Eddie Stern (eds.), Guruji: A Portrait of Sri K. Pattabhi Jois Through the Eyes of His Students. New York, NY: North Point Press, pp.64–83. Mlecko, J.D. (1982). The Guru in Hindu Tradition. Numen, 29(1), pp.33–61. Mohan, A.G. (2010). Krishnamacharya: His Life and Teachings. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications. Nevrin, K. (2005). Krishnamacharya’s Viniyoga: On Modern Yoga and Sri Vaishnavism. Journal of Vaishnava Studies, 14(1), pp.65–94. Nevrin, K. (2008). Empowerment and Using the Body in Modern Postural Yoga. In Mark Singleton and Jean Byrne (eds.), Yoga in the Modern World: Contemporary Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge, pp.119–139. Newcombe, S. (2007). Stretching for Health and Well-Being: Yoga and Women in Britain, 1960–1980. Asian Medicine, 3(1), pp.37–63. Newcombe, S. (2009). The Development of Modern Yoga: A Survey of the Field. Religion Compass, 3(6), pp.986–1002.

208  Bibliography Newcombe, S. (2011). Timeline – Modern Yoga in Britain. Available at: http://modernyogaresearch.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/UKYogaTimelineJune2011.pdf (accessed May 2012). Newcombe, S. (2014). The Institutionalization of the Yoga Tradition: “Gurus” BKS Iyengar and Yogini Sunita in Britain. In Mark Singleton and Ellen Goldberg (eds.), Gurus of Modern Yoga. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp.147–167. Newcombe, S. (2020). Yoga in Britain. Bristol: Equinox. Newcombe, S. and Deslippe, P. (Forthcoming). Anglophone Yoga and Meditation Outside of India. In Suzanne Newcombe and Karen O’Brien-Kop (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Yoga and Meditation Studies. London: Routledge. Nichter, M. (2013). The Social Life of Yoga: Exploring Transcultural Flows in India. In Beatrix Hauser (ed.), Yoga Traveling: Bodily Practice in Transcultural Perspective. Cham and New York: Springer, pp.201–224. Nichter, M. (1990a). From the Desk of Swami Niranjan: March 1989. Yoga Magazine, January 1990. Nichter, M. (1990b). Mantra and Karma Sannyas (Satyam School of Yoga, St. Albans, NSW, Australia, 22.5.1988). Yoga Magazine, July 1990. Nichter, M. (1993). The Mission. Yoga Magazine, July 1993. Nichter, M. (1997). Preparation for Initiation (Ganga Darshan, December 1995). Yoga Magazine, July 1997. Nichter, M. (1999). Health, Harmony and Peace (Australia, February 1999). Yoga Magazine, November 1999. Nichter, M. (2000). The Growth of Satyananda Yoga or Bihar Yoga. Yoga Magazine, January 2000. Nichter, M. (2001). Sannyasa (Lecture in Munger, 8th December 2000). Yoga Magazine, July 2001. Nichter, M. (2005[1993]). Sannyasa Darshan. Deoghar: Sri Panchdashnam Paramahamsa Alakh Bara. Nichter, M. (2010). To Inspire – Rikhia 2010: Satsang. Available at: http://www.satyananda.net/articles/to-inspire--rikhia-2010 (accessed August 2012). Nichter, M. (2012). Three Year Plan. Yoga Magazine, May 2012. Olivelle, P. (1981). Contributions to the Semantic History of Sam     nyāsa. Journal of the . American Oriental Society, 101(3), pp.265–274. Olivelle, P. (1984). Renouncer and Renunciation in the Dharmasastras. In Richard W. Lariviere (ed.), Studies in Dharmaśāstra. Calcutta: Firma KLM, pp.81–152. Olivelle, P. (1995). Rules and Regulations of Brahmanical Asceticism. New York, NY: SUNY Press. Olivelle, P. (2008). Orality, Memory and Power: Vedic Scriptures and Brahmanical Hegemony in India. In V.L. Wimbush (ed.), Theorizing Scriptures: New Critical Orientations to a Cultural Phenomenon. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, pp.214–219. Olivelle, P. (2011). Ascetics and Brahmins: Studies in Ideologies and Institutions. London: Anthem Press. Ortega, B. (1991). Yoga Ashrams of India: A Traveler’s Guide. Yoga Journal, Issue 97, March–April 1991, pp.63–69. Padmanaban. (1953). Swami Sivananda, His Life, Mission and Message in Pictures. Rishikesh, Uttarakhand: Yoga Vedanta Forest University. Padnis, M. (2015). Institute at Bellur to Keep Iyengar Yoga Legacy Alive. Available at: http://punemirror.indiatimes.com/pune/civic/Institute-at-Bellur-to-keep-Iyengar-yogalegacy-alive/articleshow/48547121.cms (accessed April 2016).

Bibliography  209 Pankhania, J. and Hargreaves, J. (2017). Culture of Silence: Satyananda Yoga. The Luminescent, 22 December 2017. Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and Process in Modern Societies. New York, NY: John Wiley. Patchen, N. (1989). Journey of a Master: Swami Chinmayananda. Bombay: Central Chinmaya Mission Trust. Paul, R. (1981). Swami Radha. Yoga Journal, September–October 1981, pp.26–30. Pechilis, K. (ed.) (2004). The Graceful Guru: Hindu Female Gurus in India and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Perez-Christiaens, N. (2012[1976]). Sparks of Divinity: The Teachings of BKS Iyengar from 1959–1976. Berkeley, CA: Rodmell Press. Persson, A. (2007). Intimate Immensity: Phenomenology of Place and Space in an Australian Yoga Community. American Ethnologist, 34(1), pp.44–56. Persson, A. (2010). Embodied Worlds: A Semiotic Phenomenology of Satyananda Yoga. Royal Anthropological Institute, 16(4), pp.797–815. Pocock, D.F. (1973). Mind, Body and Wealth: A Study of Belief and Practice in an Indian Village. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Prescott, S. (2014). My Teacher, Mr. Iyengar: A Former Pupil Remembers the Yoga Master. The Guardian, 22 August 2014. Prince, J. (1983). Yoga in England: Part 3. Yoga Journal, Issue 53, November 1983, pp.9–11. Rain, K. (2018a). Responding to Kino MacGregor’s Statements on Pattabhi Jois. 27 April 2018. Available at: https://decolonizingyoga.com/responding-to-kino-macgregors-­ sttatetments-on-pattabhi-jois-by-karen-rain/ (accessed February 2019). Rain, K. (2018b). Yoga Guru Pattabhi Jois Sexually Assaulted Me for Years. 9 October 2018. Available at: https://gen.medium.com/yoga-guru-pattabhi-jois-secually-­assaultedme-for-years-48b3d04c9456 (accessed February 2019). Ramaswami, S. (c.1980). About Sri. T. Krishnamacharya, My Guru. Available at: http:// www.yogastudies.org/wp-content/uploads/S_Ramaswami_About_TK.pdf (accessed May 2016). Rawlinson, A. (1997). Book of Enlightened Masters. Chicago, IL: Open Court. Reed, M. (2006). Organizational Theorizing: A Historically Contested Terrain. In Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, Tom Lawrence and Walter R. Nord (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies. London: SAGE Publications, pp.19–54. Relton, K. (2005). Obituary: Howard Kent. The Guardian, 24 February 2005. Remski, M.D. (2019). Practice and All Is Coming: Abuse, Cult Dynamics, and Healing in Yoga and Beyond. Rangiora, New Zealand: Embodied Wisdom Publishing. Richards, J. (2010). Institutes: Or, What Happened to the Regions? Iyengar Yoga News, Issue 16, Spring 2010. Rosen, N. (2008). Interview of BKS Iyengar. Enlighten Up! A Skeptic’s Journey into the World of Yoga [Video]. Directed by Kate Churchill. Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J. and Decker, S. (2014). Research Strategies for Organizational History: A Dialogue Between Historical Theory and Organization Theory. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), pp.250–274. Royal Commission. (2016). Case Study 21: Satyananda Yoga Ashram. Available at: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-studies/case-study-21-satyananda-yoga-ashram (accessed April 2020). Royal Commission. (2016a). Report of Case Study no.21. April 2016. Royal Commission. (2016b). Statement of Bhakti Manning (STAT.0424.001.0001R). Royal Commission. (2016c). Submissions of Yoga Association Mangrove Mountain (SUBM.1021.005.0234_R). Royal Commission. (2016d). Statement of Shishy (STAT.046.001.00001_R).

