our-yoga

I said a few days ago that I wasn't going to blog about this yoga-can wreck-your-body affair again, but things have now taken such a bizarre turn (in a way that actually has something to do with me, as I shall presently explain) that it is just impossible to ignore the whole thing anymore. So yes, my blogging drishti has gone to s%#t yet again... (what's new?)

So here's the deal: I just read Steve's latest post at the Confluence Countdown, where he relates the latest developments in the saga of William Broad and his book, "The Science of Yoga" (hereafter simply "the book").

Many of us are probably familiar by now with Broad's widely-publicized conclusion: Yoga can kill you!

Steve reports that in the last few days, Broad has decided to take a slightly different angle, and has now arrived at another conclusion: Yoga will help your sex life!

I don't watch much TV, but apparently, Broad was featured Thursday night on ABC’s Nightline on a segment called, “Better Sex Through Yoga.”

Here’s the teaser from the show’s blog (thank you for bringing this to my attention, Steve :-)):

          '"The latest way to improve your love life doesn’t involve a slick how-to guide. It doesn’t  involve Big Pharma, either.

          It’s yoga.

According to William Broad, author of “The Science of Yoga,” which came out Feb. 7, there is real evidence yoga helps sex.  For example, the cobra pose boosts blood flow to the pelvis.

“Why spend millions on those little blue pills, right?” Broad said in an interview with ABC News’ Dan Harris.

          Broad, a science writer for The New York Times, spent years combing through the scientific     literature on yoga.

“I can cite you study after study after study,” Broad said. “We can go through hormones, brain waves, vaginal blood flow…”

           Broad said yoga started in medieval India as a sex cult, a series of practices that used our sexual    energies as the fast track to enlightenment."'

Ignoring Broad's claim about yoga originally being a sex cult (what do I, a yogic prude, know about sex cults, anyway?), let us just take a step back, and consider the two claims that Broad has made so far since publishing his book:

(1) Yoga can kill you!

(2) Yoga will help your sex life!

Put (1) and (2) together, and what do we get? Yes, we get:

(3) Yoga will kill you by improving your sex life!

Hmm... No wonder yoga is so dangerous. It turns you into a sex dynamo, and causes you to have so much sex that you just roll over like a depleted energizer bunny and die!

I guess I should sign off now. After all, sex gods are not supposed to spend their Saturday afternoons in front of computers. They should be doing more adventurous things, don't you think? :-)

we recommend you to buy some goods below for comfort, safety and ease of your yoga activities

A few evenings ago, I got together with some friends at the house of my friends J and L. There were five of us present: J, L, S, M and myself. After a few drinks, the conversation turned to the subject of sexual fantasies. There is some kind of rational professional rationale for talking about this subject, because J is a sociologist who does research in sexual deviance. In fact, I often have the feeling that J often uses his friends as impromptu and unofficial study subjects for his ongoing ruminations relating to his research.

Anyway, at one point in the conversation, J claimed that all people, no matter what their sexual orientation, have had fantasies about doing something sexual with somebody of the same sex at at least one point in their lives. Upon hearing this, M, who is a heterosexual female (as far as I know), objected that she had never ever had any sexual fantasies involving somebody of her own sex.

S immediately responded to M's objection with a very resounding "Bullshit!". S might be described as a predominantly heterosexual male who has, by his own admission, also had a couple of sexual encounters with members of his own sex. I do not know what M's internal reaction was to S's calling bullshit on her; after a few drinks, my social perception is usually less acute than it normally is... well, actually, my social perception even when sober isn't really all that acute either. But that's a story for another day. In any case, J immediately seized upon S's pronouncement of "Bullshit", and went on to expound what I understand to be a certain neo-Marxist socio-theoretical view. According to this view, as I understand it, a person's thoughts and feelings about things are really just epiphenomena that are parasitic on physical events and happenings. Well, I suppose a bit of explanation is in order here: To say that feelings and thoughts are epiphenomena is to say that feelings and thoughts really have no effect on events and happenings in the world, even though the person who is experiencing these thoughts and feelings might nevertheless have the illusion that her thoughts and feelings are affecting events and happenings. This view is neo-Marxist, because it is influenced by the Marxist view that many ideas (like religious ideas, for instance) have no effect on the progression of history, but are nevertheless seen by their adherents as having such an effect. Which is why Marxists typically believe that religion, being such an illusion, is the opium of the people, and that religious adherents are sufferers of false consciousness who must be rehabilitated or re-educated.

J, as I understand it, meant to apply this socio-theoretical view to explain why M might persist in believing that she has never had any sexual fantasies involving somebody of her own sex. The upshot is that if M claims that she has never had any same-sex sexual fantasies, then she must be suffering from some kind of illusion or is under the sway of false consciousness. Hmm... does this mean that M needs to undergo some kind of rehabilitation or re-education?

Leaving aside the question of whether or not M is in need of rehabilitation or re-education, I think you might be able to see that there are certain problems with this neo-Marxist socio-theoretical view. For one, if all thoughts and feelings are epiphenomena, then I think it is safe to say that about 99% of the human race suffer from some kind of illusion or false consciousness, since I'm pretty sure that about 99% of human beings believe that their thoughts and feelings do affect the course of events in the world. Wouldn't that mean that 99% of human beings need to be rehabilitated or re-educated? I'm sure you can see that this is patently absurd.

