Talk:Yoga/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Lede

I am concerned about the lead section, (the bit before the table of contents). It does not seeem to be doing its job which is to introduce the article and summarise its most important aspects. It introduces one or two specious statements which do not seem to corroborated, or expanded elsewhere in the article. It does a good job of defining the topic, and establishing the overall context but I do not think that the content in the lead reflects the importance of all the different aspects contained in the topic in these first few, vital sentences. Yoga Mat (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

New Edits

Can someone please look at my material and if you find it not worth inputting, message me - ThermalHeat01

The Vedic Samhitas contain references to ascetics, and ascetic practices known as (tapas) are referenced in the Brāhmaṇas (900 BCE and 500 BCE), early commentaries on the Vedas. The Rig Veda, earliest of the Hindu scripture mentions the practice. Robert Schneider and Jeremy Fields write, "Yoga asanas were first prescribed by the ancient Vedic texts thousands of years ago and are said to directly enliven the body's inner intelligence." Certainly breath control and curbing the mind was practiced since the Vedic times. It is believed that yoga was fundamental to Vedic ritual, especially to chanting the sacred hymns

An early reference to meditation is made in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the earliest Upanishad (approx. 900 BCE). Yoga is discussed quite frequently in the Upanishads, many of which predate Patanjali's Sutras. The actual term "yoga" first occurs in the Katha Upanishad. The Shvetasvatara Upanishad mentions it as well. A Rig Vedic cosmogonic myth declares an ascetic with "folded legs, soles turned upwards" as per his name. However, according to writer Richard Gombrich, the Buddhist texts are perhaps the earliest texts describing meditation techniques. James Hastings writes, But "Buddhist 'meditation' is simply Hindu yoga more or less transformed.".

Important textual sources for the evolving concept of Yoga are the middle Upanishads, (ca. 400 BCE), the Mahabharata (5th c. BCE) including the Bhagavad Gita (ca. 200 BCE), and the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (300 BCE-200 BCE). Several seals discovered at Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300–1700 BC) sites depict figures in a yoga- or meditation-like posture, "a form of ritual discipline, suggesting a precursor of yoga" that point to Harappan devotion to "ritual discipline and concentration", according to Archaeologist Gregory Possehl. According to prof. Egbert Richter Ushanas, concerning the IVC seals he has said, "All the seals are based on Vedas -- Rig Veda and Atharva Veda."

In the translation of "Yogas citta vrtti nirodhah" I replaced "Yoga is the inhibition of the modifications of the mind" with "Yoga requires the inhibition of the modifications of the mind". Yoga needs a quit mind to evolve against the noise of our daily live. But as soon as you reach your yogic state of mind your mind shall let you go through your live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.223.130 (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Goal of Yoga

The goal of Yoga is to become God, to know your true identity. It is to forget your individual consciousness and know the truth - that you and everything else are and have always been God. Crist didn't want us to follow him and become a christian, he wanted us to become God, like He became. He said everyone could and should do it - reach the house of the Lord, heaven, which is within. Buddha didn't want us to become buddhist, he wanted us to become Buddha, to reach Nirvana, which is within. Krishna didn't want us to become hinduists, He wanted us to know ourselves to be Krishna, that we all are God, and that He is within. So, a shift of consciousness, that leads to self-discovery and true identification with the universal Love-Light of God present in all. That is the goal of Yoga - rediscover your never-lost unity with God.

It is great to see such a section in a religious practice artical. Could anyone expand on it?

I added the following text to this topic: "To put in simpler terms, the goal of Yoga is to unite the individual mind with the universal consciousness, or in another terms, the the goal is for the individual to become one with the divine principle. This can be derived from the meaning of the word Yoga, which means "Union", and it seems the English word "Yoke" is supposed to have been derived from the original Sanskrit word "Yoga".

