Getting Better at Causal Loops and Drawing Inferences
Revisiting Rule 1: Independent Variables Are Not Correlated
Restating the Argument
In Ashtanga Yoga, not all elements of practice are causally connected. For example, focusing solely on aesthetic performance (e.g., how a posture looks) often leads to false assumptions about progress. Understanding this independence helps practitioners avoid wasting energy on irrelevant or misleading correlations. Detachment (vairagya) serves as a guiding principle for staying grounded in what truly matters.
Counterpoints, Holes, and Second Opinions
1. Do Variables Ever Exist in True Independence in Yoga?
Counterpoint: Yoga philosophy emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things. The idea that two variables (e.g., strength and flexibility) are completely independent may clash with this holistic worldview. Can independence ever truly exist in a system as integrated as the body-mind connection? Alternative View: Instead of seeing independence as the absence of correlation, it could be reframed as conditional correlation—variables are independent only in certain contexts. For example, strength and flexibility may seem unrelated in isolation but become interconnected in dynamic movements like vinyasa.
2. The Ego’s Role in False Correlations
Polemical View: Is the practitioner’s ego always the one to blame for seeking false correlations, or does the structure of modern yoga culture (Instagram-worthy poses, competitive environments) actively foster this behavior? While Rule 1 suggests avoiding false connections, external factors like societal expectations might amplify them. Example: A student may correlate “Instagrammable” yoga postures with mastery, perpetuated by online depictions of advanced practitioners.
3. Practical vs. Philosophical Perspectives on Independence
Practical View: In biomechanics, many variables (like joint mobility and breath steadiness) can functionally be independent, so addressing them separately is reasonable. Philosophical View: However, yoga’s metaphysics—rooted in Vedanta and Samkhya—assert that all phenomena are interconnected through prana (life force) or the interplay of the gunas (qualities of nature). This could challenge the assumption that independence is ever absolute.
Key Question: Should Rule 1 be framed less rigidly? For instance, can “independence” be treated as context-dependent rather than absolute?
4. Subtle Confounders in Perceived Independence
Independence is often misperceived due to hidden confounders. Example: A practitioner might believe that their stiff hamstrings are unrelated to their shallow breath. However, stress could be the confounder influencing both. This suggests a need for deeper analysis before assuming true independence between variables.
Expanding on Practical Examples
Positive Example of Independence:
Breath as an Independent Anchor: In the Ashtanga practice, breath (pranayama) operates independently of physical performance. A steady Ujjayi breath is possible even in simpler poses, and its steadiness is not directly correlated with flexibility or strength. This demonstrates how maintaining independence in one variable (breath) creates stability for other aspects of practice.
Negative Example of False Correlation:
Flexibility ≠ Progress: A beginner might assume that deeper flexibility automatically correlates with mastery, ignoring factors like alignment or mental focus. This false correlation often leads to injury or frustration. Recognizing flexibility as independent from overall progress allows the practitioner to approach poses with greater patience and safety.
Philosophical Link
Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: Vairagya (detachment) emphasizes not becoming entangled with outcomes or false associations. Rule 1 mirrors this idea, encouraging practitioners to distinguish between meaningful and irrelevant variables in practice. Example: Detaching from the idea that achieving a “perfect” pose signals spiritual growth clarifies the true purpose of yoga—union of body, mind, and spirit. Bhagavad Gita: Krishna’s teaching on swadharma (one’s own path) reinforces the principle of independence. A practitioner’s journey is unique, and assuming correlations between others’ progress and one’s own creates unnecessary distractions.
Second Opinions from Other Disciplines
Systems Thinking:
Systems thinking rarely treats variables as entirely independent. Instead, it acknowledges hidden dependencies or feedback loops. From this perspective, Rule 1 might benefit from adding nuance: “Perceived independence may shift depending on scale or perspective.”
Trauma-Informed Yoga:
In trauma-sensitive yoga, independence between variables like physical sensation and emotional response is often deliberately cultivated to create a sense of safety. For example, focusing on breath as an anchor can help trauma survivors experience poses without triggering emotional overwhelm.
Key Insight
Rule 1 reminds practitioners to focus only on meaningful connections, avoiding distractions caused by irrelevant correlations. However, acknowledging the nuance of independence—contextual, perceived, or partial—helps align this principle with both yoga philosophy and practical realities.
