Talk:Yoga/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Heavy on Domain specific words

This article is very hard to read,. Would be better titled "the ontology of yoga". It's boring. So there's 4 types of yoga, all of which have unfamiliar names. So what? Tell us about them.

What does yoga do for the body and mind? Studies? What does it claim to do? What are the philosophies behind it? Who does it and why? How did it develop?

I agree with this comment but at the same time its not a bad introduction to yoga.

Bharat http://www.bvsyoga.com.au

[edit] Possible model for yoga article

See Dharma. A nice mosaic, not a stew. Fairly complete, reasonably organized, highly respectful.--Nemonoman 16:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read many articles on Yoga in past few days and I must agree, it does play a crucial role in other Dharmic religions. Mentioning that Yoga is central to Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism is justified. But at the same time, Yoga plays a far more crucial role in Hinduism than it does in other Dharma religions. Other religions primarily focus on Meditation as a mean to know God. But Hindu texts regard Yoga as the ultimate way to attain God. Also, if Yoga's Hindu origins are not proven, then it's Vedic origins are. Hinduism is a name which was pegged by the colonial British government. The actual name of the religion is Vedika Dharma. Anyways, I have no problem if the Buddhism template is added to the article. But the Hinduism template should be not be removed and instead the article should emphasise more on Yoga's role in Vedika Dharma. The Dharma article is the perfect example --Deepak|वार्ता 16:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on the distinction you're making here between meditation and yoga. I believe it was David Frawley who said, "Yoga and meditation, are they two?"—Nat Krause(Talk!) 15:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That quote is from David Frawley's article on Yoga and Buddhism (URL to entire article provided below in my response to another topic) to illustrate the typical Indian reaction when a Westerner mentions that he or she is supplementing yoga practice with Buddhist meditation. His thesis is that, when learning Yoga in the West, it is possible (even probable) that one could learn about postures and breathing, but never be introduced to meditation. So, this distinction between the word "yoga" and the word "meditation" stems from the erroneous Western notion that yoga is something different from meditation. That's something this article should help to debunk. For example, it should clearly state that the yogic postures were developed as aids to meditation. --Smithfarm 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chaos

This is a very chaotic article, I will not edit it because I would change it completely. Firstly Hinduism is not a religion in the sense we are used to in the west, thats why its tolerable to let yoga be characterised as hindu. The truth is we are talking here about a pure philosophical system that does not consider rituals in the way religions do. Yoga is one of the 6 philosophical systems of India and should be treated solely as a philosophical term and system. Viruswitch 23:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yoga Bear

too good to throw away...

Yoga Bear was the pioneer of the modern form of Yoga. Originating in Yellowstone National Park, USA. Yoga and his little friend Boga, practiced Yoga at 7am every morning, much to the dismay of the park ranger, the evil Shogi. Shogi took revenge by stealing all of the park visitor's pic-a-nic baskets and framing Yoga and Boga and having them banished from the park forever.

The two amigos then began a crusade and travelled across the world, practicing their mystical excercises and attracting a band of followers that increased exponentially.

Yoga Bear lived to be 99 years and 364 days old, when, while on his way to pick up his telegram from the British Queen, he was squashed by a tomato while he was crossing the road - an event he had feared for 50 years.

Meanwhile, the malevolent Shogi lives on, hoping to end yoga, once and for all.

Will he succeed? Or will Yoga Bear's legacy live on? Who knows? ..............................hi!

I do! I know that Yogi Bare was never never naked. It was ridiculously impractical, reserved for the hot spring dips to warm up before the 7AM routine, his secret of flexibility. Fur coats for snow were de rigeur. I know, too, that really Boga true to his nama, enjoyed. Boga was really his wife. And they were not banished genetically, their little ones live on, meditating in caves during the entire Winter.

And they are planning to overthrow the evil regimes repressing respect for Yoginis like Boga, their divinely maternal cozy mama of yore. Their long-term plan is to usurp the posseurs of Madhava's websites with diabets-causing sugariness and flapping of impossibly big eyelashes to stop being the terrorists of others not born-again-ponytails'n'shave who teach their smarter wives about books-n-things to do with God.

Bear with me, just like Ole Faithful, you will notice when it happens.:)...............'bye from Marci

by editor 80.195.163.53
I'm amused you actually moved this to the talk page, Nemonoman! Good show. El_C 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sikhism and Yoga

Some sikhs practice yoga. In the USA the 3HO led by late Yogi bhajan has spread so called "kundalini yoga" as a means to aid in ones journey towards mukti. 3HO

Yes, but religions like Sikhism, Budhism, Jainism etc. were once part of Hinduism and they follow many traditions of hinduism. Sikhism was particularly important as that developed as protectors of hinduism from the barbaric hands of middle age muslims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sobuj (talk • contribs) 17:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Irish Catholics and Yoga

Some Irish Catholics practice Yoga too. We suck at it. I ended up hurting myself. Now all I can do is sit here and post Wikipedia edits. We're good at drinking whiskey and belittling ourselves, though. So we actually need Yoga more than most other cultures. God's practical joke.

[edit] Merging with Naked Yoga

Implenting request of merge with Naked yoga per User:Arundhati bakshi. Dandelion1 01:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with naked yoga

Naked yoga takes up disproportional space in this page. If it merits so much detail I think it should be a separate article. Also several sentences seem out of place. If and when Shaiva nagas practice yoga naked do they also term it as 'naked yoga'? When renunciates wander naked it is part of their renouncing of the materialism of this world - it is not a yoga by itself. There is a difference between practicing a particular type of yoga and following a lifestyle as part of a principle. Also Kumbh mela is not a convention for naked yoga! Also the term is offensive as it speaks to an external element vs any ideas purporting to support it - all other yogas speak to ideas (for instance bhakti yoga is not called chanting yoga). Again, that brings me back to my previous argument - can anyone start a 'new' yoga and can we give it space in this page? The section connects it with the concept of 'free love', again a western 'misinterpretation' or wilful manipulation of Hinduism or yoga concepts to give expression to twisted theories. --Pranathi 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I think Naked yoga does belong here
(1) Naked yoga is a popular variant of yoga, even if the Hindu approach does not deem it appropriate. People have different versions of yoga that can't simply be revised out of existence. If you think it is a twisted theory, then include it in the section and please cite your source.
(2) Naked yoga does NOT merit its own separate article. That is why it belongs here. Its a choice of dress, and a very intuitive choice for enough people to warrant its inclusion here.
But some of the elements don't quite sound right to me. For instance,
(1) I think we can clearly remove discussion of the film Naked Yoga to its own separate page, which would also require setting up a disambiguition page.
(2) If info about Shaiva nagas has a non factual link to naked yoga it should be removed. Dandelion1 22:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, isn't this so-called Naked Yoga a type of yoga. If we can have a separate article on Anahata Yoga, then why not Naked Yoga. Besides, I don't know how people from other religion view it, but most Hindus (including me) find nudism offensive and since Yoga forms an integral part of Hinduism, having an entire section on this practice is unjustified. Besides, that image is too pornographic --Deepak 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
If you think an image of a person without clothes is pornographic then that is your reality. Its too bad some people insist on sexualizing everything having to do with nudity. I personally find that approach disturbing. Wikipedia is not a tightly-controlled Hindu portal to view the world through. If you want to have a criticism of naked yoga, please put it in the article. Dandelion1 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think mentioning a few lines on Naked Yoga and a wiki link is good enough. There is no need to have an entire section on this on the main Yoga page. Please use interwikis and see the guideline on how to write an article. Yoga is a diverse practice. If we start describing every aspect of Yoga on page, forget 35 Kb, the Yoga page will exceed 2000 Kb. --Deepak gupta|सदस्य वार्ता 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if I have offended and been quick to judge by calling it a twisted theory. I am wary of some new-age thinking that links 'free sex' to Hinduism.
Who is claiming free sex links to Hinduism. This is a page on yoga.
I understand that the Naked Wiki movement (if that is what it is) organizes several activities in that state. The most popular of these seems to be beach activities and cycling. I do not see Naked beach or Naked cycling as part the main articles though. As you mentioned, it's just a choice of dress and not a variant of Yoga as such. (I would be interested in stats on it's popularity also if you still think it merits mention in this page. )--Pranathi 00:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not say naked yoga is 'not a variant of Yoga as such'.
Deepak, I am not agreeable to a compromise of even a few lines on Naked Yoga. I would be interested in stats on it's popularity if Dandelions thinks it merits mention in this page. If the stats (without dragging Shaiva nagas in) are significant then we could maybe mention that Naked Wiki movement practices Hatha Yoga in that state. But I would like to see it in cycling and beaches articles first.
Dandelion, You said that it's a choice of dress, which I don't see as a 'variant' of Yoga, its paths or its techniques. --Pranathi 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dandelion: Okay, I apologise for my outburst. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. As you said, Naked Yoga is a variant of Yoga. Yoga consists of several other variants. If we start describing every variant of Yoga, this article will exceed the adivisory 35-40 Kb limit. Besides, I am not removing Naked Yoga entirely. There is a link to the Naked Yoga article in the See also list. So if someone wants to find some info regarding Naked Yoga, s/he can easily find it on the See also list.

