Beat Kick Slap (BKS), Sexual Abuse and Cover up at Iyengar New York

Yoga is practiced to attain peace, equilibrium and ultimate liberation. The physical practice is meant to prepare the yogi for sitting in meditation: “asana,” or “seat,” one of the steps outlined in the Yoga Sutras by the sage Patanjali. Prior to “asana” are moral precepts, and subsequent steps are energy and meditation practices to go within and gain direct perception of God, or “samadhi”. A true Guru, whether or not in a physical body, is one who knows God and guides disciples towards their own higher state of consciousness. To graduate from the human plane requires expansion of the heart through cultivating love, until the underlying oneness with all in the universe is felt.

David

On the uncharacteristically warm, sunny afternoon of November 13, 2011, the tall, lean psychotherapist David (not his real name), took a yoga class with James Murphy, the director at the Iyengar Yoga Institute of New York. Though David practices ashtanga yoga at home every morning, his wife was doing a Teacher Training led by James Murphy at the Institute, and David sometimes joined her for classes; it was his fourth time attending Murphy’s. The couple took the elevator down from the 11th floor where the institute was located then, and Murphy was with them. The three chatted. When the elevator doors opened to the lobby, David’s wife got off first. David and Murphy looked at each other, and David waited to let Murphy off, who offered instead for David to go first. Gentlemanly gesture. The exact moment David exited the elevator, his wife just a few steps in front of him, in broad daylight, James Murphy stuck his finger in David’s anus, through his clothes.

“This was a turning point in my life,” David said. “I had never been sexually assaulted, and I had no idea of what was happening to me. When I walked out, the world was spinning, I could not see. I was literally blind and my perceptions were totally shut down. In a state of complete shock, my feelings were all gone.”

On the sidewalk, in front of the entrance to the Iyengar Yoga building, David’s wife had a friendly interaction with Murphy. They spoke about bicycle helmets, and, noting he did not carry one, she offered that he borrow hers. Murphy got on his bike without a helmet and rode off.

When David regained his senses, he felt grateful that his wife had been making small talk and given him time to regain composure without noticing his paralyzed state. The idea of telling her about Murphy’s assault was inconceivable. David’s thoughts flew to his wife’s situation and the paralysis continued; he was compelled to keep silent: his wife was going to need Murphy to make it through to the end of her teacher training. She had been practicing at the studio for ten years before committing to this training. It meant a great deal to her. The New York Iyengar studio was a major part of her life. David did not want to interfere with that. He decided he could not tell her what had happened. At least not yet. While helping others deal with trauma on a daily basis in his psychotherapy training and practice, David was fully unprepared to deal with this sexual assault. He was so deeply impacted he could not speak to anyone about the trauma for over a year, and then only to a trusted therapist. He did not know what to do. He was overwhelmed and horrendously ashamed. To this day, nine years later, David still can only be in an elevator car if his back is to the wall, and he can’t exit unless there is no one else in the car, quite a predicament considering he lives in New York City. Since he is still in the healing process from the assault, he asked me to change his name for this blog post, to preserve his privacy towards his patients.

James Murphy is featured in a few videos online in which he demonstrates yoga postures, which end with his invitation to visit the the Iyengar Center in New York. He has great form, for which he was praised by B.K.S. Iyengar. In one video, the handsome young Murphy is requested on stage by Iyengar and made to show exactly which muscles are to be engaged for basic vinyasa poses. He is praised for being quicker than the other demonstrators in adjusting his physique to Iyengar’s commands. After his demonstration, Murphy is seen scurrying to assist with set ups, and it is clear that he is indeed quick, eager to please, and obedient.

Throughout the 30-minute video, Iyengar bullies and mocks students and demonstrators alike. He is often unclear in his instructions and chastises helpers who don’t immediately guess what he means. When Murphy rushes to position a block by a demonstrator’s wrist, Iyengar yells: “[Put it] “vertical!” When Murphy puts the block as asked, Iyengar grumbles, impatiently pulls the block away and places it down horizontally, as if Murphy got it all wrong. Iyengar’s expert knowledge of anatomy, correct alignment and muscle-tissue connectivity is evident. However, he acts like an insecure, petty dictator, boasting repeatedly that “no one else knows this” (but him). His tone and manner are abusive. “Beat, Kick, Slap” is an inside joke, referring to the Iyengar’s first name initials B.K.S., which stand for Bellur Krishnamachar Sundararaja. In an interview published in May 2019, Yoga teacher and author Donna Fahri revealed her assault by Iyengar at a yoga conference. In the audio recording, Fahri says: “The modeling of aggressive behavior tends to trickle down the ranks.”

Briggs Whiteford:

On November 24, 2019, on the third day of an intense workshop taught by John Schumacher at the Iyengar Yoga Center in New York City, participants were asked to line up their mats against the walls for forearm balance practice. Since there were more yoga mats than wall space, participants were asked to alternate turns at the wall. Briggs had her mat by a door that opened to a fire escape, and her neighbor warned her that it would not be safe to put her weight on that outside door. Briggs is an artist, charming and easy-going, with 30 years of yoga experience before entering the New York Iyengar Institute. The yoga practice had always been a vital part of her journey towards empowerment, and Briggs has also shared yoga as a teacher for many years. Briggs assured the woman that she was simply waiting her turn, and was just going to stretch. Briggs recounts:

“I was in downward facing dog, firming my shoulders against my back and working deeply in the intimacy of my internal space. My legs were to the center of the room, arms facing the door as I waited my turn on the wall. While I was on all fours in this vulnerable position, all of a sudden, I felt a sharp sting on my rear end that came from behind me. It was so startling, I almost fell over. I turned around to see the angry face of the director of the center whom I barely know, James Murphy, yelling at me:

“What are you doing?””

Stunned and disoriented, Briggs was somehow able to utter:

“I don’t like that you hit me, and that you hit me on my rear end.”

She recalls being left standing on her yoga mat, shaking with humiliation, embarrassment of the indignity of being hit on the buttocks, and rebuked in front of the entire class.

The woman next to her, who had witnessed the incident, asked her if she was okay. Briggs replied that she was not, that she needed to leave. The woman accompanied Briggs out of the studio into the front lobby. As Briggs tried to describe what had just happened, James Murphy exploded into the lobby, screaming that he had been trying to protect her from falling out the door. One of the things he mentioned in his verbal tirade, was that he’d had no choice but to hit her.

