Yoga: 'Is it validated?'

In 2015, I somehow managed to contract a gut infection and was admitted in the hospital for about 10 days.  During the prolonged recuperation period post-discharge, I resolved that I should do something about my health/immunity.  I decided to take up yoga lessons and enrolled myself at a local yoga teacher's class.

Since then I have been doing yoga asanas, pranayama, meditative exercises, walking, and mild weight training, while taking adequate quantity and quality of mostly vegetarian diet.  Even though I am not practising vigorous yogic asanas, I make sure I do them regularly - more than the duration or intensity, I score high on consistency.  Yoga has become a way of life, something that I do as a daily routine.  

This has kept me going since then without any adverse health event, bar an occasional upper respiratory infection, and I continue to maintain my weight and fitness at a reasonable level.    

I have also advised patients that I see to take up yoga to maintain health, and/or to reduce the symptoms of disorders such as anxiety and stress.  I have tried to modify my own medical practice by incorporating holistic healing techniques, including Ayurveda and yoga, in collaboration with a qualified practitioner.

However, I have also realised that yoga is fraught with misconceptions and scepticism.  Generally, I divide the naysayers into two broad groups: sceptics and bigots.  The former are those who are genuinely sceptical about the health benefits of yoga; that is, they want to do it, but are uncertain about the overall effect of doing yoga.  They are more trusting of allopathic medical systems, and cast a distrusting eye over anything eastern/oriental.  

Then there are the bigots, by which I mean adherents of dogmatic religions who have been brainwashed into believing that anything outside their own religious practice is worthy of condemnation and derision.  These are the incorrigibles who will go to any extent to discredit, vilify, demonize and discourage anything that is remotely sanatanic, be it yoga, consecrated food, worshipping images/idols, or wearing bindis, for that matter.  

I quote a few examples.  A few years ago, a pastor in the US famously called yoga a 'demonic' practice.  When I was working in the UK, an Egyptian-Arabic doctor colleague spoke very condescendingly of yoga, and was dismissive of its healing power. 

Ironically, even in India, where yoga originated yugas ago, it has been reduced to a 'new age' fad, a necessity that we have taken to vicariously because the West has taken a fancy to it.  'Whatever they do, it must be good for us too,' seems to be the thought process behind the revival of yoga in our society, reflective of the underlying western bias thanks to the Macaulayian education system that we are all products of.  

In Bangalore, at a certain missionary hospital I was working in, a physician colleague of a certain denomination, inquired if yoga was 'validated' as a treatment when I said that I was advising my patients to do yoga.  He remained sceptical even after I explained that it was, and suggested that yoga was being promoted because of the wave of saffronization that was sweeping across the country!  

His religious bias against yoga became apparent when, during a later encounter, he was all for incorporating tai chi as a therapeutic practice in the treatment of neurological movement disorders, but evidently not yoga.  Perhaps, anything that was remotely sanatanic in its origin was a strict taboo for him due to his evangelical disposition.       

I find that sceptics, bigots and allopathy-chauvinists are quick to ask if yoga is 'validated' as a therapeutic intervention, fully ignoring the fact that the so-called evidence-based allopathic interventions hardly cure chronic illnesses, and worse, cause harmful adverse effects.   

More and more studies are confirming the physical and mental health benefits of yoga, such as those conducted at the premier neurosciences centre in the country, NIMHANS (in Bangalore), which has a dedicated yoga research centre.  These studies have been published in leading Indian journals, notably, the Indian Journal of Psychiatry, and at least on one occasion, in a special yoga supplement of the British Journal of Psychiatry.

But since we seem to value western opinion so much, I shall quote examples from western studies: in 2019, researchers in the USA found that yoga and breathing exercises improved the symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder after just one session, with cumulative effects in the long term [1].  A meta-analytic study published in the peer-reviewed journal in 2013, showed that yoga had beneficial effects on hypertension [2].  

If you look at the current the allopathic treatments for these very conditions, you will find that antidepressants can only increase serotonin and other neurotransmitter levels in the brain, but cannot address the root cause of depression.  Similarly, antihypertensives can symptomatically reduce the BP, but cannot cure hypertension.  Both these groups of medications are associated with their own unique side-effects. 

Researchers from Washington State and Ohio State Universities found that yoga can improve body image, which may be helpful in the treatment of eating disorders [3].  Again, there is no definitive treatment in the allopathic psychiatric system for any of the eating disorders, and mortality rate for anorexia nervosa, even with standard intervention, remains very high. 