Where is the criticism about Yoga from the Christian perspective? Has that been deleted too? Is this how we resolve things by delete other peoples' contributions?
I don't want a discussion about naked yoga on the film's page!!! I thought I was helping to move that section out to its own article but now somebody has continuously been vandalizing by adding an article about naked yoga.Dandelion1 03:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Its not about how Hindus think about it, its about Wikipedia's policies which we need to follow as Wikipedians. Not every person is same, forget religion. What is fine with me might be disturbing to you. Respecting the beliefs of other cultures and religion is what matters the most. Thanks --Deepak gupta|सदस्य वार्ता 00:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you trying to turn this into a religion thing? Silencing others and erasing contributions, such as seen when the criticism from a Chrisian perspective was deleted, is not helping your case.Dandelion1 03:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Your edits to film Naked Yoga are vandalism. That page is clearly made with the second word in caps to reflect a film name, and in the discussion page it says it is for the film. Some one has also moved content to Naked yoga (not the film) whereas before it was a redirect to the Naked yoga section on the Yoga page. I will continue to seek to resolve this dispute. I will request that the page be protected. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Dandelion1 02:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for that. However, I still stick to my theory. --Incman|वार्ता 02:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not about theories!! This is about putting content in the correct place. (1) There needs to be a place for info on naked yoga to go. (2) There needs to be a place where criticism from the Christian perspective goes (I may not agree with it, but it contributed to helping keep Wikipedia a NPOV source of information. Even my own sister, who is a minister is concerned and it deserves to have an intelligent pro and con discussion, not just simply being deleted out of existence!!).

Paranathi: I agree entirely with your logic. But we will have to compromise in accordance with Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks --Deepak gupta|सदस्य वार्ता 00:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop Totally Redoing the whole Arrangement. This is getting me Dizzy Every time I look at the article it is totally restructured. This is really annoying. Stop Editing.

How About something between the Whole article in under Yoga and the whole article by itself. What about a really minimal Section in the Yoga article with a link to the Main article. It is also ok as is with it's own article for Yoga,

==Naked yoga==
 :''Main article: [[Naked yoga]]''
 A brief Summary of Naked yoga with no/small picture

I preferred Naked yoga[1] when it was about Naked yoga in general and not about the film and had a disambiguating to Naked Yoga (film) --E-Bod 03:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Use Template:Main
==Naked yoga== :''{{main|Naked yoga}}'' :A brief Summary of Naked yoga with no/small picture

Paul foord 10:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nudity and yoga / Naked yoga section debate (con't)

This text was put on page Wikipedia:Requests for page protection however there is a policy of not allowing discussion there:

Response to Dandelion's request to protect Yoga:

I have no problems with the section Criticism from Christain point of view if the User:Dandelion1 agrees to provide references. The section is speculative and POV and undermines the very meaning of Wikipedia. Regarding, the Naked Yoga issue, I guess administrators are best judge. Please note that Naked Yoga is just one of the several variants of Yoga and if we write one whole section on every variant of yoga, the article will easily exceed size limit. I tried my best to explain Wikipedia:Manual of Style but the user doesn't seem to be listening. --Incman|वार्ता 03:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What specific point are you trying to make regarding Wikipedia:Manual of Style as it relates to the inclusion of nudity and yoga in the article Yoga? And why is the topic of nudity in the article the first that needs to get cut before other topics? I'm very concerned that people were refering to the image used in the section as being pornographic, when it was not, and I suspect that may be one reason why the section has been removed, since it was brought up when the section was cut out. Please do not refer to me as "the user" as if I am some outsider in all this. That is rude. Dandelion1 05:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Admin decision on not protecting Naked yoga:

Well, ok. I'm storing the information here (where it used to be before) until it can go back into the Yoga article. Dandelion1 05:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Being generous Naked yoga could be treated as a school or part of the variety of yoga, however it is probably more a modality of practice, but most likely a western prediliction to titillate or push boundaries. Are there historical/theoretical foundations, are there recognised gurus, and sources to cite? Whether these are Hindu, Tantric, Buddhist, whatever. Having a ref in "See also" is really as much as it justifies without this. Paul foord 10:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
You said "most likely a western prediliction to titillate or push boundaries". That's total bullshit unless you can back up your claims... and why would there need to be a a "special" guru to do the practice without clothes. Is there some kind of huge shift in thinking here? No! What kind of acadamic theory really does one need to change the mode of dress? Your comments are completely ridiculous and laughable at best. No, this is not coming out of the tantric tradition and it isn't an attempt to sexualize yoga as you seem to be implying without supporting your claims. Can't you even bother yourself with reading the references at the bottom? Dandelion1 17:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Folks. Just passing by. I agree it's more a modality of practice. Though, it's not a Western prediliction; I have a few yoga texts that note being naked as part of the practice. One is an old Tibetan Trulkhor text: NEVA: Start in sitting position, legs extended, naked.
I can't find any reference though for it being necessary that this kind of practice is titled Naked yoga. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 13:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Naked Yoga merits it's own page: It doesn't fit on this page because: 1) it doesn't appear to be spiritualy linked 2) What kind of Yoga is it? Since it isn't specifically spiritual, is it a form of modern excercise?

The fact is, it doesn't appear to be very well defined as a concept, and the name 'Naked Yoga' gives no insights to what it's all about. Justifying it's existence by citing the 'Shaiva Nagas' habit of nakedness is rediculous, since Naked Yoga doesn't share any aspects of the Naga belief system except for the naked part. The fact that they were originaly loosely refered to as 'Sadhus' in the article shows just how distinct 'Naked Yoga' is from any spiritual group, and just how ill-defined and baseless it is as notion.

Sfacets 17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've removed the text. I don't know where it came from. What is your next complaint? Dandelion1 18:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dandelion, there are plenty of movies which share the same name with certain things and practices. For example, Lord of the Rings. The article talks about Lord of the Rings in general but the article on the film by Peter Jackson is found in the The Lord of the Rings film trilogy page. Also have a look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. The Striptease article talks about Striptease in general but the article on the film Striptease is found here. I just don't understand why you tagged my edit to the concerned article as vandalism?! Regarding the content of Talk:Naked Yoga, we could have always copy and paste it to Talk:Naked Yoga (film).

Naked Yoga ("Y" being capitalized) is a film, if there was enough article to have an exclusive section naked yoga it would be titled Naked yoga (lowercase "y") accordint to the way articles on Wikipedia are titled. Dandelion1 03:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
So you mean to say that that particular movie is called Naked Yoga and not Naked yoga :). I don't know what to say. I think asking for external assistance is the only option left. --Incman|वार्ता 03:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have raised up the issue with Village Pump. See [2]. We can also seek an administrators help/guidance to resolve the dispute. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 03:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to erase your contributions. I moved the section on Naked Yoga to a separate article. Also, the Criticism section is unreferenced. Have a look at Wikipedia:References. You gotta give Citations for those sentences which call Yoga demonic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You just can't add speculative, POV stuff here. --Incman|वार्ता 03:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

And I was the person who flagged the problem, did I not? How are we supposed to defend yoga if we don't even allow the crticism to be made in the first place so we can respond to it? Dandelion1 03:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no problems with criticisms but you need to provide some external sources and quotations made by Christian leaders criticising Yoga. Again, see Wikipedia:References. --Incman|वार्ता 03:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine, done. But why is a section on Christian yoga so much easier to accept here than a section on naked yoga? Why are you welcoming one and not the other? Dandelion1 19:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Because Naked yoga doesn't deserves to have an entire section on the main Yoga page. It is nothing but one of the several different variants of yoga and we cannot possibly describe each and every yoga type on the main page. Go ahead and write a few lines on it in ===Yoga practice and intention=== section. You can also mention it in the ===Diversity of yoga=== section. I never opposed the inclusion of Naked Yoga as such, my only objection was to the image and to the entire section devoted on it in the main yoga article. --Incman|वार्ता 19:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dandelion1, please remember WP:COOL. Incman's edits are clearly not vandalism, this is just a naming dispute. I have removed the prod tag from Naked Yoga (film) because it's a perfectly valid name for the article, and have changed Naked Yoga to a redirect because it is a term that would be very easily confused with Naked yoga. That arrangement makes perfect sense to me: it is where I—as a complete outsider—would expect to find things. Oh, and by the way, they are excellent articles, both of them. GeorgeStepanek\talk 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute bud, he was replacing the contents of a page on the film, with content about naked yoga. If he was so eager to do things correctly he would have discussed it first.Dandelion1 18:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I apologise for my removing it without discussing. However, I did what in my eyes was obvious, logical and appropriate. If a film shares the same name with a another general ABCD topic, the valid name for the article on the film is ABCD (film). See King Kong and King Kong (2005 film). You know what, please file a WP:RFC against me or approach the Arbcom and let them decide if my edits were an act of vandalism. I've made more than 3800 edits to Wikipedia, and never was I accused of vandalism. Congratulations, you are the first one to call me a vandalist --Incman|वार्ता 19:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Please spare us your whining and drama. My comments refer to someone changing article Naked Yoga into a general information page about naked yoga. I feel comfortable now with the addition of the word (film) on Naked Yoga (film), but I don't think it was necessary given the way the page was setup. Let's focus on the the topic of you guys excluding naked yoga on Yoga and not Christian yoga on Yoga. See above section. Thank you. Dandelion1 19:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm striking out my claim that the page has been vandalized. (See strikeouts above). Its seems to be an honest mistake made by whoever was making the edits. Dandelion1 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Now who is this "someone"? Now if you are pointing at someone other than User:Deepak gupta aka Incman, mention that "someone's" username. Boy, your comments are so confusing! BTW, I was referring to your this edit. --Incman|वार्ता 20:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Shaiva Nagas