This reminded me of a line by B.K.S. Iyengar uttered in the now infamous video in which he hits a female demonstrator, and then tells the audience: “I had to hit her.” As if he had no choice. Leading up to the assault, Iyengar yells “Side, side!” at the woman, by which he apparently means he needs her to turn sideways to demonstrate headstand. She quickly obeys, and then picks up the folded blanket in front of her to turn it also, but before she has a chance, Iyengar screams impatiently: “Do the pose!” so she puts the blanket back down, and as she places her head in her cradled hands on the blanket, he hits her on the back, open-handed, so hard that a painful “Aaah” escapes her. Iyengar proceeds to violently pull the woman up to her knees by the scruff of her shirt. He then justifies his abuse to the audience as though it were merely another nugget of wisdom: “The blanket was narrow, so I had to hit her, so that she will not make that mistake again tomorrow.”

In a video interview, John Schumacher, who was teaching the workshop in which Briggs participated, shares that he was swatted on the side of the head by B.K.S. Iyengar, and explains it away by telling the story of the Zen Master who hit his student on the side of the head with his sandal, and the student at this instant became enlightened. Schumacher makes no mention of reaching enlightenment through his own master’s slap on the head. If the student does not become enlightened, we have to recognize that it is physical abuse, and not some unconventional, wisdom-infused lesson that can only be received by a true devotee.

Schumacher’s explanation summarizes the essential confusion of a guru culture, which uplifts abusive men (and women) and excuses their actions, when spiritual devotion is Stockholm syndrome – unhealthy emotional attachment. Fear-based love has children idealize and protect abusive caretakers in households where there is no room for their pain and anger, let alone for truth. In top-down cultures that child’s love is directed to a new authority figure, and the family narrative is repeated. Toxic hierarchies are trauma-based, and each person’s unresolved individual trauma plugs them into the matrix, playing out the role of the child as the acolyte, or of the abusive parent as the authority figure. Upon entering at the bottom level into such a system, after subjugating oneself to teachers’ and perhaps the guru’s humiliations, verbal, physical, and/or sexual abuse, the best one can hope for is to gain power, become a teacher, and thus place oneself on the other side of the humiliations, on the other side of the abuse. The very nature of a strictly top-down system itself, invites power abuse.

B.K.S. Iyengar teaching headstand (on “narrow” blanket)

In spite of the shock she experienced, Briggs had the presence of mind to recognize that James Murphy hitting her was wrong. The state of shock is the first stage of survival of a victim during trauma, when all brain activity centers in the amygdala, before it decides what is needed next: Fight, flight, freeze or collapse. This is never a conscious choice the victim makes: the prefrontal cortex and other higher brain centers are not online when a person is in a state of shock. As Murphy’s sexual assault victim David shared, he lost his sight completely right after the assault. His nervous system prepared for collapse, then went into freeze mode, more optimally beneficial for his survival in that moment, with his wife and perpetrator present. David did not consciously decide any of these responses: they happened in an automated mind/body response to the trauma inflicted.

Briggs went into flight mode; she had to leave, and did. However, Murphy would not allow her to get away; he came running after her, perpetuating the trauma, screaming at her, blaming her for his assault. Considering the physical and psychological abuse Briggs was undergoing in that moment, her presence of mind is nothing short of extraordinary. She told Murphy:

“You need to register that what you did had such an impact that I could not stay in that room!”

Murphy argued: “You need to register that I was trying to keep you from getting hurt by kicking up on that door.”

The woman who had walked out with Briggs and had been gently trying to intervene with Murphy on Briggs’ behalf, repeated Murphy’s justification back to Briggs. Realizing she was all alone, Briggs declared the conversation over, and walked out. She would later find out just how often and by how many people that same justification would be used to excuse James Murphy.

As soon as Briggs was outside, she broke into tears. In spite of the strength she had displayed during and after the incident, she was plagued with the sense that she had not deserved to be in that workshop, and she took on tremendous shame. Doing yoga became impossible for Briggs. Even though she had enjoyed a vigorous practice up until the assault, she could not face going to a class and doing downward facing dog. Just getting on the mat caused symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress. All she could manage was gentle movement in the privacy of her own home, up until the time we spoke, seven months after the assault.

Having lived through child sex trafficking in elite circles and sexual assault by the ashtanga yoga guru Pattabhi Jois, I know just how difficult it is for survivors to speak up, and how painful the process can be. I know the courage it requires to break through walls of shame and fear in order to reveal such injustices. This article unexpectedly became personal for me; I had to make the kind of choice which I advocate for, one that may affect a valuable business relationship. I chose to be honest, because where there are victims involved, the need for truth is greater than the need to “protect our own,” a common phrase usually referring to the protection of those inside a certain hierarchical group who help maintain your status or move you up. No matter how noble the goal, ambitious people need to make countless choices on their way to success. When you go for success inside a narrowly confined hierarchy, you need to follow the unspoken rules of power operating within that group. The choice is always the same: Do you side with power, or with love? Do you side with maintaining the image of the group, or do you stand up for justice? Do you keep quiet, or do you speak up? A toxic hierarchy rewards toxic silence and redefines it as ahimsa, non-harming. Inside a spiritual group, those with power tend to follow the rules of power, not truth and love. This dichotomy is responsible for the unending hypocrisy and smoke screens inside yoga and spiritual organizations.

When victims go public, it is because the abuse and subsequent cover ups have awakened inside them a sacred duty of speaking up for the sake of others who may be suffering in silence. Both David and Briggs left no stone unturned to try to resolve their issue with the Iyengar Yoga Institute of New York (IYIGNY) where James Murphy is in charge, through the Iyengar Yoga Association of New York (IYAGNY), the non-profit umbrella organization for New York, of which James Murphy is the Director, and the Iyengar National Association of the United States (IYNAUS). They also copied Abhijata Iyengar who is currently in charge of the global Iyengar empire on their many communications with IYNAUS. Both victims acknowledge that they would never have dreamt about going public if, in their countless communications, they had been acknowledged, received a sincere apology, were treated with respect, and if James Murphy had been held accountable for his actions in any form or process.

By the time David was able to tell his wife, Brina, about James Murphy’s sexual assault, years after the incident, she was very active at the New York Center. The news was shocking and horrifying for Brina. The severity of the crime, the trauma it had caused her husband, and the fact he had waited so long to share with her were all hard to take, as well as the complicated prospect of returning to the Institute. The Iyengar system appealed to her. Coming from a family of creative, intellectual high achievers, Brina was used to impossible standards, hard work, and striving for ever-elusive perfection. The environments in which we feel most familiar often reflect certain elements of our childhood, and this was the case for Brina. Iyengar yoga is by many considered classical yoga: the best. Going through the arduous, lengthy teacher training at the studio earned her a Level I-II instructor certification. There used to be upwards of seven certification levels, recently brought down to four. Either way, that uphill climb, the striving and never-ending pressures were familiar. Iyengar yoga is physically exacting, and many former dancers like Brina are drawn to the method for its rigor. James Murphy is himself a former dancer, who worked with choreographer Alwin Nikolais. Brina initially came to yoga for relief from the performance anxiety, competition and narcissism of the dance world, and ironically ended up with more of the same.

