National Yoga Certification Standards,
A Bad Idea?
Last Updated: October 19, 1999 ( A critique-in-progress
prepared by Ganga White, Tracey Rich, Joel
Kramer, Diana
Alstad and other teachers and friends of White
Lotus Foundation.) This letter is posted at http://www.whitelotus.org/library2/articles/standards.html
and may be updated and modified as it evolves. Unedited
copies may shared in their entirety with interested
parties.
A group of yoga teachers have formed an organization,
The Yoga Alliance, and are pressing teachers and organizations
to agree to certain national standards for yoga teacher
education. They have also proposed a registration
mark or seal, "RYT" (Registered Yoga Teacher),
to be issued by them and used nationally. There is
good reason to want to improve the quality of yoga
teaching in America. Questionable certification programs
and self-appointed masters with little or no training
and instances of abuse have been reported. This cannot
be disputed, but the real question is whether regulations
will change or improve things at all. We argue that
they will not only fail to do so, but will probably
make things worse.
The Purpose of Setting Standards
Some overt reasons why people want national standards
for teachers include: 1) improving quality and ensuring
that people don’t go to teachers who are harmful or
destructive; 2) giving a baseline for helping people
choose teachers; 3) giving a specific meaning and
standards to teacher certification. Ostensibly, the
whole idea behind this is "consumer"-oriented—giving
students better choices. It assumes that now the consumer
could be getting poorly trained teachers. It is also
hoped that standardization will allow good teachers
to connect into established systems, like insurance
companies, to get benefits and payment. Another rationale
is that standards will construct a certain kind of
professionalism in the field. Point-by-point it can
be shown that regulated national certification is
not a good idea and will actually rebound and have
a negative effect. A number of things the Alliance
plans to do, like dissemination of information, do
not need an exclusive or standard-controlling organization
of teachers at all. All one needs is a Web site. Another
stated purpose is "to nurture the yoga community".
Do we want to create a bureaucracy to nurture yoga
students? When has a controlling bureaucracy ever
nurtured anyone other than its own members? Having
standards neither guarantees nor is required for any
of these types of things to happen. If one wants to
do these types of things, one can simply do them—national
standardization isn’t needed.
"To educate about the Yoga Alliance" is
another stated purpose. Even if this national registry
comes about, not every teacher and organization will
join. This means there will be teachers who operate
under its seal of approval and those who do not. Would
this education by the Alliance then basically take
the form of propaganda that says or implies that only
those with their seal are the good guys and those
who do not have it are the bad guys? Creating the
Alliance will force the Alliance to claim themselves
the best and most qualified—increasing division and
conflict.
Blurring the Secular and Religious
The Alliance’s standards cross the line from the
secular to the religious. By including meditation,
chanting, instructions on how to live, right livelihood,
lifestyles and ethics, they have crossed the boundary
into sectarian, religious perspectives. What differentiates
yoga from professions with licenses and standards,
such as the medical, the dental, chiropractic and
even massage professions, is that in many people’s
minds, yoga has two levels—the physical/technical
and the spiritual. Unless they want to divorce these
two levels from each other—which it appears they do
not, then it is not the same thing as, say, the medical
profession which has fixed standards of scientific
knowledge, practice and procedures that can be tested.
One reason you can certify a doctor is that there
are these objective standards of knowledge that one
has to demonstrate and fulfill. Basically, as soon
as you begin to combine these two arenas, by bringing
in right livelihood and meditation for instance, there
is no agreement as to what these things are. The Alliance
has not yet defined these things, but requiring them
without definition is meaningless. Defining them would
confine them to one group’s belief systems and opinions.
The United States Constitution specifically states
that no government laws will be established regulating
religious beliefs or practices. But in order to be
certified by the Alliance we must accept the values,
mindsets and beliefs that it sets. This goes against
the very essence of yoga because there is no one
yoga philosophical standard—nor should there be!
Some yogis are vegetarian, some are not. Some Raja
yogis (followers of Patanjali) believe in Hatha Yoga;
some believe it a trap and pitfall. Some say that
one should only or mainly do yoga in classes in order
to be corrected and sure of doing it right. Others
say yoga is an inner exploration that can only truly
be done on one’s own and that a personal practice
is therefore a more essential "training"
than classes. Some believe celibacy is absolutely
necessary; some think sexual fulfillment is important.
Some say yoga is a path to truth; others that there
is no path to truth. What then is right livelihood,
right diet, right ethics? And most importantly, who
decides—and on what basis? Once you define and legislate
yoga or religion it is the beginning of institutionalizing
it. Regardless of the intentions, this move in effect
would give power to the more traditional and fundamentalist
wings of yoga.
Mininum hours of training as a Standard?