For the sceptics among you, I would suggest that you ask yourself these questions: Is there any harm in doing yoga?  Clearly not, if done under proper guidance.  Is it beneficial for physical/mental health?  Several studies seem to indicate so.  Can it be the sole treatment for all conditions?  No, one has to judiciously use the right treatment technique for the right condition, or even combine allopathic, other complementary, or any of the yogic practices for a good therapeutic effect.  

Further, more than a therapeutic intervention, I see yoga as a preventive measure; a positive medical/psychiatric practice that can promote good health through balancing the body, mind and spirit.  Surely, with these conditions satisfied you should have no hesitation in accepting yoga as a holistic healing practice, unless religious bigotry prevents you from doing so.  

Which brings me to the bigots.  I have no solution for the bigots out there.  If bending your body a certain way in the pursuit of healthy body/mind is an affront to your religious belief, then it must be based on a very rigid and insecure premise [4], and frankly, it is your loss.  A case in point: similar sentiments were behind the decision to eliminate suryanamaskar from the very first International Yoga Day event in 2015 (but we did it anyway!).

Finally, the decision to do yoga has to come from within you.  Sanatana Dharma does not believe in enforcing any particular practice on anybody.  Watch videos and read books on the topic of yoga if you are unsure.  You can begin by reading the book Light on Life by the yoga master, B K S Iyengar, which clearly elucidates the spiritual nature of yoga.  Speak to those who are already doing it and ask if they have noticed any beneficial changes.  

And only if you are fully convinced, take up yoga classes from a trained practitioner.

Picture: How-To-Meditate-Making-The-Most-Of-Meditation.jpg (815×588) (meditationlifeskills.com)

References:

1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313806681_Treatment_of_Major_Depressive_Disorder_with_Iyengar_Yoga_and_Coherent_Breathing_A_Randomized_Controlled_Dosing_Study (reported in bu.edu/brink)
2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239948768_Effectiveness_of_Yoga_for_Hypertension_Systematic_Review_and_Meta-Analysis 
3. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu.edu/dist/1/10560/files/2020/12/Cox_Tylka_2020_Conceptual-Model.pdf (reported in PsychologyToday.com)
4. Quote attributed to Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev

  

Should I get MARRIED?!

Bhaasyaa daivakritah sakhaa

'Wife is divinely caused friend'

Yudhishthira in The Mahabharata, Vana Parva, 313.72

~o~

Bhaasyaam manoramaam dehi manovrityanusaarineem

'Bless me with a pleasant wife who shares my mental inclinations'

Markandeya Purana

~o~

'Marriage entices the unwed and causes repentance in the wedded,' so goes a popular saying in Hindi.  Over the years I have encountered many people seeking marital counselling to save their failing relationships.  Some I have dealt with myself as best as I could, while many I have referred to the counsellors after discussing their cases with them.  In some cases, I have sat in with the therapist during the session.  

Based on these experiences that are predominantly from the Indian society, and some mine own, I have vlogged about this issue, and what follows here is an addendum to the contents of this video (in English, with Hindi & Kannada texts):

https://youtu.be/6pue3Uhf3cY

Just as one can fall in love, falling out of love is a distinct possibility.  More than falling in love, remaining in love is the harder part.  This is true of marriage too.  Love and marriage are hard work, says M. Scott Peck, the American psychiatrist.  I have seen many a couple, and indeed, their parents, seeking professional counselling to save their marriages, in the vain hope that all will be hunky dory at the end of the counselling sessions.  That somehow the counsellor will be able to wield a magic wand and all the issues accrued over years of living together, all the pent up emotions that have built up towards each other, all the heartache borne out of misunderstandings, miscommunications, affairs, and lovelessness will be waved away and they will be back to living happily ever after again.  

Alas, that is not how it works out.  

Especially in the Indian context, there are multiple factors at play in a marriage.  It begins with the notion that one can 'lie a thousand times to get a man and woman married,' as a popular saying goes in Kannada.  People hide disgraceful family secrets, mental and physical illnesses, sexual deviances, and just about everything that is considered embarrassing or a stigma, just to get the couple married.  

I have seen a wife who desperately brought her mentally retarded husband for treatment.  This, of course, was not possible, because there is no cure for mental retardation.  She was not told about this illness in her husband before the marriage.  When I confronted the husband's family as to why this was not revealed, their response was, 'if we had not hidden this information, how would we get him married?!'  For many, living unmarried is a social stigma, and so is getting divorced.