Since correcting the entry from 'Sadhus' to 'Shaiva Nagas', which is the group which lives naked, there needs to be a correction to the number of followers which has been left at 20 million, but which is actually considerably smaller, considering the 'Nagas' are just a part of the Sadhu ensemble. Shane 09:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The section in question here has been removed until I can figure out how it relates to anything (I never wrote it and I don't understand it at this point). Dandelion1 19:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responding to Village Pump query

I suggest opening a request for comments on this page and naked yoga. My own suggestion is to have naked yoga be a separate page and describe it in summary style, similar to how the featured article Hinduism treats many subtopics: within the main article text with a paragraph and an italicized link. Regards, Durova 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am still confused. The Clothes free movement performs many activities in the nude. These include cycling, swimming etc. Why is their performing Hatha Yoga singled out as a variant of Hatha Yoga, while the rest are not. I don't think every thing should get a new name just because it is performed in this state - again, it is simply a choice of dress. --Pranathi 20:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm no yoga expert. If the only significant difference is the absence of clothes then you have a point. Durova 08:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I googled Nude Yoga and read a couple of related articles and none of them said Nude Yoga is a variant of Yoga. As you said, there is little difference between Yoga and "Nude Yoga" except the fact that the latter is done without clothes. I think one sentence is more than enough to describe so-called Nude Yoga. --Incman|वार्ता 16:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I am a yoga teacher well versed in the literature and practice and I've never heard of yoga being practiced publicly in the nude. Yoga is like anything else we do in public life. Do we go shopping in the nude? Do we take a walk in the park or along the riverfront in the nude? When we go downtown on a Saturday afternoon, how many nude people do we see? In other words, whether one is clothed or not, or what percentage of the body is covered, has no bearing on yoga, just as it has no bearing on shopping or on taking a walk. Clothing or lack thereof is a matter of social customs and climate. As has been mentioned above, the so-called "naked yoga" is a non-entity: it has no tradition, no gurus, no heritage. In short, it is not notable and does not belong in an encyclopedia article on yoga, period. --Smithfarm 11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My preference is for both Naked Yoga and Naked yoga to redirect to the film Naked Yoga (film) as I see it as much more notable than an article about nude yoga, which can just as easily be called Nude yoga or Clothesfree yoga or Nudist yoga or any other variations. The notability of Yoga in the nude as an American fad is quite tiny compared to the notability of the Naked Yoga (film) which is an academy award nominee. The film page could have disambiguation link to the nudist page. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Contemporary Yogi issues

Something has to be done with the contemporary yogi section, or it will quickly grow HUGE, with everyone adding their favourite baba, babu and sadhu of choice. I propose it either be removed, or mograted to a new page... Sfacets 10:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A new article wouldn't be a bad idea. The sub-heading doesn't belong at all. There's enough contemporary-ness in the preceding section already. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. A new article called 'Contemporary Yogis' would allow room for the infinite growth of the latest new yoga teacher(s). It seems this article should be more about 'Yoga' than about 'Yogis'. Even the 'Notable Yogis' could get too big if people put in their fave yogi. ॐ Priyanath 23:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree too, I doubt people looking for general info on yoga need to know all about the masters up front. Dandelion1 00:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree too too--E-Bod 01:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

O.k. I have moved the section to Contemporary_Yogis... the contemporary yogis found in the previous section (i.e. 'Notable Yogis') should also be moved to the new article

There is an article Yogis which contains a section Modern Yogis... should these also be moved to Contemporary_Yogis? I have placed a merge template under the section. Sfacets 03:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed copvio content

I removed the section on Yogendra and the yoga institute, all of which which is copied and pasted from http://www.yogainstitute.org/about.html , including the image.

While there is no copyright notice on the site, legally express permission must be granted by the association for it to be copied as is to wikipedia see Public_domain. Sfacets 10:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Notable Yogis

Usher the RnB singer as a notable yogi shows just what can happen to this article unless scrict(er)criteria are put in place.

Does this section deserve a seperate article? Sfacets 07:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes! I had suggested a while ago that only Yogis whose popularity stood the test of time be represented here. Perhaps with criteria such as - should not be living and - have significant following. Maybe that criteria can be used for the new article and stricter criteria for this section in Yoga such as only those born before the 20th century. I know thats vague but without any criteria this section can go out of control. --Pranathi 23:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
And now "World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)'s Trish Stratus" is a notable yogi, or was until I removed her. How does one go about making a separate page for 'Notable Yogis', and how do you make criteria that people can agree upon? There are now three pages with growing lists of yogis: Contemporary Yogis, Yogi, and the Yoga pages's 'notable yogis'. What's the best way to organize this? All three have many of the same yogis listed. I suggest merging all three into one page, called something like Notable Yogis. Alternatively, there could be two pages: Notable Yogis (deceased), and Notable Yogis (living). ॐ Priyanath 02:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
See my previous suggestion here--Nemonoman 03:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea. Do you think 'Notable Yogis' should stay on the Yoga page, along with 'Modern Yogis'? Or a new page? And separate pages in that case, or one combined page? I think that a separate page is best, since the Yoga page is already too long. Then there's the question of the list of yogis at Contemporary Yogis and Yogi, which are redundant. All three should be combined/merged somewhere, and I'm happy to do it. But I would like a consensus on how to do it, even if it's a consensus of two. I especially like your idea of Notable Yogis being in chronological order, and mostly dead yogis - and Modern Yogis being in Alphabetical order. I also think there should be criteria of who should be listed there. For example, Modern Yogis should be Notable Yoga Teachers or authors, not every rapper or WWE wrestler babe who practices yoga. ॐ Priyanath 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism and tantra

(The fact that Hindu "yoga" has these things as well may have escaped the attention of classical Tibetan commentators.) this is unjustly dismissive, I reffer you to a work by Ronald Davidson , Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement, ISBN: 0-231-12618-2 - this studious work shows how buddhist tantra preceeded hindu tantra by a couple of centuries, although later there were mutual influences. So there is no question that there are some rough similarities in a few later texts, (though terma texts are completely tibetan, and early tantras like guhyasamaya/guhyagarbha are written too early to have any influences of then-nonexistent hindu tantra) but its far from true that Tibetans didn't know of the existance of hindu yoga - they just considered it a corruption.. Also its ridiculous to describe an essentially theistic explanation of what tantra is and then claim that buddhist tantra, which is nontheistic as 'roughly similar'?? Yogachara is a classic indian school of buddhism and is relevant to most of mahayana, so 'indotibetan' is misleading. In for instance the journal of east and west, I saw multiple uses of the term when analyzing chinese buddhism. Also, it has little to do with yoga, but is usually mentioned in connection to the cittamatra philosophical position, and the yogacara-madhyamaka debate shaped both of those most significant mahayana philosophies (and the debate is still continuing in new forms). Its strange that the term tibetan yantra yoga is not mentioned in that section, since its implied with mentioning phisical exercises.. The mahasiddhas you mention connected to Kagyu is true, but there is no reason to consider Kagyus separately here - all schools have connections with some of the 84 traditionally named mahasiddhas (yogis).

Also can anyone show a source for the claim that Theravada practices any form of yoga? I think this is not true, though its possibly not forbidden. Also, tibetan yantra yoga (and this has nothing to do with the meaning of the word yantra would evoke in hindu context) claims a lineage unrelated to Patanjali - though I know of no study to check the validity of such claims. --Aryah 03:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A rebuttal to this is that Tantra has its proto-roots in the Atharva Veda and Upanishadic thought, and that we can only infer that a specifically Buddhist tantra emerged before a specifically Hindu yoga due to texts... Indian sages more often than not did not write their thoughts down.

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Yoga

I'm surprised no one has ever started such a project....--Dangerous-Boy 04:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "God" or "god"?

In the interests of grammar, I reverted a couple of the recent changes by Sfacets of "god" to "God." "God" isn't always a proper noun, and a couple of the recent changes were incorrect. To be perfectly honest, I think leaving the remaining instances may be confusing. I associate the term "God" with the Judeo-Christian one, which I expect is common among English-speakers. I don't think that's the god under discussion when the subject is Hinduism or Buddhism. Still, Hinduism capitalizes the word when discussing Brahman, and I'd rather leave it as is than offend.--Pastafarian Nights 23:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits seem good. In general I think the word should be capitalised when there is no article (a/the) as it is being used as a name. So ... worships God, but ... worships a god. Ashmoo 06:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm yes on consideration I would agree... there isn't actually any guidelines (that I could find) regarding this... however there are exceptions to using a lowercase 'g' when used as a proper noun, - when the capital letter is user as a sign of defference to G(g)od - also used is capital letters in 'He', 'Your', 'His' when referring to G(g)od(s). This is true in many istances in French for eg. Sfacets 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the Yogi Fighting Style?

I have heard of an ancient tibetan martial art derived from Yoga, confirmation of this would be greatly appriciated

Not sure, but it could be Kalarippayattu that you heard of. (?) --Pranathi 16:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Authority of Patanjali

Is there any verification available for the claim that "Panini, Patanjali and Kātyāyana are regarded are the highest authority not only in Sanskrit but also in the whole of Linguistics"? It's a pretty strong statement and would require pretty solid evidence to substantiate it. Off the top of my head, I would imagine that Noam Chompsky is currently considered a 'higher' authority in linguistics than either of the three mentioned above.

