The New York Times Magazine reporter Mimi Swarz recently did a major profile on Anusara yoga founder John Friend. They say all press is good press. I hope that's true and my guess is it will be. Beyond Anusara, which receives at least some positive coverage in the article, the implicit framing of the piece amounts to a hit-job on market-based spiritual enterprises in America in general. It highlights, above all else, the deep and subtle culture of hypocrisy that wellness teachers -- yoga, Buddhist and otherwise -- encounter when bringing a service deemed as "spiritual" into a capitalist economy. Among the strange assertions in the article are implications that John Friend runs a cult, and is a greedy mogul who has turned yoga into a business. The backup for these assertions? Well, his students love him and he pays himself a salary of slightly less than $100,000 per year.
So let's get this straight: one of the most popular yoga teachers in the world, who has helped bring greater health and well-being to thousands of people, earns a salary that is a fraction of what a secretary makes at Goldman Sachs, and that's a bad thing? Well yes, actually, it is. He should be paid more. So should all teachers who have dedicated their life to helping others along a path, even if they have some personal issues. I have no idea if John Friend has personal issues, but my guess is that he is, in fact, human.
Is Mr. Friend's community a little bit cultish? I really don't know. Many of my friends love Anusara. A few have gotten a weird vibe from the community. So what? That's par for the course, and could be said for any genuine community of mind/body well-being, certainly my own Shambhala meditation community. But let's pretend the worst is true (it's not); let's pretend John Friend shepherds a bunch of mindless followers to the asana slaughter. Is this cult, in scope or intensity, anything close to the cult of personality which we call American celebrity culture? Why do we hold some good but flawed entities up to impossible ethical standards, and hold other profit-driven entities up to no standards at all? Hypocrisy much?
Imagine, for just a moment, if rapper Jay-Z had to face the same level of ethical scrutiny in his latest Times review for his lyrics ("I'm not a businessman/ I'm a business, man!/ Let me handle my business, damn!") that Mr. Friend had to face from the Times reporter who covered him. If so, the Times piece on the self proclaimed J-Hova would've been far less rosie and worshipful. Of course, because yoga is framed as "spiritual," and because Jay-Z is a "business, man," we keep on dancing to the beat, while we hold "spiritual" teachers and gurus to a level of perfection which no mortal could ever attain. The Times and our whole culture seem to buy into this false dichotomy hook, line and sinker.
Yes, there have been some instances of corruption in the Western manifestations of "spiritual" traditions, and the vague rumors of foul play have been enough to turn countless students off to the wealth that these traditions offer. John Friend makes this point and other great points in his rebuttal to the Times piece over at Elephant Journal. But these instances are rare. More often than not, if you take up a practice in any of these mind/body traditions and pursue it genuinely, you will find something incredibly rare in our culture: fairly selfless teachers who are really there to help and serve with useful practices and life tools, and communities of like-minded people doing their best to bring more peace and health to themselves and others. Unfortunately, we are just addicted to the bad news, aren't we?
Maybe those of us who are interested in promoting mind/body wellness and who teach in the fields of yoga, meditation, Buddhism, or any form of holistic wellness should stop using the word "spiritual" altogether. There is no way to bring a "spiritual" service into a market economy -- the only avenue to reach a wide audience in the age of multinational capitalism -- without it facing an insane level of unfair scrutiny. Simply put, in today's day and age, spirituality is bad branding.
The root of this hypocrisy is something which the founder of the Shambhala tradition, Chogyam Trungpa (an amazing teacher not without imperfection) was quite savvy about. It has to do with our psychological tendency in contemporary culture (not just the West) to create a false dichotomy between our spiritual and secular selves, as well as different expectations for these parts of our life. Note that this has nothing to do with freedom of religion or separation of church and state. It has to do with our tendency to compartmentalize our life and our work into areas where the appearance of ethical behavior is expected (the spiritual), and those in which unethical, mindless, selfish behavior are allowed and even cherished (the secular, business or entertainment). Fundamentally, this creates a whole society of human beings with split-personality disorder, a nation of people pointing critical fingers in all the wrong places, while worshiping the false prophets of materialism.
In such a world, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and the "spiritual," unwittingly, becomes the enemy of enacting compassion in the real world. Meanwhile, someone who proudly stands for absolutely nothing is coronated as king. After all, it's a business, man.
Follow Ethan Nichtern on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ethannichtern
David Nichtern: The Future of Buddhism in the West
Anita Diamant: A Happily Bifurcated Yoga Jew: Why I Keep My Asanas and My 'Adonais' Separate
Loading comments…
Share your Comment:
While not identical, the pursuit of justice might be likened to the pursuit of truth or spiritual insight: it has no dollar value. But degrees are required as is passing the bar exam. Rent for an office, home, health insurance and all the other expenses of life are inevitable. It is for this training and these expenses that one pays when obtaining the services of a lawyer. (And many lawyers do pro bono work to help those unable to pay at all.) With any luck, justice is served in the process.