Marriage is not just between two individuals; in the Indian context, it is also between two families.  Since there are multiple individuals in large families, everyone has a say in what needs to be done, who one should marry, what kind of issues should be kept secret, etc.  By the time the couple get together, their minds are already so influenced by all these ideas and opinions that they often begin the relationship on the wrong foot.  Once the honeymoon period wanes - literally and metaphorically - lifestyle issues, adjustment problems, gender differences, and compatibility difficulties crop up, further complicating the picture.  

In India, marriage is seen as a one-stop solution for all problems under the sun.  Does your daughter have epilepsy?  Get her married, she'll recover in no time.  Is your son wayward and has fallen in wrong company?  Get him married, he'll 'settle down' in no time.  Does your son have schizophrenia?  Why, marriage will set him right, of course!  Is your son gay?  Then you should definitely get him married, that'll straighten him up like nothing else!  And so on and so forth go the specious marriage dictums.  

If only things were that simple.  Indeed, in many cases, marriage can be detrimental to a person's overall wellbeing.  I also firmly believe that certain people are not marriage material, or for that matter, parent material.  It is a commitment and a responsibility that not all are cut out to handle.  Therefore, the existing Indian preoccupation with a hundred percent marriage rate is spurious and inadvisable. I have highlighted some indicators for both getting married and not getting married in the video.

Who doesn't know about the problems originating from the fractious relationship between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law?  It is the stuff of legends and K-serials.  You see, for a mother, her son is her magnum opus, a creation that she has put her heart and soul into.  And then, along comes an upstart extra who lays claims to him wholly, leaving the mother feeling insecure about her reduced influence and hold on her son's affairs.  This then leads to machinations of the mind between the two women in the man's life and he is left with the prospect of having to walk a tightrope in managing both their egos.  This is not to say that the fathers-in-law are exonerated from their share in marital discords; it's just that their role remains largely inconspicuous.   

Everything is ultimately related to the ego, of course.  We are defective, inconsistent, hypocritical beings that interact with each other through our own mental conditionings.  These conditionings, and the preconceived opinions, expectations and disappointments that go along with them, are responsible for the fragile nature of our relations.  Often, it comes down to 'my ego versus your ego' in marital discords.  Even petty fights are blown out of proportion with intense, emotionally charged arguments, and end in deepening chasms.  Our ancients, who probably realised this issue, made entreaties to the lords above to grant amity in our intimate relations, as shown by the Markandeya Purana quote above.  

I often wonder why people marry if all they want to do is have extramarital affairs?  I am well aware of the complexities of the loving heart, but why go commit yourself to a binding relationship such as marriage if you are already seeing someone else, or you are unlikely to remain faithful to your partner?  Marriage can be too restricting for those who are free-spirited and value unbridled independence in the way they want to live their lives, or indeed, how many affairs they want to have.  Such people will truly suffer if they get married due to familial pressure, social expectations, or a misconceived notion of enhancing their 'status in society.'

The ultimate purpose of getting married and living together as partners is spiritual progress, say M Scott Peck in his book.  We are, as the saying goes, spiritual beings having a human experience.  We are here to play certain interactive roles with each other, and through them, to clear our karma and vasanas and sanskars so that we can spiritually progress higher towards our own ultimate emancipation. 

'Marriage is a trivial solution to the miseries of life, the real solution lies elsewhere,' warns Swami Virajeshwara, referring to the impediment caused by marriage to spiritual progress.  The expectations and emotional involvement that go with being married do not allow for any deviation whatsoever from a worldly lifestyle toward a detached, spiritual existence. 

Further, M. Scott Peck reminds us that we will never find love if our intention is only to be loved; the better way is to become a person worthy of love.  This being the case, we will do well to approach our marital relations, indeed any relation, with as egoless a state as possible, through love, understanding, communication, and by letting go of ill feelings arising out of others' shortcomings.  Yudhishthira, in his observation quoted above, is perhaps reminding us about these very issues.  

If, on the other hand, in spite of putting into practice all these virtues, the relationship is turning toxic, then it's best we let go of it amicably and move on, because self-harm through persisting in a unhelpful relationship is also bad, warns Dr Brian Weiss, American psychiatrist and regression therapist.   

Manu of the scriptural fame is credited as saying that during childhood a woman should be under the care of her father, during youth she should be entitled to the care of her husband, and during old age she should be under the care of her son.  Is marriage a sign of underlying patriarchy that compels a woman's family to seek a socially sanctioned union with a male before she 'goes astray' and brings dishonour to the family?  Is a girlchild perceived as a liability and a responsibility that needs to be handed over from one man to another?  

