>> but the work is challenging, to say the least, to mainstream physiologists, >> It's not challenging at all, it's a completely trivial exercise to find spurious connections between things. The only challenging thing is for people who think it's significant to escape from an intellectual hall of mirrors with only superstition and wishful thinking to act as a guide.
It's so trivially easy to show that it's garbage and contains many internal inconsistencies that no proper physiologist would ever waste time arguing against it. As an example of internal inconsistency, human physiology is supposed to have correlates with things in jyotish. There are some ancient structures in the spinal cord which "correspond" to the 27 nakshatras. The number of nakshatras is determined by the number of days it takes for the moon to move around the earth. But the orbital period of the moon and the length of day on earth have changed over time. So that at the time these ancient structures where first evolved there weren't 27 nakshatras. Another example; the structure of DNA is supposed to "correspond" to the layout of the cosmos as understood in jyotish, but that leaves out Uranus because it's not easily visible to the human eye. But Uranus is readily visible to animals like cats who have good night time vision. Is their DNA different? Why should the structure of DNA correspond with what can be seen by an ape with poor night time vision? The whole thing is riddled with inconsistencies like this. Like anyone else, Maharishi brought out some good ideas and some bad ideas. The good stuff is mostly the early stuff, the recent stuff is mostly rubbish. Any doctor or educated person in the TMO who has had anything to do with developing Tony Nader's stuff should hang their heads in shame at having dragged the good things that Maharishi brought out into a cess pit of pseudo-science.