Embhee 20:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Embhee, I have removed this text, as not all of the major schools of Yoga hold this as the aim. However, in one sense, a union (or reunion) of some form is given as the goal in the majority of cases and thus I added a small line or two to this effect at the start of the section. The detail regarding "yoke" is given in the etymology section. Best wishes, Gouranga(UK) 08:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

LIMITS OF YOGA

As same as other epics of our/all releigions, there are a lots of adverse and advance talking in the "Yogshastra". And like all other releigious books there are several hypothecatic topicks init. here are some examples- First of all lets talk about the first and begning of "Yogshutra ". for your kind information let me tell that the Yogshastra has been written on "shutra" form. Shutra is a little and meaningful pharse in Sanskrit language. All the words of the shutra hsa bears a number of meanings, and there is controvercy arises. Through these controvercies it is very difficult to find any deceision. And only because of this weakness there were a lots of hypothecations and myths (an unreal story) arises. These myths develops a new superstition and superstition also produce another myths and vice-versa. Lets talk bout the forst and origin shutra of Yoga. YOGASCHITTAAVRITI NIRODHA. Yogshutra,samadhipaad, shutra-2. Chitta and vrities are the two aspects of humankind. But Yoga calls us to kill the vrities and live only with Chitt. but for your kind information, I have to say that these two (Chitta and Vritties) are not two elements. They are same or two aspects of same thing(humankind).Chitta and vrities are as same as day and night, darkness and light. In the present nature all the existings have their negatives. For example days have night, beautiful lotus have mud. If we remove the dirtynees of mud we will also loss the beauty of lotus. And it is a universal law. All the present things have their negatives. But this is nit woth chitta and vrities. Chitta and vritties are not two things Chitta forms by vritties, it means that no one can prevent it(chita or vritties)as says in Yogshutra. It is very basic and primary weakness of Yoga and through this hole all the establishments aout Yoga feels fiction. While there are several other fictions in Yogshastra- now lets see some of the - look at this shutra - SATYAPRATHISTHAYAM KRIYAPHALASRYATWM. Sadhanpaad , shutra-36, Means ones who live with truth can receive the rewards of any work of any on for himself or anyself. Now you have to deceide that how the result of any work of anyone can be received by another. How it is posible that eat one and satisfy another, not only here but this other can also send this satisfaction to anyone? What is this hypothecation?Imagination?for a false statement? If not so how it is possible? Can anyone describe it? Live with truth is a good mannaer but truth can give this kind of power. I can't beleive it. And through this epic there are several other myths have been published. We have to oppose these kind of statements. While lets look on the another shutra ASTEYPRATISTHAYAM SARVARATNOPSTHANAM Sadhaanpaad , Shutra -37. There is another type of hypothecation and a kind of grid has been offered by Yoga. In this shutra it is stated that ones who lives with ASTEY can get any kind of wealth. Here we have to know about ASTEY, it means nothing receive by anyone. And in Yogshutra it is stated that the 'asteyi' can get everything. Means one who is not ready to receive can get. If this is not a hyothecation then what is this? I am not understand that what yoga says. One who is not ready to receive can get every thing. And if it happened then what kind of cansumption he can made? And there is another major question - Is there a man of this kind? Ones who called Yogi are of this nature. This is an antiprogressive statement and according to thses kind of statements there will be says thatthe Yoga is against the progess of science. Lets talk to another shutra - here Patanjali(author of Yogshastra) says that we can knew our past births through APARIGRAH. APARIGRAHSTHARYE JANAMKATHA SAMBODAH. Sadhaanpaad , Shutra -39. 