Well, you have to take into account the rift of ignorance between East and West. Sometimes people in the West ignore well-established historical facts, claiming for example that Galileo was the first human to propose a heliocentric universe, etc., when such things were well-known to Vedic civilization hundreds, if not thousands, of years before. At the same time, sometimes people from the East go overboard in highlighting the accomplishments of "their" historical figures. In reality, nobody can "own" the history of human civilization. Things like this are good because they highlight the absurd ignorance that comes from considering oneself to "belong" to any particular nation or geographical region. Perhaps the sentence could be altered to read: "Panini, Patanjali and Kātyāyana are regarded are the highest authorities in Sanskrit as well as major historical contributors to the science of Linguistics." Of course, it would be nice to add an appropriate reference. --Smithfarm 17:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific evaluation of Yoga

The actual yog [unfortunately in english people calls "Yoga"] is a philosophy of sanatam dharma [ again unfortunatly known as Hinduism] to understand the super natural powers of this planet and beyond the planetial environment. The acts for this approach is comprehensively known as yog. The Sanatam Dharam philosophy is divided into eight branches mainly #Chravak#Nyay#vaishesik#mimansa#jain# yog etc. Except charvak, all philosophical approaches accept the existence of the super power, say God. All philosophical approaches ends upto the conclusion of the meeting of the super power. The way of meeting with the super power may have differences. These differences can be seen worldwide in creeds of different nations. So is with the Yog. The real yog have eight fold directive to follow , if any body wish to meet, experience and understand the super power. These eight fold directives have to follow in strict way.Yam,Niyam,Aaasan,Pranayam,Pratyahar,dhyan, dharana, samdhi are eight subjects, which have to follow very strictly. Now today, yog is considered to be a type of exercise, which consist only Posture and breathing exercises. This is not actually yog and is misunderstood. One should understand that Yog literal mean is unity, mixture,conjunction, combination. Regarding other yog say prem yog, karma yog etc are not related to the Yog. One should understand that Yog is sanatam dharma philosophy and should known as "Yog Darshan" or "Yog Philosophy". Yog Philosophy have no any far relation to the other yog, whatever they have described. User:Dbbajpai1945@sify.com 11:10 IST, 22 June 2006

There is a good reason for calling it "Yoga" in English - simply that it assures correct pronounciation! If we spelled it "Yog", English-speakers would pronounce it to rhyme with "nog" (as in egg-nog). As for your argument, it seems self-contradictory. You say there are different approaches for meeting with the super power, but then you say there is only one "real Yog", which for you is the eight-limbed Yoga expounded by Patanjali. But you then go on to say that Yog is really Hindu philosophy. These statements seem to contradict eachother. Patanjali's Yoga is not philosophical at all - it is pure practice of mind control (of one's own mind, not of other minds!), devoid of philosophy. Please help me understand. --Smithfarm 16:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
After giving the matter some more thought, I realized I was mistaken to say that Patanjali's Yoga Sutras are "devoid of philosophy". Obviously this classic work has profound philosophical underpinnings. However, those underpinnings, I believe, are more rooted in the Vedas (including, in particular, the Upanishads) and should not be attributed to Patanjali himself. --Smithfarm 20:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not central to Buddhism

Yoga as a means to enlightenment is not central to Buddhism as this article states.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aperion001 (talk • contribs) .

The difficulty is that the article lacks a definition of the term yoga (maybe that isn't feasible—I don't know), making it impossible judge whether yoga is central to a given religion or practice.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There's an excellent article on this subject, entitled "Yoga and Buddhism" by David Frawley. You can read it here. I highly recommend it. I suggest that this section of the article be rewritten by paraphrasing the points Frawley makes in that article. The treatment is quite balanced and I don't think there's anything in it that would make a Buddhist feel defensive. --Smithfarm 17:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


In traditional contexts, and certainly in a Buddhist context, a "yoga" is any well-defined practice for attaining a particular spiritual goal, eg. the Yogas of Naropa. This includes physical postures, prayers, visualisations, breathing practices. In fact it would be true to say that Buddhism is a coherent set of Yoga practices, that it is in essence a yogically based religion. Prime Entelechy 18:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Yoga

Clearly yoga and buddhism share various concepts because of their broadly shared history and geographical origin. However in some respects (including, I think, historically) Buddhism can be seen as a reaction against yoga, in as much as it represents a "third way" between materialism and ascetism. An authoritative discussion would be useful, especially as many modern enthusiasts don't seem to appreciate that some aspects of the two are in fairly sharp disagreement. An example: the concept central to much yoga that we can transcend the physical realm by purifying the body, whose explicit rejection formed part of the motivation of the founding of Buddhism. Alexbroadbent 22:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, Alexbroadbent, you are clearly using a different definition of yoga than "Prime Entelechy" is.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 02:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The article is essentially about "Hindu Yoga", so that should be the definition used for this article. This is also clear from the section title "Yoga in other traditions". My reason for mentioning all this is that similarities and differences between Hindu and Buddhist Yoga is a matter of active debate (same is true for similarities and differences between Hinduism and Buddhism), and this section is not covering all the different points of view. And one editor has now simply copy-pasted the text of the Yoga#Yoga and Buddhism section to make a new article Yoga and Buddhism.
Now getting into some of the details, are we going to argue that the presence of moral precepts in Buddhism is an evidence of the influence of (Hindu) Yoga? I thought the presence of moral precepts in a tradition was necessary for it to be called a spiritual tradition at all. The section is quoting statements from a book, like: "Certain essential elements of Yoga are important both for Buddhism in general and for Zen in particular." In a book of a few hundred pages, it is very easy to find a few such statements which hardly say anything. There are certain essential elements which are important in all religions. What is the point of quoting this statement? --Knverma 13:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I would say that Buddhism certainly has a major element of Yogic (and Tantric) philosophy in its Tibetan incarnation. However, before people start talking about Buddhism's debt to Yoga philosophy, it should be noted that much of the Buddhist weltanschauung is owed to the Upanishads and not to Yoga philosophy per se... indeed, I would aver both Yoga and Buddhism owe quite a bit to the Upanishads. It is also true that the Bhagavad Gita and the later Yoga Sutras were certainly influenced in turn by the then flourishing Buddhist schools, so there seems to be more of a dyadic (or triadic) relationship complex here rather than a merely linear one. --128.59.26.54 18:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Only the five early Upanishads were written when the Buddha was around, and it's not clear he was familiar with them in their codified forms. In any case his rejection of the Atman doctrine is certainly a sign that his weltanschauung was not Upanishadic. Arrow740 18:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't dispute that there are certain similarities between Tibetan Buddhism and Yoga. The problem is, as Nat Krause pointed out, with confusion of terminology. "Yoga" can mean Yoga as defined by Patanjali, or Yoga as practiced in Tibetan Tantric Buddhism, or certain elements common between the two traditions. The article should be consistent with the use of terminology. --Knverma 07:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740: When I say his 'weltanschauung' I mean the conceptual universe he originated in. He largely defines himself against the Upanishadic tradition, taking several concepts that he could only have learned from the Vedas/ Upanishads, like dharma, ahimsa, karma, ātman (to his anātman), the chakra of time (from the Rig Veda), the numerology system... He certainly rebelled left aside ideas, changed them, or came up with more of his own, but early Buddhism's debt to the Upanishads is obvious. The use of vocabulary is a useful hermeneutic tool for determining religious/philosophical genealogies. --128.59.26.125 20:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations?

Hi, I'd like to help improve the references in this page... however, it sounds like the pointers to the Upanishads, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Hatha Yoga Pradipika in the header were considered insufficient. If anyone has thoughts, I'd welcome them. I was thinking of citing mostly books like Iyengar's Light on Yoga and other deeper, historical texts as well. -- Joebeone (Talk) 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a start. The article is badly in need of references. This govt. site can also be used as a reference for some of the claims. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK06:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Higher Yoga

If somebody has an expertise on the subject, please add something about Higher Yoga too. I saw a programme on discovery channel that demonstrated Higher yoga. the person drank about 100ml desi ghee and about a litre of milk but still managed to deflate his stomach so as to literally touch his back. He said that if normal person drinks so much ghee and milk, he will become clumsy, but since he did higher yoga, he grew thinner.nids 21:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yogic Outer Spiritualism merger

This nebulous subject isn't notable by itself and should be part of the Yoga article. Plus all the google hits seem to redirect here or to WP's copies. Lincher 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the subject isn't notable. I doubt it is even notable enough to include in the Yoga article, as it seems to disjointedly group a series of practices used in different forms of existing Yoga. Delete. Sfacets 00:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fad categories

Should yoga be categorized as a fad? Most fads can be traced back to a particular year or decade, after which they go out of style, however yoga doesn't appear to meet this requirement. —Viriditas | Talk 10:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "American Yogis" Section

Do American Yogis deserve a section all to themselves? This is definitely Systematic bias. I propose to merge these teachers into the main "Notable Yogis" section Sfacets 06:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ext links removal

I notice 82.13.31.68 removed the Ext links section, but instead of reverting it, I thought I would vote for it to remain like that. It seems to me to be a post of random selection a of a mass of similarly motivated sites just as easily googled. As long as there isn't a rule that there be an external links section, isn't it more neutral to abstain from having one in articles like this? Murgh 22:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

An edit like that by a first-time editor is vandalism. I reverted it. I'd certainly agree to a reasoned edit made by a reasonable editor.--Nemonoman 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that the category has gone from crowded with random linkage to near-empty (and not too useful a section) can I suggest to take a leaf from WP:EL which could hopefully make future maintenance easier, by adding a dmoz template and passing on linkhunters and linkspammers alike? Like so:

This way perhaps article relevant links would be kept and there will be no wikipedia discrimination between various journalofyoga.com and yogajournal.com.. Any opinion for or against? MURGH disc. 12:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC) (reverted from alteration by another[3] -MURGH disc. 18:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

I would like to see the top 3-5 sites listed as external links.