Standards could possibly make sense if purely
physical practices were separated from the spiritual
aspects of yoga. Asana and pranayama would then have
to stand alone. But most yoga teachers would not wish
to see the context of yoga stripped down and shifted
in this way. Say one does decide to limit the standards
to the physical aspect of teaching. What kind of standards
can be set other than the number of hours of training?
Certainly standards of strength, flexibility or how
many positions one can do cannot be the measure. There
are acrobats, dancers and gymnasts who can do more
than many yogis who have practiced all their lives.
Does this mean they understand or can teach yoga?
Suppose we use numbers of hours of class attendance.
Does putting in time ensure the person will be a good
teacher? Does a massage certificate (a profession
with standards already set) ensure a good massage?
Some great and renowned yoga teachers have never taken
a class—this means they could not make the registry!
Many teachers who have taken hundreds of hours of
classes haven’t practiced in depth on their own. Can
one become a good teacher without a personal practice?
Should minimum numbers of hours of personal practice
also be required? Who is to judge the quality or depth
of a private practice and on what basis? The problems
are endless.
It could be argued that while a minimum number of
training hours won’t be a guarantee of teaching quality,
it would be a bottom line of basic training. If one
attended a certain number of classes, it would at
least show exposure and supposedly increase the likelihood
of becoming a better teacher. Then does it matter
what kind of training these hours offer? Can it be
eclectic and broad? Is this the same as focused and
specialized hours? Which is better, how do we decide
and who sets the standards behind this? What if the
standards are totally open (as the Alliance is presenting
them now) consisting only of specific numbers of hours
in any style of training? What does it really mean
to have that seal of approval? Does it mean one is
qualified to teach yoga to everybody? How does choosing
a RYT teacher protect people from getting injured
by teachers using techniques that are inappropriate
or improper for them? How does the Alliance protect
the consumer who sees the RYT seal and feels this
assures good instruction? A seal that certifies and
implies that a person is a trained professional meeting
the standards could open the Alliance to lawsuits
for the acts of registered teachers. Many doctors
regard certain yoga practices as dangerous and harmful
and could testify as such. These are other ways registration
can rebound.
Do standards prevent abuse?
It’s unfortunate that some teachers seem to lack
ethics and there are instances of abuse. There’s no
question that various types of abuse, both physical
and mental, occur. But abuse won’t be eliminated by
regulations which attempt to control it. Does anyone
seriously think having rules against it will stop
it? Yoga abuse is often between consenting adults,
one of whom is naive. Abuse covers a whole spectrum
of interactions that depend on the context, motives,
and many things—it’s not just a clear-cut act that
can be externally regulated. We must educate people’s
understanding so as to reduce naïvetë. This movement
to regulate is trying to institutionalize yoga by
making it into a static, defined, structured, hierarchically
controlled activity and under the guise of being consumer-oriented
is really power oriented!
The government already has protection, laws and punishments
against fraud, sexual abuse and injury. We don’t need
the Alliance for this. Furthermore, a few of the swamis
and yogis on the list of supporters have already been
exposed for sexual and other forms of abuse, but they
are now suddenly upheld as the champions of ethical
standards! Imposing ethical standards is very precarious,
especially in the arena of dating and love. Many fine
teachers are happily married to former students! Will
a teacher and student’s falling in love be stopped
by a rule? People will still do what they do and just
make it more secretive. Are we to treat people as
adults or children?
What must be done instead is make people more aware.
Yoga at its best is an activity that brings more self-awareness.
The teacher’s job is not so much to legislate what’s
right and wrong, but to help people move into realms
of greater awareness. It is not the job of the teacher
to tell people what to do, nor how to live, nor how
to be, but to allow them to gain more self-awareness
so they make the decisions for themselves that are
right for their lives. The solution to complex, knotty
problems is not regulations. Such attempts at problem-solving
through bureaucratic control neither work nor are
conducive to growth—on the part of the student or
the teacher.
What is the Essence of Yoga?
In delineating between the physical, more measurable
aspect of yoga and the immeasurable spiritual-consciousness-religious
aspect, who are the watchdogs of all this? Who will
supervise the supervisors? Once the door is open to
standardization and legislation, how far will it go?
Yoga is at least as much an art as it is a science.
Do we register artists and musicians? Dance schools
are just lineage affiliated. Yoga is not just a mechanical
process. Even though it has a mechanical and measurable
aspect, it is a non-mechanical, living thing at its
core. Basically it has a very creative, non-mechanical
essence that people tap into. Do we really want to
turn yoga into a mechanical structure that a bureaucracy
regulates? This so goes against the very essence of
yoga that it cannot be permitted! Yoga can only thrive
and evolve in a context of freedom, including free
inquiry into its very nature.
