Articles

In order to carefully assess the potential effects of meditative interventions it is of singular importance to ask whether enlightenment can be traced to specific neural correlates, cognition, or behavior.

Yājñavalkya is one of the most memorable characters in Vedic literature, known not only for his wit, insolence and intimidation – he nearly purloined one thousand cows from a group of renowned brahmins just before shattering the head of one of them –, but also for the profundity and newness of his thought.

To the uninitiated, yoga can easily seem like just another exercise fad.

Explaining the premodern Indian conception of mind to Westerners poses an interesting problem. Western popular culture tends to posit two primary centers of our being other than the body: the mind (locus of thoughts) and the heart (locus of feelings). This is in complete opposition to the Indian model, whereby ‘mind’ and ‘heart’ both translate the same Sanskrit word (chitta), for as every good psychologist knows, thoughts and feelings are inextricably linked–indeed, they exist on a continuum.

So, what is mindfulness? Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn defines mindfulness as “the awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment to moment.”

Mindfulness—as a state, trait, process, type of meditation, and intervention has proven to be beneficial across a diverse group of psychological disorders as well as for general stress reduction. Yet, there remains a lack of clarity in the operationalization of this construct, and underlying mechanisms.

The yogic theory of saṃskāras, or subliminal impressions of past painful or pleasurable experiences, is one of India’s most fascinating contributions to our understanding of human psychology. Briefly, when we experience aversion to a painful experience, or attachment to a pleasurable one, then an impression of that experience is laid down in our psyche, which is said to be a ‘seed’ of experience which will sprout again.

We now have the means, with science, to determine what is good for what, and why. We can suffer the unfortunate fate of so many religions and maintain the supremacy of what we happen to believe, in spite of its being absolutely unsupported by a single empirical observation, or we can open our eyes and confirm or refute our current beliefs.