Brina’s process, from the moment in 2016 when she found out her husband David had been sexually assaulted by Murphy to the present day, has been a painful awakening to a new perspective on the people she believed were her friends, on the Iyengar world, and on life in general. She joins many survivors of sexual and other abuse in yoga communities in saying she feels this is the real yoga: when you are alone, forsaken by all, fighting for some tiny recognition of truth, and the process towards that truth brings deeper insight into yourself and, by extension, into others. Brina remained active in the New York Iyengar community and occasionally still attended James Murphy’s class. On September 21, 2018, seven years after the assault, she tried to speak to Murphy about his assault on her husband in a private meeting at the studio. Considering their relationship, she believed he might acknowledge, and maybe apologize for the assault.

Murphy denied the assault, saying he “would never do such a thing”. Then he asked her why she waited so long. Brina answered that she was honoring her husband’s need to process the trauma from the assault. She then advised James to be more careful in his relationships with his students. Murphy became livid, raising his voice. Just as he did with Briggs, Murphy argued, reversing Brina’s sentence, only he skipped a few key words:

“You be careful. You better be careful.”

Digital rape is a serious crime. A confession instantly makes the abuser liable. But more importantly, everyone has their shadow, and the more extreme the perpetration, the greater the shadow. “I would never do that” is a common reply from perpetrators when confronted. I think it means:“The person I need to believe I am so that I can live with myself would never do that.” Dissociated from their shadow, it is very rare for rapists and sex offenders to get in touch with the shame of the harm they have caused, and unrealistic to expect a positive outcome from a confrontation.

For most perpetrators, the shame that would be appropriate to feel for the harm they have caused is enmeshed with shame once unfairly imposed on them, when they were mistreated or abused. The threat of feeling shame, or any implication they should be ashamed, would trigger the original, humiliating feeling from a time they themselves were victimized, forced to absorb their abuser’s load of shame, leaving them with the horrendous feelings of being deserving of the abuse, or being unworthy of better treatment - of being bad. Only those above in the hierarchy can shame them; everyone below them has to receive it. Shame is the currency of abuse in our culture. The inability to differentiate between toxic, imposed shame, and natural shame of which the purpose is to correct behavior, is the reason that child abuse victims sometimes pass on their abuse and become perpetrators, rejecting shame altogether, becoming shameless. Shame is the psychic load transmitted during a sexual violation. Note that both David and Briggs were absolutely frozen with horrendous shame after Murphy’s assault, which the latter had temporarily exorcised, compulsively injecting his own poisonous shame into his victims, for a moment finding relief from it, in “getting away with” the harm done.

I personally observed this sense of “getting away with” as the most prevalent energy in my perpetrators, which included prominent politicians and businessmen getting away with child abuse, and a yoga guru getting away with sexual assault in plain view. The only reason they needed power was to abuse it.

After David found out about Murphy’s threat to his wife, he headed to the studio to confront Murphy in person. As soon he approached, the latter excused himself and immediately returned with Executive Director Edward McKeaney, who intervened and prevented David from having further conversation with Murphy. Standing between David and Murphy, Edward McKeaney said Murphy had no time to talk. McKeaney guided David to the Institute library and David told him about Murphy’s assault and the threat to his wife. David was later emailed and on October 1, 2018, Brina and David went to meet with Edward McKeaney and then IYAGNY board president Ginny Shubert. They were promised an independent outside evaluation of the incident by an impartial third party. Brina and David were also told at this meeting that “this [sexual assault by Murphy] had never happened before.”

Perhaps not. Perhaps James Murphy never stuck his finger in an unsuspecting man’s anus before he did it to David. However, David said: “As much as a person can possess this particular skill, Murphy did, which is why the attack happened so quickly.” But even assuming that this specific assault had not happened before, it should still have been known to McKeaney and Shubert that Murphy was prone to sexual assault, because he did it in public.

For several years, including during her Teacher Training from 2009-2011, Madeline (not her real name), witnessed James Murphy pushing his groin into two male students' buttocks during adjustments, sometimes even while demonstrating. On one occasion Madeline looked across the room at her friend and they both registered alarm. David’s wife Brina witnessed the same kind of sexual abuse during other classes Murphy taught. Both Brina and Madeline experienced incredulity and confusion, since no one else seemed to notice or be bothered. They were not confused about what they saw, but the vibration of complete denial in the room did confuse them: it made what they witnessed seem somehow not quite as extreme. The atmosphere had Brina do a double take: Did I really see that? The victims’ apparent acceptance was also confusing. During Brina’s training, one day Murphy, without warning, aggressively groped a male student's buttocks, supposedly to show where the tailbone was located. Brina noticed the student’s surprise; he squirmed in discomfort, minimizing the incident with a humorous “Ooh.” It was not at all clear that if Madeline or Brina had spoken up about the assaults they witnessed, it would have been received in kind by the victims. Meanwhile everyone depended on the perpetrator to complete their teacher training. The two students Madeline observed being abused by Murphy advanced to become faculty at the Institute.

In 2009, during her Teacher Training, Madeline experienced the very same battery as Briggs would a decade later, during rope work, using looped ropes attached at different wall heights as a support tool. She was holding onto ropes in both her hands, one leg up with her foot on the wall, standing on the other, facing the wall in a long row with about 20 other students. Murphy passed the line and hit her hard on the behind. Madeline could not physically react because of the constraints of the pose, locked in shoulder to shoulder with the other students, but also because she was afraid of Murphy, and feared reprisals. The assault left her feeling shamed and inadequate.

Briggs, after briefly studying Iyengar yoga in the 1990’s, had recently returned to the practice. Although she experienced shame and a sense of being unworthy after the assault, she called Lucienne Vidah, a senior teacher who had taught at a recent retreat, and with whom she had taken her first workshop at the institute only weeks prior. Vidah expressed her support, and suggested Briggs meet with James Murphy and Executive Director Edward McKeaney. The day following her call with Lucienne Vidah, Briggs received an email with an attachment of a handwritten note by James Murphy, pictured below, in which he apologizes for “the way he intervened.” Instead of letting his mind wander to the hundred and one non-intrusive ways in which he could have made sure Briggs would have actually been safe, Murphy seemed stuck on his intention.

I reached out to James Murphy for his comments for this article, emailing him at his personal email at the Iyengar Yoga Institute, and through the contact form of the Iyengar Yoga Institute of New York website, leaving my phone number and email address on both, and received no reply.