'Purva Janam' is a fiction and the yoga says about to realise it. All the frauds and business of releigions is based on myths of past borth and heaven.And it can be strongly stated that there is not nay past birth and heaven. Then anyone can knew it, how? Totally fraud! Lets talk to some other Shutra where Patanjali says about the power of yogi and offering a lots of grid to man. BHUWARGYANAM SURYE SAMYT. Bibhutipaad , shutra 27. Means meditate with sun can give knowledge about the world. Here the T.V. and oher communication resources are not necessory , only meditate with sun and knew all about the world! CHANDRATARA VYUH GYANAM. Bibhutipaad , shutra 28. Meditate with moon can give knowledge about the stars, without the help of planetorium , only meditate with moon and knew all bout the stars. DHRUVE TADGATIGYANAM. Bibhutipaad , shutra 29. Meditate with 'Dhruvtara'and knew the motion path of stars. here space telescope is useless? what is this? Lets talk about the another type of hypothecation in Yoga NABHICHAKRA KAYAVYUH GYANAM. Bibhutipaad , shutra 30. Consentration on 'Nabhi'( a place on stomach) can give knowledge about the body. There is no need to study medical science. All the information about human body can be received through consentration on 'Nabhichakar' KANTHKUPE KSUTPIPAS NIVRITI. Bibhutipaad , shutra 31. Means consentration on Kanth(a place on neck) can give the power to live without meal. Is it possible? Any a man also whom called them Yogi can live without mea? Is Patanjali himself were lived without meal? He were eat or no? But it is also as true as Patanjali himself that the took fooding. Then how he told this type of hypothecation.. Not only here but is can also be sys that nobody could follows up Aparigrah as stated in Yogashutra and Astey is also far away from the limits of practice.No such a Yogi who can follow up these situations, and not any kind of persons who fulfill this. lets talk on anther shutra - KURMNARAYAM STAIRYAM. Bibhutipaad , shutra 32. Consentration on Kurma Nari can give the stability of body. MURDDHJYOTI SIDHDARSHANAM. Bibhutipaad , shutra 33 Consentration of light on the top of head ( is there any man who have seen it)can met the Sidhdhays(Yogis).It can be said that there is not any kind of this type of light and not any result of this kind of consentration. this is a false and imaginative statement and we shouldn't have to beleive it. lets look on otherone HRIDAYE CHITSAMVITA Bibhutipaad , shutra 35. Means consentration on heart can gives the knowledge about the mind & thoughts or can give the knowlege of Psycolodgy. But I knew the psycosiololists and they knew it through his labour and practice, not through these kind of consentrations. Lets see on another shutra BANDH KARNSHAITHILYT PARCHR SAMDNACHA CHITASYA PARSHARIRE AVESHA. Bibhutipaad , shutra 39. Here Patanjali told to reach in the mind and boudy of others, which is called 'Parkaya pravesh'. It is totally false and imaginative to reach and capture the mind and body of anotherone. In anther place Patanjai says about to fly in the air and this is receive through the consentration on the light weighted things. KAYA KASHAYO SAMBNDH SANYAMATTLAGUTUL SAMPATTESCH AAKASHGAMANAM. Bibhutipaad , shutra 43. NOW YOU MAY ALSO DECIDE THAT YOGA IS WHICH KIND OF SCIENCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.17.1 (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