210  Bibliography Royal Commission. (2016e). Written Submission on Behalf of the Bihar School (SUBM.1021.006.0002). Ruiz, F.P. (2001). Krishnamacharya’s Legacy. Yoga Journal, Issue 160, May–June 2001, pp.96–101, 161–168. Ruiz, F.P. (2007). Krishnamacharya’s Legacy: Modern Yoga’s Inventor. Yoga Journal, 28 August 2007. Sadānanda Giri, Swami. (1976). Society and Sannyāsin: A History of the Dasnāmī Sannyāsins. Varanasi, India: S.S. Giri. Sahoo, A.K. (2005). Hinduism in the Diaspora. Social Change, 35(1), pp.71–82. Sargent, B. (2019). Executive Summary of the Report of Investigation of Manos Manouso. Available at: https://iynaus.org/sites/default/files/redacted_executive_summary_of_ the_report_of_investigation_of_manouso_manos_-_march_25_2019_redacted.pdf (accessed April 2020). Sastri, K.S.R. (1948). The Gospel of Sivananda. Rishikesh, Uttarakhand: Sivananda Publication League. Satchidananda Saraswati, Swami. (1976). The Guru of the World: Talk by Satchidananda. Yoga Magazine, September 1976. Satwalekar, D. (n.d.). Vaidika Vyakhyana Mala, Vol. 1. [s.l.]: Pārad     ī     d . Svādhyāya Man .     ala. . Satwalekar, D. (1969). Asana, Pranayama, Mudra, Bandha. Munger, Bihar: Bihar School of Yoga. Satwalekar, D. (1974). Yoga from Shore to Shore: A Collection of Lectures Given by Swami Satyananda Saraswati in Many Different Countries During His World Tour of 1968. Munger, Bihar: Bihar School of Yoga. Satwalekar, D. (1975). Sannyasa Tantra. Munger, Bihar: Bihar School of Yoga. Satwalekar, D. (1981). Swami Sivananda Saraswati. Yoga Magazine, September 1981. Satwalekar, D. (1983). My Life in Rishikesh: Swami Satyananda Saraswati (Speech at the Divine Life Society Branch in Madras, February 1982). Yoga Magazine, July 1983. Satwalekar, D. (1984a[1982]). Teachings of Swami Satyananda Saraswati, Vol. II. Munger, Bihar: Bihar School of Yoga. Satwalekar, D. (2002a). Sayings of a Paramahamsa. Yoga MagazineJanuary 2002. Satwalekar, D. (2002b[1969]). Asana, Pranayama, Mudra, Bandha. Munger, Bihar: Yoga Publications Trust. Satwalekar, D. (2006[1965]). International Yoga Fellowship Movement (Talk at the First International Yoga Convention on 1–7 November 1964). Yoga Magazine, July 2006. Satwalekar, D. (2009[1976]). Yoga Nidra. Munger, Bihar: Bihar School of Yoga. Satwalekar, D. (2011[1982]). My Guru, Swami Sivananda (Lecture at Sivanandashram, Munger, October 1982). Yoga Magazine, November–December 2011. Satwalekar, D. (2013). A Vision Manifests. Yoga Magazine, January 2013. Satwalekar, D. (1984b). Karma Sannyasa. Bihar, India: Bihar School of Yoga. Sawhney, I.S. (2019). Sharath Jois. The Hindu, 21 January 2019. Scott, L. (2017). Musings from Mysore (Practice at the KPJAYI). 10 January 2017. Available at: https://www.lottiescott.com/single-post/2017/01/10/Musings-fromMysore-Practice-at-the-KPJAYI (accessed July 2020). Scott, W.R. (2003). Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Selznick, P. (1996). Institutionalism “Old” and “New”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), pp.270–277. Sen Gupta, A. (2008). Being BKS Iyengar: The Enlightened Yogi of Yoga (22 June 2008). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQMv7nb4HLU (accessed February 2013).

Bibliography  211 Sewell, W.H. (1996). Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology. In Terrence J. McDonald (ed.), The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Shafritz, J.M., Ott, J.S. and Jang, Y.S. (2015). Classics of Organization Theory. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Shah, A.M. (2006). Sects and the Hindu Social Structure. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 40(2), pp.209–248. Sharma, A. (1992). Ancient Hinduism as a Missionary Religion. Numen, 39(2), pp.175–192. Sharma, A. (2011). Hinduism as a Missionary Religion. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Sharma, L.K. (1993). London Calling: Importing Yoga. The Times of India, 12 September 1993, p.10. Sharma, S. (2013). BKS Iyengar: Body and Soul. Available at: http://www.livemint.com/ Leisure/HwPySZf2iADJ9Zi2FHPGAI/BKS-Iyengar-Body-and-soul.html (accessed June 2015). Shivani, S., Mukherjee, S.K. and Sharan, S. (2006). Socio-Cultural Influences on Indian Entrepreneurs: The Need for Appropriate Structural Interventions. Journal of Asian Economics, 17, pp.5–13. Shivapremananda Saraswati, Swami. (2005). An Insight into Yoga. Rishikesh, Uttarakhand: The Divine Life Society. Sill, J. (2019). Swami Shivapremananda Obituary. The Guardian, 17 October 2019. Sinclair-Brull, W. (1997). Female Ascetics: Hierarchy and Purity in an Indian Religious Movement. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press. Singh, A. (2017). Two State Doyens Among Padma Awardees. The Times of India, 26 January 2017. Singh, J.V., Tucker, D.J. and House, R.J. (1986). Organizational Legitimacy and the Liability of Newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(2), pp.171–193. Singleton, M. (2010). Yoga Body: The Origins of Modern Posture Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Singleton, M. (2013). Transnational Exchange and the Genesis of Modern Postural Yoga. In Beatrix Hauser (ed.), Yoga Traveling: Bodily Practice in Transcultural Perspective. Cham and New York: Springer, pp.37–56. Singleton, M. and Fraser, T. (2014). T. Krishnamacharya, Father of Modern Yoga. In Mark Singleton and Ellen Goldberg (eds.), Gurus of Modern Yoga. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.83–106. Singleton, M., Narasimhan, M. and Jayashree, M.A. (2012). Yoga Makaranda of T. Krishnamacharya. In David Gordon White (ed.), Yoga in Practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.337–352. Sinha, S. and Saraswati, B. (1978). Ascetics of Kashi: An Anthropological Exploration. Varanasi: N.K. Bose Memorial Foundation. Siva-Gyan. (1950). Biography of Swami Sivananda. Anandakutir, Rishikesh: The Sivananda Publication League. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (1925a). A Pocket Dictionary of Vedantic, Metaphysical and Theological Terms, Sanskrit-English. Calcutta: N.R. Press. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (1925b). Philosophy of the Mind. Dehra Dun: Dehra Times Press. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (1929). Practice of Yoga: Various Practical Methods in Yoga and Meditation, Vol. I. Madras: Ganesh and Co. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (1933). Practice of Yoga, Vol. I, 2nd edn. Madras: Ganesh and Co. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (1934). Yoga Asanas. Madras: Ganesh and Co.

212  Bibliography Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (1935). Yoga Asanas, 2nd edn. Madras: P.K. Vinayagam. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (1936). Yoga in Daily Life. Amritsar, Punjab: [s.n.]. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (1938). Practical Lessons in Yoga, 1st edn. Lahore: Motilal Banarsidass. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (1947). Essence of Yoga. Rishikesh, Uttarakhand: Sivananda Publication League. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (1951). Sivananda’s Lectures: All-India and Ceylon Tour in 1950. Rishikesh, Uttarakhand: Sivananda Publication League. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (1957). Practical Guide for Students of Yoga (with 100 Illustrations): Compiled with Yogic Poses by Swami Vishnudevananda. Hong Kong: The Divine Life Society. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (1962). Yoga Asanas, 12th edn. Shivanandanagar, India: Yoga Vedanta Forest Academy. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (1963[1947]). Necessity for Sannyasa, 2nd edn. Shivanandanagar, India: Yoga Vedanta Forest Academy. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (1997[1938]). Practical Lessons in Yoga. Shivanandanagar, India: The Divine Life Society. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (1998[1958]). God Exists. Shivanandanagar, India: The Divine Life Society. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (2004[1957]). Guru-Bhakti Yoga. Rishikesh, Uttarakhand: The Divine Life Society. Sivananda Saraswati, Swami. (2011[1958]). Autobiography of Swami Sivananda, 10th edn. Rishikesh, Uttarakhand: Yoga Vedanta Forest Academy. Sivananda-Radha Saraswati, Swami. (1981). Radha, Diary of a Woman’s Search. Porthill, ID: Timeless Books. Sjoman, N.E. (1999[1996]). The Yoga Tradition of the Mysore Palace. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications. Smith, B.R. (2004). Adjusting the Quotidian: Ashtanga Yoga as Everyday Practice. Cultural Studies Association of Australia Conference. Perth: Cultural Studies Association of Australia, pp.1–17. Smith, B.R. (2007). Body, Mind and Spirit? Towards an Analysis of the Practice of Yoga. Body and Society, 13(2), pp.25–45. Smith, B.R. (2008). “With Heat Even Iron Will Bend”: Discipline and Authority in Ashtanga Yoga. In Mark Singleton and Jean Byrne (eds.), Yoga in the Modern World: Contemporary Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge, pp.140–160. Smith, F. and White, J. (2014). Becoming an Icon: BKS Iyengar as a Yoga Teacher and a Yoga Guru. In Mark Singleton and Ellen Goldberg (eds.), Gurus of Modern Yoga. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.122–146. Springston, R. (1986). Peace Swami’s Vision of Love Blooms Under the Lotus. Richmond Times, 27 June 1986, p.1. Srinivas, T. (2010). Winged Faith: Rethinking Globalization and Religious Pluralism Through the Sathya Sai Movement. New York, NY: Colombia University Press. Srivatsan, M. (1997). Śrī Krishnamacharya the Pūrnācārya. Chennai: KYM. Stephan, K. (2004). Memories of Mr. Iyengar Abroad (1972–1976). Yoga Samachar, 8(1), Spring–Summer 2004. Stern, E. (2006). The Yoga of Krishnamacharya. Narumpa, Issue 5, pp.85–93. Stern, E. (2010a). Foreword. In Pattabhi Jois, (ed.), Yoga Mala. New York, NY: North Point Press, pp.xv–xx. Stern, E. (2010b). Preface. In Guy Donahaye and Eddie Stern (eds.), Guruji: A Portrait of Sri K. Pattabhi Jois Through the Eyes of His Students. New York, NY: North Point Press, pp.xi–xvi.