Revisiting Rule 2: Causal Influence Creates Correlation
Restating the Argument
When one variable causes another, a correlation between them will emerge. In Ashtanga Yoga, this reflects the intentional design of the practice, where breath (pranayama), posture (asana), and focus (drishti) are causally interconnected to create transformation. Recognizing these direct cause-and-effect relationships ensures the practitioner engages meaningfully with the system.
Counterpoints, Holes, and Second Opinions
1. Causal Influence is Not Always Linear
Counterpoint: Yoga often involves non-linear or cyclical causality, especially in energetic or emotional dynamics. For example, while steady breath calms the mind, a calm mind also enhances breath steadiness. Linear interpretations of causality might oversimplify these relationships. Example: In challenging poses like Kapotasana, mental focus improves breath control, but the act of deep breathing simultaneously anchors mental focus. Which is the “cause,” and which is the “effect”?
Key Question: Does Rule 2 need to account for bidirectional or circular causality, especially in complex systems like the body-mind connection?
2. Correlation is Not Always Due to Causation
Polemical View: Students often mistake correlation for causation, assuming that mastery of an advanced pose (e.g., Dwi Pada Sirsasana) causes spiritual progress. However, yoga philosophy suggests that deeper states of awareness emerge from sustained discipline, not specific physical achievements. Example: A practitioner may feel elated after completing an advanced pose, mistakenly attributing their spiritual upliftment to the pose itself rather than the focus and breath control required to achieve it.
Philosophical Tie-In: This aligns with the Yoga Sutras’ warning about being distracted by siddhis (powers), which can correlate with progress but are not the true goal.
3. Hidden Mediators or Confounders
Potential Hole: Causality in yoga is often mediated by subtle variables. For instance, the link between a steady breath and a successful pose may be mediated by core stability or mental focus, which are not immediately obvious. Overlooking these mediators could lead to incomplete conclusions about causality. Example: In balancing poses like Pincha Mayurasana, a steady gaze (drishti) may appear to “cause” stability, but the actual mediator might be subtle engagement of bandhas or calm breathwork.
System Thinking Insight: Hidden mediators can create the illusion of direct causality. Rule 2 might benefit from highlighting the need to investigate these intermediaries.
4. Causality May Vary Between Practitioners
Alternative View: Not all practitioners experience the same causal relationships. For some, emotional release (e.g., crying in backbends) might result from physical tension release, while for others, it stems from unresolved trauma. Causality in yoga can be deeply individual. Example: One student might find deep breathing resolves tightness in the hamstrings, while another needs to address mental resistance to achieve the same outcome.
Question for Discussion: Should Rule 2 emphasize the importance of context and individual variability in causal relationships?
Expanding on Practical Examples
Positive Example of Causal Influence:
The Role of Breath: Ujjayi breath calms the nervous system, directly influencing mental focus and physical relaxation. The practitioner observes that steady, controlled breath reduces the perception of difficulty in demanding poses, like Parsvottanasana (Intense Side Stretch).
Negative Example of Misinterpreted Correlation:
Flexibility and Depth in Forward Folds: A student might assume that touching their toes in Paschimottanasana is caused by long hamstrings. However, the ability to fold deeply is often influenced by a combination of pelvic tilt, core strength, and even emotional relaxation.
Philosophical Link
Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: Patanjali discusses the practice of abhyasa (consistent effort) and vairagya (detachment) as direct causes of mental stillness. This aligns with Rule 2, emphasizing that specific actions—when sustained—have clear, predictable effects on the practitioner’s state. Bhagavad Gita: Krishna teaches that action aligned with one’s dharma (duty) leads to liberation. The causal relationship between right action and spiritual progress reinforces Rule 2’s emphasis on meaningful, intentional practice.
Second Opinions from Other Disciplines
Systems Thinking:
Systems thinking highlights feedback loops, where causality is not unidirectional but cyclical. Rule 2 could be nuanced to address this complexity, particularly in the context of yoga, where breath, movement, and focus continually influence one another.
Trauma-Informed Yoga:
Trauma-sensitive approaches might challenge the linearity of causation in yoga. Emotional release during certain poses might not stem from the pose itself but from the safety provided by the teacher or environment. This shifts the perceived cause-effect dynamic.
Key Insight
Rule 2 is a foundational principle for both Ashtanga Yoga and causal inference, reminding practitioners to focus on meaningful actions that lead to predictable outcomes. However, recognizing non-linear causality, hidden mediators, and individual variability deepens its applicability and relevance.