Yoga teachers have homes, mortgages, children, college tuition bills, health insurance, liability insurance, studio rent or building taxes, and so on. They should be able to pay those bills without scraping the bottom of the barrel every month.
The relatively small number of hugely successful yoga teachers still make a tiny fraction of the salaries and bonuses of all the bankers who brought the economy to its knees. The success of these teachers and the attendant press and fame probably helps more students come to yoga wherever yoga is, and less well-known teachers are able to make a living doing what they often feel is a calling.
Striking a balance between integrity and financial success (or a complete lack thereof) has been and will continue to be an issue for the ages.
In christianity, you have mostly wonderful, caring, loving, etc, people who are sincere in their attempts to find their path and do for others; and you have people who take it to cult-like proportions and ignore logic in favor of ridiculous arguments for what they do; and you have televangelists (capitalizing on religion) who are caught sleeping around and embezzling money. I don't know of many people who would argue that christianity is bad, or a cult, because of these facts.
I agree that the article is written with a cynical tone, and it does seem to imply that John Friend (and possibly the people jumping on the yoga bandwagon) are hypocrites. I certainly don't pretend to know John Friend well enough to make a judgement regarding his intentions, but I get the impression from his public persona that he really just loves what he does and he is ambitious - which I hope is true. Ambition is not a bad thing. As the saying goes, "Do something you love and you'll never work a day in your life."
It could just be that in such a globally connected world, it's quicker and easier to convert large numbers of people to a new set of ideas (making it seem cult-like), and that there are so many people trying to make a fast buck and see "yoga" as an easy source of cashflow (making it seem like a greedy hypocritical t-shirt enterprise).
Yet I am still driving a 15 year-old Honda with a quarter of a million miles on it, duct-taped together, & I raised my children as a single Mom largely on creative resourcefulness (lots of yard sales) and simplicity. Because my personality does not provide me with business acumen, my profession has never elevatd me above poverty line. I still have to submit invoices to the studios where I teach, and becaus of severe ADD, I often lose them before I can claim them. Yet, I would not change my profession for all the Rolls in the world. (a Smart car would be nice, though!)
That's why I call "spiritual" path True Religion.
But of course there is a way to provide spirituality in a market economy, Ethan. However it mandates a certain level of caveat emptor (lets call it "shopping" or discernment) AND opens the door to exploitation by those confused about our very purpose for being. Where there is money to be made there will always be charlatans.
When a person relies on a periodical for their yoga education, a DVD for their alignment, confuses asana with yoga, and is able to "earn" a teaching certification in 22 hours of study...what nectar can we reasonably expect?
Sadly, as my teacher so eloquently states in his book, "yoga is everywhere and no where at all".
My job, as a teacher, is to help students toward the light within, to guide them as best I can in the process of exploration and discovery so that they can live from their purpose AND do so with the respect and integrity for the self, for the student, and for the yoga. The rest, I must let go.
Welcome to HuffPo Mr. Ethan.
Perhaps Ethan's defensiveness is due to his own insecurities?. For myself (as a newer yogi) the NYT article gives me some perspective/context and peaks my curiousity in learning more about different yogic traditions.
I work with my own insecurities every day.
I don't think the article insinuates directly at Anusara or Friend, as I said.
Rather, I think it insinuates a subtle frame ("The Mogul") and accusations ofcultishness, and a questioning of promotion and business skills that would simply not be present if Anusara wasn't perceived as spiritual rather than secular. Just my opinion. Perhaps you disagree, but I'd really love to keep ad hominem arguments out of our discussion, if possible. Great to meet you!
Again, I think the hit-job aspect is a result of the implicit framing, not an explicit intent. Perhaps the language was too strong, agreed. But it is troublesome to me nonetheless.
Hope to talk more.
Like Marianne Williamson says in her writing, "Our Deepest Fear",
We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others"
John is just doing what he was put here to do. Shine and Align with the Divine!
Still, Ethan you're points are so spot on and so well put. It is a shame that spirituality is used generally to designate a psychological place (and even physical place) that is separate from "regular life". This is why I've always responded so strongly to the Interdependence Project, it's the first time I've been exposed to an interpretation of classic and time-tested teachings about more compassionate ways to approach life that takes pains to make the teachings relevant beyond the classroom or cushion. It sounds like John Friend is doing the same with his yoga, and though I've never been exposed to Anusara the article made me think I might want to check it out.
We definitely do live in a culture where "be spiritual" or "go to church (or temple)" are just another item on a to-do list, rather than something that is profoundly underlying everything we do. But I think that's changing and you're part of it, so thanks!
This is why I have been averse to the word spiritual for a long time - being labeled that way is nothing but a handicap for actually spreading something valuable wide in society.
Money is not the root of all evil, the LOVE of money is what was originally written as the root.