Intention

In the spring of 2019, a few months prior to Briggs’ physical assault at the hands of James Murphy, the current co-director of the Ramamani Memorial Iyengar Yoga Institute (RIMYI), B.K.S. Iyengar’s grand daughter Abhijata Iyengar, addressed the sexual abuse scandal that had rocked the Iyengar community to its core. A September 7, 2018 article on KQED had revealed the systemic sexual abuse by Manouso Manos, a senior Iyengar teacher in the Bay area with strong ties to the Iyengar family, who was outed through the persistent efforts of one of his victims, Ann Tapsell West. West shared her story in response to a KQED callout for #MeToo accounts in the Bay Area yoga community. The article states: “An ensuing investigation revealed a range of allegations by seven women against five teachers: from inappropriate massage to a violating touch in class, from drugging to unlawful sex with a minor. KQED found that the yoga community is struggling to rein in this sexual misconduct and abuse in its ranks.” Abhijata started out by commending the victims for their courage to speak up. She then shared on stage her own story of being groped as a teen girl, to stress that she sympathized with the victims:

“For those who have been wrongly touched, I can feel your feelings [...]. I feel the disgust, the anger, the violation, the shock. I understand that. I am with you. But…”

With that “but,” (Minute 5:16), Abhijata shifted the subject to the intention of touch for the remainder of her speech; a throwback to the most common justification used by predators and their enablers, and an open invitation for teachers like James Murphy and his enablers to focus on justification instead of accountability.

It is not fair to look to the Iyengar heirs to resolve the problem of systemic abuse. The family members of a narcissistic authority figure have the power trap laid out before them from a young age; all they have to do is walk into it. As to the larger “family” as Abhijata describes the followers: the Cambridge dictionary defines hierarchy as “a system in which people or things are arranged according to their importance,” and importance, inside a hierarchy, equals value. The “family” serves as a balm for wounded self-esteem, soothed by the blind love for the guru, the connections with others who share that blind love, and by a sense of worth from status, that helps you “get away with” inflicting physical and emotional pain onto those below.

B.K.S. Iyengar justified his violence so effortlessly that his followers automatically supported him in it, and of course many continue to do so. Donna Fahri told me how Iyengar loudly mocked her athletic physique at the 1987 Iyengar Conference in Boston:

“Look at this woman! Look at what she’s done to her body! Look how she’s lost all her femininity!”

Confirming she had a back injury, Iyengar ordered her into a backbend and forcefully adjusted her. When she came out of the pose, he said, theatrically:

“So, now it is better, is it not?”

People had gathered round. She replied:

“No, it is worse.”

As if he could not conceive of her answer, he had her repeat, adjusted her more aggressively, and asked again, only to hear:

“It is much worse!”

Fahri described that Iyengar became very quiet, before inviting the onlookers to come closer to see. He then deliberately stomped his heel hard into her lower abdomen and ovaries. As she screamed out in pain, Iyengar moved on and the crowd dispersed. As Fahri was lying on the floor crying, a stranger kneeled down by her head to tell her:

“What he just did for you, was very loving.”

Enabling

Prolonged justification, assuming benefit by any action of an authority figure, no matter how cruel or injurious, is commonly known as enabling. The enablers are all the people in between the perpetrator and the victim, who are too afraid to do what is right, often leading to loss of discrimination. Enablers lack the integrity to take action against injustice happening right before their eyes or under their auspices. In yoga communities, enablers’ views on abuse are often warped to preserve their child’s love for the replacement authority figure whom the guru represents. Enablers may be in the role of student/child, in which they can feel pure, be naive, and avoid personal responsibility, or the role of the teacher/adult, in which they get away with unloading their unresolved trauma on their students through control, humiliation and/or abuse.

While anyone would be hard-pressed to find their life free of some form of enablement, and everyone has been indoctrinated into the vertical power system of western culture, when circumstances become extreme, enablement shows itself to be the primary reason for the world’s greatest atrocities, when good people do nothing in the face of evil. Fear can blind someone to the degree of the woman who approached Fahri, to not only defend but glorify abuse. Often, though, enablement is less crazy, and more calculated. It equally resides in fear, but results from an assessment made about potential or perceived losses versus standing with victims, or standing up for truth. Enablement happens inside overlapping power structures where friends are co-workers, employers, students, teachers and mentors, relied upon for one’s livelihood, career opportunities and any other form of self-gain. The struggle to survive inside a structure that pays the bills complicates standing up for what is right. The question is: how far do you let things go in the other direction? How hard do you work to cover up the lies? How much harm are you willing to cause?

Failing to get a response for over one month from Edward McKeany or Ginny Shubert after their October 1 meeting, on November 19, 2018 David and Brina took the next step and filed a complaint with the Iyengar National Association of the United States, or IYNAUS, which created an Ethics Committee after the Manouso Manos public scandal had forced the organization to do something, if for nothing but public relations purposes, that showed they were taking action.

In January 2019, Brina and David were informed in a phone call by Dr. Manju Vachher, a psychologist who doubled as chair of the National Ethics committee, that the Committee would “not be able to address the assault,” and that IYNAUS would “not be involved at this time.” Vaccher said David would need to check locally to seek a resolution. In other words, the National Iyengar Ethics Committee told David and Brina to deal with the New York Iyengar Institute, directed by James Murphy.

The third-party investigation promised by Edward McKeany and Ginny Shubert during the October 1, 2018 meeting at the New York Iyengar Institute with David and Brina - which was to address both Murphy’s rape of David and Murphy’s threat to Brina when she confronted him about the rape - was started in March 2019 and conducted by two associates, Cherelle Glimp and Alison Lewandoski at the law firm DLA Piper.

In spite of the fact that both attorneys specialize in defending employers in cases involving harassment, David and Brina cooperated in good faith. The attorneys interviewed four people: David, Brina, David’s psycho-therapist and David and Brina’s couple’s therapist. They contacted a third therapist who could not find time in her schedule for an interview. On April 27, 2019 Alison Lewandosky reached out to David:

“While we are happy to continue efforts to speak with Ms. X, Cherelle and I believe that our interviews with the other two therapists were insightful.”

Naturally, David replied:

“We appreciate your taking the time to contact [the two therapists] and are comfortable with your moving forward without the conversation with Ms. X unless you can see any need to include her perspective.”

Since sexual abuse often happens in the privacy of closed quarters, and victims often experience too much shame and self-blame to reveal the abuse to friends and family, it is common to have therapist witnesses in sexual abuse investigations. David and Brina knew that the therapists would affirm both David and Brina’s credibility. It was known to the investigators that David was not seeking financial recompense. He only wanted acknowledgment, and to prevent this from happening to anyone else in the future.

On May 29, 2019, the results were conveyed to David and Brina in a conference phone call. After a lengthy introduction in which Cherelle Glimp acknowledged “how hard it must have been to come forward with allegations of this intimate nature,” she announced that the findings were that they were not able to substantiate the allegations, for both Murphy’s rape of David as well as Murphy’s subsequent threat to Brina. The ensuing silence on the recorded call was deafening. The attorney picked up, in a chipper tone:

“However, because you’ve raised the issue and brought them to Iyengar New York’s attention, there are several institutional changes that the organization is prepared to make, in large part due to you both coming forward.”

