Paging the yoga police. I’ve got to ask you something.
Is it okay to be a skeptic and a yogi at the same time? Can you teach these teachings as teachings, and not truths? Does that cheapen or completely kill the experience?
I have wondered this often. I think the teachings stand alone as gorgeous heirlooms of an evolved and evolving culture and tradition. I think they are beautiful and useful and lovely- and can stand up to a non-believer’s gaze. They can keep their power even if you don’t embody them, and instead choose to be an intellectual collector of fine goods, a cultural patron of the yoga arts- not necessarily a performer.
I ask the question, and can never really know the answer, because admittedly I have the bias of experiencing the truth of some these teachings, in a lived, felt, embodied, (be it anecdotal,) way. I also have a deep appreciation for the purity of presenting these teachings as teachings, not as realities. Reality is a co-construction. I can’t tell you yours.
I also have had the experience of NOT having the lived, felt, embodied confirmation of other source teachings I have found. I still think they are worth discussing. I still appreciate that they exist.
So what say you, the ones who like to say what yoga is and what yoga is not. Can I come to your sacred circle of fire, uninitiated, a rogue practitioner, who has felt the power of the sacred texts, and who appreciates that maybe nothing and everything is sacred? Can I teach the art of living without living all of it myself?