^ James Mallinson, "Sāktism and Hathayoga," 28 June 2012. Archived 16 June 2013 at the Wayback Machine [accessed 19 September 2013] pgs. 2 "In its earliest definition, in Pundarīka's eleventh-century Vimalaprabhā commentary on the Kālacakratantra, hathayoga is said to bring about the "unchanging moment" (aksaraksana) "through the practice of nāda by forcefully making the breath enter the central channel and through restraining the bindu of the bodhicitta in the vajra of the lotus of wisdom". While the means employed are not specified, the ends, in particular restraining bindu, semen, and making the breath enter the central channel, are similar to those mentioned in the earliest descriptions of the practices of hathayoga, to which I now turn."

Just as there was a shift from viewing disease as a state to thinking of it as a process, the same shift happened in definitions of health. Again, the WHO played a leading role when it fostered the development of the health promotion movement in the 1980s. This brought in a new conception of health, not as a state, but in dynamic terms of resiliency, in other words, as "a resource for living". 1984 WHO revised the definition of health defined it as "the extent to which an individual or group is able to realize aspirations and satisfy needs and to change or cope with the environment. Health is a resource for everyday life, not the objective of living; it is a positive concept, emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities".[10] Thus, health referred to the ability to maintain homeostasis and recover from insults. Mental, intellectual, emotional and social health referred to a person's ability to handle stress, to acquire skills, to maintain relationships, all of which form resources for resiliency and independent living.[9] This opens up many possibilities for health to be taught, strengthened and learned.

Niyama (The five "observances"): Śauca (purity, clearness of mind, speech and body),[152] Santosha (contentment, acceptance of others and of one's circumstances),[153] Tapas (persistent meditation, perseverance, austerity),[154] Svādhyāya (study of self, self-reflection, study of Vedas),[155] and Ishvara-Pranidhana (contemplation of God/Supreme Being/True Self).[153]
One of the earliest and most influential sub-traditions of Vedanta, is Advaita Vedanta, which posits nondualistic monism. This tradition emphasizes Jñāna yoga (yoga of knowledge), which is aimed at realizing the identity of one's atman (soul, individual consciousness) with Brahman (the Absolute consciousness).[258][259] The most influential thinker of this school is Adi Shankara (8th century), who wrote various commentaries and original works which teach Jñāna yoga. In Advaita Vedanta, Jñāna is attained on the basis of scripture (sruti) and one's guru and through a process of listening (sravana) to teachings, thinking and reflecting on them (manana) and finally meditating on these teachings (nididhyāsana) in order to realize their truth.[260] It is also important to develop qualities such as discrimination (viveka), renunciation (virāga), tranquility, temperance, dispassion, endurance, faith, attention and a longing for knowledge and freedom ('mumukṣutva).'[261] Yoga in Advaita is ultimately a "meditative exercise of withdrawal from the particular and identification with the universal, leading to contemplation of oneself as the most universal, namely, Consciousness".[262]

The meaning of health has evolved over time. In keeping with the biomedical perspective, early definitions of health focused on the theme of the body's ability to function; health was seen as a state of normal function that could be disrupted from time to time by disease. An example of such a definition of health is: "a state characterized by anatomic, physiologic, and psychological integrity; ability to perform personally valued family, work, and community roles; ability to deal with physical, biological, psychological, and social stress".[7] Then in 1948, in a radical departure from previous definitions, the World Health Organization (WHO) proposed a definition that aimed higher: linking health to well-being, in terms of "physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity".[8] Although this definition was welcomed by some as being innovative, it was also criticized as being vague, excessively broad and was not construed as measurable. For a long time, it was set aside as an impractical ideal and most discussions of health returned to the practicality of the biomedical model.[9]