It would only make sense for the attorneys to recommend changes to Iyengar New York if the allegations of sexual assault and verbal threat had been substantiated. Otherwise, there was no need for reform. Nevertheless, Ms. Glimp launched into a list of new procedures which the non-profit arm of the yoga studio would institute, which included the possibility to file a complaint, exactly as the national Iyengar Association IYNAUS had done earlier. Just as IYNAUS changed their website after the KQED article about the sexual abuse by Manouso Manos and other Iyengar teachers, the New York Iyengar Association, three days after David and Brina’s claims were determined to be unfounded, changed their website to add an Ethics headline on the menu, with pages for “Ethical Guidelines,” the “IYAGNY Complaint Process,” the “Complaint Process FAQ,” and a “Student Complaint Form.” The person to receive all complaints directly in his inbox was Edward McKeany, the Executive Director who protected James Murphy from David’s attempts to confront him, and who, with Ginny Shubert, had promised the third-party investigation.

Soon after her assault in November 2019, Briggs Whiteford learned that James Murphy was traveling in India for the entire month, so she asked to meet with Edward McKeaney, to find out if she would be emotionally safe in the planned meeting which would include him and her assailant James Murphy. McKeaney and Briggs met about two weeks after her assault, on December 13, 2019, at a cafe next door to the Institute. Briggs opened:

“I would like to find out, before we start this conversation - so I know where to go with this - is there any situation in which you think it is acceptable for a man to hit a woman on the butt without her consent?”

Briggs recalled McKeaney got flustered, replying he did not know; he would need to hear all the details. Briggs tried to put him at ease:

“You don’t need to defend anything. You didn’t do anything. And I didn’t do anything. And here you and I are, having a conversation about something neither of us did, and it is awkward for both of us. Let’s just talk about what happened. I would like you to know how it felt.”

Briggs communicated everything she had experienced; the confusion, the doubt about her right to have the feelings, her insecurities, the pain. Edward McKeaney listened attentively. When Briggs was finished, he said:

“I can see this was really hard for you.”

Briggs felt him to be sympathetic. Remembering the purpose of the meeting, she asked:

“After I explained how I felt, what it did to me, how it hurt me, is there a situation in which you consider it okay to hit a woman on the butt without consent?”

McKeaney’s answer still rings through her head:

“Yes, I would, if I was trying to protect you from harm. Just like my six-year old daughter, if she was running on the street, I would smack her on the butt, so she doesn’t get hurt.”

Briggs realized there was no point in having a meeting with a perpetrator and his enabler. She remained poised, and stated:

“First of all, Edward, I am not a child; Murphy is not my parent; and I was not in any danger. Also, it is never okay to hit a child.”

Briggs made use of the very recently implemented IYAGNY Ethics Complaint form, filled it out with all the required detail, and sent it in, to be received by - yes - Edward McKeaney. Briggs also called Yoga Alliance, the main yoga certification supervisory body which investigates claims of sexual abuse and decertifies teachers found responsible. However, Iyengar yoga has its own teacher training and is not associated with Yoga Alliance. James Murphy, being an Iyengar certified teacher, is not on the Yoga Alliance registry. Victims of abuse in Iyengar yoga are confined to resolve their conflicts inside the Iyengar Yoga “family.”

Briggs discovered IYNAUS, the National Iyengar Association, and on December 15, 2019 called a phone number she found online and got Susan Goulet on the line, the then newly installed chair of the Ethics Committee. Goulet was supportive, strongly condemned Murphy’s abuse, and advised Briggs to file a formal complaint with IYNAUS. She added that Briggs should make sure to include her interactions with Edward McKeany, since this too, Goulet claimed, was unacceptable. She made a strong promise that IYNAUS would have Briggs’ back. It was the most emphatic response Briggs had received to date. On December 17, 2019 Briggs filed an official complaint to IYNAUS. On December 28, 2019, while on a skiing vacation with her children, Briggs received a phone call on the slopes from Susan Goulet. Incredibly, in this return phone call, Goulet suggested Briggs meet with James Murphy and Edward McKeany to resolve the issue locally. Briggs had no time to speak, but she did not consent.

On January 9, 2020, Briggs received an email from Goulet stating that “an ethical violation did occur.” The acknowledgment was followed by a promise that Briggs should soon receive an email: “If, after receiving the New York Institute’s correspondence, you would still like to pursue your complaint through the IYNAUS Ethics Committee, I will proceed to interview James Murphy and of course, re-interview you if you like.” This, to be clear, after the official complaint had already been filed, following the written confirmation that the complaint was substantiated, and without a prior interview in reply to the official complaint. Briggs’ reply contained the same calmness and compassion she mustered in her conversation with Edward McKeaney. She patiently asked to explain the discrepancies, and then addressed Goulet more personally:

“Please understand, Susan, this is all new to me. I had only been introduced to Iyengar yoga again for a month […] and was so inspired and enthusiastic to learn more. What a brilliant system and practice! I am simply attempting to bring authentic accountability to a situation which should never have happened in the sanctity of a yoga class, and should not happen in the future. Had Mr. Murphy said to me: “I am so very sorry; I shouldn’t have done that.” I would have accepted his apology on the spot and moved on. Instead, this is now a strange, confusing web of denial and justifications for hitting anyone, anywhere, child or adult.”

Investigation

David and Brina received written confirmation on July 12, 2019 from Sherelle Glimp of DLA Piper, of the results of the impartial investigation into their charges of digital rape and threat, which stated:

“During our investigation, you did not provide us any relevant documentary evidence (in the form of contemporaneous memos, emails, text messages, social media postings, etc.) concerning your allegations. Further, in response to our inquiry, you did not identify any other individuals who may have had similar complaints regarding James’s alleged behavior.”

Though digital rape was the most extreme, in the course of preparing for this blog post I heard many accounts of abuse by James Murphy. I tried reaching out to several of his victims. Apart from one other student who was seriously injured by Murphy during a physical adjustment, none were willing to come forward. One victim told me that “James has many contacts and wields a great deal of power in the Iyengar community, nationally and worldwide.”Most did not even respond. If it was impossible to speak out for this blog post, in which victims could keep their identity concealed and were offered to green light the final draft, it is easy to see that David and Brina had no problem finding other victims, but no one was willing to come forward to corroborate David’s assault in a complaint against the Iyengar Association. As to “relevant documentary evidence,” the shame of sexual abuse is often even more intense with anal rape. David’s therapists were to support his claim. Strangely, the DLA Piper report said:

“[The two therapists] were not able to independently verify your allegations.”

