Why Ashtanga Still Matters (and for whom)

There are moments in practice when repetition begins to feel like certainty. The sequence is known, the breath is counted, the body moves through familiar shapes. Over time, this familiarity can begin to resemble clarity—an idea of what the practice is, and what it asks of us.

But there are other moments, quieter ones, when that certainty begins to fray.

Injury interrupts. Fatigue settles differently in the body. A posture that once felt accessible becomes difficult, or impossible. The room itself—who is in it, who is not—begins to feel more visible. The practice that once seemed stable starts to reveal its conditions.

And it is often here, in these moments of interruption, that the question emerges: why does Ashtanga still matter?

For many, Ashtanga is encountered as form. A sequence to be learned, repeated, and eventually internalised. It is often framed through discipline, consistency, and devotion to a fixed structure. There is a certain comfort in this—something reliable in the act of returning, again and again, to the same movements, the same breath.

But practice is never only form.

It is always shaped by the body that moves through it—by capacity, limitation, injury, and change. It is shaped by the conditions in which it is learned: the teacher, the space, the culture of the room. It is shaped by histories that are not always spoken, and by exclusions that are often felt more than articulated.

To speak of Ashtanga, then, is not only to speak of sequence or lineage. It is to speak of how practice is lived.

The question of who Ashtanga works for is not a simple one. It is tempting to say that the practice is universal, that anyone can begin and continue. And in some ways, this is true—the simplicity of breath and movement remains available in different forms.

But in practice, access is uneven.

Bodies are read in particular ways. Some are assumed to fit the practice more easily than others. Some are offered adjustment, attention, and encouragement; others are left to navigate quietly. Injury is sometimes accommodated, and sometimes dismissed. Modification is often framed as deviation, rather than as a necessary part of sustaining practice.

These are not failures of individual practitioners. They are part of the broader conditions in which yoga, and Ashtanga specifically, is taught and understood.

To ask for whom the practice matters is therefore also to ask: Who is able to remain? Who is asked to endure? And who leaves, often without being noticed?

—

At the same time, there is something that continues to draw people back.

Not the idea of perfection, nor the promise of progress, but something quieter. A rhythm of breath. The repetition of movement not as achievement, but as familiarity. A space—however imperfect—in which attention can settle.

For some, it is precisely the tension within the practice that keeps it alive. The fact that it does not resolve easily. That it asks something of the body, even as the body changes. That it holds structure, but does not fully account for the complexity of those who enter it.

In this sense, Ashtanga does not matter because it is fixed or complete. It matters because it is encountered—again and again, differently each time.

To practise, then, is not simply to follow a sequence.

It is to negotiate. To adjust. To question what is being asked, and what can be sustained. To remain, at times, and at other times to step back. To recognise that practice is not singular, even within a system that often appears so.

And perhaps this is where its continued relevance lies—not in its claims to authority, but in the ways it is taken up, adapted, and reworked in lived experience.

Ashtanga still matters, but not in the same way for everyone.

It matters differently across bodies, across histories, across changing conditions of life and practice. It matters in fragments, in returns, in pauses. It matters not as a fixed path, but as something that is continually negotiated.

For some, it will remain central. For others, it will become peripheral, or fall away entirely. These are not failures of commitment, but part of the reality of practice.

To ask why it matters is therefore not to arrive at a single answer.

It is to stay with the question, and with the many ways in which it continues—or does not—to shape how we practise.

And perhaps that is enough.

To return, where possible. To change, where necessary. To recognise that practice does not belong to a single form, or to a single body.

But unfolds, always, through the many ways we practise.