the skeptical yogini - "Western scientific" explanations of yoga's benefits?

Very true. External judgment always fails when trying to grasp spirituality. Only subjective experience matters.

Goran..I suggest you to experience meditation as it is nearly impossible to understand it with words. Experience and see for yourself.

Could someone please explain what the heck is "ions mobilized for polarization" ? and what "AMI puts out a single square voltage pulse (SSVP) of 3 volt height and 512μsec width, which is applied only one time between the Jing-Well point and the two nonactive electrodes." means. I wish someone who subscribes to this theory/treatment or this occult, explain the previous sentence

Further more, basic definitions seems to be quite humorous.


The Figure 3 is just undecipherable to say the least. Could someone with English as a First language explain what "Movement of the Left/Right Balance of the Qi-energy distribution" in graph 3 actually purports to establish ?

While Figures 4-5 seem to be graphical representation of data elements which should fundamentally not be linear, or plotted in a manner depicted. Again I seem to be stumped, its like unlearning thinks I was taught in high School.

The sentence "The Sex chakra is also said to be inhibited in Pranic
healing process, where breast cancer is diagnosed. This
might offer a partial explanation to this result" has one wondering what the heck is going on.

So ? This paper based on one Breast cancer patient !! Is this chamatkar performed on cancer survivor ? The outcome of the subject is elusive.

If such is the power of "healing" I wonder why women who are getting diagnosed every day not making a beeline ?

This is not just bad science, it is just like "Creationist version of human species" its own language where one appropriates scientific symbols and puts out material which only the Turner Diary types would subscribe to.

Sorry, but this paper is seriously flawed non-science, non-mathematics article published by an Institute that publishes its own journals without any basic tenets of scientific inquiry.

This paper has no serious citations outside its own journals. In fact it is akin to selling snake oil.

Women who ignore and neglect treatment after positive identification of invasive ductal carcinoma, die !!!!! This is serious business, peddling this article as serious therapy and treatment and linking it to "yoga" maligns both yoga and alternative treatment regimens. I honestly hope no woman takes this article seriously and jeopardizes her wellbeing.



As someone who has&had in the past spent serious time working on Breast Cancer related issues and oncologies, I am quite depressed with this article. People forget that science progresses through falsification. Every step is tested replicated, and if the fundamentals are not verifiable, then it is abandoned.

Is experience outside of language modalities ? Can one meditate without language ?

I'm doing it for the last 20 years.
I suggest you experience a bit of critical reasoning as it is nearly impossible no to be blinded by the mythological and pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo otherwise and understand it only with subjective experience.

Learn and know for yourself

Hi Mrs C,

Yoga is commonly approached in two ways in the world today: 1) As a physical discipline for relaxation, body toning and flexibility and general health 2) as a spiritual discipline for spiritual development, accessing new planes of reality, unlocking spiritual energies like kundalini, and awakening dormant psychic faculties.
The good news is that both approaches produce beneficial results when one works sincerely towards it. One who practices the asanas, mudras and bandhas etc will definitely notice improved physical health. There are a wealth of studies out there to validate their efficacy. Similarly, there are a wealth of studies to validitate the efficacy of yogic spiritual practices like meditation and pranayama. If one is only interested in results, then my advice to them is to simply practice either or both of these practices and observe for themselves their results.
However, there are some of us(myself included) who need to know the truth of matters, why does Yoga work. You may disagree, but in my experiences and study with Yoga I have to say there is no physical explanation for why Yoga works. In order to understand Yoga one must look at the metaphysics in Yoga philosophy, which means one must accept one is more than just a physical body, but has non-physical aspects too. Such as the mind, the intellect, ego and awareness. These are not available to physical inspection like our physical body is, for example one cannot 'see' somebodies thoughts or measure how happy they are. In Yogic/Vedic terminology these are known as the 'kosas' the layers or coverings of the self. According to this concept we have a physical body, a vital body, a mental body, an intellectual body and a spiritual body. We are not just physical beings. An understanding of these other aspects of our self will enable one to understand how yoga works. For example the relationships between desire, thought and breath. I cannot go into great details at the moment on Yoga metaphysics, but I can only recommend that you do some reading into Yoga philosophy and metaphysics to understand and appreciate the spiritual perspective. You may find, as I have, that Yoga is much more than just a physical discipline, but it is a vast science of consciousness underpinned by a rational epistemology and methodology.