This would then explain why families of young women are so eager to see them married off, and why the bride's family is compelled to pay the dowry to the groom's family, and not the other way round.  One can almost hear the father of the bride saying to his prospective son-in-law 'hey, I've taken care of my daughter all these years; now I hand her over to you... and here's some cash and property to help you bear her responsibility!'  This makes marriage an elaborate ploy to sanction intimacy between two individuals, a ruse for the bride's family to 'solicit the presence of' huger numbers of relatives, friends and acquaintances so they can bear witness to this ritual of handing over of the bride to the groom.  

Not to mention the costs that the bride's family has to incur in staging and hosting the entire wedding event.  Excessive food that goes waste, gifts exchanges, designer clothes & jewellery, destination weddings, exotic honeymoons: all go to make the great Indian wedding that often is nothing more than an ostentatious display of 'status' in society.  Most guests are there just to return the invitation-gift-favour that families keep tabs on, and during the actual ceremony are quite content to catch up with each other, gossip, gluttonously down the culinary spread, and keep an eye out for the next prospective bride/groom.  

Even as the guests hobnob with each other, consider some of the rituals that take place during a conventional wedding ceremony: varapooje (bride's parents honouring the groom by worshipping his feet!), groom arriving on horseback to the wedding, much like the warriors and princes of yore who arrived to carry away their brides, kanyadaan (quite literally, 'virgin donation').  Are these are not indicative of the patriarchal basis of marriages?  

Further, why should the woman move to her husband's house after marriage?  Why should her surname be replaced by her husband's surname after marriage?  In short, why should her identity be subsumed by another individual and his family only because she got married to him?  Are these not expressions of the underlying patriarchy that is the driving force of the conventional present-day institute of marriage?

On the other hand, the dowry law is often misused to threaten the groom's side when relations sour.  In trying to curb the social menaces of dowry and bride harassment, the law seems to have tilted overwhelmingly in favour of the woman, at least as far as divorce laws are concerned.  Alimony and child rearing rights further compound the picture.  Some resort to exaggerated feminism to counter patriarchy, but this too is problematic as it undermines impartiality in man-woman, husband-wife dispute resolution.  This is not to exonerate either parties, but there needs to be a balance in the way marital/dowry laws are applied. 

Whatever the reasons for the coming together of man and woman, the institution of marriage has undergone a sea change since it first began.  And it continues to evolve even today.  I certainly hope that the patriarchal foundation that marriages are based on goes, and it takes on a more equitable tone in the future.  I predict that in the future, when cultural conditioning of young minds has been assuaged, marriages would become optional.  Living alone would not be looked down upon.  

Going forward, in stead of the bride moving to the groom's house, why not move to a neutral place post-marriage?  Both the bride and groom can refuse monetary payments of any kind, or at least make sure that gifts exchanges are done equally.  Perhaps, both can have 'double-barreled' surnames, hyphening both the bride's and groom's family names?  These are issues, I hope, that future generations will ponder on before saying yes to marriage, if at all.  Only when changes occur from within, will the cultural conditionings discussed above, abate.

Further, coexistence without the bond of marriage, or live-in relations, if you like, and unions of the non-heteronormative kind would become more common and acceptable.  Man-man, woman-woman, transgender, LGBTQI+, asexual, platonic, non-childbearing, long-distance and VR-metaverse kind of relationships will become commonplace.  It wouldn't be too farfetched to surmise a situation in which parents will begin by having an open conversation with their children about their gender identification and sexuality, before going on to seek and approve any of these relationships.  

Getting married should be a well thought out decision, and not something that you agree to impulsively, or just to please your family, or due to the ephemeral notion of 'love at first sight' based only on looks.  Beauty does matter to a certain extent, at least in the beginning, but in the long run, when the vagaries of time inflict their scars on the physical appearances of you and your partner, the deeper issues discussed in the video and this article will be the deciding factors in breaking or sustaining the marriage.  

So choose wisely.  Shubhmangal savdhan!

References & resources

Paternal provisioning results from ecological change, Alger et al, PNAS.org, 1st May 2020 (quoted in Kaleidoscope, British Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 217/No. 1, July 2020)

Quotes: 

Marvels and Mysteries of the Mahabharata, Abhijit Basu, Leadstart Publishing, 2014

The Road Less Traveled, M. Scott Peck, Random House UK, 1990

Messages From The Masters, Dr Brian Weiss, Piatkus, 2000

Scientist's Search for Truth, Swami Virajeshwara, Hamsa Ashramam, 1997

Pictures: 

Krishna Videotech from Pexels

https://www.pngall.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Fancy-Wedding-Border-PNG-Image.png

https://www.pngall.com/wp-content/uploads/2/Marriage-PNG-Free-Image.png

Background music: Vinyasa by Chris Haugen