Revisiting Rule 3: Confounding Creates Correlation
Restating the Argument
Confounding arises when a third variable (a confounder) influences both variables of interest, creating a correlation that doesn’t reflect a direct causal relationship. In Ashtanga Yoga, hidden influences—such as physical tension, emotional residues, or lifestyle habits—often confound the relationship between effort and progress, leading practitioners to misattribute causes.
Counterpoints, Holes, and Second Opinions
1. Confounders Are Not Always Negative
Counterpoint: In some cases, confounders might be beneficial rather than misleading. For example, a confounder like regular meditation practice could improve both flexibility and mental focus, creating a positive correlation between them. The confounder enhances progress rather than obscuring it. Example: A practitioner might assume that their newfound ease in hip-openers stems from better alignment, but consistent pranayama (the confounder) might actually be responsible for reducing tension.
Question: Should Rule 3 acknowledge that confounders can sometimes support rather than distort progress?
2. How Many Confounders Are We Missing?
Potential Hole: Confounders can be subtle and multilayered, especially in yoga. For instance, stress (a confounder) might tighten the hamstrings and shorten the breath, leading to misattribution of difficulty in poses to physical inflexibility alone. Example: A student struggling with forward folds might overlook the role of chronic stress, which influences both their body (via tension) and breath (via restriction).
Insight from Systems Thinking: Confounders often cascade in complex systems. Addressing only one layer may leave deeper confounders untouched, leading to partial or temporary results.
3. Confounders Can Be Context-Dependent
Alternative View: A variable that acts as a confounder in one context might not behave the same way in another. For instance, tight hips might be a confounder in seated poses like Padmasana, but in a standing balance pose like Tree Pose, they might not play a significant role. Example: A practitioner might misattribute their inability to balance in Vrksasana to weak legs, when the true cause is a wandering mind. However, in other poses, leg strength might genuinely be a limiting factor.
Key Question: How do we determine when a confounder is relevant to a specific context?
4. Over-Controlling for Confounders
Polemical View: In trying to control for confounders, practitioners may overcorrect or lose the intuitive flow of practice. For example, obsessing over every micro-adjustment could shift focus away from the meditative aspect of yoga. Example: A student hyper-focused on perfecting alignment in Warrior II may overlook the energetic and breathwork components of the pose, diminishing its holistic benefits.
Philosophical Challenge: How do we balance analytical correction with the experiential and intuitive nature of yoga?
Expanding on Practical Examples
Positive Example of Identifying a Confounder:
Tight Hamstrings in Downward Dog: A practitioner might think their inability to lengthen the spine in Adho Mukha Svanasana is due to weak arms. Recognizing tight hamstrings as the confounder allows for more effective adjustments, like bending the knees to reduce strain.
Negative Example of Missing a Confounder:
Struggling with Balance in Standing Poses: A student might believe their inability to balance in poses like Utthita Hasta Padangusthasana stems from weak legs. However, the true confounder might be poor gaze focus (drishti) or irregular breath.
Philosophical Link
Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: Patanjali describes avidya (ignorance) as the root cause of all suffering, akin to a master confounder. Just as confounders obscure true relationships, ignorance clouds the practitioner’s ability to discern cause from effect. Practices like svadhyaya (self-study) help uncover these hidden influences. Bhagavad Gita: Krishna teaches the importance of clarity in action, unclouded by external distractions or hidden motives. By addressing confounders—be they physical habits, emotional residues, or lifestyle factors—practitioners align their actions with deeper truths.
Second Opinions from Other Disciplines
Systems Thinking:
Confounders are akin to unobserved feedback loops in systems. For instance, a positive feedback loop might reinforce a perceived correlation, making it harder to identify hidden influences. Systems thinking encourages looking at the whole, rather than isolating variables, to better understand these relationships.
Trauma-Informed Yoga:
In trauma-sensitive practices, confounders like emotional residues or hypervigilance can distort physical responses. Teachers trained in trauma-aware methods might argue for addressing these confounders indirectly (e.g., through breath or environment) rather than head-on, to avoid retraumatization.
Key Insight
Rule 3 emphasizes the importance of uncovering hidden confounders to avoid false correlations. However, it benefits from recognizing that confounders can be context-dependent, multilayered, and sometimes even beneficial. Balancing analytical rigor with experiential awareness ensures that practitioners and teachers address confounders without losing sight of the intuitive, holistic nature of yoga.
