Top critical review
35 people found this helpful
Solid Yogic Philosophy, Factual Flaws
on May 12, 2005
As a yoga practitioner of many years, I found Ross's apporach to the practice and general philosophy of yoga both sensible and resonant with my own experience. I was hugely dissapointed, however, by his use of shoddy "science" to support his dietary conceits. Morphological evidence points overwhelmingly to humans having evolved as omnivores, not vegetarians, as he claims. The yogic principal of ahimsa, or non-harming, supports vegetarianism, but there is no clear-cut dietary or "evolutionary" indication for it. Worse than the dietary issues, however, was the respectful reference to Dr. Masaru Emoto's work, which is lovely art, but hardly science, and which claims to be science. A critical component of enlightenment, it seems to me, is heeding the "small voice", the intuitive self that pipes up even as the ego storms ahead, willing to believe whatever supports its preconceptions. People in touch with the actual miracle that life is don't need to believe in bogus ideas like the one that "positive" intentions make "pretty" patterns in freezing water and "negative" intentions make "ugly" patterns. Even a cursory reflection on the premise of Dr. Emoto's idea (never mind the "experimental" method) reveals its dependece on the idea of polar opposites, which a little yogic introspection will reveal, as Ross himself points out, to be a trick of the mind and nonexistant in reality. How can Ross respect Emoto's work and at the same time be telling his readers that the tragedies in their own lives are only "negative" from their limited viewpoints? Ross's book would have been a lot better if he had done his research with the same care and open attitude with which he approaches his yoga practice.