This reads as if the therapists suggested to the DLA Piper attorneys that David had lied. Only, that is not what it means. To “independently verify” a claim means the witness would have to have been on the scene, as eye-witnesses. Of course the therapists were not present during the rape; they spoke to DLA Piper to validate the credibility of David and Brina as witnesses. This was the only line the DLA Piper attorneys devoted to the testimonies of the therapists, after communicating to David during the investigation they had found the interviews “insightful.”

Since the attorneys failed to take the therapists’ opinions into account, I contacted both therapists who were interviewed for the investigation. David’s personal therapist said David is highly credible, that he has never accused anyone of anything like this before, that David had no reason to lie, and that he suffered trauma symptoms as a result of the assault and consequently of having his reality denied. The couple’s therapist offered that David is believable, very sincere, and not someone who would ever make up such an allegation. The couple’s therapist also said there is no reason to doubt Brina regarding the threat she experienced, and that, while David and Brina’s emotions have fluctuated, their story has been consistent.

The law firm DLA Piper was found, according to the investigating attorneys and the National Iyengar Association, when the New York Iyengar Association (IYAGNY) “made inquiries of a NYC bar group for pro bono assistance.” David found the Facebook profile photo shown below of Ginny Shubert with James Murphy, and claimed there had been a conflict of interest, since Ginny Shubert, who was at the October 1, 2019 meeting with Edward McKeaney, had promised the investigation and had been set about to find a law firm.

Taken from Ginny Shubert’s Facebook account, with James Murphy dressed as Ganesh

DLA Piper associate Sherelle Glimp emphasized in the investigation’s conclusion dated July 12, 2019, that “prior to IYAGNY retaining DLA, neither IYAGNY, its Board members nor its staff had any previous relationship with any DLA attorney involved in the investigation.”

What struck me about reading many paragraphs in copious missives defending the impartiality of the investigation, was the omission of a senior associate at the bar group which engaged DLA Piper, who also happens to be a former IYAGNY board member. This former board member had served as board president and board treasurer, was part of Murphy's circle of friends, had close ties to Ginny Shubert, had for over a decade religiously attended James Murphy’s class for people living with HIV, had loaned funds and was a generous donor to Iyengar New York. (His name and the bar group he serves are omitted to safeguard privacy regarding his health information). Finally, one of the senior partners at DLA Piper also happened to be a board member of the bar group in question during the time of the investigation. All of these close-knit ties certainly validate David and Brina’s suspicions that there might have been a conflict of interest.

The question remains whether or not the National Iyengar organization knew about this former New York board member at the bar group, but if they did not, they should have. David and Brina had requested that IYNAUS approve the law firm retained by IYAGNY, exactly to avoid potential conflict of interest. This approval process was described in the final communication on the matter by the Ethics Committee:

“On February 17, [...] Ethics Chair Michael Lucey interviewed the DLA Piper lawyers who had offered to conduct the investigation: Cherelle Glimp and Alison Lewandowski [sic].[...] He determined that they and their firm have no relationship with the complainants, no relationship with Mr. Murphy, Mr. McKeaney, Ms. Schubert, or anyone else at IYAGNY, and no relationship with Iyengar Yoga.”

Again, who knows if technically, this is not a not a lie. The missing link was a former, not current board member of IYAGNY. Certain is that this key bit of information was withheld from the victims.

David and Brina suspected partiality based on the Facebook profile picture of Ginny Shubert with James Murphy, and the perplexing statements in DLA Piper’s response suggesting the therapists would not have confirmed their credibility. They filed an appeal with the IYNAUS Ethics Committee requesting access to the DLA Piper notes on the interviews they conducted. They asked that a forensic psychologist be appointed to interview all relevant parties and demanded another of their therapists would be interviewed, mostly regarding Brina’s report of being threatened by Murphy. I took it upon myself to contact this therapist, who told me Brina confided in her about being threatened by James Murphy immediately after the incident. In her opinion, both David and Brina are credible people with great integrity. The therapist further volunteered that to Brina, the institute was a second, reparative home, and it had been a great struggle for her to come forward.

In an initial reply to David dated July 31, 2019, Susan Goulet, the chair of the Ethics Committee, described Brina’s conversation with James Murphy in which he threatened her as follows:

"Your wife Brina then told Murphy to "be careful" and then he told her to "be careful."

That minimizing statement might have been an indicator in which direction this appeals process was heading. Brina responded to the Ethics Committee kindly, with a simple statement reminding everyone of the basic facts, of which it would certainly be easy to lose sight amid the many legalistic correspondences, every bit as detailed as B.K.S. Iyengar was about alignment. Copying Abhijata Iyengar and the members of the Ethics Committee on her email, Brina wrote:

“After years of minimizing and rationalizing the incident to myself, I found the courage and clarity of what to do. Talk directly to James. [...] I was naïve to think he would be apologetic. He was anything but! He denied it to my face. He threatened me.

[...]

In conversations with trusted colleagues and friends we have learned that James has a pattern and we are not the first to experience his abusive behavior or to complain about it. Past complaints have been buried, covered up, dismissed. People don’t generally commit sexual assaults in front of video cameras or eye witnesses. [...] Our therapists were interviewed by D.L.Piper, [sic] that is our evidence.

James continues to train teachers and to run the NY Institute. The Institute continues to cover up our legitimate complaint and dismiss us. James should be held accountable. The Institute should not allow this to continue. The obvious problem is that the Executive Board at IYAGNY is James. James runs the Institute. IYNAUS is supposed to provide oversight. In your recent communications you have encouraged students to call out abuse. We are trying to tell you that there are unethical practices, troubling, and systemic problems at [the New York Institute].

IYAGNY is my home. I have been a regular, consistent student for almost 20 years. I did my Teacher Training with James. I care deeply about Iyengar Yoga and the community of teachers and students at the NY Institute. I even care about James! I don’t want to hurt him. But, he hurt my husband! And that I will not stand for.

David and I know that we are doing the right thing by coming forward. It is exhausting and unpleasant. People need to know.”

The single spaced eight-page final reply dated October 2, 2019 from the IYNAUS Ethics Committee, titled “Report and Ruling on Complaints of Dr. David and Brina against James Murphy” concluded that DLA Piper’s investigation was valid, and the appeal was denied. Susan Goulet ran with the rejection, pretending to never have heard of the IYNAUS appeal process:

“First, we reject complainants’ suggestion that because the DLA Piper decision did not reach the result that they wanted, they can file a new complaint and start all over again. There would be no stopping point if a party dissatisfied with the result of an investigation could simply demand a new one.”

