Yoga vs The Alexander Technique

Which is more useful to a Zen student: the Alexander Technique or Yoga?

Where can we go for expert opinion?

Well, let's go to the offering at Tassajara this summer.  Tassajara is a monastery run by the San Francisco Zen Center.  Its location is remote, a sunken mountainous valley.  It is well established, well regarded.  In the winter it is closed to allow Zen students to follow an ancient traditional soto zen schedule without distraction.  In the summer it's open to guests.  It's a bit like a resort for those wanting some peace and good food, well away from electronic distraction in a rustic setting.  Nice natural hot springs.  I have good memories of being a student there.  Anyway, this year they have 27 special programs to appeal to summer guests on a number of topic related to Zen practice.  Of these 27 programs, nine of these programs mention Yoga in their description.  Real good.  I also counted up how many of these special programs had to do with some aspect of the Alexander Technique.  I found, uh, zero.  None.  I think this is rather typical of Zen practice places that hope to meet the needs and interests of guests.

For someone who feels that it is the AT that describes how to physically do Zen practice and illuminates how to bring practice into everyday life, this lack of summer programs is disappointing.

I posted a blog earlier about what the Yoga of Zen should look like.  I think I've written enough about the intersection of Zen and the Alexander Technique to evaluate it in contrast to Yoga.

So here we go: Zen VS the AT.

I'll be the judge.  I'll award one point for each category.

Which describes the attitude one should have with zazen?
I am not a yogi.  I've taken some yoga classes and have a lot of respect for Iyengar yoga.  It is a rigorous discipline - a complete and focused path to liberation.  It has some similarities to Zen practice.  But it is not Zen.  Yoga is a process of refinement or path of purification.  It is 'doing'.  A yogi applies effort over a period of time.   Zen is seeing directly who we already are.  It is fundamentally 'non-doing'.  It is done in this moment, with a hammer or a shout, or with reading or writing.  For the average Joe, this non-doing is an odd thing.  It seems to be hard to grasp.  For me it was a singularly unique activity, until I stumbled upon the AT.  The AT is not 'not doing' but it is also not at all 'doing'.  It is a description of how to approach Zen practice from outside the Buddhist tradition.  It is very interesting.
One point for the AT.

Which more accurately describes how to physically sit zazen?
Well, the Full Lotus is a yogic posture, and yogic books and teachers describe how to sit in detail.  I've even met a Zen teacher who came to Zen from his Yoga practice.  He was told that the goal of Yoga was to sit well in the full lotus for long periods.  This prompted him to take up Zen as a profession.  The AT, on the other hand, does not teach you how to do anything.  One point awarded to Yoga?  Not so fast.  Zen practice is not simply sitting in the full lotus.  It is not a mechanical endeavor.   You can sit zazen while sitting in the half lotus, Burmese position, on a seza bench, in a chair or lying down.  Zen practice is not fundamentally a mechanical adventure.  Does the AT have anything to offer?  The AT is, are in part,  concrete tools of 'inhibition of end-gaining' and 'direction' to help student to be free from habit.  For me, zazen is about ending inexhaustible delusions and entering into boundless dharma gates.  What stands in my way is nothing but habits of body, speech and mind.  Habits of self.  Hence, the AT is a teaching about how to sit zazen independent of posture.
One point for the AT

Which will help us to sit in the full lotus?
To be fair, full lotus is the ne plus ultra of zazen postures.  But take a look at this posture.  With the exception of the hip joint it's a very neutral posture, upright and relaxed, nearly anyone can do it.  Although it really helps to have good external rotation of the hip joints, sitting in the full lotus does not take any special strength or flexibility.  It does not help to be able to do a bunch of downward dogs or planks or corpse poses.
  It is true that your average Joe in the US does not have the external rotation of this hips to sit in the full lotus.  But you can just do your best while sitting in a really tall zafu and over a few years your will naturally develop all the flexibility you will need in the hips.  Clearly yoga can accelerate this process.
What about the rest of the body?  Do you know anyone who sits zazen with a lot of pain in shoulders, neck or back?  I was at zen sitting where the assembly would finish a day of sitting by massaging each others shoulder by standing in a circle!  And we say that Zen is a path to end suffering?  People have pain not because they lack the flexibility, strength or stamina.  People have pain because of their habits.  These habits themselves may be painful, and they prevent us from employing our antigravity reflex.  We then struggle to hold themselves up and develop muscle tension.  Being upright is the basis of zazen regardless of the sitting, standing etc, and the AT gives us the tools to be upright.  Overall, the AT more accurately describes how to sit zazen.
One point awarded to the AT.