I will add: Please accept this as a hypothesis and an experiment you can do for yourself. In Yoga one can reach a very fine level of observation that one can see directly desire transform into thought, thought into breath, and breath into action. In other words one sees intellect and mind transform into physicality. Indeed, you accept this phenomenon takes place as you accept psychosomatic phenomenon exist. However, what you probably do not accept is the cosmogony of this process: mind to matter as opposed to matter to mind. You will find, however if you do the practice of meditation and reach a certain level of competence, you will begin to see the process unfold before your awareness yourself of how mind transforms into matter; how matter is just a grosser manifestation of thought and desire. Then you will begin to understand just how crucial your desires and thoughts are to your phyical health and well being. How by gaining control of your desires and your thoughts you can affect physical change, even reverse the process of disease. A very simple example of how we do this is by simply moving a limb of our body: the will to move a limb of our body is transformed into electrical energy(neural currents) and into physical movement. Here we can infer that mind has become matter. In Yoga we turn this inference into direct experience i.e, we see it unfold before us.

You were doing OK, till you hit this:

You have to delineate what you mean by science of consciousness and rational epistemology.

I think if anything, one has to resort to non-rational epistemology to probe into aspect of yoga that you outlined earlier. Theories developed in spiritual traditions are dependent on subjective revelations, Mysticism, and other knowledge which is in the Descartes sense incomplete requires non rational means, hence non rational epistemology.

Rational epistemology was outlined to distinguish between rational truths and absolute truths, which are in the Berkeleyian idealism, hence need for self-evident truths. Rational epistemology as understood by professional purveyors of the trade requires descartian math.

Science of consciousness on the other hand is very wide from neuro-biology to cognitive psychology. All fuzzy knowledge requires its own language of thought i.e special terms and words, which are the building blocks to defining higher concepts, hence the non rational epistemology.

A science of consciousness can be possible, if what you mean by subjective is in fact objective. Otherwise, it is impossible to have a subjective science, because science is about what is objective and general. A basic logical argument found in the Yogic/Vedantic tradition, is that the observer cannot itself be objectified. Therefore whatever enters ones observation, cannot be the observer. The chair I observe is not 'I' because it is my object of observation. Thus I can confidently say I am not the chair. Just as I observe physical things with my sense organs, I also can observe mental things with my inner organ of mind(anthakarana = internal instrument) I cannot observe the thoughts with my sense organs, but I certainly can observe them with my own mind. Again, these are my objects of perception, therefore they cannot be I - the subject. Nothing which enters the purview of consciousness is the I.
Cartesian dualism is different from yogic dualism, because while cartesian dualism takes the subject to be identical with ones thoughts, yogic dualism takes thoughts and other mental states to be objective and the subject to be something other than this. In fact the subject can never be an object of knowledge, because it cannot be objecified. There is an echo of this in the Humian critique of Descartes, where Hume shows that no subject or I is tenable because any inquiry into the subject simply turns up an ever changing flow of thoughts, emotions and desires. Therefore the subject never can be an object of knowledge.
A proof can be produced for this. If I was my thoughts, desires or emotions, then I should be identicial with them. This means there should be a new 'I' every successive moment However, this is not tenable, owing to the fact of memory. I remember myself to be the same person in the previous moment. Also, if I were my thoughts, then I would not have the power to change my thought. But I do have the power to change my thoughts, therefore they are not identical with me. This is a very important insight, because it gives one freedom from ones own mind. If one has an angry thought, then it is not because, 'I am angry' but because anger is occurring to I.

Yogic dualism takes thoughts, emotions and desires to be objective things(in fact Yoga concludes mind is nothing more than just a more subtle form of matter) and because of this it is possible to study the mind scientifically and learn its laws and principles, just as we can with matter. This is why you will find in Yogic literature positive statements stating such and such asana, pranayama technique, meditation on such and such object will elicit certain effects. If this knowledge was purely subjective, yoga would not be possible. However, we find that there are in fact certain objective facts in Yoga e.g., the relationship between breath and thought. How slow breathing reduces thought activity or how sensory depriviation or monotonous sensory input can lead to changes in states of consciousness. There are many modern scientific studies I have come across in my reading which corroborate these processes.