One passage started with the sentence: “This process imposed significant demands on Mr. Murphy...” Yes. Because poor Mr. Murphy had to make time for an interview with attorneys. The efforts listed by IYNAUS to create a rejection to a rape complaint somehow appeared like an imposition on the Ethics Committee, created for the purpose of assessing such complaints:

“This process imposed significant demands on Mr. Murphy, IYAGNY, complainants, a New York City Bar association committee, and on the DLA Piper lawyers who conducted the investigation pro bono as a public service. IYNAUS also has expended 5 resources on the investigation. Absent clear reason to conclude that the investigators were biased or otherwise unfair, this investigation must be treated as a final resolution of the allegations. It would be unfair to Mr. Murphy and many others to conduct a second investigation of the same facts if the first investigation was fair and reasonable.”

I contacted an attorney with extensive prior experience with investigations to ask what would normally happen in a situation where allegations of sexual assault are not substantiated, and he told me that an appeal would be filed and a forensic psychiatrist retained - before I mentioned that this was almost exactly what had been requested by the plaintiffs.

The Committee does explain the cryptic sentence in Sherelle Glimp’s email about the therapists inability to “independently verify,” even though there should have been serious questions about DLA Piper’s purpose for going through the motions to interview the therapists, since they were by the attorneys’ own definition unable to meet their standards of proof:

“In all events, when [the DLA Piper attorneys] stated that the therapists could not independently verify that the event occurred, all the DLA Pipers [sic] meant was that David had merely told them that the assault occurred. That is evidence of what David said, not evidence of what happened in November 2011. It thus was not “independent verification” of the allegation.”

The DLA Piper attorneys should have been questioned by the IYNAUS Ethics Committee about what they meant when they claimed the interviews had been “insightful,” if they were not planning to use the insightful information to determine the outcome of the investigation:

“There is no dispute that David in fact informed his therapists of his belief that an assault occurred. This fact and the other evidence marshalled [sic] by complainants was simply found to be insufficient to meet their burden of proof given the determinations that Mr. Murphy’s denials were credible.”

In spite of the shaky logic of the IYNAUS Ethics Committee’s explanation regarding the therapist interviews, they brought up the shaky issue of the third therapist who was not interviewed:

“[The DLA Piper attorneys] did not interview the third [therapist] only after she declined to be interviewed once and only after complainants expressly agreed in writing that the interview was not necessary.”

Only, the Ethics Committee left out the suggestion made by the DLA Piper attorneys to David and Brina, that the interviews with the first two therapists were sufficient, to which the complainants were merely courteously replying. Considering that two therapist interviews were entirely dismissed by the attorneys on a technicality, it is easy to understand why they did not need to interview a third therapist.

Outraged and disappointed, David and Brina made use of the outlined process to appeal the Ethics Committee’s decision in another appeal which was to be directed to the Executive Council of the National Iyengar Association. Once again, the Executive Council deferred to the DLA Piper investigation, once again invalidating the purpose of an appeal. The final rejection reads like a short summary of the eight page single-spaced rejection letter from the Ethics Committee, rehashing the same points. The letter states:

“DLA Piper determined that David’s testimony was not more persuasive than Mr. Murphy’s testimony.”

With two therapists validating David’s credibility, with two more therapists who were not interviewed willing to validate his credibility, with David having no motive to lie, with David not seeking any financial recompense, with James Murphy having obvious motive to lie, why is this judgment of two junior attorneys specializing in defending high powered CEO’s from harassment claims treated by all of the Iyengar contingent as the absolute, final word on the matter? Why would Iyengar have no qualms covering up an investigation to protect a rapist? Especially in the wake of the scandal of one of the most senior Iyengar teachers in the world, Manouso Manos, which blew up entirely because of their persistence in denying his victim Ann Tapsell West after she filed complaints and did everything in her power to bring the matter to the attention of IYNAUS. After that scandal, and after all the “efforts” in their dealings with David and Brina, would it be reasonable to think that yet another complaint about James Murphy in New York might be received differently?

Systemic Abuse

As Susan Goulet indicated, Briggs received a letter from the New York Iyengar non-profit organization on January 13, 2020, signed by the IYAGNY Executive Committee of the Board. Using the same tactics as the law firm DLA Piper in their investigation of David’s abuse by James Murphy, the IYAGNY board mentioned zero consequences for Murphy, but “as a direct result of this incident” promised change, to offer “expanded mandatory in-house programs to provide sensitivity and harassment training to all IYAGNY faculty and staff.”

The letter’s veneer of sincerity and respect lost its luster in its deceptive language, rendering Briggs’ reaction to the assault subjective, saying: “James Murphy deeply regrets his action violated your sense of appropriate touch,” instead of placing responsibility for the violence with the assailant. One sentence in the letter starts with: “While we understand that James initially overreacted in the haste of the moment driving [sic] by concerns for your physical safety and had no intention to harm […]” managing to cram in Murphy’s entire justification, once again relying on Abhijata’s example of confusing intention of touch with assault, where intention is irrelevant.

On January 31, 2020, Briggs received a short email from the national Ethics Committee stating that: “Since we have not heard from you regarding the [New York Institute’s] findings, we’re assuming that this matter is closed.” Without responding to Briggs’ official complaint sent to them to do their own investigation, the email suggests that if Briggs is not satisfied with the New York findings in the January 13 email, she can begin “an appeal process, consistent with the IYNAUS complaint procedure.” In other words, the national Ethics Committee once again invalidated its purpose, in a four sentence-email failing their duty to step in when an incident could not be resolved locally, bypassing their own process, once again making the victim file an appeal without addressing the complaint. Maybe it is no wonder that no human put their name on that email; it is signed: “Sincerely, IYNAUS Ethics Committee.”

Persisting, Briggs did file an appeal, and referred to David’s digital rape case to propose to relieve Murphy of his duties at IYAGNY as well as decertify Murphy from his Iyengar teaching credentials, as serial sexual abuse perpetrator Manouso Manos had been before him. On 2/7/2020 Briggs received a letter from the IYNAUS Ethics Committee in response, once again affirming that the assault constituted a violation of the ethical rules, but “The parties dispute the intent and the remedy.”

After Brigg’s description of the incident, the letter states:

“When interviewing James, he admitted what happened but provided the context from his perspective and explained his intention.”

This paragraph expanded to become the longest justification ever for something for which there simply is no justification, giving detail, history and context regarding the fire escape door, all that supposedly went through Murphy’s head in the seconds before hitting Briggs, and his “mindfulness of a recent conversation where Abhijata had mentioned that during a workshop in Holland, someone had kicked up, gone out an exit door, and received head injuries.”

The letter further offered a very different version of the incident, with James Murphy claiming that “He apologized when Ms. Whiteford had gone to the lobby to get control of herself. He said he kept apologizing, and she kept telling him: “You hit a woman on the rear.””