Which is safer?
First, is yoga safe?  Much has been written about the possibility of injury from yoga recently, but in fact nothing is safe.  Getting out of bed is dangerous.  Heck, I've even heard stories about being injured while sleeping.  Shouldn't the real question be: Do the benefits of yoga outweigh the risks of practicing it?  And of course, all schools of yoga are not the same and teachers vary widely.  And those who are foolish will find some way to injure themselves even if they do not practice yoga.  I have a lot of respect for the Iyengar school: with their focus on technique, safety and the quality of their teachers. But the fact that there is so much debate does sugest there is some risk in practicing yoga.  Of course, hopefully the yogi will be better prepared for the slings and arrows that life inevitably will fling at us.
  Regarding the AT, I'll say that it is the safest learning activity that exists.  AT teaches one how to use themselves better.  It leads to greater efficiency  poise, improved balance and breathing.  It improves our ability to accurately sense our bodies.   With better use comes much less risk of injury.  I base this on my review of all the scientific studies I've found on the AT.  Even in the big British Medical Journal study with hundreds of participants there were not only no injuries, but no unwanted effects at all.  Zero.  In all the studies on the AT I've not read of one unwanted effect.
One point awarded to the AT.

Which is faster?
Students of the AT spend time taking classes.  In addition, most AT teachers recommend spending time doing two 10 min "lie downs" a day.  How many classes will be needed?  It is not really clear.  How long will it take you to learn french?  Ones interests and abilities vary, as does the skill of the teacher to meet your needs.  Traditionally there have been recommendations, but I really do not know what they are.  But you can look at the scientific studies that have been done.   Most studies seem to use between 6 lessons and 24 lessons.  Or they study the teachers of the technique who can be considered experts.  The biggest study was the BMJ study.  It showed very significant benefits a year after the study.  The best result were people who had 24 lessons, but those who had only 6 lessons plus a prescription for exercise also got quite a lot of benefit.   Here in the US, lessons are usually about an hour, but in the UK I hear they are more likely 1/2 hour.  At two lessons a week you are done in 3 months.
How about yoga?  Say you practiced Yoga twice a day for 10 min plus an hour twice weekly for 3 months.  It would be undoubtedly helpful. But then no yoga for 9 months?  Surely you would have lost nearly all benefits   I have the most respect for B. K. S. Iyengar.  If you read his introduction to Light on Yoga it is clear that yoga is a progressive practice that has the potential to lead the Average Joe, through hard work, from his mediocre existence to a Yogic Sainthood.  It is a progressive practice.  And I think that most yogic teacher would say that a steady lifelong practice is essential.
One point for the AT.

Which feels better?  
We all want to feel good.
We scrunch ourselves into our car or the bus to go to work.  We hunch and strain and collapse all day at work.  Maybe we don't feel bad but we definitely don't feel great after work so we go to yoga.  In class we work out all the kinks, open up this and stretch out that.  We feel stronger and more flexible.  Then we go home and do exactly the same things in the same way as we did the previous day.  The next day we get up and do it all again.  How long to you feel good after Yoga?
We are like a nice drapery.  But instead of hanging ourself in the window, enjoying gravity and using it to straighten ourselves out we bunch ourselves up in a pile in the corner.  Then once a day we go to Yoga to shake ourself out.  Well yeah, it feels great!  But why not learn to use and enjoy gravity to achieve the stature and grace that we are heir to?
One point for the AT.

Which can be taught more efficiently?  
There are limited numbers of both yoga and AT teachers.  Yoga can be taught in groups.  Maybe teaching yoga safely requires smaller groups that allow for individualized instruction, but clearly it is well suited for groups.  The AT can not be taught in groups.  Introductory classes can be given to groups and a new student might get a taste of the AT, but I believe the vast majority of AT teachers believe it can not be taught to groups.  This is a huge barrier to bringing the AT to Zen students.  There are actually very few AT teachers, fewer that are qualified through the Society of Alexander Technique Teacher.
However, I am not aware that anyone has tried to teach the AT for a group of Zen students.  There are similarities between Zen and the AT, and I believe that these similarities make it easier for student of one to practice the other.  In any event, a conclusion for now is clear.
One point for yoga.