Bibliography  213 Stern, E. and Summerbell, D. (2002). K. Pattabhi Jois: A Tribute. New York, NY: Eddie Stern. Stinchcombe, A.L. (1965). Social Structure and Organizations. In James G. March (ed.), Handbook on Organizations. Chicago, IL: Rand MacNally, pp.142–193. Strang, D. and Soule, S.A. (1998). Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements: From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, pp.265–290. Strauss, S. (2000). Locating Yoga: Ethnography and Transnational Practice. In Vered Amit (ed.), Constructing the Field. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.162–194. Strauss, S. (2002a). Swamiji: A Life in Yoga. In Linda S. Walbridge and April K. Sievert (eds.), Personal Encounters in Anthropology: An Introductory Reader. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp.180–184. Strauss, S. (2002b). The Master’s Narrative: Swami Sivananda and the Transnational Production of Yoga. Journal of Folklore Research, 39(2–3), pp.217–241. Strauss, S. (2005). Positioning Yoga: Balancing Act Across Cultures. Oxford: Berg. Strauss, S. (2008). Adapt, Adjust, Accommodate: The Production of Yoga in a Transnational World. In Mark Singleton and Jean Byrne (eds.), Yoga in the Modern World. London and New York: Routledge, pp.49–73. Stukin, S. (2005). Yogis Gather Around the Guru. Los Angeles Times, 10 October 2005. Sugarman, A. (2001). One Month at the Mandiram. 11 September 2001. Available at: https://www.iayt.org/page/OneMonthMandiram (accessed March 2018). Swenson, D. (1999). Ashtanga Yoga: The Practice Manual. Austin, TX: Ashtanga Yoga Productions. Swenson, D. (2010). David Swenson. In Guy Donahaye and Eddie Stern (eds.), Guruji: A Portrait of Sri K. Pattabhi Jois Through the Eyes of His Students. New York, NY: North Point Press, pp.84–106. Syman, S. (2010). The Subtle Body: The Story of Yoga in America. New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. The Hindu. (2010). Poses and Postures. 20 April 2010. The Telegraph. (2002). Swami Satchidananda. 22 August 2002. The Telegraph. (2014). BKS Iyengar – Obituary. 20 August 2014. The Times of India. (1950). Swami Sivananda in Bombay: Advice to People. 27 October 1950, p.3. The Times of India. (1953). Films of Yogic Exercises. 31 January 1953, p.10. The Times of India. (1956). Benefits of Yoga Exercises: Polish Pianist’s Praise. 9 August 1956, p.5. The Times of India. (1963a). Engagements for Today. 9 January 1963, p.7. The Times of India. (1963b). Yoga Centre Opened. 21 January 1963, p.9. The Times of India. (1972). Vishwa Hindu Parishad Conference. 6 October 1972, p.7. The Times of India. (1993). Towards a Silent Revolution. 4 July 1993, p. A3. Time. (2004). The 2004 TIME 100. Available at: http://content.time.com/time/specials/ packages/completelist/0,29569,1970858,00.html (accessed October 2010). Toffin, G. (2011). Brotherhood and Divine Bonding in the Krishna Pranami Sect. In Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka and Gérard Toffin (eds.), The Politics of Belonging in the Himalayas. New Delhi: SAGE Publications, pp.144–166. Tolbert, P. and Zucker, L. (1983). Institutional Sources of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Service Reform, 1880–1935. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(1), pp.22–39. Trepkau, J.C. (2010). In Memory of a Great Soul: Joseph Dunham. 16 June 2010. Available at: http://livingbreathingyoga.blogspot.com/2010/ (accessed March 2020). Turner, V.W. (1957). Schism and Continuity in an African Society: A Study of Ndembu Village Life. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

214  Bibliography UGC. (1999). Report of the University Grants Commission Expert Committee Which Visited ‘Bihar Yoga Bharati’, Munger, to Consider Its Proposal for the Grant of ‘Deemed to Be University Status’ Under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956, on 28–29 April 1999 and June 1999. Van der Veer, P. (1988). Gods on Earth. London and Atlantic Highlands, NJ: The Athlone Press. Van der Veer, P. (2001). Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in India and Britain. Oxford: Princeton University Press. Vandana, Sister. (1980[1978]). Gurus, Ashrams, and Christians. Madras: Diocesan Press. Varenne, J. (1989[1976]). Yoga and the Hindu Tradition. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Varman, R. (2018). Postmodernism and Critical Marketing. In Mark Tadajewski et al. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Critical Marketing. London and New York: Routledge. Venkatesananda Saraswati, Swami. (1956). Sivananda’s Integral Yoga. Shivanandanagar, India: The Divine Life Society. Venkatesananda Saraswati, Swami. (1957). All About Sivananda. Shivanandanagar, India: The Divine Life Trust Society. Venkatesananda Saraswati, Swami. (1998a[1957]). All About Sivananda. Shivanandanagar, India: The Divine Life Trust Society. Venkatesananda Saraswati, Swami. (1998b[1980]). Sivananda Yoga: A Series of Talks. Shivanandanagar, India: The Divine Life Trust Society. Venkatesananda Saraswati, Swami. (2005[1961]). Inspiring Talks of Swami Sivananda. Shivanandanagar, India: The Divine Life Society. Venkatesananda Saraswati, Swami. (2006[1985]). Sivananda: Biography of a Modern Sage: Life and Works of Swami Sivananda. Shivanandanagar, India: The Divine Life Society. Vijayananda. (1978). In the Steps of Yogis. Translated from French by Violet Khazoum. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Vishnudevananda Saraswati, Swami. (1959). The Complete Illustrated Book of Yoga. New York, NY: Bell Publishing Co. Warrier, M. (2005). Hindu Selves in the Modern World: The Mata Amritanandamayi Mission. London: Routledge-Curzon. Weber, M. (1978[1922]). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Weick, K.E. (1969). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. White, D.G. (2009). Sinister Yogis. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. White, D.G. (2012). Yoga in Practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. White, D.G. (2014). Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: A Biography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wildcroft, T.R. (2018). Patterns of Authority and Practice Relationships in “Post-Lineage Yoga”. Ph.D. Thesis, Open University. Wilford, A.C. (2007). Cage of Freedom: Tamil Identity and the Ethnic Fetish in Malaysia. Singapore: NUS Press. Wilkinson-Priest, G. (2013). Does Authorization Matter? Elephant Journal. Available at: http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/11/does-authorization-matter-genny-wilkinson-priest/ (accessed February 2016). Wilkinson-Priest, G. (2018). Sexual Assault in the Ashtanga Yoga Community: A Mea Culpa. Yoga Journal, 13 November 2018.

Bibliography  215 Williams, C.V. (2004). Jiddu Krishnamurti: World Philosopher (1895–1986): His Life and Thoughts. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Williamson, L. (2013a). Swamis, Scholars and Gurus: Siddha Yoga’s American Legacy. In Ann Gleig and Lola Williamson (eds.), Homegrown Gurus. New York, NY: SUNY Press, pp.87–114. Williamson, L. (2013b). Transcendent in America: Hindu Inspired Meditation Movements as New Religion. New York, NY: SUNY Press. Yoga Journal. (1984). Ultimate Freedom – A 60-Minute Videotape (Advertisement). Issue 57, July–August 1984, p.14. Yoga Journal. (1988). Viniyoga America: A Seminar with TKV Desikachar. Issue 78, January 1988, p.67. Yoga Life. (2001). International Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Center. Summer 2001. Yoga Life. (2013). International Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Center. Summer 2013. Yogakanti Saraswati, Swami. (1989). Past, Present and Future: 25 Years of BSY History. Munger, Bihar: BSY. Yogakanti Saraswati, Swami, Yogamaya Saraswati, Swami and Yogawandana Saraswati, Swami (eds.) (2009a). Mandate and Accomplishment: Past, Present and Future, Vol. I: 1962–1983. Munger, Bihar: Sivananda Math. Yogakanti Saraswati, Swami. (2009b). Mandate and Accomplishment: Past, Present and Future, Vol. II: 1984–2008. Munger, Bihar: Sivananda Math. Young, J.W. (2006). Passing on a Tradition of Teaching: A Naturalistic Study of Yoga Therapy at the Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram. Chennai: Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram. YouTube: DLS. (n.d.). Master Sivananda, Rishikesh and His Final Day. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWa9Z-kGgLY&t=60s (accessed February 2015). Zald, M.N. and Ash, R. (1966). Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay and Change. Social Forces, 44(3), pp.327–341. Zucker, L.G. (1977). The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence. American Sociological Review, 42(5), pp.726–743.