I agree consensus with DarkSlateGray and Nemonoman and Murgh. I've added the DMOZ link and a note about future additions--Hu12 18:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with Hu12, and I disavow that I am part of his so-called "consensus".--Nemonoman 12:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Well solved with that note. -MURGH disc. 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that his is the correct approach, I have raised the question at Wikipedia talk:External links#Yoga article external links now changed to DMOZ link Paul foord 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The best aproach was not Forum shopping over at Wikipedia talk:External links, that page is for policy discussion about WP:EL, not yoga external links. this is the best place for this discussion. Yoga has been faced with mass persistant spamming and insertions of Links normally to be avoided, therefore consensus on adding DMOZ was reached. Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of a wiki process. --Hu12 00:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So seeking advise on WP policy at the policy related page is now forum shopping. I strongly disagree, especially as I alerted editors here I had a policy related question as to whether DMOZ links alone were adequate. Paul foord 11:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I support Paul's efforts to find best solutions. I don't believe my opinions match those of Hu12, who has tried to annex my comments as part of his so-called "consensus". Nor do I believe that the problem is now "Solved" by the DMOZ tack. In fact I really dislike this new approach.
The changes have been made, it seems, by persons with no particular interest in Yoga, nor in tending to the article with the care of previous editors. They came, they saw, they did whatever the hell they wanted, claiming consensus. (Sounds remarkably like a recent American presidential administration.)
Trying to find the best solution is to be commended, not vilified. (Sounds remarkably like a recent American presidential administration.). Leave Paul alone. --Nemonoman 12:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with the DMOZ link is that there are broken links and DMOZ does not seem to be being updated as frequently as it used to. I suggest listing a few of the academically oriented yoga sites that are clean and informative. --philoprof

I am a DMOZ/ODP editor and while I am not going to get involved in your discussions, I did catch the comment about there being broken links in the DMOZ Yoga Category. I would like to try to make this as useful a resource as possible, not just for WP but for anyone. I am going through the category to try to remove broken links, and would appreciate it if anyone finds a broken link to drop a note on my Talk page about it and I will deal with it. Note that I will not list new sites in this category - it is not an area of the directory I am sufficiently active in, so any such requests will be ignored, I'm afraid. I just want to make sure that the links that are there are valid (i.e. they go to some sort of yoga-related content). Thanks -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 14:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment certainly wasn't intended to claim the problem solved (but that the invisible text solves the seemingly bombastic impression of a no-links-policy, offering alternatives). Although consensus has clearly not been reached, do we all agree that the link situation on Yoga is far from ideal? Trying to find the best solution is commendable, unlike speculating in who doesn't really care about the article, so let's proceed slowly..? As this proposed approach doesn't close the door on further links with academic weight, but should make it easier to weed out speculative links by way of discussion page nomination, could those that feel this is problematic give arguments why? -MURGH disc. 19:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: After the decision to use DMOZ for external links. I submitted URLs of (apparently newer) yoga websites to DMOZ more than a month ago, and none of these has as yet been added. Is there any reason to think that the DMOZ yoga directory is being updated consistently?--Nemonoman 18:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sahaja Yoga as Unorthodox and Contemporary, not Orthodox

An editor with a suspected COI regarding Sahaja Yoga advocacy throughout Wikipedia simply reverts the inclusion of Sahaja Yoga in the Unorthodox and Contemporary Category. My easily demonstrated point, as stated. was simply that "Shri Mataji's controversial Sahaja Yoga is a NRM founded in 1970, hardly orthodox or mainstream yoga, definition of self realization as cool breeze or second baptism not mainstream". This editor replies: "RVT - Sahaja Yoga originates from a long lineage of Nath traditions, where Cool breeze is described (as well as in other litterary sources))". Really?

This revert without discussion simply restates that NRM's controversial claims as gospel, and part of a contribution pattern of a pattern of deletion of any thing deemed crticical, even if the claim is only the easily demonstrated fact that Sahaja Yoga is Modern, Unorthodox Yoga, and not Orthodax. This is another example why Wikipedia clearly states that the materials of religious groups are to be treated with caution, that editors with COI need to be cautious in their editing, and that the burden of proof for extraordinary claims lies on those making the claim.

That Sahaja Yoga is a modern movement founded in 1970, and widely considered an NRM, can be demonstrated simply by refering to the Sahaja Yoga article and talk page. And even if the claim that Sahaja Yoga originates from a long lineage of Nath traditions were true, the Nath article not only does not support this claim, but does acknowledge that Nath is a heterodox tradition, refuting the editor's contention that Sahaja Yoga is orthodox, even if the suspect Nath claim were valid. In fact, Sahaja Yoga is a modern movement, the founder has no formally recognition from the claimed lineage, and instead, there are pictures of the founder meditating with the late Rajneesh just prior to founding the NRM, see [4], along with comments about her by Rajneesh himself. Reviewing Sahaja Yoga material shows that the NRM clearly claims to be original in many of its doctrines and interpretations, even down to the functions of the classic seven chakras, and its leader makes extraordinary, unique Avataric claims: "I am the Adi Shakti. I am the One who has come on this Earth for the first time in this form to do this tremendous task. The more you understand this the better it would be. You will change tremendously. I knew I’ll have to say that openly one day and we have said it. But now it is you people who have to prove it that I am that!" (Shri Adi-Shakti Devi, Sydney, Australia, March 21, 1983). Hardly Orthodox!

Regarding the claim that experiencing a cool breeze above the head and at the palms is a sign of self-realization, that is hardly orthodox, certainly not confirmed in the Upanishads or Pantajili, and not even among kundalini yoga based sects. This editor restates the claim Sahaja Yoga makes: ("One can actually feel the all pervading divine power as a cool breeze, as described in all religions and spiritual traditions of the world"), but fails to provide the evidence in context to support this extraordinary claim that it is so described in all religions and spiritual traditions. And with Sahaja as with a lot of other NRMs that consistently redefine traditional terms, one does not look at just the words, but at whether what Sahaja Yoga defines as self-realization is similar or completly distinct from orthodox definitions. While it is true that many sects consider enlightenment to occur when the kundalini has risen up to and stablized in the sahasrara, which is considered the seat of Self and enlightenment in some Upanishads, that does not imply support for the "cool breeze" as meaning this has rise has occured nor for the "self realization and second baptism" claim, and the editor has provided no documentation other than restate the claims of the NRM to support this claim.

In fact, when you examine the Sahaja Yoga "self-realization" claim, Sahaja defines it merely as "A connection with the Self", where as more mainstream Upanishadic and Vendantic based traditions define Self-Realization as the permanent Union or Identification of the jiva with Self/Atman/Brahman/Parabrahman, or God Realization, not just some energetic baptism or "connection" with the Self. Also, note that there is a sigificant, also ancient Unpanishadic tradition that the seat of the Self and self-realization is found not in the sahasrara, but beyond that, in the Cave of the Heart, see for example Ramana Maharshi.

In summary, without making definitive judgements on the claims of that NRM, which is not the function of Wikipedia, Sahaja Yoga is properly where I put it, along with other, contemporary modern and unorthodox Yogas, and the burden of proof for the extraordinary religious based claims based on dogma and materials from that NRM is not on me, but on that editor suspected of COI regarding Sahaja Yoga to show why I am incorrect. --Dseer 04:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to answer briefly to your long tirade. Yes, Sahaja Yoga is considered an NRM, but it comes from a long lineage of traditions. 'Sahaj' has been described by various teachers and academics. Actually I don't even dispute that it is Unorthodox, I dispute that you removed it from the article altogether. By all means, place it in the Unorthodox category if you wish, no need to go on about it. I also do not appreciate as being described as an editor with COI. Judging by the length of your post as well as the counter examples you used, perhaps it could be you who has COI?