Revisiting Rule 4: Random Manipulation Protects a Variable from Causal Influence
Restating the Argument
Random manipulation (e.g., randomized controlled trials) ensures a variable is shielded from causal influence by external factors. In Ashtanga Yoga, structured practices like set sequences, steady breath, and drishti (gaze) create a controlled environment that neutralizes distractions, allowing the practitioner to explore the practice without external or internal interference.
Counterpoints, Holes, and Second Opinions
1. Randomization is Rare in Ashtanga Yoga
Counterpoint: Unlike scientific experiments, Ashtanga’s structured sequences are anything but random. They are deliberate and predictable. This rigidity could lead to the opposite effect: over-control of variables, potentially amplifying certain biases (e.g., physical tendencies or ego attachment). Example: A practitioner with naturally flexible hamstrings might over-rely on poses like forward folds while neglecting strength-building asanas. Randomization in sequencing could prevent such overemphasis.
Key Question: Could Ashtanga benefit from occasional randomness to break habitual patterns and expand practitioners’ capabilities?
2. Too Much Control Can Stifle Growth
Polemical View: Over-structured practices might suppress organic growth or discovery. Random exploration—like intuitive sequencing or free-flowing breathwork—can uncover hidden physical and mental barriers that rigid sequences might miss. Example: A vinyasa-style class where students improvise poses based on how their body feels that day might reveal imbalances or tensions that the fixed Ashtanga sequence doesn’t directly address.
Philosophical Challenge: How do we balance control and freedom in practice? Can introducing randomness complement rather than disrupt structured practice?
3. Practitioner Mindset as a Randomizing Factor
Alternative View: The practitioner’s mental and physical state on any given day introduces a level of randomness into practice. While set sequences aim to neutralize distractions, they can’t fully shield the practice from variability. Example: A steady Ujjayi breath might falter on a stressful day, even in a controlled environment. Is this variability a distraction to overcome, or an opportunity to deepen self-awareness?
Key Insight: While Rule 4 emphasizes shielding variables from influence, Ashtanga might benefit from embracing some variability as a tool for growth.
4. Randomness vs. Intention in Yoga Philosophy
Philosophical View: Yoga emphasizes intentionality (sankalpa) and focused effort. Randomness could be seen as antithetical to these principles. Yet, randomness might align with the yogic concept of surrender (ishvarapranidhana), where practitioners relinquish control and embrace the unknown. Example: A teacher might randomly assign a different focus (e.g., breath, alignment, or gaze) for a sequence, encouraging practitioners to step out of habitual patterns and experience poses in new ways.
Question: Does randomization conflict with the foundational principles of yoga, or can it foster adaptability and surrender?
Expanding on Practical Examples
Positive Example of Neutralization Through Control:
Breath as a Stabilizer: A controlled Ujjayi breath shields the practice from external variables like physical discomfort or emotional agitation. By focusing on breath, a practitioner reduces the influence of fleeting distractions, enabling deeper focus.
Negative Example of Over-Control:
Set Sequences as a Limitation: A practitioner repeating the same sequence daily might over-develop certain muscle groups while neglecting others. For instance, repeated forward folds may exacerbate hamstring over-flexibility without balancing this with strength-building postures.
Philosophical Link
Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: Patanjali’s sthira sukham asanam (a posture should be steady and comfortable) reflects the balance between control and adaptability. While structure (sthira) provides stability, allowing for surrender and flow (sukham) ensures the practice remains holistic and dynamic. Bhagavad Gita: Krishna’s teachings on acting without attachment (nishkama karma) align with this rule. Random manipulation reflects a kind of detachment, where the practitioner doesn’t cling to specific outcomes but instead explores the practice with curiosity and openness.
Second Opinions from Other Disciplines
Systems Thinking:
Randomization reflects the idea of disrupting feedback loops to observe true system behavior. In yoga, introducing intentional randomness (e.g., a new focus or sequence) can reveal hidden patterns and dependencies, enhancing overall understanding.
Trauma-Informed Yoga:
Trauma-sensitive approaches might view randomness cautiously. For practitioners with trauma, unpredictable changes could trigger discomfort or resistance. Here, shielding variables (e.g., through consistent sequences or predictable cues) supports a sense of safety and stability.