Index

abuse allegations 190–192; in Ashtanga Yoga 149, 173–176; in Iyengar Yoga 118, 140–144, 148n102; in Satyananda Yoga 71, 90–93, 98n87; in Sivananda Yoga (SYVC) 63–64, 68n45, 68n46; in Viniyoga 112–113 accreditation 1, 60–65, 68n37, 109–110, 124–126, 156–157, 160–168, 180n62, 187–190, 192–193; absence of 39, 63, 106, 185–186; for formal recognition 7, 106, 109, 124, 132, 161; of Indian nationals 65, 126, 160; (and) popularisation 61–63, 94, 115, 124–125, 183, 187, 189–190; standards 62, 109, 187, 193 acculturation 2, 121, 136, 182 Adhyatmananda, Swami 31, 45n99 adjustments (to postures) 102, 135, 140, 150–151, 158, 173–176, 181n95 adult education 124–125 Africa 13, 34, 65, 73; see also South Africa; Kenya Akhandananda, Swami 73, 90–92 Alter, Joseph 11n12, 15, 20, 42n35, 120, 144n2, 144n5 Altglas, Veronique 36, 47n137, 54, 61, 67n24, 190 American Viniyoga Institute 10n4, 107–109, 116n22 Anusara Yoga 10n4, 174, 181n88 Argentina 54–55, 104, 178n31 Arya Samaj 28, 44n82 asanas (postures) 99–100, 110, 184–185; demonstrations of 22, 50, 100–102, 119–120, 123–124, 150, 153, 195, 179n51; filming of 21, 101, 124, 133, 152; importance of 37–39, 89, 187, 195; practice of 17, 37–38, 42n28, 79, 120, 138, 158, 163, 177n10, 180n78;

publications on 4, 18–21, 42n34, 42n36, 72, 74, 104, 120, 122–123, 152, 195; teaching of 13, 18, 38–39, 42n28, 63, 73–74, 89, 100–103, 105, 107, 116n12, 121, 125, 132, 134, 145n21, 150–153, 170, 180n78 ascetics 6, 11n23, 12n27, 26–28, 37, 41n7, 173; social organisation of 8, 12n24, 12n26, 44n63, 82, 84–85; see also sannyasa (renunciation) ashram(s) 40, 54, 56, 60, 158; Kailash Ashram 14; residents 17, 24, 27, 30, 37, 44n78, 77, 80; Satyananda Yoga 67n30, 70–72, 74–77, 79–81, 85–93, 94n10, 96n39, 97n72, 98n85; Sivananda Ashram (Rishikesh) 14–17, 21–24, 32, 35, 37, 41n12, 52, 56–57, 69, 94n5, 195; Swarg Ashram 14, 26, 41n10, 41n11; (of the) SYVC 54, 57, 65; visitors to 28–29, 37, 71–72, 75, 79–80, 94n2, 116n19, 153; Yogaville 54, 61 Ashtanga Yoga 149–177, 187; abuse allegations 149, 173–176; grassroots supporters 149, 165–169, 176, 190; importance of parampara (lineage) 8, 77, 163, 169–170; Jois family 128, 154, 158, 167, 172–173, 177, 180n73, 190; organisational issues 60, 96n38, 156–159, 164–166, 172–176; organisation of 127–128, 152–161, 172–173, 180n67; posture practices 36–37, 120, 150–152, 177n10; practice in Mysuru 153, 158–160; representation and hubs of practice 65, 153–154, 160–162, 180n67, 187; ritual standardisation (of practice) 107, 171; trademarks 172–174, 178n29, 178n30, 178n31, 178n32

Index  217 Asia 7, 9n1, 10n3, 11n10, 13, 18, 35, 40, 44n63, 50, 61, 65, 67n17, 70, 73, 85, 104, 109–110, 126, 131, 135, 160, 162, 182–183, 187; see also individual country listings Atmarupa, Swami 90 Australasia 4, 13, 61, 65, 109–110, 126, 133, 162 Australia 10n5, 49, 54, 66n2, 72–73, 81, 87–92, 95n24, 97n78, 98n85, 98n86, 98n90, 106, 114, 124, 137, 145n17, 165, 178n24, 191; Sydney 50, 66n2, 86, 90, 98n87, 166 Austria 56, 95n23, 112, 114, 117n46 authenticity 82–85, 97n61, 117n37, 157, 159, 180n72, 192 authoritarianism 92, 158 authority: Brahmanical 8; challenges to 59, 141–142, 144, 156, 168, 170, 177, 190, 192, 193; charismatic 30, 41n2, 45n93, 114, 124; delegation of 40, 61–62, 74, 109, 115, 118, 135–136, 143–144, 163, 185, 190, 195; of gurus 30, 118, 132–133, 135, 143, 158, 163, 169, 171; organisational 27–28, 31, 88, 163, 185; of published teachings 101, 147n73; rational–legal (bureaucratic) 30, 137, 142, 148n103 Aveling, Harry 10n5, 71, 79, 83, 91, 97n84, 98n85 Bahamas 57–58, 61 Bahrain 33 Barnard, Theo 123 Bartos, Hannah 11n14, 20, 41n4, 42n19, 44n81, 66n4, 68n35, 73, 81, 117n34, 126, 141, 147n88, 172, 177n1, 180n77, 186, 194, 196n6 Belgium 73, 111, 116n27, 145n17 Bellur Krishnamachar Sundararaja Iyengar Yoga Teachers Association (BKSIYTA) 129 Bender Birch, Beryl 170, 175 bureaucratic organisation 6–7, 30, 45n93, 71, 76, 93, 114, 128, 134, 137, 139, 142, 147n78, 148n103, 166, 172, 180n78, 189, 195 Bhagavad Gita 8, 79, 96n46, 152 Bihar School of Yoga (BSY) 5, 69–94, 188–189, 94n2, 95n32; abuse allegations 71, 90–93, 98n87; see also Royal Commission (Australia); adaptation of inherited practices 28, 80–85, 193; designation as a university 74–75, 95n26; diffusion of teachings

85–88; organisational issues 77–78, 88–93; organisation of 28, 52, 70–72, 74–77, 95n27, 95n28, 95n33; publications 72, 74, 79; recruitment 78–80; tours 73, 86, 90, 123–124; training courses 73–75; yoga nidra 72, 88–89, 92, 95n18 Bikram Yoga 68n52, 102, 107, 139, 192 Blitz, Gérard 21, 116n18 Board of Trustees 30, 45n92, 63, 75, 105–106, 112, 114; see also governance brahmacharin 24, 26, 37, 44n66, 78–83 Brahmins 8, 12n24, 12n29, 13, 41n5, 46n107, 81, 99, 118, 149, 152 branches (of an organisation) 184; Ashtanga Yoga 156, 165–166; Dashanami Order 14, 44n82, 45n95; DLS 16, 23, 29–35, 43n39, 45n99, 46n107, 46n114, 50, 56–57; Iyengar Yoga 129, 131, 142; KHYF 108–109, 113; Satyananda Yoga 84, 86–87 brands 1–4, 36–37, 50, 85, 88, 91, 108, 111, 148n91, 156–157, 165–166, 170, 184, 186, 192; marketing of 52, 75, 89, 92, 99, 101, 104, 107, 114–115, 132–133, 146n60, 183, 189 Brazil 95n23, 178n23, 178n31 British Wheel of Yoga 1, 43n47, 63, 89, 97n80, 109, 113, 126, 129, 133, 139, 156, 167, 192 Bulgaria 23, 95n24 Burghart, Richard 12n24, 12n28, 12n29, 97n59 Burma 33, 52, 70 Busia, Kofi 120–121, 123–124, 144n6, 145n24, 146n45 Byrne, Jean 157, 161, 163, 179n60, 180n66, 182 Cabral, Bernadette see Yogi Sunita Canada 33, 35, 37, 43n39, 44n64, 54, 61–62, 114, 124–125, 146n62; Montreal 49, 54, 67n11, 90; Val Morin 54, 146n62 caste 8, 12n23, 17, 36, 69, 78 celibacy 8, 12n24, 26, 89 centres (of yoga practice) 3, 60, 67n28, 71–72, 79, 86–88, 91, 124, 132, 137, 158, 187, 195; absence of 127, 149, 157, 161, 165–167; data on 34, 43n61, 54, 87, 131; opening of 23, 39–40, 49–50, 54, 66n2, 71, 68n51, 86, 89–90, 104, 156, 165–166 ceremony 14, 24–26, 46n112, 77, 80–84, 97n56, 97n64, 114, 157

218  Index certificates (initiation) 26, 28, 44n80, 44n81, 82–83 certification (of yoga teachers) 8, 61–63, 75, 87, 89, 106, 109, 113, 125, 129, 135, 138, 141, 145n27, 145n32, 161, 163–164, 179n51; see also accreditation chanting 17, 25, 71, 101, 104–106, 110, 116n22, 116n32, 170 Chapple, Christopher 63 charisma 2–3, 13, 30, 35–36, 41n2, 44n83, 45n93, 59, 69, 73, 76, 78, 87, 92, 112, 114, 124, 126–127, 144, 145n20, 153, 176, 182, 184, 186, 189, 194, 196n9 Chidananda Saraswati, Swami (Sridhar Rao) 29–30, 46n105; challenges faced 31–32, 37, 39; disciples of 43n49, 46n106, 68n32; new initiatives 38–39, 47n136; in Rishikesh 24, 29–30, 45n91, 50, 67n9; travel by 46n111, 49–51, 58; VHP links 36, 46n127, 67n14 Chile 54–55 China 33, 126, 131, 145n17 Chinmayananda Saraswati, Swami (P. Balakrishna Menon) 24, 44n65, 51–54, 56, 67n13, 67n14, 67n23 Choudhury, Bikram 65, 68n52, 89 Clark, Matthew 7–8, 12n23, 24, 26, 44n63, 44n68, 46n113, 47n130, 81, 82, 84–85, 96n42, 97n62 classes (of yoga) 3, 6, 37, 90, 105–106, 111, 120, 139, 179n56; conducted by Sivananda 14, 40, 73, 195; in Communist Czechoslovakia 21; evening classes 101, 124–125, 138; at KPJAYI 152, 174, 177n4, 179n48; local classes (various geographies) 59, 73, 87–88, 132, 136, 138, 145n21, 158, 161, 167, 170–171; at Mysore Palace 150; at RIMYI 127–128, 137, 146n57, 147n87; rising participation in 108, 110, 119, 121–124; underprovision of 164–165, 167 Colombia 86–87, 89, 95n24, 97n70 commercialisation 2, 64, 99, 107, 132, 138, 182, 194 commodification 2, 63, 182, 194 community 7, 33, 73, 75, 95n27, 96n37, 107, 116n24, 158, 167; (of) ascetics 6, 11n22, 11n23, 12n23, 12n24, 26, 85; Hindu diaspora 90, 183; in the Krishnamacharya School 12n25, 129, 140, 142, 156, 167, 171, 175; sense of connection 56, 88, 105, 108, 171, 175 consumer culture 2, 85, 184