It is admitted in Yoga that the content of the mind is specific to the individual, but the structures of the mind are the same. Just as the content of the body is specific to the individual, but the strucuture of the body is the same. We all generally have two eyes, one nose, a mouth, ears, a heart and a brain etc, but we do not have them identically. Similarly we all desires, thoughts, emotions, dreams etc, but we do not have them identically. Yet, the dynamics of the body are the same. In like manner likewise the dynamics of the mind are the same.
This discovery is the very important contribution of Yoga to science. Like biology gives us objective factual knowledge on the body works and how this knowledge can be utilized to create medicines and improve our health, Yoga gives us objective and factual knowledge on how the mind works and how this knowledge can be utilized to create positive mental states and function to our best potential. In short it is a science of self-actualization.
It could be said Yoga is religion turned into a science. Unfortunately, religion suffers from superstition. The aim of religion is the same as yoga: self-actualization, but in religion the method to reach it is superstitious. For example pray 5 times a day to such and such god and you will surely reach salvation. One may or may not reach 'salvation' by doing this. But this is uncertain knowledge(aka faith). On the other hand, Yoga asserts positively that doing Yoga practice will certainly lead to salvation. It states with certainty how such and such technique and practice will lead to such and such result. Science too states with certainty how such and such experiment will lead to such and such result. Therefore, Yoga is a science.




I think if anything, one has to resort to non-rational epistemology to probe into aspect of yoga that you outlined earlier. Theories developed in spiritual traditions are dependent on subjective revelations, Mysticism, and other knowledge which is in the Descartes sense incomplete requires non rational means, hence non rational epistemology.

Rational epistemology was outlined to distinguish between rational truths and absolute truths, which are in the Berkeleyian idealism, hence need for self-evident truths. Rational epistemology as understood by professional purveyors of the trade requires descartian math.

Science of consciousness on the other hand is very wide from neuro-biology to cognitive psychology. All fuzzy knowledge requires its own language of thought i.e special terms and words, which are the building blocks to defining higher concepts, hence the non rational epistemology.[/QUOTE]

The difference between the philosophy of East and West can be traced to the foundations of their epistemology. Western epistemology begins with Cartesian dualism which makes a distinction between the body and mind(mind-body dualism) and because of this distinction it becomes possible to study the physical world objectively, because the mind cannot influence the physical world. I cannot affect the boiling of water for example by simply watching it. The mind has no causal efficacy at all to affect change in the world.
Eastern epistemology begins with Yoga dualism which makes a distinction between observer/observed; knower and objects of knowledge; consciousness and content of consciousness. It is because of this distinction that it becomes possible to study both the physical world and the mental world objectively. According to this distinction, mind and body are both matter and transform into one another(mind precedes body in the same way water precedes ice) i.e., watching the water boil does have an effect - the mind does have causal efficacy to affect change in the physical world.

Which one is right? Cartesian dualism does not work. In fact, many philosophers both during the life and times of Descartes and those after had problems with his dualism. If mind and matter are completely different, then how do they interact? How is it possible for me to think a thought and then will it into action? I think I want to eat chocolate, and then I will my body and move it to the shop to buy chocolate. Now it is admitted that many diseases are in fact in origin psychosomatic - how can mental states change into or cause physical states if mind had no causal efficacy? In Yoga it is well know how even otherwise involutanry bodily processes can be controlled purely by thought e.g., the yogi can change the temperature of his body. Therefore surely Carestian dualism is wrong. Mind and matter are not dual but one substance, because they transform into one another.
Yogic dualism works, because it is an ontological dualism. To say that the knower and object of knowledge is different is a self-evident truth, because if this were not true, then I would be identical to the chair I am sitting on. I know it is distinct from me, because it is my object of knowledge. Therefore I can admit only two substances: consciousness and objects of consciousness.
The objects of consciousness are physical things and mental things, and their common property is that they are constantly changing and transforming into one another. They move from potential states, to active and inertial states(gunas) The common property of consciosness is that it remais constant between each state change. For if it was not constant then it be impossible to know anything. For knowledge requires that the knower of an object remain constant between a state of ignorance of something and knowledge of something.
As the knower or the 'I' or the self's property is constant it is not limited by space, time or causality, like the objects of knowledge are. It is infinite, eternal and uncaused. It is through this logical argument that the yogi comes to know of this real infinite, eternal and true subject. Whence he/she is convinced that this is an ontological truth, they set on the path of knowing this true self.

To learn more about Yoga epistemology and philosophy I would highly recommend reading the works of Swami Dayananada and Swami Krishnananda.