Key Insight
Rule 4 highlights the value of neutralizing external influences to create clarity in practice. However, too much control risks rigidity, while too much randomness risks chaos. A balance—structured practice with moments of intentional variation—ensures the practitioner stays rooted in tradition while remaining adaptable and curious.
Revisiting Rule 5: Controlling for a Confounder Blocks Correlation Arising from That Confounder
Restating the Argument
By identifying and addressing a confounder (a shared cause influencing two variables), practitioners can eliminate misleading correlations. In Ashtanga Yoga, addressing root confounders like physical misalignment or mental agitation allows practitioners to experience authentic cause-and-effect relationships, enhancing their understanding and growth.
Counterpoints, Holes, and Second Opinions
1. Overemphasis on Confounder Control
Counterpoint: Yoga emphasizes holistic integration rather than isolating and controlling variables. Excessive focus on controlling confounders might reduce the practice to a mechanical or analytical exercise, potentially disconnecting the practitioner from its experiential and spiritual dimensions. Example: A practitioner might over-focus on correcting hip alignment in Virabhadrasana II while ignoring broader aspects like breath rhythm or mental focus, leading to an incomplete experience of the pose.
Philosophical Challenge: How do we balance addressing confounders with preserving the intuitive, flow-based nature of yoga practice?
2. Are Confounders Always Observable?
Potential Hole: Confounders in yoga, especially those rooted in the subtle body (e.g., energetic imbalances), may not always be easily identified or controlled. Practitioners often address physical symptoms (descendants) without realizing deeper confounders, such as unresolved emotional or energetic blockages. Example: A tight lower back may stem from emotional tension, which in turn influences both physical posture and breathing patterns. Without addressing the emotional root, the practitioner risks over-correcting physical alignment without lasting relief.
Question: How do teachers and practitioners address confounders that are less tangible or observable, such as emotional or energetic imbalances?
3. Controlling Confounders May Not Always Be Necessary
Polemical View: Not all correlations need to be “fixed.” Sometimes, simply observing a confounder without immediately acting on it fosters deeper awareness and growth. Example: A practitioner may notice that their shallow breath and tight shoulders are connected but might benefit more from sitting with the discomfort than attempting to “control” it.
Alternative Insight: This aligns with mindfulness practices, where observation without judgment is often prioritized over active correction.
4. Confounders Can Be Multilayered and Contextual
Alternative View: Addressing a confounder in one context may reveal deeper, underlying layers that require further investigation. In this sense, confounder control might be an iterative, evolving process rather than a one-time fix. Example: A practitioner addressing weak core engagement in Chaturanga might discover that wrist pain is also a confounder. Resolving the core issue could still leave wrist discomfort unaddressed, requiring a deeper investigation into hand placement or arm strength.
Key Question: How can practitioners and teachers approach confounder control as a dynamic, layered process rather than a single solution?
Expanding on Practical Examples
Positive Example of Confounder Control:
Alignment in Standing Poses: A misaligned pelvis in Trikonasana might cause both lower back discomfort and instability in the pose. Correcting pelvic alignment (the confounder) resolves both issues, improving overall experience and safety.
Negative Example of Over-Correction:
Breath and Emotional Release: A practitioner might experience shallow breath during backbends, caused by emotional tension stored in the chest. Focusing solely on deepening the breath without addressing the underlying emotional state could result in frustration or superficial progress.
Philosophical Link
Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: Patanjali identifies avidya (ignorance) as the root cause of all suffering and a master confounder influencing other afflictions (kleshas). The practice of self-study (svadhyaya) helps uncover and address these deeper confounders, allowing practitioners to resolve the roots of mental and physical imbalances. Bhagavad Gita: Krishna emphasizes the importance of discernment (viveka) in aligning one’s actions with truth. This resonates with Rule 5, which calls for identifying and addressing confounders rather than being misled by superficial correlations.
Second Opinions from Other Disciplines
Systems Thinking:
Systems thinking highlights the potential for multiple confounders interacting within a system. Addressing one confounder might temporarily resolve a correlation but leave deeper feedback loops untouched. This aligns with yoga’s iterative nature—progress often involves peeling back layers of interconnected influences.
Trauma-Informed Yoga:
In trauma-sensitive practices, controlling confounders like emotional triggers must be approached gently. Teachers often prioritize creating safety and trust over directly addressing deeper issues, recognizing that confronting confounders too soon can retraumatize students.
