What is at stake is the antiquity of the postural yoga practiced by millions. White's critical-historical warrant says it is recent (1930s), assembled from datable colonial-era components, its "ancient" pedigree a Tibet-fantasy Krishnamacarya himself privately knew was an "improvised tradition." The Iyengar/Pattabhi-Jois practitioner-lineage warrant says it is ancient, transmitted, received — and that the practitioner's experience of being initiated into a living paramparā is itself the warrant. Both cite Krishnamacarya. White reads him as the inventor; the lineages read him as the transmitter. The collision is sharp because the same man is the hinge: White's witness to the invention and the lineages' source of the transmission.
This is a specific instance of the multi-warrant epistemic architecture. The two claims partly speak past each other (White's historical claim about the postures' date and the lineage's transmission/result claim are different questions under different warrants) and partly genuinely collide (where the lineage makes a historical claim — "this exact system is ancient and unbroken" — White's evidence contradicts it). The honest synthesis: the practice is recent as a system (White, on the historical-dating question) and the transmission is real as a lineage relationship (the practitioner-lineage, on the transmission question), and the genuine collision is confined to the historical-antiquity claim, which the lineage need not make to function but often does. Where it makes the antiquity claim, it collides with White and the collision is preserved, not resolved.
[X] Speculative [ ] Being tested [ ] Ready to promote
Notes: Filed during White Sinister Yogis Session C closeout (2026-05-28). Extends the Vivekananda-vs-White collision from the interpretive invention (Vivekananda) to the practical invention (Krishnamacarya → Iyengar/Pattabhi-Jois). See Krishnamacarya 1930s Reinvention.