consumers (of yoga products) 1–2, 8–9, 37, 68, 78, 80, 85, 89, 110–110, 115, 165, 184, 192 copyright 42n14, 45n99, 112 Costa Rica 178n31 Cuba 49 Dashanamis (Order of) 7, 11n23, 13–14, 24, 26–28, 44n63, 44n68, 47n130, 69, 71, 78, 80, 82–85, 95n32, 95n34, 188 Data: accredited yoga teachers 60, 62, 64–65, 68n37, 68n38, 109–110, 125–126, 147n86, 160–161, 164–165, 179n56, 180n65, 181n88; country representation of yoga styles 39, 64, 73, 109–110, 123, 125–126, 131, 145n17, 154, 159, 161, 187, 196n6; income 22, 30, 39–40, 131–132, 146n57, 159; industry metrics 6, 11n15, 162 delegation 40, 61–62, 74, 109, 115, 118, 135–136, 143, 163, 165, 189–190, 195 De Michelis, Elizabeth 1–2, 10n3, 11n12, 115n7, 121, 144n6, 147n75, 169 demonstrations (of posture practice) 22, 43n48, 50, 90, 100–101, 119, 123–124, 129, 139, 149–150, 153, 179n51, 189, 195 Denmark 23, 33, 86, 95n23, 178n24 Desikachar, Kausthub 18, 99, 106, 108, 112–114, 117n44, 117n46, 133, 146n61, 190 Desikachar, Mekhala 112 Desikachar, Menaka 112–113, 146n61 Desikachar, Tirumalai Krishnamacharya Venkata (TKV) 10n2, 99, 103–109, 111–114, 115n1, 117n39, 117n40, 117n44, 146n61, 190; The Heart of Yoga 104; SKY Yoga 113; Viniyoga 104–109 Deslippe, Philippe 3–4, 43n40, 67n17, 184, 194 Devi, Indra 10n2, 102, 104, 116n18, 116n19, 116n20 devotion 91–92, 101, 105, 176, 190 Dikman, Harry 23, 33, 43n56, 43n60, 86, 192 diksha see initiation Di Maggio, P.J 111, 117n38, 196n8 Dinsmore–Tulli, Uma 71–72, 94n14, 95n18, 98n94 disciples 4, 17, 32, 82, 93, 146n47, 176, 194; BSY envoys 73–74, 86–91; divine emissaries (DLS) 48–66, 68n35; (of) Krishnamacharya 1, 10n2, 104–105,

Index  219 108, 115; (with) multiple gurus 33, 86, 192; Satyananda’s senior disciples 70, 73, 75–78, 95n32; Sivananda’s direct disciples 1, 10n2, 14, 16, 20, 23, 26, 32, 34, 41, 41n11, 43n62, 48, 63, 66n2, 69, 90, 183, 188, 192, 195 Divine Life Magazine (aka The Divine Life) 14, 16, 22, 27, 33, 41n4, 42n21, 45n98, 47n134, 49, 57, 66n4, 70, 86 Divine Life Society (The) 5, 14–17, 20–41, 58–59, 65–66, 187–188, 191–193, 196n6; economic destabilisation 39–40, 45n96, 47n142; exit of disciples 48–56; Indian nationalism 15–16, 35–36, 40, 46n127, 47n142; issues of organisation 30–41, 45n98, 45n99, 58–59, 63, 65–66, 192; network of supporters 22–23, 32–35, 43n60, 44n75, 44n77, 46n108, 46n126, 49–50, 70; organisation of 27–30, 42n16, 42n30, 45n90, 45n91, 45n92, 45n97, 46n114, 70, 73, 80, 128, 132, 187, 192; posture practice 18–20; recruitment 23–26, 29–32, 132; relevance of the Dashnami Order 27–28, 78, 80; rising conservatism 36–37, 58–59 Divine Life Trust Society (The) 14, 16, 39, 41n10, 41n13, 42n14 Divine Light Zentrum 55 Dunham, Joseph 154, 165, 178n22, 178n25 Egypt 33 entrepreneurialism 1, 56, 59, 67n17, 108, 138, 168, 184, 192 ethics 31, 117n48, 129, 140–143, 167, 174, 176, 180n78 Europe 2, 4, 43n47, 50, 54, 62, 72, 95n32, 160; followers of Sivananda 13, 21, 23, 33, 47n143, 187; geographical hubs of practice 65, 87, 106, 109–110, 124, 126, 162, 164; trademarks 37, 63, 114, 133, 139, 155; travel to 50, 54, 73, 86–87, 105, 119; yoga courses 61, 89, 108; see also individual country listings expatriates 33 fieldwork 4–5, 15, 27, 41, 68, 72, 84, 106, 141, 156, 163–164, 171, 179n48, 182, 184 films 21, 43n48, 101, 120, 124, 133, 139, 141, 148n92, 152 financing 16–17, 39, 47n143, 48, 75, 106, 110, 119, 131, 135, 137, 145n36, 146n57, 159–161, 164; donations 22,

29–30, 39, 42n22, 45n94, 46n109, 75; paid membership 16, 34, 109, 116n33, 131–132, 161; personal income (wages) 56, 79, 125, 145n23, 161; sales of merchandise 16, 20, 22, 43n41, 106, 131 Finland 73 Fish, Allison 2, 146n60 fitness 1–2, 89, 92, 100, 124, 132, 152, 184 Folan, Lilias 21, 43n49 formalisation 106, 118, 128, 134, 172–173, 195 Fornaro, Robert John 29, 35, 46n125 France 17, 21, 33, 72, 87, 95n23, 95n24, 109–111, 116n27, 121, 145n17, 178n24; legal status of SYVC 61; Paris 86–87 Freeman, Richard 170 Friend, John 89, 174, 181n88 Gandhi, Mahatma 15, 95n22 Ganges 14–15, 17, 24–25, 52, 71, 82 Gauci, Monica 165, 170, 175, 181n96 gender 17, 78, 85, 174, 190 Germany 11n10, 17, 23, 33, 35, 43n60, 44n64, 50, 54, 72, 95n23, 95n24, 111, 147n86, 178n24; geographical hub of practice 43n61, 65, 109–110 Gilgoff, Nancy 151, 153–154, 164, 167 globalisation 1–2, 40, 158, 182, 194 Gorringe, Hugo 2–3 governance 30–31, 113–114, 191; boards of 30, 63, 93, 106, 112, 114, 132, 135, 140–141, 176; in Iyengar Yoga 129–130, 135, 140–143; in Satyananda Yoga 75, 90, 93; in SYVC 63–64 governing bodies (yoga practice) 1, 6, 89, 113, 129, 167, 192; see also British Wheel of Yoga; Yoga Alliance Greece 87, 89, 95n24, 178n31 Gross, Robert Lewis 8, 12n23, 44n63, 82 Gurudevananda, Swami (Marianne ‘Sita’ Frankel). 23, 50, 67n11 guru(s) 1–5, 33, 48, 50, 52, 56–60, 63, 73, 85–87, 100, 114–115, 119–120, 126, 136, 138–139, 192–194; form of authority 30–32, 88, 93, 103, 114, 118, 132–135, 141, 163, 174–176, 192; guru organisations 3, 22, 29, 31, 47n137, 63, 130, 174; role in initiation 7–8, 24, 28, 79–82; role in organising practice 1, 9, 34, 40, 45n91, 64, 75–76, 134–135, 138–139, 141–144, 158–159, 161, 171, 173, 182–185; veneration of 92, 138, 152, 173, 175–176

220  Index guru–shishya (teacher–student relationship) 8, 117n50, 120, 136, 147n74, 152, 156, 158–160, 163, 175; power relations in 27, 63, 91, 114, 135–136, 141, 143, 176 Gyan, Satish Chandra 20, 36, 41n11, 67n9 gymnastics 100, 119–120 Haich, Elisabeth 23 Hauser, Beatrix 2, 11n11 health 18, 89, 100, 124–125, 152 hierarchy 7, 26–27, 31, 75–76, 88, 109, 114, 129–130, 135, 166–167, 185; flat hierarchy 137, 155 Hinduism 2–3, 8–9, 9n1, 11n22, 12n24, 12n28, 38, 40, 61, 92, 99–100, 190; diaspora 38, 90,183; (Neo-Hindu) organisations 15–16, 36, 38, 47n15, 52–53; reformers 2, 15–16, 37; reinterpretation of teachings 2, 8–9, 28, 59, 67n24, 80–85, 89, 183; sects 7, 24, 87, 99; shift in audience composition 8, 22, 84–85, 183; supporters 17, 38, 59 Hittleman, Richard 3, 185, 196n4 Hong Kong 43n39, 54, 73, 131 householders (non–renunciates) 8, 12n24, 34, 40, 60, 73–74, 79, 82, 96n50, 100, 188 Hoyez, Anne-Cécile 158 Hungary 178n24 Ill–health 13, 35, 46n107, 49, 101, 108, 118 India 2, 4–5, 13–16, 18, 27, 61, 64–66, 68n32, 103, 113, 126, 184, 191, 194–195; Bangalore 154, 174; Benares 14, 33, 100; Chennai 101, 105–106, 108–110, 114, 117n44, 193; Lonavla 42n35, 144n2; Mumbai 21, 45n99, 53, 70, 178n29; Munger 5, 70–73, 75–77, 81, 86, 91–94, 98n85; Mysuru 93, 99–102, 105, 115n8, 119, 127, 136–137, 149–150, 153–175, 178n25, 179n43, 180n66, 193; Pune 5, 14, 42n29, 93, 105–106, 119–120, 127–131, 135–139, 142–143, 155, 192; Rajnandgaon 70, 74; Rikhia 77, 81, 89, 94n14, 96n37, 97n73; Rishikesh 5, 13–14, 17, 24, 30–37, 41n7, 42n24, 48–56, 67n9, 69–74, 86, 94n5, 121, 127, 153, 161, 187, 195; shift in government economic policy 30, 39–40, 45n96; trademarks 68n43, 88, 91, 114, 155, 178n29, 179n31; travel to 17, 33, 37, 54, 71–74, 86, 104, 106, 128, 137, 153–154, 157–160