Key Insight
Rule 5 underscores the importance of addressing confounders to reveal authentic relationships in yoga practice. However, it benefits from acknowledging that confounders can be subtle, multilayered, and sometimes better observed than controlled. Balancing analytical rigor with intuitive awareness ensures that control efforts support the broader goals of integration and self-discovery.
Revisiting Rule 6: Controlling for a Mediator Blocks Correlation Arising from the Mediated Causal Effect
Restating the Argument
A mediator transmits the causal influence of one variable to another. Controlling the mediator blocks the indirect relationship between the original cause and its effect. In Ashtanga Yoga, adjusting mediators such as breath, gaze, or subtle alignment can interrupt unhelpful causal chains and clarify relationships between effort and outcomes.
Counterpoints, Holes, and Second Opinions
1. Blocking a Mediator Can Obscure Useful Effects
Counterpoint: In some cases, controlling a mediator might disrupt natural, beneficial processes. Yoga often works by allowing mediators (e.g., breath) to create pathways for release or growth. Blocking these mediators prematurely might stifle these organic outcomes. Example: In backbends like Urdhva Dhanurasana, focusing excessively on controlling breath (a mediator) might restrict emotional release, which often arises through free, spontaneous breathing patterns.
Philosophical Challenge: How do we distinguish between mediators that should be controlled and those that should be allowed to flow naturally?
2. Not All Mediators Are Visible or Obvious
Potential Hole: Some mediators in yoga—such as subtle energetic shifts or emotional states—may not be immediately identifiable or controllable. Focusing solely on observable mediators like alignment or breath could lead to incomplete interventions. Example: In challenging inversions like Sirsasana, the visible mediator might be core engagement, but an invisible mediator could be mental resistance or fear of falling. Addressing only the physical aspect may not fully resolve the difficulty.
Question: How can practitioners and teachers identify hidden mediators that influence practice?
3. Does Controlling Mediators Always Serve Long-Term Progress?
Polemical View: While controlling mediators can provide short-term relief or clarity, it might not always support deeper, long-term growth. Allowing mediators to remain active could help practitioners develop resilience or adaptability. Example: In balancing poses like Utthita Hasta Padangusthasana, using a wall for support (controlling instability as a mediator) might reduce immediate wobbling but could delay the practitioner’s ability to build true balance over time.
Alternative Insight: This aligns with yoga’s emphasis on gradual progression—sometimes letting mediators remain active fosters deeper learning.
4. Control Can Create Over-Reliance
Alternative View: Excessive control of mediators might lead to dependence on external tools or techniques. For example, consistently using props to control alignment could prevent practitioners from developing inner awareness and self-regulation. Example: If a student relies on a yoga strap for hamstring stretches, they might never fully engage their muscles or nervous system in a way that builds long-term flexibility and stability.
Key Question: When does controlling a mediator become a crutch rather than a tool for growth?
Expanding on Practical Examples
Positive Example of Mediator Control:
Controlling Breath to Reduce Anxiety: In poses like Paschimottanasana, controlling the breath (mediator) can interrupt the causal chain between mental stress and physical tension, helping the practitioner relax deeper into the pose.
Negative Example of Over-Controlling a Mediator:
Over-Focusing on Alignment in Forward Folds: A student might fixate on keeping their spine straight (mediator) in Uttanasana, disrupting the natural flow of the pose and preventing them from finding intuitive depth.
Philosophical Link
Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: The practice of pranayama (breath control) illustrates the careful use of mediators. By controlling the breath, practitioners calm the mind and reduce its fluctuations (chitta vritti), but Patanjali warns against forcing or over-controlling, emphasizing balance and ease. Bhagavad Gita: Krishna advises acting with discipline while surrendering attachment to results. This aligns with the need to control mediators (discipline) without becoming fixated on outcomes, preserving the flow and integrity of the practice.
Second Opinions from Other Disciplines
Systems Thinking:
Mediators in systems are often key leverage points. Controlling them might change system behavior temporarily, but long-term stability requires addressing root causes. In yoga, while controlling mediators like breath or alignment can yield immediate benefits, deeper transformation often depends on addressing underlying mental or energetic imbalances.
Trauma-Informed Yoga:
Trauma-sensitive approaches might suggest that controlling mediators (like physical adjustments) can sometimes be disempowering for students. Empowering students to explore mediators organically (e.g., letting them decide how to modify a pose) might foster greater self-agency and healing.