Sfacets 10:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you document this "long lineage"? As Dseer points out, our own article indicates that it was created in 1970. -Will Beback · † · 19:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The "long lineage" claim, when there is no recognition of it by those with whom the lineage is asserted, and there are actual pictures and published accounts of the founder meditating with Rajneesh, and meeting with Muktananda, just prior to founding the group, is a controversial and minority religious claim requiring exceptional evidence, not just claims by the NRM and those favorably associated with it. --Dseer 04:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that you call it a "tirade", when it is simply a sound refutation of your claims, and thus your insult more evidence of improper ownership and a COI investment here. I recognize that your faith in your NRM blinds you to the COI which others see clearly, nothing personal, but it still must be addressed so that an NPOV can be restored. Let me remind you first that contributions are a matter of record, and your pattern in dealing with what you consider the slightest criticism of Sahaja Yoga is clear, and has been noted by editors other than Will B. and myself, and this is just another straw, so to speak. I assure you that this pattern in your contributions relative to Sahaja Yoga will be addressed as needed to produce NPOV articles. In this latest response, where you accuse me of deleting reference to Sahaja Yoga, this is more COI evidence in your flippant, reversion response. Either you are not telling the truth hoping others will buy it, which seems unlikely, or you did not even take time to read the change. Had you done so, you would have seen that I did not delete it, I simply moved Sahaja Yoga to the Unorthodox and Contemporary Section just exactly as I said, and thus your false claim I deleted it is just another case where your position can be proven wrong by simply looking at the edit history. You yourself now acknowledge, when your NRM based statements are confronted with evidence, that it is fine where I put it. And you have not yet produced one shred of evidence yet to demonstrate this claimed "lineage", while I assure you I am well versed in such matters and I can produce much more evidence to the contrary and will not be deterred by the well worn approach of questioning the critic instead of answering the question. Let me remind you that this is one of many controversial and exceptional religious claims you have made, which are to be taken with appropriate caution. Thus, the "long lineage" claim, when there is no recognition of it by those with whom the lineage is asserted, and there are actual pictures and published accounts of the founder meditating with Rajneesh, and meeting with Muktananda, just prior to founding the group, is a controversial and minority religious claim requiring caution and exceptional evidence, not just claims by the NRM and those favorably associated with it. You've been gently warned over and over, but evidence shows you simply don't want to accept that, despite many discussions where you were informed about the necessity for NPOV. Thus it is unfortunately necessary to go to the next level, and I now support the mediation request regarding Sahaja Yoga and any where Sahajists have inserted mention, and if needed, arbitration regarding the edits that I will pursue myself, until NPOV prevails. Again, nothing personal, it just has to be done. --Dseer 04:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As I mentionned above, I have no issue with SY being placed in the Unorthodox Yoga section. Sfacets 10:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harrapan Statue

Does any one mind me asking what the harrapan statue is doing in this article?
There is absolutely no proof that the Indus Valley Civilisation (aka Harrapan Civilisation) was related to Hinduism. I dont see the point of having misleading references to it, by placing pictures of Indus valley statues on here.
Please let me know what you think.
Thank you.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 18:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There are much better harappan images that show the practice of yoga in the Indus Valley Civilisation. Here and Here. One is from the Islamabad Museum, one is from the National Museum in Delhi. Both are far more commonly used to show yogis in the Indus Valley Civilisation. I agree, the statue shown in the article isn't the right one. Does anyone know of Public Domain versions of the two images I've linked, so we can put them in the article instead? Would fair use apply here? ॐ Priyanath talk 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain. None of the Harappan texts have ever been deciphered. We dont know anything about their culture or religion. There is no evidence behind some of these links created here on Wikipedia, they appear to be attempts to link hinduism with IVC. Please let me know why there is such an urge to link IVC with Hinduism on Wikipedia.
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The images I linked to are very commonly used to show a link to Yoga in Indus Valley Civilization, regardless of what the text on the seals says. The connection between Yoga and Hinduism is a separate issue. This article is about Yoga. The Indus Valley "yogi seals", as they are commonly called, show a link to Yoga, and show the long history of yoga. That's why they belong in the article. ॐ Priyanath talk 19:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I found one of the 'yogi seal' images here on WP, and swapped it for the Harappa statue. The Mackay photo from the Islamabad museum is better. It was taken in 1938. Does anyone know if that would be Public Domain? It's Here at www.harappa.com, and the photo file is even named 'yogiseal.jpg'. ॐ Priyanath talk 21:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Priyanath. Your effort is greatly appreciated. Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, there are links between Indus Valley Civilization and Hinduism. Yoga, which has it's origin in Sanataan Dharma and Hinduism, is just one of those links, and a very clear one. But since this article is about yoga, there's no need to go further than that photo and description here, in my opinion. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Unreal on this one. Although it is possible that the Harappan seal has a connection to Yoga, it is purely hypothetical at this point until the Indus language is deciphered. Just because the image is of a person seated cross-legged does not imply a connection with Yoga. Many other cultures show images of people seated cross-legged. I think you may be falling prey to the common practice in India of trying to prove that modern Indian culture is very ancient i.e. the older the better. It is quite possible that Yoga and the culture that created the Vedas came to India after the Indus valley civilization had abandoned their cities due to the drought. Basically, we don't know yet so thi image doesn't belong here as it is merely based on conjecture, not fact.
The image does belong here. In fact there should also be a few sentences in the History section about it and the other Pushupati figure, with references, which I'll add in the next week. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Just as the argument of a proto-yogic culture originating or finding a part of its foundation in the Indus Valley civilization has not been irrefutably proven, it has also not been absolutely refuted. At the very least, the Pashupati figure deserves to appear on the Yoga page (even the Hinduism page, for that matter) as a current subject of debate... the weight of evidence, or evidentiary materials, supporting a proto-Hindu/Yoga culture is impressive, particularly the distinctive lotus position and the surrounding animals, which do speak to a Lord of Beasts (or Pashupati). I would, however, think it appropriate to append a cautionary note, stating, for instance, that "Although the so-called 'Pashupati' figures have been connected to the ancient and on-going modern traditions of Hinduism and its ancillary Yoga system, the as-yet-untranslated Indus valley glyphs cannot verify that this indeed represents a continuous tradition or a set of coincidences. Scholarly debate, therefore, continues as to the significance of a pre-Aryan yogic culture." --128.59.26.54 18:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, I would respectfully take issue with this statement: "Basically, we don't know yet so thi image doesn't belong here as it is merely based on conjecture, not fact." In that case, instead of discussing either the Aryan Migration Theory or the Aryan Invasion Theory, we should discuss neither, if we were to follow the foregoing criterion! The reason is that we have no way of knowing, proof-positive, that the Aryans either migrated or invaded. What we are basing the current majority-accepted Aryan Migration Theory on is that there is a lack of evidence for an invasion (though Vedic references to wars lead some to imagine otherwise) and that, by a simple application of Ockham's famous razor, the simplest 'migratory' explanation wins out. See, there's no sign of warfare, hence it seems more likely to have been a migration. Educated guesses, conjectures based on the the best evidence available are what current archaeology and science rely on, while leaving the possibility open for revision of current hypotheses in the face of new revelations. If we go by this latter procedure, the Pashupati figure would suggest proto-Yoga, or at least a culture which, even if it weren't actually called Yoga by the contemporaries, could very well have had an impact on the later Aryans. Additionally, I would add that many scholars feel that in the wake of the drought, the Saraswati river cultures (or Gaggar-Hakra, as the revisionists would curiously have it) moved into the Ganga-plains. Thus, it is not implausible that an Indus civilizational ethos was maintained through time and space. --128.59.26.54 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Medicine

Is the below paragraph suitable to be included in the introduction to this article (or elsewhere)? Please discuss:

Yoga as healing system of theory and practice is a combination of breathing exercises, physical postures, and meditation, practiced for over 5,000 years. [1][2] and is the form of Yoga most widely known in the West. Yoga is considered a mind-body intervention that is used to reduce the health effects of generalized stress.

From my perspective it at least needs some further citations and editing as comments such as "the form of Yoga most widely known in the West" do not sound particularly neutral. Wouldn't that be a part of Hatha Yoga? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 12:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


It is a fact that in the West Yoga has taken on a different "bastardised" form taking elements fom different schools of Yoga and mashing them together to form what is termed "Yoga" but is very different in both it's aims and practice to those forms practiced in the East. I think at most it deserves a small paragraph at the bottom of the article with a link to Yoga as exercise, and/or maybe a small mention of the difference in the intro.

The proportion of people practicing "Yoga" in the Westis relatively small compared to those practicing Yoga in the East, and the document should reflect that ratio. Sfacets 12:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I partially restored the paragraphs as footnote 12 was blanked by the removal of the opening paras (the opening paras carried it's ref name in the tag). Unlike the East, people associate Yoga with Hatha Yoga (or the description as given by Sfacets) in the west but that is easily correctible. We can remove the "and is the form of Yoga most widely known in the West" line and maybe come up with Yoga in the West section. The removed version also had a minor full stop error which I corrected. Cheers ! Phillip Rosenthal 14:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Sfacets on this one - it seems like too much information for the introductory paragraph. Have tried a reduced version instead. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't exactly disagree with any of the editors involved but when you remove material the reference tag was removed as well, which carried the ref name=X. The footnote no. 12 is connected to that ref tag and the ref tagging was used in Hatha Yoga and Yoga's relationship with Tantra, both of which stood blanked (see here). I'll only put the "Yoga is a combination of breathing exercises, physical postures, and meditation, practiced for over 5,000 years." lines in the article. I also agree with the too much information in the opening paragraph and that the mind-body intervention part is probably not needed at all.
Best Wishes, Phillip Rosenthal 17:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
At some stage the references will have to be fixed so that they don't hamper future edits to the article. An old style format has been used which names each particular reference rather than just having < r e f > and < / r e f > tags. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Testing for good article status

 Yoga/Archive 4 is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page.
1. Well written?: yes, (95%)
Comprehensible prose? yes
Logical Structure? yes
WP:LEAD? yes
WP:LAYOUT? yes
WP:MOSDEF? yes
WP:WTA? partial:
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
WP:WAF? no, I think, but it would be solved if statements concerning "perfect conciousness" and "enlightment", for instance, were given appropriate sources
Wikipedia:Embedded list? yes
2. Factually accurate?: partial, (60%), would be more confident if there were more sourcing
WP:CITE? no, it's about 60% done and some sections lack sources
WP:V? partial, more sourcing is needed
WP:RS? yes
WP:NOR? partial, more sourcing is needed
3. Broad in coverage?: yes
4. Neutral point of view?: June 2007, (95% for the reasons in point 1)
5. Article stability? no, unfortunately
6. Appropriate Images?: yes, (100%)
Good captions? yes
Copyright problems? no