Indian nationalism 15–16, 36, 40, 67n14, 67n15, 101 Indian students (of posture practice) 140, 175–176 Indonesia 54, 73 Initiation (diksha) 7, 12n26, 16, 28, 60–61, 117n50; absence of 109, 114, 158–159; adaptation of 78, 80–85, 89, 97n59, 97n64, 188; BSY rites 78–85, 87–89, 97n56; Dashanami rites 11n23, 14, 23–28, 44n73, 78, 83–85; DLS rites 23–28, 36, 44n63, 44n64, 44n67, 44n71, 45n84, 47n137, 50–55, 60, 69; mantra diksha 24, 81, 87, 97n56; by post 23–24, 48, 83 injuries (arising from posture practice) 140, 175–176, 181n96 institutionalisation 7, 29, 79, 85, 93, 99, 108–109, 115, 128–130, 163, 183, 185–186, 188–189 Integral Yoga 21, 36–37, 39, 53–54, 61–62, 72, 88, 94, 145n27, 164, 187–188 International Yoga Fellowship Movement (IYFM) 52, 70, 88, 94n1, 94n7, 94n8, 98n90 Ireland 95n24, 178n24; Belfast 86 International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) 47n137, 63 Iran 33 Israel 95n24, 124 Italy 89, 111, 145n17, 178n31 Iyengar, Amma 119, 123, 127 Iyengar, Bellur Krishnamachar Sundararaja (BKS). 5, 10n2, 13, 35, 69, 89, 94n3, 104–106, 118–143, 144n1, 147n74, 189, 193, 195; approach to organisation (vs. Pattabhi Jois) 149, 152; early life 8, 118–120; grassroots supporters 127–129; Iyengar family 93, 127–128, 130, 133, 137, 139–140, 142–143, 192; Light on Yoga 20–21, 72, 103, 123, 147n77, 152; Sivananda 33, 35, 40, 120–121; tours 90, 119, 123–124, 126, 138, 143, 144n4, 145n17; training yoga teachers 124–126, 145n27, 145n30, 186 Iyengar, Geeta 20–21, 94n2, 121–123, 128–130, 133, 137–138, 141, 146n40, 147n71 Iyengar, Prashant 123, 127, 133, 146n40, 147n71 Iyengar Yoga 2, 37, 60, 118–144; abuse allegations 118, 140–144, 148n102; appeal 119, 123, 152; constraints on growth 137–143; criticism of practice

Index  221 139–140; National Associations 93, 128–132, 134–137, 139–144, 147n69, 147n71, 148n90, 155, 161, 191–192; organisation of 93, 105, 108, 124–140, 146n51, 146n55, 149, 152, 155, 161, 168, 176; posture practice 120–122; regulation of 134–137, 140–142, 191; trademarks 88, 132–133, 139, 146n64, 148n92, 192; training of teachers 62, 65, 109–110, 124–126, 138, 160, 187, 189 Iyengar Yoga National Association of the US (IYNAUS) 140–143, 147n71, 148n100, 176 Iyengar Yoga (UK) 128–133, 137, 141, 146n44 Jain, Andrea 64, 89, 91, 101, 117n37, 132, 146n60, 174, 183, 190, 193, 196n7 Jambunathan, M.R. 4 Janakananda, Swami 86 Japan 95n23, 95n24, 124, 145n17, 178n24 Jivamukti Yoga 10n4, 153 Jois, Krishna Pattabhi 10n2, 93, 99, 149–156, 163–169, 177n4, 177n11, 190; abuse allegations 144, 173–176, 191; collaborations 156–157, 165, 178n20; early life 8, 149–150; organisation of practice 104–105, 127, 149–161, 169–170; succession from 171–173; teachings 104, 120, 150–153, 169; tours 90, 153–154, 165, 172, 174–175, 178n24, 178n25; Yoga Mala 152, 178n15 Jois, Manju 153–154, 167–168, 173, 180n73 Jois, Saraswathi 154–155, 159, 177n3, 179n43 Jois, Sharath 8, 152–159, 169–170, 174–176, 180n74; as leader 77, 154, 160, 163–167, 172–173, 181n85; trademarks 155–156, 178n29 Jois, Sharmila 154, 174 Jois Yoga (aka Sonima Foundation) 156–157, 165–166, 180n68, 180n70 Jyotirmayananda Saraswati, Swami 10n2, 51, 54, 67n18 Kaminoff, Leslie 106, 116n26 Kenya 23, 145n17 Krishnamacharya Healing Yoga Federation (KHYF) 108–110, 112–114, 116–117, 146n61 Krishnamacharya, Tirumalai 1, 4, 18, 40, 48, 66, 99–112, 114–115, 119–121, 188;

(and) BKS Iyengar 120–121, 144n4, 144n9, 195; disciples of 1, 8, 48, 104, 108–109, 111–112, 115, 119–120, 149–150; early life 8, 99–101, 115n1, 115n5, 119; organisations in his name 105–113, 189–190; prominence of asanas 38, 110–111; (and) Pattabhi Jois 149–151, 177n3; Yoga Makaranda 18, 102–103, 113, 116n15, 120, 152 Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram (KYM) 105–106, 108, 112–114, 116n27, 116n28, 117n44, 146n61 Krishnamurti, Jiddu 66n1, 105, 116n23 Krishnananda Saraswati, Swami (Subbaraya) 19, 32, 34, 39, 46n105, 60, 121 Krishna Pattabhi Jois Ashtanga Yoga Institute (KPJAYI) 60, 93, 150, 166–169, 180n62, 180n74, 190–191; atmosphere 158; failings 144, 163–165, 176–177, 190–191; operation of 127–128, 153–157, 159, 161–164, 170, 172, 174–175, 179n60, 180n66, 180n78 Kuvalayananda, Swami (Jagannath Ganesh Gune) 20, 42n35, 42n36, 104, 118, 123, 144n2 labour 21, 23, 26–27, 29, 71, 79–80, 155, 178n28, 187; see also recruitment leadership 3, 35, 37, 71, 76, 89, 108, 112, 154–155, 165–166; conflicts with 30–32; justification for 77, 111, 172–173; oversight of 30, 63, 114, 127 lineage 8, 12n25, 41n5, 56, 82, 109, 115, 143, 163, 169–170, 180n76, 183, 192–193; Dashanami 11n23, 76, 78, 101; family (blood) 77, 111–112, 114, 139, 148n91, 168, 172–173; proliferation of 48, 183; sound lineage 77, 173; see also parampara Lloyd, Gill 105, 108, 116n24 Lucas, Anneke 174 Lucia, Amanda 92, 158, 176 Maddox, Caillie Batts 157, 159 Maehle, Gregor 167, 170, 175, 181n93 Mahesh, Maharishi 58 Malaysia (inc. British Malaya) 14–16, 34, 42n16, 46n117, 49–50, 54, 66n2 Mallinson, James 101, 116n10, 155 Manning, Bhakti 91–92 Manos, Manouso 140–143, 145n30, 148n101, 176 mantra 24–26, 81–82, 97n56, 116n32

222  Index Ma Yoga Shakti 70, 73, 76, 95n23, 96n54 McKean, Lise 17, 21, 26, 31, 36, 67n14, 67n15 meditation 14, 17–18, 24, 72, 79, 82, 104–105, 116n22 membership 7, 43n47, 44n74, 116n33, 161, 194; absence of 78, 109, 141, 161; (of the) Dashanami Order 28, 44n63, 80; (of the) DLS 14, 16, 29, 32, 34, 44n66, 45n87, 46n126, 47n129; (in) Iyengar Yoga 131–132, 135, 137, 139–142, 146n58, 147n70 Menuhin, Yehudi 119 Mexico 33, 49, 133, 178n31 middle classes 17, 44n76, 46n126, 68n33, 85 Middle East 13; see also Iran Miller, Tim 160–161, 177n11, 178n14, 179n51 mode of association 7, 31, 60, 78, 88, 109, 132, 155, 185; see also accreditation; initiation; membership modern yoga practice 1–2, 6, 9n1, 10n3, 10n7, 182–196; characteristics of 64, 85, 106, 108, 121, 124, 132, 136–137, 145n35, 152, 165, 169, 184–187, 194; key contributors 40, 60, 65–66, 93–94, 99, 101, 104, 109, 114–115, 149, 187–192, 195 Mohan, Angarai Ganesha 101, 103, 105, 112, 115n1, 117n50 Mysore Palace 100–101, 119, 150 Netherlands 33, 95n23, 95n24, 178n24 network(s) 2, 6, 9, 91, 93, 98n85, 129, 155, 182, 192; (of) ascetics 28; formal networks 66, 75, 80, 86–88, 112–113, 116n27, 118, 127, 130–131, 134–135, 138, 149, 165, 180n78, 188–189; informal networks 167–168, 171; of Sivananda’s supporters 33–34, 40, 50–52, 61, 65–66, 68n51 Nevrin, Klas 101, 105, 116n22, 158, 171, 182, 192 Newcombe, Suzanne 2, 5, 43n40, 43n47, 46n110, 67n30, 120, 123–124, 128, 139, 144n6, 145n15, 145n18, 145n24, 147n72, 147n80, 148n91, 182, 185–186, 194 New Zealand 95n24, 124, 178n24 Niranjanananda Saraswati, Swami 69, 72, 74, 76–88, 90–92, 94n2, 95n33, 96n36, 96n39, 96n48, 96n50, 96n51, 97n82 Nixon, G.C. 33, 46n110