Key Insight
Rule 6 underscores the value of controlling mediators to interrupt unhelpful causal chains. However, it benefits from nuance: not all mediators need control, and over-controlling can disrupt growth or lead to dependency. Balancing control with freedom allows mediators to function as gateways for self-awareness and transformation.
Revisiting Rule 7: Controlling for a Collider Leads to Correlation
Restating the Argument
A collider is a shared effect of two variables. When a collider is controlled or conditioned on, it can induce a spurious correlation between those variables, even if no direct causal relationship exists. In Ashtanga Yoga, focusing on certain “colliders,” such as external feedback (e.g., performance or appearance), can distort the practice by introducing artificial connections between unrelated factors like effort and progress.
Counterpoints, Holes, and Second Opinions
1. Colliders in Yoga Are Rarely Purely External
Counterpoint: In Ashtanga, colliders are often internal, such as emotional states or ego-driven goals, rather than external factors like performance or appearance. This suggests that the real “conditioning” happens in the practitioner’s mind rather than in the environment. Example: A practitioner struggling in Kapotasana might correlate the depth of their backbend with success in practice. However, this “collider” could be an internal belief that depth equals progress, which artificially links unrelated variables like flexibility and self-worth.
Key Question: Should the focus shift to internal colliders, such as ego or fear, rather than external ones like appearance or feedback?
2. Colliders Can Lead to Positive Correlations
Alternative View: While colliders often create spurious correlations, they can also highlight meaningful relationships when managed thoughtfully. Example: Adjusting gaze (drishti) in balancing poses creates a connection between stability and focus. Although drishti acts as a collider (it links focus and balance), it fosters awareness rather than artificial correlation.
Philosophical Challenge: Can colliders ever serve as useful tools for growth instead of creating distortions?
3. Over-Control of Colliders Stifles Intuition
Potential Hole: Attempting to control every potential collider might lead to over-analysis, removing the experiential and intuitive aspects of yoga. Example: A student overly focused on stabilizing small external factors like hand placement in Adho Mukha Vrksasana (handstand) might lose connection to internal cues like core engagement or breath flow.
Key Insight: Over-controlling colliders risks turning yoga into a technical exercise rather than a meditative practice.
4. Conditioning on Colliders Can Reinforce Harmful Patterns
Polemical View: Conditioning on colliders like external praise or competitive environments might reinforce unhelpful patterns, such as perfectionism or ego-driven practice. Example: A student practicing in a Mysore room might feel pressured to rush through postures to “keep up” with peers. This conditioning on external expectations links speed and success inappropriately, potentially leading to injury or burnout.
Key Question: How can yoga environments minimize collider effects without compromising group dynamics or supportive feedback?
Expanding on Practical Examples
Positive Example of Avoiding Collider Conditioning:
Breaking Performance-Driven Patterns: A practitioner focused on how their backbend looks in a mirror may artificially link appearance with depth. By removing mirrors and focusing on internal sensations, they decouple these unrelated factors, fostering a deeper connection with their body.
Negative Example of Collider Conditioning:
Over-Focusing on Stability in Arm Balances: Using props (e.g., blocks for support) in Bakasana might condition the practitioner to associate balance with the external tool rather than developing inner strength and control.
Philosophical Link
Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: Patanjali warns against asmita (egoism), which often acts as a collider in practice. Conditioning progress on ego-driven goals (like perfection in a posture) introduces artificial correlations between external outcomes and internal growth, creating unnecessary attachments. Bhagavad Gita: Krishna’s teachings on equanimity (samatva) align with avoiding collider-induced distortions. Practicing yoga without attachment to external validation prevents conditioning on colliders like praise or appearance, fostering true self-awareness.
Second Opinions from Other Disciplines
Systems Thinking:
Colliders in systems thinking often reveal unintended consequences of control. For example, in yoga, attempts to stabilize external factors (like performance pressure) might unintentionally amplify internal stress or resistance.
Trauma-Informed Yoga:
Trauma-sensitive approaches might caution against conditioning on colliders like emotional release. For instance, expecting every hip-opener to result in emotional catharsis might artificially link physical practice with emotional outcomes, creating unnecessary pressure on practitioners.
Key Insight
Rule 7 highlights the importance of avoiding spurious correlations introduced by colliders. However, it benefits from nuance: not all collider effects are harmful, and over-controlling them risks stifling intuition and growth. By cultivating equanimity and focusing on internal awareness, practitioners can navigate collider effects thoughtfully, using them as opportunities for self-discovery rather than distortion.