Which is more faithful to the idea of unreliable sensory information?
 This may seem like an odd question.  In the AT there are a number of ideas that are taught.  One of the most interesting is that our senses do not provide a reliable basis on which to act.  The AT teaches another basis for our use beyond what "feels right".  In fact, AT teachers really are not very interested in what the student is feeling.  But Yoga is different.  Yes, most yoga studios that I've seen have mirrors, in part to provide visual feedback to the student in the hope that this will supplement their kinesthetic sense enough to guide them to do their poses correctly.  But in the classes that I have taken I'm frequently told to do particular things with my body with the assumption that I know where that body part is and that I can feel it correctly.  Frankly, I think there is an unspoken realization that students fail at this quite a lot.  Hense, the frequent personal attention by the teacher, the mirrors and the injuries.  But because yogis have no other basis upon which to do an activity they have no choice but to rely on their sensations.
One point for the AT.

Before we add up the score, let me say this.

Really the AT cannot be compared with Yoga.  Yoga is a set of discrete independent activities (asanas, breathing activities, meditations, etc)  that are done throughout ones life to improve ones life. Without practice one regresses.  The AT is completely different.  There are lessons to take but only initially.   There is some commitment over a period of 3 months or so to acquire the tools and an understanding of the technique.  Or one can spend 3 years to become an expert and have the ability to teach the technique.  But then, really no more lessons are needed.  This is because the AT is not a body of discrete independent activities.  At the end of ones AT training one has only gotten to the starting line.  After a body of lessons one is able to use ones body/mind to it's best advantage while doing any activity.  There is no "Alexander technique activity".  It's simply with you to use while you sit, eat, speak, hang drapery or suffer the slings and arrows that flesh is heir to.  You can even employ the technique while you do yoga!

I know a middle age woman who has done quite a bit of yoga over the past several years.  She's now starting an educational program that will require long hours sitting in class.  She's worried about the effects of all the sitting on her body.  What good was all that yoga if you can't do what you did when you were a teen?!  I believe that she feels she is sitting at the pinnacle of her yogic practice and fears she is easily toppled by sitting in a classroom.  Yoga has failed to make her adequately supple and strong enough to sit in a chair!  It also has not improved her proprioception enough to be able to sit for long periods without harm.    She does amazing backbends and her hamstrings are supple beyond belief, but what good has this done her in daily living?

The problem is that Yoga does not improve how one does things.  Sure, classes will improve strength, flexibility and even mental attributes.  But it does not inform how to do things.   How do you sit on your drive back from a yoga class?  How do you cut vegetables, cook at the stove and eat dinner?  How do you sit in a chair in class or on a zafu durring zazen?  You don't need strength, flexibility or endurance or shoulder stands to do these everyday tasks.  To do them better you need the tools that the AT offers.

So both Yoga and the AT are useful for the Zen student.  But start with the AT.  It's a trivial time and monetary commitment compared to Yoga and Zen.  But by having studied the AT you will be able to do everything you do well.  And for me, to do something well is happiness.

AT as Expedient Means

Can the Alexander Technique concept of "Direction" be used as an expedient means?

I have suggested in the past that most Zen meditation is shikantaza, or "just sitting".  
Although much has been written on how to do 'just sitting' it's actually pretty simple: it's just sitting, what ever comes up is OK, just sit.  
Just sitting does not include much judging, grasping or aversion.
I  think it is also perfectly fine to define shikantaza with AT technical terms: universal awareness, inhibition of end-gaining and the view that anything other than just sitting is end-gaining.  That really sums it up nicely.

But what of direction?  This is also an AT technical term that is extremely important to the AT.   I have suggested in the past that if one employs direction constantly, it begins to just run in the background as a sort of underlying intention - an intention to go "up!", an activated antigravity reflex, an increased tone of body and mind, relaxed but not flaccid  in a word: "ready".  It can run in the background during Zen sitting.   I have suggested that this direction, running in the background actually informs and explains how to do the physical part of just sitting: how to be upright while not engaging in end-gaining.  

But many people find the concept of "just sitting" to be confusing in it's simplicity.  Or they come to Zen practice with ideas and goals that seem to make "just sitting" seem inadequate or even impossible.