If you re read what I asked: You missed the point. You began defining it in terms of western epistemological terms - "rational epistemology", instead of delineating what you mean by rational epistemology, you shift to private closed dogma a.k.a Eastern epistemology - Yoga dualism.

Instead of delineating what is "science of consciousness" you shift by saying -
By admitting that yoga has its own epistemology, you are side stepping the question raised by the OP.

I do not think we are debating tautology associated with ontologies that you outline.



[I am very well aware of Swami Dayanand's writings ]

I was just answering your question as best as I could on what science of consciousness is and how and why it is possible. I am sorry if you feel that it has not been answered satisfactorily, this is the best I could do given the current time constraints I have. Perhaps if not helpful to you, it may be helpful to somebody else

Epistemology does not belong either to Western philosophy or Eastern philosophy. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy which studies knowledge and how knowledge happens. There are several philosophical theories on how this happens, Yoga epistemology being one of them. Please read Swami Krishananda's, 'The epistemology of Yoga' for further reading on this subject.

You allege I am giving you an Eastern dogma. However, I have found on the contrary that Western philosophers I talk to be dogmatic because they always define general philosophical terms rigidly in terms of how they are defined in Western philosophy - such as 'epistemology' or 'rationality - not being cognizant of the fact that other philosophical traditions have their own definitions, theories and pecularities. I am not saying you are one of those dogmatic Western philosophers, I am merely just mentioning what my experience has been in discussing with Western philosophers re Eastern philosophy. So much so, that I prefer to leave them to their own ignorance now.

Those who are willing to be open to other systems of thought will certainly appreciate the vast system of Yoga philosophy and inculcate its wisdom.

Dualism of yoga is based on the idea of emancipation only. Without emancipation all this thinking is a waste of time and doesn't make any sense. That is why yoga or buddhism is not really close to science as many believe. Yoga and buddhism are all about emancipation but science has nothing to do with this idea.

To make difference between yoga and buddhism vs such religions as christianity, islam is not right because they have the same goal but their languages are different. Buddhism speaks the language which is more acceptable to the western philosophy or western modern thinking but the picture made by buddhist philosophers in fact doesn't really reflect the Buddha's message who wanted to escape from definitions and to concentrate on actual spiritual experience. Buddhist philosophers made the opposite: they have made many definitions, created difficult jargon and some controversial developments like nirvana=sansara ( tantric perspective).

Logical thinking and mental exploration of yoga doesn't help. From the worldly perspective yoga is unattractive. The idea of emancipation is hostile and unpleasant to the majority of people who want to enjoy the material life. I clearly see a modern tendency of making yoga a practice which brings pleasures to our bodies and life.

I don't see how science can relate to the main idea of yoga and different religions - material ( visible) is ephemeral and only invisible is real.

Intuition has a vast wardrobe and marches with certainty along a multitude of paths.
Reason puts on whatever rags are needed to survive and wanders alone and amazed.

Yoga is a practice, not a metaphysics (added much later) or epistemology (grafted on by those who should know better). And science ain't "Western".

There is nothing called Indian Chemistry, or American Chemistry, there is just chemistry - i.e science. However, there is such a thing called Indian Epistemology, and there are many branches of epistemology. Hence philosophical thought. No one serious, in either Indian philosophical thought, or in the Western philosophical, would agree with your statement -- "
Epistemology does not belong either to Western philosophy or Eastern philosophy". Because you in the same breadth talk about "Yoga epistemology"

Advaita, which deals with Yoga at length, and ancient vedas do not separate spiritualism from yoga, i.e indian epistemic knowledge which we call ਗਯਾਨਾ (gyana) incorporates ਚਰਿਤ੍ਰ ( charitra) which embodies action as well as character and a whole-slew of other things. So seeped and intertwined in Indian thought is the concept of ਅਨੇਕੰਤੇਵਾਦ (anekentevad) that it allows yoga sans spiritualism along with yoga integral to ਬ੍ਰਾਹਮਣ (brahmaan) or ਤੰਤ੍ਰ (Trantra) Yoga. This is very uniquely Indian epistemological thought a.k.a ਜੀਵਨ ਮੁਕਤੀ (jivan mukti) meaning final emancipation. This is perfectly acceptable within Yogic karma, yet ਜੀਵਨ ਮੁਕਤੀ (jivan mukti) finds resonance in snatan dharm(hinduism) sikhism, jainism thus Indian epistemology