North America 4, 11n10, 13, 37, 60, 62, 65, 67n17, 87, 89–90, 106–110, 116n22, 117n42, 119, 126, 134, 162, 164, 184–185, 187; see also Canada; US Norway 23, 73, 86, 178n24 Olivelle, Patrick 8, 11n22, 12n23, 12n28, 12n29, 26, 81, 85 Omkarananda Saraswati, Swami 10n2, 49, 51, 55, 56, 67n28 organisation(s) 6–7, 11n16, 11n19, 11n21; basic features in MYP 177n1, 184–185, 194–195; culture in 7, 27, 76, 92–93, 112, 127, 136, 142–143, 169–173, 175–176, 186, 189, 191; expulsion (from) 30–31, 71, 144, 192; isomorphism 111, 194, 196n8 Padma Bhushan 19, 69, 92 Padma Vibhushan 94n3, 144n1 Padmanabhananda Saraswati, Swami 32, 45n91, 46n107 parampara (lineage) 8, 12n25, 77–78, 163, 169–170, 180n76, 180n78, 193; see also lineage Parsons, Talcott 6 patents see copyright see trademarks patriotism 15–16, 36, 53; see also Indian nationalism patronage 16–18, 29, 36, 48, 56, 70, 94n2, 101, 103 Pechilis, Karen 2 Perez–Christiaens, Noelle 119 Persson, Asha 87, 182 Peru 178n31 Philippines 73 Pierschel, Eric 23 Poland 95n23 popularisation (of posture practices) 1–2, 66, 128, 137, 150, 156, 188; acceleration of 85, 103, 108, 162; barriers to 106–107; contributing factors 88, 91, 103–104, 108, 118, 121, 149–150, 166, 169, 171, 184, 190, 194–195 Portugal 178n31 posture practice see asanas (postures) Powell, W.W. 111, 117n38, 196n8 power 167, 181; abuses of 63–64, 91–92, 114, 139–140, 175–176; asymmetries of 27, 114, 141, 143, 158, 176, 190–192; delegation of 40, 61–62, 74, 109, 115, 118, 135–136, 143–144, 163, 185, 190, 195; loss of (relative) power 59–60,

Index  223 115, 168, 187–188, 191–192; within organisations 32, 39, 76, 129–130, 135, 141–142, 163 Power Yoga 162, 165, 170 Pragyamurti Saraswati, Swami (Laya Garady) 74, 83, 87–88, 95, 96n54 Pranavananda Saraswati, Swami (N. Ponniah) 34, 44n80, 49–50, 57 pranayama (breathing exercises) 17–18, 21–22, 37–39, 42n28, 63, 89, 102–103, 105, 116n22, 120, 144n9, 145n21, 150, 152, 195 professionalisation 7, 173, 183, 194 props (aids to practice) 102, 120–121, 132, 151 publication 16, 18–22, 31, 58, 72, 76, 92, 103–104, 106, 122–123, 133, 143, 152–153, 167, 189, 195, 196n9 qualifications 1, 41n6, 60, 62, 100, 109, 125, 129, 141, 147n67, 161, 163–164, 166, 168 racism 119, 174, 190 Radha Centres 54 Rain, Karen 173–174 Rajah of Aundh 20 Ramakrishna Mission 15, 27–28, 35, 42n16, 44n82, 54, 78, 84 Ramamani Iyengar Memorial Yoga Institute (RIMYI) 105, 127–132, 135, 137, 139–140, 142–143, 144n10, 145n38, 146n39, 147n79, 147n87, 148n90, 155, 192 Ramamohan Brahmachari 100, 103, 115n6, 116n16 Ramaswami, Srivatsa 101, 103, 105, 112 Ranganantha, Lakshmi 112 recruitment 7, 23–24, 78, 84, 93, 104, 111, 115, 125, 188, 195; of ascetics 26–27, 41, 78–80, 104, 188; of Indian Hindus 35, 44n76; of supporters (laity) 16, 22, 39, 48–49, 73, 76, 131–132; of teachers 61, 64, 89, 109, 124–125, 161–162; (of) volunteers 80, 86, 106, 124, 131–132; success at 35, 64, 66, 68n34, 94, 118, 124, 153, 161–162, 187, 190 regulations 7, 12n23, 27–28, 45n89, 71, 78, 86, 88, 133–134, 136, 140, 147n69, 172, 185–186 religion 2, 14, 17–18, 36, 60, 78, 110–111, 184, 194; congregation 61, 105, 116n24; deemphasis of 61, 89, 94, 110–111, 122, 157, 187, 189; prominence of 8, 88–89, 128, 133, 172, 180n70, 188–189, 193

Remski, Matthew 68n46, 148n95, 174, 181n93, 181n95 renunciation see sannyasa Rikhiapeeth 71–72, 76–77 Royal Commission (Australia) 81, 90–92, 97n80 rules 7–8, 12n23, 71, 89, 185; (in the) DLS 16, 26–27, 30–31, 42n30, 44n67, 44n72, 45n88, 45n89; (in) Iyengar Yoga 108, 130, 132–134, 136–137, 141, 147n77; (in the) KHYF 108; (in the) KPJAYI 155–156, 158–159, 168–173, 178n33, 179n41, 180n77, 180n78; (in) Satyananda Yoga 71, 78–79, 83–84, 88 Russia 23, 33, 43n60, 72, 178n24 Sahaja Yoga 134 Sakharov, Boris (aka Sacharow) 23, 43n57 sampradaya (religious sect) 6–8, 11n22, 11n23, 27–28, 178 Sandow, Eugene 20 sangha (community) 105, 116n24 sannyasa (renunciation) 7–8, 11n22, 11n23, 24, 41n8, 96n36, 163, 188–189, 193; adaptation of 25, 27–28, 60–61, 64, 78–85, 88–89, 93, 193; jignasu 78–82, 85, 96n46; karma sannyasa 78–83, 85, 87, 96n48, 96n50; (in) modern yoga organisations 24–28, 30–31, 34–37, 43n52, 44n64, 44n67, 44n80, 49–52, 60–61, 69, 73–74, 77–85; poorna sannyasa 71, 78–83, 87, 96n49, 96n50; women 26, 47n130, 54, 85 Satchidananda Saraswati, Swami (C.K. Ramaswamy Gounder) 4, 10n2, 187–188, 195; life post Rishikesh 51, 53–54, 57–58, 61–63, 88, 90, 94, 104, 164; in Rishikesh 35, 37, 49, 53; teacher accreditation 39, 61–63, 106, 125, 145n27; trademarks 37, 54; Yogaville 54, 61 satsang 27, 37, 71 Satyananda Saraswati, Swami 4, 8, 10n2, 28, 51–53, 69–84, 86–94, 96n36, 96n39, 97n70, 104, 106, 123, 125, 188–189, 191, 195; Asana, Mudra, Pranayama, Bandha 72, 74; early life 69–70, 94n4, 94n5, 95n22; Paramhamsa 44n80, 83–84, 95n34 Satyananda Yoga see Bihar School of Yoga (BSY) Satyasangananda Saraswati, Swami 76–77, 79, 81–82, 84, 95n34 schism 5, 57–59, 66, 77, 107, 139, 174, 177, 188, 191