I'm new to reviewing. Any comments concerning the article are appreciated. Thanks!Kmarinas86 04:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The article seems rather weakly sourced. Some sections have no citations at all. It looks like it could use another round of peer review, as the one on file did not seem to get much input. One difficulty in approaching this topic is that there are a wide range of different cultural perspectives on the term yoga and what it may or may not cover. There may be some overgeneralization about things based on the beliefs of particular practioners. The editors who have worked on this should be commended for making an attempt to synthesize such a broad range of material. Here are some specific suggestions for possible improvements:
  • Examination of the sources used as references shows variation in level of credibility per WP:RS. For example, the lead includes the sentence "The first known written reference to yoga is in the Rig Veda, estimated by the western scholars to be at least 3,500 years old." which is supported by a reference to a person who is considered not credible by most academic Indologists. There is no citation to a specific Rig Vedic passage, just a general statement by someone not uniformly regarded as a reliable source. Perhaps it is true, but is there a better reference that can be verified?
  • The Etymology section is unsourced and does not bring out the general uses of the term yoga in Hindu texts, which are quite varied. For example, the following section on the Bhagavad Gita refers to four yogas, perhaps influenced by models popularized in the West by the Vendanta Society, but traditional Hindu commentaries on the Gita, and most Hindu editions of the work, refer to 18 yogas, one for each chapter. The current set of four therefore emphasizes one particular Western model while not mentioning Hindu tradion related to the Gita.
  • The section on Yoga Philosophy has no citations and may be unreliable. If used in the strict sense, the term is referring to one of the six orthodox schools of Hindu Philosophy. See: Nastika.

Buddhipriya 04:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Very insightful, most of the article is sourced but lacks in-line citations, which can be provided as good reference is always at hand for a mainstream subject like this. I have prior commintment towards another article but I'll try to edit and introduce some improvements as soon as I can. The Yoga template also seems bland and overcrowded, but that too, is easily correctible.
Phillip Rosenthal 11:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yogas

Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, Buddhi Yoga and Bhakti Yoga are all given by name within the Bhagavad-Gita (See 3.3 for Karma & Jnana [5] and various for Bhakti and Buddhi - e.g 14.26 and 10.10). Raja Yoga is not named - but as I understand it is very similar to Jnana Yoga, or a branch thereof via Patanjali. I've never come across the concept of a yoga for each chapter, and have read several different translations, who specifically supports the 18 Yogas theory? It needs re-phrasing in the introduction somehow to cover the variety of perspectives. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, that verse can be quoted and incorporated into the article. I found that clicking on the link also produced a wealth of additional verses. Phillip Rosenthal 11:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The Bhagavad Gita is not a definitive source. Traditionally, there are are six major branches of Yoga -- Hatha (physical), Karma (service), Jnana (wisdom), Bhakti (devotion), Tantra (ritual), and Raja (encompassing all 5, while focusing on meditiation and self-knowledge).
These traditions are clearly documented in both the wisdom teachings, and modern writings. They all derive from the ashtanga (8 limbed) (not Ashtanga) tradition of Patanjali outlined in the Yoga Sutra.
I will update the introduction, with references, to reflect this information. Empacher 17:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The Bhagavad Gita mentions Yoga very clearly, and that can be pointed out using in line citation in the article. Phillip Rosenthal 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I never said it didn't. I said it wasn't a definitive source, and should neither be positioned, not referenced as one. In point of fact, the Gita relies primiarily on Bhakti Yoga as a point of reference, as the well as the Yoga philosphy that underlies Kalarippayattu...the Sutra outlining said escapes me, at the moment. Empacher 20:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The term yoga, or variations on the Sanskrit root idea such as yogi, yogena (by yoga), etc., occur often in the Gita. For a listing check a Gita concordance such as that in Bhagavad Gita (e.g., in the Translation of the commentary by Sankaracarya by Swami Gambhirananda, ISBN 81-7505-041-1 - note that the concordance is in Devanagari). I would be happy to add some material to the Gita section to explain variations but the key issue is what the words means in context. Reagarding the 18 yogas, most Hindu editions of the Gita use the traditional system of 18 yogas as chapter titles. I don't know which editions you may have to refer to, but for example in the editon with the commentary by Swami Chidbhavananda, Chapter 1, for example, is Vishada Yoga (vişādayogaḥ विषादयोगः), or the Yoga of Despondency, because the chapter is about that. Chapter 2 is Samkhya Yoga, the Yoga of Knowledge (as translated by Chidbhavananda, other translations are possible). I just looked at a couple of English translations of the Gita and see that these yogas sometimes appear in translation as chapter titles like Swami Gambhirananda's translation for chapter 2 as "The Path of Knowledge" (which is a translation for the Sanskrit source (samkhayyogaḥ संख्ययोगः) and "path" is not bad as a general idea for yoga. Radhakrishnan's (ISBN 8-17223-087-7) title for chapter 2 is "Samkhya Theory and Yoga Practice" which is a more wordy version of the same translation. The topic of Raja yoga as expounded in Pantanjali's Yoga Sutras, which is the classic on the subject, does not appear in the Gita in such explicit form, but the concept of control of the mind, which is at the root of Raja Yoga, is certainly in the Gita. The statement that the Gita relies primarily on Bhakti Yoga reflects a particular interpretation of what the Gita means, but it is certainly true that Bhakti is important in the Gita. There have been many commentaries on the Gita, many of which conflict with one another. Most commentators view it as a treatise primarily on Karma Yoga, but in parallel noting the importance of Bhakti in the process. Jnana Yoga is described as more difficult, but all these paths meet at the top of the mountain. The term yogena (the instrumental singular of yoga is used generally with a sense of "through practice" or similar ideas. The translations vary. Many of the occurances of words related to this stem are therefore general in nature and not tied to a particular brand of yoga. Commentators often take a particular spin on what to emphasize in the Gita. For example, the commentary by Ramanuja is a great classic emphasizing Bhakti. The commentary by G. G. Tilak is a resounding call emphasizing Karma. The commentary by Shankaracarya emphasizes Jnana Yoga. All of these are complementary with one another, like various spices used in cooking one dish. Raja Yoga and Jnana Yoga are two completely different systems. Some commentators follow the lead of the influential commentator Madhusudana Sarasvati (b. 1490) who divided the 18 chapters of the Gita into three groups of six, for Karma, Jnana, and Bhakti Yoga, but other commentators have rejected that organization. However it is one of the citations that would be used to support the "absence" of Raja Yoga. But other commentators such as Sivananda make a special effort to identify themes of Raja Yoga even if they are not mentioned by name. This is just to show that you can prove anything by quoting Swami X, and refute it by quoting Swami Y. Buddhipriya 03:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
GourangaUK - good edit...I am so used to saying things like "ancient teachings" and "wisdom teachings" in my seminars that it was just reflex.
Buddhipriya - agreed on the 18 Yogas, and the meta-Yoga categorizations. That's the way I learned it. I didn't see the questioning of the 18 Yoga breakdown previously. I also agree about Swami X/Swami Y point...I am of the Shankya lineage, and despite that lineages commentaries on th Gita re: Karma, we were always taught Bhakti...guess whose prejudice that was?... (rhetorical snark). Cheers all! Empacher 11:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Krishna's prejudice is towards bhakti, who can argue with the teacher? ;-) [6] [7] Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 12:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hah! You got the joke!!! Outstanding! Empacher 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
However Krishna could be accused of WP:NPOV :) Regarding the three yogas, I have a citation to Gavin Flood which can be used to clarify that Raja Yoga is not directly a focus of the Gita. I will add it to the article now, but the real issue is that the range of meanings of yoga is much greater than the article now says. Buddhipriya 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoga Review

I have read the article. While I won't fail it, I won't pass it, either. There is one rather ambiguous sentence at the end of the History of Yoga section. It claims that "Yoga is not a religion in itself", even though no one has asserted that it ever was. A great article, other than that; I'd be happy to give it status if someone fixed that. There was one misused comma towards the end of the article, but I don't want to complain.--Dark Green 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC) AFTER REREADING THE PART IN QUESTION: I withdraw my comment. I'll vote for giving this GA status. I also see now that someone else has also reviewed the article; I'll wait to hear his or her comments on this article before tagging this as a Good Article.--Dark Green 19:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC) AFTER MAKING A FOOL OF MYSELF: I'll give this GA status, as I realize that the above person reviewed the article BEFORE sourcing changes were made.

[edit] Use of References and Notes sections

Someone could go through the References section to be sure that only works that are cited in Footnotes are included there. Works that are not cited might be appropriate for "Further reading" but they are not usually included as References per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout. A cleanup step would be to invite on of the layout specialist editors to clean up the structure for the referencing. Buddhipriya 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tantric yoga

I notice that there is a dispute over the inclusion of tantric yoga in the list of traditional yogas. [8]. Tantric yoga is not part of the system of six traditional Hindu philosophies that are also mentioned in the lead, and tantra is classified as an unorthodox (nastika) Hindu system. I request that the material on tantric yoga be broken out as a separate topic so that the claims made for it can be examined as a distinct issue. Buddhipriya 21:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute. Tantra is included in a half dozen traditional and modern sources as a major branch, and not nastika. That would be why it was included in the listing of the six branches, with references, in the original edit. Empacher 22:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tantra

It would appear that has been some misunderstanding with regard to the opening paragraphs of this article. There was some debate over the six branches of Yoga, the references for which I provided in an edit some time ago. The inclusion of Tantra Yoga was excised, despite that branch being documented and referenced. I replaced that wording and was admonished by one of the regular editors for "adding unsourced material in the middle of a sentence." Clearly the editor in question was unaware of the previous succession of edits and made his comments to me in understandable error.