So to teach "just sitting" there seems to be two broad approaches. Based on what I have read and heard, the first is to be supportive.  By this I mean a teacher might be a sympathetic ear, or a cheerleader, or they can explain in any number of ways what "just sitting" means.  They might point out, or even help resolve, barriers to "just sitting".  They might smack you to help you let go of wrong ideas or opinions.  Or they can simply embody it and live intimately with their students.  Of course, I don't really know, I'm not a Zen teacher.

The other approach that I've seen to help students with Shikantaza is to offer to students what is sometimes called "expedient means".   Inherent in this term is that there is a goal, and that this "expedient means" is a mean to a goal.  So "expedient means" are techniques to help Zen students get closer to "just sitting".  

This later teaching technique, "expedient means", is extremely problematic.  Shikantaza is about setting aside judging, grasping and aversion, but expedient means involve taking these up to some extent.  Expedient means is setting a goal where none exist, and then suggesting grasping and aversion when it is, in fact, grasping and aversion that is the problem.   Also practicing expedient means creates habits of mind that eventually will have to be resolved.

I can offer my own story as an example.  I came to the zen practice after reading the Three Pillars of Zen.  I wasn't very happy with my life, and I thought that if I worked hard I could change and become enlightened and, I suppose, live happily ever after.  My "take away" from The Three Pillars was that I needed to work on a Zen Koan (most likely "What is the sound of one hand clapping?").  I arrived at the San Francisco Zen Center ready to work hard.  I went to zazen instructions, which took about 1/2 an hour.  They talked about how to navigate the formalities of the meditation hall.  They talked about posture, but because I took a class in yoga in college I did not think I had to pay much attention.  They might have said something about breathing, but I can't recall: I was waiting for them to give me my koan to work on. Finally, the instructor asked if there were any questions.  "What about a koan?" I asked.  They said they didn't do much koan practice at the SFZC.  At that point I wished I had paid more attention.

But I did get it into my mind to count my exhalations, 1 to 10 and then start over again.  I did this for years.  Many week long intensives.  I had many very well regarded teachers, but really I did not understand anything that I heard.  Years later I asked if it would be OK if I just followed my breathing instead of counting my breaths.  I recall my teacher being rather exasperated and refusing to tell me what to do.  But I did then follow my breathing for over a dozen years.  One night after sitting all day in a Zen monastery my mind was just so completely exhausted.  I just simply could not go on dragging my mind back to my breathing over and over again.  I had had enough, I was fed up, and I just couldn't do it anymore.  It seemed such an abusive, mean thing to do to my poor little brain.  Regardless of how gentle I was at bringing my attention back to my breathing it involved generating a dislike for what was going on in the present, and making an effort to redirect my attention.  It might sound like a trivial amount of effort, but I had done it so much, over such a long time that I was exhausted: I had had enough.  I recall sitting outside on the walkway near the creek late at night.  I was alone, I let my hair down, I sat informally on a seza bench.   I just sat there.  It was sublime.   

Later I told a teacher what I was doing, and he replied that this was the practice of the Buddhas and ancestors.  So I stuck with it.  

At first (I am now embarrassed to say) I was angry at my teachers: "Why didn't they tell me just to sit years ago?"  But then I slowly came to the realization that they had been telling me this, but I couldn't understand them.  I do wonder if young men in particular, feel they need to work hard- work up a sweat - stay up all night in the full lotus posture - struggle - grapple with their mind, to make progress.   Perhaps it is simply a gracious offering to suggest to someone who is entrenched in the belief that they can not 'just sit' that they try an expedient means, at least temporarily.

This effort to make progress using expedient means, such as 'following the breath', or 'being mindful' also set up habits in me.  I found what I thought were methods of using my body and mind to help me sit 'better' zazen.  From pulling up my chest to 'stay sharp' to sitting with excessive lordosis avoid distractions.  Habits of mind included a distinct aversion to sensations that I thought meant I was falling asleep, or, of course, 'thinking too much'. 
 If I had to characterize my last few years of sitting I might say I've been unraveling all the bad habits I have accumulated practicing expedient means.  

I'm now a big fan of just sitting.  Or if pressed I might say that I try to allow zazen to sit zazen.  And I can be strident in my opinions, but I'm trying to be more openminded.  

To that end, perhaps we need to be gracious to anyone who feels they need to do something while sitting.  I don't really know, I'm not a zen teacher, but I'm open to the possibility.