224  Index Schwab, Heinrich (Swarupananda) 23 secularity 38, 61, 89, 110, 122, 170, 182, 189, 193–194 Self–Realization Fellowship 15, 43n56, 84 seva (selfless service) 26–27, 71, 96n48 Shaivism 7–8, 14, 24, 41n5, 69 shala (room for practice) 100–101, 150, 154, 158–160, 172, 175, 179n45, 179n48, 180n77 Shamash, Liliane 33 Shivapremananda Saraswati, Swami (Sukhendu Ranjan Ray) 10n2, 51, 54–55, 67n27 Siddha Yoga 47n137, 67n24 Singapore 14, 66n2, 86, 178n24 Singleton, Mark 4, 10n3, 11n11, 18, 99–101, 103–104, 108, 111, 115n1, 116n10, 116n12, 144n5, 155 Sivananda–Magarita, Swami 33 Sivananda–Radha Saraswati, Swami (Sylvia Hellman) 10n2, 21, 23, 44n64, 51, 54 Sivananda Sarada, Swami (Charlotte Walinski–Heller) 33 Sivananda Saraswati, Swami (Kuppuswarmy Iyer) 1, 4, 13–41, 41n5, 47n128, 48–50, 99, 118, 120–121, 183, 187–188, 194–195; All–India Tour 22, 35, 120; approach to organisation (vs. Satyananda) 80, 82–84, 86; approach to organisation (vs. BKS Iyengar) 122, 127–128, 132, 134, 137; approach to organisation (vs. Pattabhi Jois) 152, 160; cancellation of the Global Tour 35, 40, 49, 187; Dashanami Order 13–14, 24, 26–28, 44n63, 44n68, 47n130, 76; disciples of 14, 16, 23, 26, 34, 41, 43n62, 48–66, 68n35, 69, 90, 183, 188, 192, 195; early life 13–14, 41n6, 41n7; health issues 35, 49; letter writing 23–24; posture practices 14, 17–20, 37–38, 42n28, 42n34, 42n36, 47n131, 123; Practice of Yoga 18–20, 42n34, 95n17, 195; tours 16, 22, 35, 40, 41n13, 42n19, 43n50, 43n52, 47n135, 48–49 Sivananda Yoga (SYVC) 36–37, 40, 60, 89, 94, 133, 160, 188 Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centers (SYVC) 39, 60–65, 67n30, 68n35, 68n51, 94, 138, 146n62, 147n84, 164, 165, 187, 191 Sjoman, Norman E. 11n12, 100 Society of Yoga Practitioners (The) 113, 117n49

South Africa 34, 49–50, 57, 87, 124, 145n17, 145n32 South America 4, 13, 55, 61, 65, 72, 87, 187; see also individual country listings Spain 72, 87, 95n24, 95n32, 178n24, 178n31, 178n32 specialisation 27, 31, 36, 88, 155, 185 spirituality 1, 15, 48; Eastern forms of 2, 35, 52, 63, 124–125, 184 Sribhashyam, T.K. 111, 117n39 Sridhar, Abhijata 139 Sri Lanka 22, 46n110, 52–54 Srivatsan, Mala 100–101, 111, 115n1 standardisation 50, 62, 89, 106, 134, 163, 171 Strauss, Sarah 11n10, 14, 32, 37, 47n133, 49–50, 55, 58, 63, 67n25, 67n28, 120, 182–183 succession 5, 29–30, 77–78, 101, 138, 171–173, 177, 181n84, 190, 207 Suryaprakash Saraswati, Swami 76–77, 95n32, 95n33 Swaroopananda, Swami 71, 94n10 Sweden 23, 95n24, 178n24 Switzerland 17, 23, 33, 43n47, 55–56, 104, 111, 116n27, 145n17, 178n24 systematisation 7, 76, 85, 158, 184–185, 189–190; of posture practice 18–20, 37, 39–40, 72, 88, 101–103, 120–122, 124, 143, 150–152; of training courses 107, 115, 125, 138, 144, 195 teacher training courses 1–2, 43n61, 145n36, 183, 185–190, 195; absence of 39, 157, 163, 165–166, 185; in Ashtanga Yoga 157, 163–168, 170, 178n33, 180n66; in Integral Yoga 61–63, 145n27; in Iyengar Yoga 124–125, 131, 138, 144; in Satyananda Yoga 71–75, 89, 92; in the SYVC 39, 61–63, 138; in Viniyoga 106, 109–113, 115, 116n28; training of Indian teachers 64–65, 110, 126, 160 Thailand 73, 131 Theosophical Society 14, 183 Tibet 100, 103, 115n6 Times of India 21–22, 46n127, 67n14, 70, 87, 119 Tirth, Vishnu 33 trademarks 9, 37, 54, 63, 88, 90–91, 94n1, 98n90, 114, 132–133, 139, 146n61, 146n64, 148n91, 155–156, 172, 174, 178n29, 178n30, 178n31, 178n32, 192

Index  225 Transcendental Meditation 47n137, 58 Triyoga (London) 62 UK 4–5, 11n15, 21, 46n108, 74, 89, 95n24, 97n80, 120, 123, 127, 134, 137, 143, 145n17, 145n18, 145n23, 146n44, 184; abuse allegations 68n46, 112; geographical hub of practice 65, 88, 90, 109–110; institutions (of yoga practice) 33, 87, 105, 108, 112–113, 124, 128–132, 141, 146n58, 155; London 21, 33, 46n112, 57, 62, 65, 67n30, 87, 119–120, 124–125, 128–129, 139, 146n58, 178n30, 196n4; Manchester 125, 128–129; (and) Sivananda 21, 33, 46n108; teacher training 46n110, 88–89, 124–126, 145n29, 146n44, 147n67, 147n80, 163, 186; trademarks 63, 133, 178n30; travel to 73, 95n24, 105, 119–120, 123, 145n17, 178n24 Ukraine 178n24 Uruguay 17, 54–55, 95n24 US 1, 4, 11n10, 11n15, 13, 21, 67n17, 90, 119, 130, 154, 160, 179n56, 184–185, 192; abuse allegations 64, 93, 112, 118, 140–144, 175–176; Ann Arbor 97n82, 124, 145n19, 162; Baltimore 33; California 33, 90, 97n81, 142–143, 148n99, 153–154, 166, 168; Connecticut 61, 125, 166; entrepreneurialism 1, 168; geographical hub of practice 64–65, 109, 126, 162; institutions (of yoga practice) 66n2, 87, 89–90, 95n28, 106–108, 124, 137, 147n71, 165–166, 181n88; Miami 43n39, 54, 67n18; New York 33, 35, 43n39, 50, 54–55, 90, 97n82; Puerto Rico 54, 67n18; San Diego 140; San Francisco 43n39, 76, 97n82, 148n101; trademarks 37, 47n131, 63, 114, 133, 178n30, 178n31; training of yoga teachers 61, 64–65, 106, 190; travel to 17, 32–33, 46n105, 46n122, 50, 54–55, 66n2, 73, 97n81, 105, 123, 145n17, 153–154, 175, 178n24; Virginia 54 Vaishnavism 7–8, 41n5, 99, 101, 118 Van Lysebeth, Andre 21, 153 Vedanta 13–14, 39–40, 49, 101, 115n5 Venkatesananda Saraswati, Swami 30, 36, 49–50, 57, 121; biographies on Sivananda 14, 16–17, 21, 23, 26, 33–34, 41n10, 42n25, 43n48, 47n128, 95n17

Vimalananda Saraswati, Swami 24, 30, 32–33, 37, 45n91, 46n106, 46n107, 46n112, 47n129, 57, 68n32 Viniyoga 99–115, 116n22, 116n27, 163, 189–190; abuse allegations 112–114; data on 65, 110–109, 187; discontinuation of usage 106–108; rebranding as 108–111, 146n61 Viniyoga Britain 107–108, 116n29 Vishnudevananda Giri, Swami 14 Vishnudevananda Saraswati, Swami (Kuttan Nair) 10n2, 15, 60–63, 67n25, 72, 90, 195; abuse allegations 64, 68n46; branding by 36–37; The Complete Illustrated Guide to Yoga 20–21, 72, 123; disciples of 43n49, 63, 67n11, 67n21; early life 20–21, 24, 37, 43n39, 47n134; exit from Rishikesh 49–51, 54–58; innovations 36–37, 39–40, 60–61, 64, 72, 89, 106, 188–189; teacher accreditation 39, 60–63, 89, 109, 125, 138; trademarks 37, 133 Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) 36, 46n127, 53, 67n14 Viswakalayanananda, Swami (Edith Enna) 23 Vivekananda, Swami (Narendranath Datta) 1, 14–15, 18, 27, 47n137, 54, 66n1 Volunteers 6, 34, 71, 79, 106, 108, 124, 128, 132, 134, 137, 146n44, 161, 194 Wadiyar royal family 100–101, 104, 119, 150 Warrier, Maya 27, 33, 44n76, 47n137, 85 Weber, Max 6, 45n93, 142, 147n78, 148n103, 172, 183 Werner, Karel 21, 33 West, Ann 140–142, 176 West (the) 2, 10n3, 27, 35, 44n83, 48, 54, 105–106, 119, 142, 154, 190; audiences in 38, 52, 80, 87, 104, 118, 160, 189 Westernisation 2, 64, 67n24 White, David 59, 101, 115n1, 115n6, 116n10, 144n13, 145n20, 177n12 Williams, David 153, 163–165, 167, 177n11, 180n67 Williamson, Lola 3, 9, 36 workshops 6, 108, 113, 131–132, 168–169, 181; in Ashtanga Yoga 167–168, 170, 178n33 wrestling 119, 144n5

226  Index Yasodhara Ashram 54 Yesudian, Selvarajan 23, 123 Yoga Alliance 1, 62, 109, 156, 162, 167, 179n54, 192 Yoga industry 6, 11n15, 114, 165, 190, 193 Yoga Journal 106, 124, 148n102, 169, 179n54 Yogananda 15, 33, 43n56, 66n1 yoga nidra 72, 88–89, 92, 95n18 Yoga Research Foundation (Miami) 54 Yoga Sutras (Patanjali) 101, 116n10, 121, 123, 144n13, 152, 155, 178n18

yoga therapy 20, 62, 91, 102, 105, 109, 116n28, 119 yoga tourism 17, 61, 159 Yoga Vidya 10n4, 23, 43n61, 147n86 Yogendra (Manibhai Haribhai Desai) 20, 43n56, 118–199, 144n3 Yogi Sunita 3, 186; see also Cabral, Bernadette Yorke, Gerald 21, 43n44, 123, 145n15 Zucker, Lynne G. 5, 190