The IYNAUS Ethics Committee had already confirmed several times that Murphy did verbally abuse Briggs when he followed her out to the lobby, and his characterization of Briggs leaving the room to “get control of herself” contradicts Briggs’ account that she had to leave. Is it possible that James Murphy changed the events to come out looking better at the expense of his victim? Is it possible that IYNAUS aided and abetted him in perpetuating the gaslighting?

The Committee also stated that they do not recommend removing Mr. Murphy from his administrative position at the New York Institute, explaining, bizarrely, that they have no authority over the New York Institute and that personnel decisions should be made by the IYAGNY board of directors. It looks like James Murphy will have to fire himself if he is ever to be removed from his post. The Committee mentioned what they are capable of: revoking or suspending membership, and that they did not believe that “this is an appropriate case for suspension of IYNAUS membership, much less for revocation of IYNAUS membership or decertification by Ramamani Iyengar Memorial Yoga Institute (the Iyengar family supervisory body).”

Briggs also filed a final appeal to the Executive Council of IYNAUS, which in its reply consistently referred to Briggs Whiteford as “Ms. Whitehead,” a small tell-tale sign of the profound lack of respect victims in the Iyengar world can hope to receive from IYNAUS. The denial letter refers to Briggs’ mention of David’s assault, and refers back to the DLA Piper investigation and its conclusion that they could not substantiate the claim. The letter laid out the sanctions imposed on James Murphy, referring to “his historic practices” which means nothing legally, and yet sounds like something of an acknowledgement of past wrongdoing:

“IYNAUS’s new ethical guidelines were announced in September 2019. We believe that it is important that Mr. Murphy work with someone with particular expertise in sensitizing members of a community to recently clarified guidelines, talking with him about his historic practices, and assuring that he understand that the new guidelines are critically important, that they must be complied with, and that he cannot remain a certified Iyengar Yoga teacher in the U.S. if he does not adhere to them.”

The sanctions recommended that Murphy has regular meetings with the former IYNAUS president David Carpenter, who is also a lawyer, and that he reports to the Ethics Committee what he has learned from these meetings by January 15, 2021; that Murphy complete the sensitivity training as was suggested by the DLA Piper attorneys, and write a report to the Ethics Committee about what he has learned in that training; and that signs are posted on all the New York studio exit doors “to warn students not to put weight on the doors.”

All the people on all the IYAGNY and IYNAUS boards and committees are yoga practitioners. We are human, and when injustices occur all we can do is appeal to people’s humanity. David, Brina and Briggs all went in good faith to the Iyengar institution to address the abuses they underwent at the hands of James Murphy, and they were met, as Briggs stated, with a web of denial, in which everyone became heartless. Everyone on the Iyengar boards, on the New York or National boards or the Ethics Committee, all the many yogis who came across both these abuse cases lost a little bit of their humanity. Enablement is short sighted, and truly helps no one. Enablement preserves power, and victims, having none, are easily perceived as annoying, angry, un-yogic, wrong. Without trying to define what is yogic, it is clear to me that James Murphy needs people around him who love him enough to make him accountable for his actions. Instead of IYNAUS’ version of writing one hundred times “I will not hit women on the butt” on the blackboard, like a naughty school boy, Murphy deserves a chance to heal. His victims need to see him removed from his post to prevent further harm. They need acknowledgment and restitution so they can heal. And the community needs honesty and heart so it can begin to heal. Enablers fail the victims of abuse, Murphy, and the natural laws of moral living as extolled in Patanjali’s yoga sutras.

When it comes to sexual assault, the proof is in the pudding. Victims are traumatized. They have no reason to lie, because no one wants sexual abuse to happen to them. No one wants it to be true that a person they trust is in fact a perpetrator. There are always exceptions to the rule; the rare cases of those who accuse someone after consensual sex for monetary gain, or who invent abuse to match an internal sense of victimization. David did not demand financial compensation or stood to gain any personal benefit. He only needed his experience acknowledged, and he wanted to prevent others from being victimized. Briggs also wanted nothing but to stop Murphy from hitting anyone else.

Murphy, I have heard, can be charming. He is reported to be a funny, flamboyant showman staging entertaining performances at IYAGNY fundraisers. His special skill apparently lies in Iyengar Therapeutics, which offers yoga as a supplementary physical therapy for people with injuries or diseases. The program was started by B.K.S. Iyengar, who was also said to have a special place in his heart for injured or disabled students. No person is one-sided, but when there is a concerted effort to repress someone’s dark side, nothing good happens. Why have all the yogis on the Iyengar board and Ethics committees participated in covering up a major crime and a sexual battery assault? Is the answer that the New York Association brings in 30% of the National Associations’ membership dues? Is the answer that James Murphy has famous students such as Martha Stewart Donna Karan and Mira Nair, who add value to the image of Iyengar yoga? Is the answer that James Murphy was a favorite of B.K.S. Iyengar and continues to be held in high esteem by Abhijata and Prashant Iyengar, the current leaders?

Is the problem that all of the Iyengar teachers are protecting the dark side of their guru, B.K.S. Iyengar, who was physically violent and verbally abusive?

As long as that truth needs to be suppressed, nothing much can be expected to come out of the various regional Iyengar organizations, the national organization, and of course not from the heirs of Iyengar himself. As long as Iyengar ignores the elephant in the room, sexual and physical abuse cases will need to be exposed to the general public, and all that will result from victims coming forward and going public will be public relations efforts in damage control, and talking the talk for the sake of the name brand. As long as Iyengar Yoga equals unquestioning reverence for a man who was violent, as long as the organization has a strict top-to-bottom power structure, abuse victims will not be met with sincere responses from within that structure.

This is a time in which the old power paradigm is shifting towards coexistence, in which our equality as human beings is recognized, in which love must win or we may perish. What this means for the yoga world, and Iyengar Yoga, is that we all need to find the courage to stand up for what is right instead of play politics, that we need to live more from the heart, and that we stop looking to dying hierarchies to create change - since all the problems of abuse are inherent in the structure itself.

This is a time for victims to come forward and for all to have the courage to do what is right, because while the fear for loss is great, nothing substitutes the spiritual wealth that comes from expanding one’s consciousness through the personal evolution process. As a victim of sexual abuse or harassment in the yoga world, know that you are not alone. You can join the private MeToo Yoga peer support group open to all survivors of sexual abuse and harassment in a yoga or spiritual community, which I moderate, to find inspiration and understanding from one another.

When the words below co-signed by the board president of IYAGNY Sharib Kahn, Edward McKeaney and James Murphy for the occasion of Juneteenth, can be individually lived and practiced, we will see the change in the yoga world we wish to see.

“May the light of Yoga shine through us. May the principles of Yoga guide us forward, together.”

Anneke LucasSeptember 18, 2020