But expedient means are dangerous  as I've said above.  They create and reinforce a view of life that there is lacking, that there is goal that must be reached, that 'doing' is the means to get there.  These views produce habits of mind that will have to be resolved at some point.

Here is the question that I am asking: If one wants to take up an 'expedient means', what is the least toxic?  What 'expedient means' will lead us the least astray?

-Koan practice has been suggested, but I don't know that much about it.  But it seems that if one does koan practice it is important to work closely with a teacher.   It does seem to take hard work, and I do worry about experiencing the 'Zen Sickness' that Hakuin Ekaku seemed to experience.
-A 'body' practice has been suggested and is popular in a large part because modern Americans are quite alienated from their body.  In addition, sensations from the body are always 'present' which is a great antidote if one is troubled by a wandering mind.  Bringing ones attention to the body, especially the hara, can be very grounding.  But there are pitfalls, including becoming less social, becoming sleepy or overly quiet, becoming more distant from our environment.  Also, body oriented practices risk that we might attribute some meaning to these sensations.  I've recently read about the body-self neuromatrix and the sentient neural hub.  It really seems to me that watching the body sensations is about as 'real' as watching reality TV.  
-There are mind based practices: trying to be 'mindful'.  Many writers suggest that Zen practice and mindfulness are synonymous and I believe it is widely accepted.   Mindfulness is very popular, you read about it all the time in the newspaper.  It seems to help with a host of modern problems, and it is recommended by Google to their employees.  But mindfulness is an expedient means.  One has identified their present state as undesirable and one makes an effort ('doing'), to drag the mind back to something else such as 'the present'.  I'm not saying that mindfulness would not be helpful for the vast majority of Americans, but I do not think this is Zen practice   Maybe it's my residual arrogance...   Maybe you think that your mindfulness is really 'just sitting'.  Well try this: give up trying to be mindful and see how it goes. 

 I'm here to recommend 'just sitting'.  If you feel you want something else, please consider the AT.  Zen students are well versed in inhibition of end-gaining  but they do not use these terms.  But this is fine.  'Stopping' is absolutely essential to all activities including zazen.   Direction is the least toxic of the 'expedient means'.  It is as distant from 'doing' as possible and will not incur the pitfalls of a body based practice.  That is, it references a body part but does not encourage feeling it.  It involves intention and energy.  It does not involve much doing - it is like wishing hard for better weather.  And finally, it has a geographic direction.  Directions can be classified as either internal (I am letting my back and torso widen) or external, (I am allowing my shoulders to lengthen towards the walls). Directions can be either positive, (I'm allowing my neck to be free) or negative (I'm not pulling down on my neck).  It would seem to me that a Zen teacher could prescribe just the right direction to meet a students particular needs.  

In addition, the use of direction as an expedient means contributes a benefit that body and mind based expedient means do not.  Direction, if correctly taught by a qualified AT teacher, encourages students to inhibit pulling down and shortening of the physical body.  Skeletal muscles attach and insert into different bones with a joint in between.  Muscles do not actively expand, they just actively contract.  Thus, any contraction of a skeletal muscle will invariably shorten and/or contract the body.  Direction  inevitably but indirectly suggests to the muscle not to contract.  Muscles contract during sitting because of fear, clinging and aversion.  Others might say that they contract due to habits of body and mind.  In my years of sitting I have never found a significant thought or emotion that was not accompanied by shortening or contracting.  But check for yourself.  If your experience is different, let me know.
      Dogen talked about a hairs breath deviation results in a mind that is lost in confusion.  I think that this deviation is actually muscle contraction: the body can be lost in confusion as well.  Or there is no difference.  To use direction is to set ones intention on going upstream.

The AT is a contribution to Zen practice.  It is at least as importnat to Buddhism as feminism and western psychology.  It teaches the foundations of zen sitting practice explicitly and clearly: inhibition, universal awareness,  end-gaining .  These qualities  with the addition of direction, provides the key to bringing Zen practice into everyday life: social engagement.  Finally, what I am suggesting here, is that if one really wants an expedient means,  the use of direction is the most effective, least toxic practice and is helpful in ways that other body and mind based expedient means are not.

But to understand the use of direction takes a few individual lessons from a qualified AT teacher.  To actually teach how to give directions, to become an AT teacher, takes years of education.   

Unfortunately, in all the whole wide world, there is not one Zen teacher that understands the benefits that the AT offers to Zen students, let alone has the qualifications to both teach the AT and teach Zen.