Revisiting Rule 8: Controlling for a Causal Descendant Partially Controls for the Ancestor
Restating the Argument
Addressing a causal descendant (an effect of an original cause) can partially mitigate the influence of its ancestor. However, this control is incomplete as it targets the outcome rather than the root cause. In Ashtanga Yoga, addressing surface-level issues (like physical misalignment or tension) can help temporarily, but deeper resolution often requires tackling root causes such as emotional patterns, mental distractions, or energetic imbalances.
Counterpoints, Holes, and Second Opinions
1. Controlling Descendants May Mask the Root Cause
Counterpoint: By focusing on controlling a descendant, practitioners might mask deeper issues rather than resolve them. This creates a superficial sense of progress while leaving the underlying problem unaddressed. Example: Adjusting knee position in Padmasana to alleviate pain might help in the short term but doesn’t address the root cause—tight hips or inadequate preparation through prior asanas.
Philosophical Challenge: Does addressing a descendant sometimes delay deeper work? How can teachers and practitioners ensure they don’t stop at surface fixes?
2. Descendants May Reinforce Their Ancestors
Potential Hole: In some cases, controlling a descendant might reinforce the root issue. For example, overcompensating for poor flexibility with props might perpetuate reliance on external support rather than fostering gradual improvement. Example: Using a yoga block in Trikonasana might prevent discomfort but could delay deeper engagement with hamstring or hip mobility.
Key Question: When does controlling a descendant become counterproductive, creating a loop that strengthens the original problem?
3. Some Descendants Provide a Feedback Loop to the Ancestor
Alternative View: Descendants aren’t always passive results; they can actively influence their ancestors. For instance, improving breath control (a descendant of mental focus) can directly enhance concentration. In such cases, controlling the descendant might be a valid strategy for addressing the ancestor. Example: Focusing on deep, steady breathing in challenging poses like Navasana may gradually calm the mind (ancestor), enabling greater mental focus over time.
Philosophical Insight: Should Rule 8 consider scenarios where descendants act as leverage points to influence their ancestors?
4. Root Causes May Not Be Fully Addressable
Polemical View: Some root causes, such as anatomical constraints or long-standing trauma, may not be fully resolvable. In these cases, controlling descendants might be the most practical option, even if it doesn’t achieve complete resolution. Example: A practitioner with scoliosis might address discomfort in backbends by focusing on surface adjustments rather than attempting to correct the deeper structural issue.
Key Question: Should Rule 8 acknowledge that sometimes partial control of descendants is the best or only viable approach?
Expanding on Practical Examples
Positive Example of Controlling a Descendant:
Engaging Bandhas to Stabilize Alignment: Activating Mula Bandha in standing poses like Virabhadrasana II partially controls the root cause of instability (weak core engagement), creating immediate improvements while paving the way for deeper work on core strength.
Negative Example of Over-Reliance on Descendant Control:
Using Props for Hamstring Flexibility: Regularly using a strap for seated forward folds might improve the pose temporarily but doesn’t address the deeper issue of tight hamstrings or misaligned pelvic tilt, potentially stalling long-term progress.
Philosophical Link
Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: Patanjali’s emphasis on viveka (discernment) and tapas (self-discipline) aligns with the need to go beyond surface-level adjustments. Practitioners are encouraged to dig deeper into the roots of suffering (kleshas), rather than focusing only on their external manifestations. Bhagavad Gita: Krishna advises practitioners to act wisely and address the core of problems rather than getting distracted by surface-level symptoms. This mirrors the idea that targeting descendants without addressing their ancestors is incomplete.
Second Opinions from Other Disciplines
Systems Thinking:
Systems thinkers warn that addressing symptoms (descendants) rather than root causes (ancestors) can create “shifting the burden” dynamics. For example, relying on external tools or short-term fixes might perpetuate dependency and delay deeper resolution.
Trauma-Informed Yoga:
Trauma-sensitive approaches might prioritize descendant control (e.g., creating immediate physical or emotional safety) over addressing deep-rooted causes, especially when those causes could trigger overwhelm or retraumatization.
Key Insight
Rule 8 emphasizes the limitations of addressing surface-level symptoms (descendants) without resolving deeper root causes (ancestors). However, descendants can sometimes act as leverage points, and partial control might be the most compassionate or realistic option in certain cases. Balancing short-term adjustments with long-term exploration ensures holistic progress.