Yoga has been free and unregulated for eons. India
has every manner and type of yogi and no government
or other regulation. For millennia the tradition has
been that the student chooses the teacher, and the
choosing is part of the growth. Now our Western conditioning
wants to try to control it. Why not educate students
in intelligent choices instead? We should let the
public decide who they want as teachers. Keeping the
field free and unregulated keeps people aware that
they must choose wisely. This is better than making
the choices for everyone by registering a small group
of teachers as "the good ones."
Fundamentally, the abuses that will come from attempting
to regulate something that essentially cannot be regulated
will be greater than the abuses occurring now. Let’s
not synthesize the worst of both East and West, combining
old authoritarian tradition with modern authoritarianism—bureaucracy.
Rather, wouldn’t it be better to take the best from
both worlds? Take the questioning, free spirit and
scientific wherewithal from the West and combine it
with wisdom and insight from the East. Making a bureaucracy
of yoga and trying to regulate it goes against the
core of what yoga is.
Should we put yoga into the mold?
Much of the mind and reason of these standards
is trying to mold yoga into the Western medical-insurance
model in order for some people to make a living. Do
we really want to try to make yoga fit into the flawed,
Western bureaucratic health care system, dictated
to by corporations and insurance companies? (If insurance
companies want to have rules or standards, let them
make their own.) Every one knows this model is highly
flawed to begin with. Whether or not one accepts the
Eastern worldview, it would be counter-productive
to mold it into non-viable Western structures. Is
the RYT to become the AMA of the yoga
world?!!! Even the goal of getting yoga into the school
systems would be undermined by these proposed standards
because they promote the religious parts of yoga such
as chanting, meditation, ethics, lifestyle and study
of Hindu scriptures like the Bhagavad Gita and Patanjali
Yoga Sutras. This would most probably bring lawsuits
from both secular and religious people.
Yoga is not about professionals making a living.
It’s fine if people make their living with yoga but
this is not what it’s about! It’s more about self-exploration
and the self-knowledge and insight into life that
one can glean from this study and practice. It can
be deeply personal and private. Are we going to treat
people like adults or children—the latter, incidentally,
is what the Western bureaucratic model does. It takes
people, plugs them into the system, tells them what
to do, and says, "Don’t ask too many questions.
We know what’s best; we know the way." The issue
is really about economics, control and power. Many
people are fighting hard against this dysfunctional
approach and here the Alliance is trying to fit yoga
into it!
Fear of the "Outside"
The Alliance justifies its motivation for the
registry partly through fear, saying that if it does
not do so, regulation will be imposed upon us from
the outside. We feel that fear of government control
is unwarranted and specious. The government has as
much interest in and ability to control yoga classes
as it does dance classes! This kind of thing can’t
be controlled. The same reasons we would fear government
control from the outside should be applied to Alliance’s
governmental control from the inside. It will still
be "government" control! Inside government
control or outside government regulation of yoga are
both undesirable. Though their motives might be sincere,
what types of people want to establish this kind of
controlling body? Additionally, the Alliance is not
now, and could not possibly be, democratic. Did all
yoga students or even all yoga teachers decide to
do this, vote on it and elect this group? This group
does not represent even the inside of yoga! There
is neither agreement nor acceptance of this—instead
it is being imposed, with urgency. Real democracy
takes time. Why is the Alliance in such a hurry to
ramrod it through as fast as possible? If nothing
else, a lot more debate is certainly necessary. Even
if it were democratically decided upon, we still find
it ill advised for all the reasons already stated.
Haven’t we learned that power corrupts? No matter
how sincere and well-intentioned people may be, once
put in a place of bureaucratic power they face the
danger of being attached to the power that that gives
them. Controlling ourselves out of fear of being controlled
by the government, is in fact being controlled by
the government. Postulating that the government is
going to control us is specious because they can’t—if
for no other reason than the constitutional prohibition.
Let’s not institutionalize Yoga
Some teachers or organizations may qualify for
the proposed seal and, being unaware of implications
and repercussions, feel there is no harm or loss to
join and sign on. Even though White Lotus’ teacher
training meets the proposed standards we are not joining
this movement. We feel this whole movement is contrary
to the feeling and inner spirit of yoga. We feel it
will cause far more harm than it will correct. We
feel this movement is attempting to institutionalize,
bureaucratize and police yoga. We do not want to see
such yoga politics created. Yoga is far too big to
be put under one umbrella! We ask, is it good for
yoga at its core to be both institutionalized and
bureaucratized? No, it’s in our best interest to oppose
strongly all such attempts to institutionalize yoga.
We must educate students in right choices and what
to look for in teachers instead. Education and awareness
is the only answer