That said, it would appear that Tantra was removed initially because it does not have a WikiPage, so that somehow makes it an illegitimate topic. I am hoping that, given the clearly documented inclusion of Tantra within the main branches of Yoga, someone will undertake to start a page addresing the issue.

May I suggest as beginning source material, "Tantra" by Georg Feurstein, or "Tantra Revealed" by Pandit Rajmani Tuginate. Empacher 22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the good faith shown by removing the disputed reference. There is no question that Tantra exists, of course, and there are many excellent books that can be put forward that use the phrase Tantric yoga. This issue probably should be included in the article clearly. In some cases, sources do not always distinguish between modern Western practices and older Hindu traditions, and that is the issue that hopefully will be addressed in any text which is added to the article. If there is a particular point regarding this that you feel should be made, don't hesitate to raise it here so a hunt for appropriate citations can begin. In discussing the "six systems" one good approach would be to clarify that you are not referring to the "six philosophies" of traditional Hinduism see: Nastika. Some other list of six yogas is apparently being cited. If you provide an exact page reference then a citation can be nailed down, which tends to at least establish a fixed point of discussion.
In looking at how Wiki articles interlink I have just noticed that there is probably a problem in the way this article is used as the destination for the reference to the Yoga school of philosophy on Nastika. The technical use of the term yoga in Hindu philosophy is not really well-covered by the present article on yoga, which seems to have a general discussion covering a variety of ways in which the term yoga is used. The use in Indian philosophy is not so general, so part of the improvement that could be made would be to clarify the use of the term as part of the philosophical vocabulary. Buddhipriya 23:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern schools versus methods

I am wondering what qualifies something as a "modern school" of Yoga. Although some, like Bikram and Kripalu, make sense, others, like Gitananda and Rishi Culture seem self-appointed, rather than recognized. Could someone clarify? DashaKat 19:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think your question is excellent, but I have no answer for it. The article contains many assertions that do not clearly separate out original ideas on the subject from later interpretations. If there are statements in the article that are not sourced, they may be deleted at any time according to WP:VERIFIABILITY. Buddhipriya 07:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it be too onerous to come up with some protocol that the editors agree upon, and then apply it to these listings? Or maybe parse the lists out, or something? DashaKat 12:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of unsourced statements is fair game

Regarding the following restoration of edits which were made by another editor and then reverted by another: [9] The removal of unsourced material, particularly POV statements, is entirely permissible under WP:Verifiability which states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." In this case, one editor removed unsourced material, which is consistent with the policy. Instead of retoring the material it would be better to bring forth some WP:RS in support of the statments. Buddhipriya 01:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. DashaKat 09:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
If what is being said sounds correct however (may or may not be the case in this instance) then I don't think we should remove text purely because of a lack of references - that would go against common sense. If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 11:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we are reacting the manner in which the first edit was presented. The fact is, at least to my understanding, that the Buddha was indeed a yogi, insofar as he was Brahmin class, and his training would have included instruction in traditional Hindu teachings and practices. The statement (paraphrased) that "the Buddha being a yogi is bunk" was rather harsh, and provocative.
Also, the material that Buddhipriya asked for support on was rife with very specific language. I'm sort of inclined to say, yes, sounds good works, but very specific statements with topic specific language need some sort of reference. DashaKat 11:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree - anything which is potentially contentious, or which makes a bold factual statement should definitely be referenced as Buddhipriya points out above. Gouranga(UK) 11:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:IAR seems like a last resort for unusual cases. In this case, I think there are several editors who consider the deleted material to be OR that has been duplicated in several articles. The edit summary of Arrow740 might have been harsh, but citing presence of moral principles in two traditions as a proof of some influence of one upon the other clearly sounds more OR than fact needing sourcing. --Knverma 11:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the time has come to begin cutting some of the unsourced statements in the article that have gone unsourced for some time despite fact tags. The quality of sourcing on the article may improve if material that has no source is eliminated, thus stimulating editorial attention. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the [citation needed] template, or tag the article by adding
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2007)

or

 This article does not cite any references or sources. (June 2007)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done." Items that have gone unreferenced despite calls for citations seem prime candidates for deletion. Buddhipriya 03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoga philosophy section

Currently the article does not say much about the formal philosophical system called "Yoga" which is one of the six orthodox systems of Hindu philosophy. This usage of the term "yoga" is a bit different from the ideas given in the article now, and would connect into the material about Patanjali, whose text is one of the foundational texts of the Yoga "darshana" (philosophical system). I proposed to add a few strongly-sourced summary statements related to the school. The connective to the article on Hindu philosophy is what I am focused on. I felt that the template for Hindu philosophy was too large and it was causing formatting problems on my display, so I removed it, but added a clear link to the main article. Any thoughts on this approach, which will replace unsourced material with sourced material? Buddhipriya 03:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a few references with a view to establishing the very intimate connection between the Yoga and Samkhya schools of philosphy and have moved the material on Patanjali to the section for Yoga philosophy in order to get more clear focus on that work, which is the foundational text for the formal philosophical school. In doing this I realized that the exact terminology of "yoga" as used in the philosophical literature is somewhat different from the usage in other contexts. A few additional points regarding the Patanjali material can be added to try to pin down this definitional issue, as for Patanjali the definition of yoga is very foundational and give in sutra 2, which is the definitional sutra for the entire work (yogaścittavṛttinirodhaḥ) which has been translated many different ways, but generally means "Yoga is the restraint of the modifications of the mind". This is the definitional sutra of raja yoga. If there is no ojection I will add a few more references to try to get the definitional issues pinned down. Buddhipriya 21:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This has also just occurred to me. This article confuses the broad meaning of "Yoga" with the technical term for the astika school. We need at the very least a specialized sub-article Yoga (astika) or similar. dab (𒁳) 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry, Raja Yoga is that article. this should be made immediately clear in the intro. dab (𒁳) 12:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added a few sentences to the section on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras to try to make this more clear. Does it need more work? Buddhipriya 20:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems some editing was done to focus attention on the Yoga as a school of philosophy but the article is still very confusing. The mention of Bhagavadgita and the Karma, Bhakti and Jnana yoga don't really fit with earlier section of the 'representation of the Yogi'. neither does it fit with the Paatanajal Yoga sutra. In the Bhagavadgita section the word Yoga is used in its basic sense and it is not connected to the Yoga system that has relation with the Sankhya system.
We might want to have a separate page about Paatanjal Yoga and its various developments - Hata Yoga and its current meaning centered around Yogasana and have another page describing various uses of the word Yoga, then that article need not have a common thread except the word Yoga. I hope I am making sense. --Kaveri 17:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aerial yoga -- an AFD candidate?

Please see the article, and join discussion on the Aerial yoga talk page. Thanks.--Nemonoman 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] explaining video's

The OHM Omroep Hindoestaanse Media, this is the Hindu Media Organisation of the Netherlands has some streaming video's on Radja, Karma, Jhana en Bhakti yoga.

The introduction of the video is Dutch, but the rest is English with Dutch subtitles, maybe a valuable addition to the article? Teardrop onthefire 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

These all look like linkspam to me, and I do not think they should be added to the article as they cite no WP:RS. We need to raise the bar on sources. Buddhipriya 02:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The site ohmnet is not just a website about hinduism, it is the site of the official government funded hindu tv/radio/website for the hindu community of the Netherlands. I am still looking for sources on Swami Ved Bharti. Teardrop onthefire 08:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also link farm

The "See also" section is a link farm. We have a yoga navigation template at the bottom of the page. Do we need both? The link farm seems to be a magnet for every self-proclaimed guru who thinks of a new type of yoga. If I start a new school for Wikipedia Yoga, based on ageless Vedic teachings, would it be a good candidate to add to the link farm? I think not. So we need some basis to weed out what is non-notable. Buddhipriya 04:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has replied to this question about formatting, which has just come up in relation to another article at: Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_layout#See_also_section:_.22it_should_ideally_not_repeat_links_already_present_in_the_article..22. I think that the redundant link farm in See also should be cut, and that any links that are in the Yoga template certainly should be cut individually even if the section is kept. Buddhipriya 20:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
No one has commented on either of the above two comments, so it may be that removal of the See also link farm is not controversial. I have removed all of the redundant links that appear both in See also and in the Yoga template. So the topics that are left in See also could be examined, and if any of them are really important, they could be added to the Yoga template. Is there anyone who is experienced in working with the Yoga template who can do this? The See also section is now adjacent to the Yoga template making it easy to compare the two. For an example of an article that currently uses only a navigation table in the See also section see: Ganesha. Buddhipriya 18:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Buddhipriya - I removed a few links a while ago and am in agreement with your train of thought. It was previously a bit excessive in terms of See also links. Gouranga(UK) 15:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Since no one has objected, the train has pulled out of the station. :) I cut the residual See also section. People who feel that specific links need to be added back in are welcome to make their cases for individual topics, which may be best handled by upgrading the Yoga navigational template. Buddhipriya 00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)