Sequencing and Personalized Yoga Part 2

Here is part 2 of my comments on sequencing. I will post the third and final part soon.

The Sequencing Thread

From: Carl Horowitz,

I have a few more thoughts on sequencing.

I think in understanding this process it is worthwhile distinguishing between sequencing and what I would refer to as choreography. Choreography might be a sub-category of sequencing, and has its beneficial applications if understood properly, but the art of choreography and the art of sequencing are different. What I mean when I use the term choreography is that linking of poses in which the focus is primarily aesthetic in nature. Some of the positive aspects of this kind of elegant procession are that it is enjoyable to watch, to perform and to create. This could make a practice more interesting to the practitioner and that could keep some people practicing. However, a possible problem is that there are some practices out there that seem not to distinguish between choreography and sequencing. But choreography does not necessarily have functional benefits; if the individual postures are simply organized for aesthetic reasons alone the postures may not build on each other. In short, choreography, can—although it is true that this does not have to be the case—water down the practice and the result could be that you get less from each posture as a result of how they are linked together. Choreography in the hands of someone who is also skilled at understanding the deeper principles of sequencing can be beautiful and powerful but choreography without this deeper understanding would not necessarily bring an element of greater significance to a practice. And an elegant ordering of the postures simply might not be the most beneficial method of sequencing for a particular practitioner.

A deeper understanding of the art of sequencing would incorporate far more than choreography. One small but important aspect to understand would be how to organize the postures so that they work and fit together towards one cohesive whole. If this is understood you can ultimately get more from fewer postures thereby making practice more efficient and powerful. It is hard to really explain what I mean by this because I feel you need the context of a person to actually work in this way. If you are working with a person and he/she has an issue, say an area of the body that is less willing to open, and you went about warming this area and preparing it for opening and then you progressively moved between postures that would work the region and then open it, and the end result was a release that would otherwise be impossible, the intelligent use of sequencing could really affect some powerful changes within the practitioner. And with the application of sequencing in this manner, the most beneficial methods for the practitioner may not be aesthetically pleasing in any way.

Another tendency I have noticed at times in certain sequencing is what I like to call the “Everything but the Kitchen Sink” effect. The idea in this conception of sequencing is that you are supposed to do every single posture that can possibly be squeezed into the allotted time of practice. The positive aspects of this tendency might be that it can be fun for those who want a sense of accomplishment and because of this it may hold some people’s interest. However, in terms of functional benefits more can definitely be less; and while this kind of “sequencing” can be fine for someone who has no special needs in practicing (which ultimately means that over an extended period of time it is not particularly beneficial for anyone) it can be at best a diluting of the desired effects and at worst a process that helps lead to injury. Moving your body in every direction it possibly can go as many times as possible in a given amount of time can cause conflicting benefits from postures to begin to cancel each other out. And consistently working in this way can ultimately tax the joints and connective tissue of the body; this could be seen as an asana practice equivalent of overtraining.

I feel it is also worth understanding that any sequence, practiced consistently and exclusively over time—no matter how well constructed—has the potential to create problems. The reason this is the case is related to how the human organism habituates to a routine. The result is that at a certain point stagnation will generally occur instead of development. This is related to the concept that, when the body is forced to adapt to change, this process of change and the resulting adaptation in the organism is part of what helps create the stimulation which promotes growth in the system.

Learning how to combine the postures and other techniques to make a practice that creates a unified and cohesive whole, where each posture has its purpose and fits in such a way as to enhance the benefits obtained from the postures before and after it, where the postures and techniques are matched to the current needs of the individual, where the principles of building towards a goal and then compensating against possible unwanted side effects afterwards would only be part of the process necessary to understand sequencing. Ultimately one would want the work to be matched to the physical, energetic, intellectual, emotional and spiritual needs, abilities, desires and interests of the practitioner so that the physical practice and the underlying spiritual process would fit and work together. Understanding how an individual’s needs can be met on all these different levels concurrently is a true and rare art form.

Peace.
upsidedowncarl@yogascope.com
blog@yogascope.com