Moreover, even if this theory happens to be true, it still wouldn't explain why all people have had same-sex sexual fantasies, even if they aren't consciously aware of it. In order to be able to say that all people have had same-sex fantasies even if they aren't consciously aware of it, we would have to invoke some kind of Freudian theory of the subconscious or unconscious (or whatever the appropriate term is here), which would presumably explain how it is that people can have sexual fantasies without ever knowing that they have had them. Which means that if we want to be able to convincingly explain how all people have had same-sex fantasies, we would have to have some kind of hybrid Freudian-Marxist theoretical construct...

I don't know about you, but my head is really beginning to spin at this point. Which means I should probably quit writing right now, and go get something to eat. In the meantime, if you have any thoughts about any or all or some of what I have written above, I'd love to hear from you.       

we recommend you to buy some goods below for comfort, safety and ease of your yoga activities

'It was not merely that the sex instinct created a world of its own which was outside the Party's control and which therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war fever and leader worship. The way she put it was:

"When you make love you're using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don't give a damn for anything. They can't bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour. If you're happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Three-Year Plans and the Two Minutes Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?"'

George Orwell, 1984

I spent all of yesterday evening on my couch reading 1984. I know what you're thinking: Who spends Christmas Eve reading George Orwell? Well, apparently I do: Having disconnected my home internet account in preparation for my move to Idaho, and having no family in this country (and thus no family obligations to attend to during the holidays), I found myself home alone and effectively disconnected from the rest of the world yesterday evening (the significant other had gone to Florida to visit her dad). So what better thing to do than to curl up on the couch and read some mind-blowing scary shit like 1984?

Well, it wasn't scary, but it definitely was disturbing and thought-provoking. As I read, I couldn't help forming connections between the novel and things I experience in my everyday life, and the above passage was one of those that definitely jumped out at me in this regard. In the novel, the Party champions chastity as one of the virtues to be cultivated by the citizens of the totalitarian state; the Party Line is that the sole purpose of sex is to beget children for the service of the Party (which involves, among other things, telling on and denouncing their parents). This being the case, sex is not something that should be done for pleasure; sexual intercourse "was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema." The Party also recognizes that sex and making love uses up energy; energy which could be channeled into more "constructive" things like marching, waving flags, and other Party-sanctioned political activities. Which is another good reason to promote chastity and discourage gratuitous sex, from the Party's point of view.

As I was reading and thinking about these things, the cynical and subversive part of my mind couldn't help forming a connection here with our yoga practice. As you know, Brahmacharya is one of the yamas or ethical observances of yoga. The yoga "Party Line", if you will, is that if you conserve your sexual energy and not have too much sex, you will have more energy for your practice and the other great things in life, like fulfilling your householder duties and eventually becoming a self-realized being. So if we look at things in this rather cynical way, doesn't our yoga practice function to control and re-channel our sexual energies for a larger goal, just like the Party in Orwell's world tries to control and re-channel the sexual energies of its citizens in order to fulfill some larger political goal? Is yoga then a sort of self-imposed Totalitarianism of the soul?

Wait a minute, not so fast! You may be thinking. Surely yoga practice is the furthest thing from totalitarianism! If nothing else, chastity is imposed on you from the outside in Orwell's totalitarian state, whereas brahmacharya is self-imposed.

Or so you say. But what's the real difference between "self-imposed" and "imposed from the outside"? They are both forms of imposition. I'm not saying that there is definitely no difference between the two forms of imposition, or that there definitely is a difference somewhere. To be honest, I don't know the answer, one way or the other. I'm just thinking aloud, as always. But here's something else to think about: Remember all those gurus who have fallen from their states of grace since the beginning of the history of yoga? If you need a little memory jog, the latest two such cases involve somebody whose first name rhymes with "bathtub", and somebody whose name can be rendered in Spanish as "Juan Amigos". Could it be, could it just be that perhaps these gurus fell from their states of grace because of some failure of whatever systems of brahmacharyic self-imposition that they have imposed on themselves? Could it be that perhaps they had had enough of a life which consists of sex gone sour, from their point of view, so they decided to take things into their own hands and make the sour sweet again (which, of course, resulted in things becoming even more sour than they ever were to begin with...)?

Well, as I said, I have no answers here, only a few not-so-well-thought-out questions. But maybe, if you would like to burn off a few calories from your holiday indulgences by exercising a few brain cells, you might like to ponder this matter a little, and maybe leave a comment or two here. I'll love to hear what you have to say.      

we recommend you to buy some goods below for comfort, safety and ease of your yoga activities

Here's a piece of totally-useless-but-nonetheless-interesting information that I came across just a few minutes ago while trolling the web for, well, useless information. Let me begin by giving you a little quiz. Which popular activity produces, in order of frequency of occurrence, the following injuries?

1. Pulled muscle
2. Injured back
3. Carpet burns
4. Cricked neck
5. Bashed elbows/knees

If your answer is "yoga", well... you're wrong. The correct answer is: Sex. (see this article for the full details.) Isn't it interesting, though, how closely sex injuries resemble yoga injuries (with the exception of carpet burns, of course; but now I wonder, might it also be possible to get "yoga mat/mysore rug burns" from doing too much yoga? :-))? I wonder what this says about the nature of yoga practice? Or the nature of sex?    

we recommend you to buy some goods below for comfort, safety and ease of your yoga activities

we recommend you to buy some goods below for comfort, safety and ease of your yoga activities