by ashwaneebaba. email- tiwaryashwanee@gmail.com

"Pashupati seal" ----> Indus Valley seals

After adding new material, and the most recent discovery of a "yogi" Indus Valley seal, the "Pashupati seal" in the History section appeared to be much too long. Rather than deleting WP:RS material, I condensed the section - mostly by deprecating the dispute over whether the 'Pashupati' seal represents a proto-Shiva or Rudra figure. More modern authorities are questioning that interpretation anyway. It's also something of a moot point, since this article is more about Yoga, and only tangentially about Shiva and Rudra, and the name 'Pashupati'. This sub-section of the history of yoga should focus on the many yoga-like seals, of which the 'Pashupati' seal is just one. For that reason I also changed the title of this sub-section to 'Indus Valley seals'. Feedback appreciated. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes more sense (to me) to do it that way. Thanks. Shruti14 ( talk • contribs ) 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

(talk moved from Talk:Shirshasana#Requested move
Propose that the article be moved to the seemingly more common name Sirsasana, and that various Sanskrit interpret spellings Shirsasana, Sirshasana, Shirshasana, Shirshasan.. be used as redirects. Anyone have strong feelings and good reason why not?

This is in actuality a Proposed move, not yet a Requested move, and will not be added to WP:RM until a consensus is clear. Murgh^disc. 11:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Three leading publications on asanas:

1. The Complete Illustrated Book of Yoga (1959) of Swami Vishnu-devananda
2. Yoga Self-Taught (1969) of André Van Lysebeth
3. Master Yoga Chart of 908 Postures (1975) of Dharma Mittra

use all different spellings, respectively:

1. Sirshasan
2. Shirshasana
3. Sirsasana

Therefore, I guess it would be a better idea to find a reliable resource on the preferred spelling in English. I don't know where to find this. Isn't there Wikipedia a kind of discussion forum, where this question can definitively be tackled? Davin7 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Spirituality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.184.2 (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yoga and Sex

believe it or not ,"sex", in certain aspects is itself a yoga. two beings trying to be united. it is also another expression of divinity. but sex is not life itself. it is another aspect of life, among many. so, sex has a cetain imptance in life and we should give thatmuch importance. people try to make one aspect of life as life itself. this doesnt work. after all sex is just the natures trick to reproduce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.14.154 (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC) There's been quite a few articles on the internet recently about Yoga positively affecting one's sex life. Perhaps the article should include a section on this? --24.191.124.134 (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

whoops, forgot to login. --Nemilar (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, yoga can have a positive effect on any aspect of life - it depends on what you practice yoga for. But all the mainstream yoga teachers are against boosting your sex-life, saying that it is the foremost obstacle to yoga. So I think a separate section on this is really unnecessary. --Mankar Camoran^talk 11:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is so strange, as to how the human mind works. Yoga and sex are two different things. As far as I can understand, real Yoga should have nothing to do with sex, in either boosting it or suppressing it. Please keep them separate. Embhee (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry friend, it is your mind that is strange.... and full of innacurate ideas.

Ok, mine is too.

However there are specific yogic practices which are designed to: a) make sex better or b) cure sexual ailments and c) reduce sexual desire.

Do you want a harder errection? There are yogic practices for that. Do you want a wetter vagina? there are yogic practices for that. Do you want to be able to have sex longer? There are yogic practices for that. Do you want to let go for sexual desire? There are yogic practices for that. etc. etc. etc. Hohohahaha (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you my friend. I agree that there are Hatha yoga practices that are oriented towards sexual pleasures. I only wanted to clarify that it is not the main purpose of yoga. Also, Yoga in general does not "limit" itself to the Hatha Yoga part or the physical part of life. Embhee (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Yoga,like water and breeze ,belongs to human to overcome their obstacle of their life in both mental and physcial disorder.

In every human.the pleasure may vary, some people by smoke or drink and sex so on. but human can not be happy unless untill if he/she did't feel content inside Even if the human reached his wishes but his wishes keep going in the external world let him/her have 10benz,nice palace to live with servents and with good life style,still they can not be happy bcoz they are not feeling content inside by keep searching for unknowing things.Where the Yoga/Meditation helps you. bcoz the unlimited and infinte happyness possible only when your mind cross time & space The entire world and related things are would get over in the corridor of time and hence you'll end-up in frustration by keep seeking outside. that'swhy the ancient indians find the techniq to cross the time &space by practicing the yoga or meditation,which in turn push your mind to get trancedental to cosmic,the nature evolutionnary force-aligning wth you.

In the initail days it would be little bit difficult to practice and result can not recoganised immd as it grows in you mind or body how your hair/nail growth.which can not be caculated.

If you keep going and practice. all your mental strees or depression will go away ,which reflects in your body as the mind works in your body.

through which your material life would become your servent(possibel only if you pratice) but the brilleitn people won't stop there.they keep go on and on. which leads then eternal pleasere where you loose your body oriented pleaseure,means what are the happiness or pleasure enjoyed by you through body by eat,smoke,drink would be fadded away.

at the same time do not think or afraid that you can not have sex or drink. its like this how a billinor won't bother about a .000......000001$.

By doing the pratice of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.199.155 (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yōga as a Japanese art style

I wonder if Yōga, the Japanese art style should be mentioned on the disambiguation page, becuase if you enter Yoga in the search field it automatically navigates to this page, so it's practically impossible to get to the Japanese Yōga article unless you are aware of the exact spelling (i. e. with "ō"), which, I'm afraid, not many users are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.66.124.179 (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be added along with Yōga, Tokyo and Yōga Station. --Mankar Camoran^talk 12:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yoga is the Union between the Human and the Divine

Yoga as presented by Dattatreya Siva Baba is the union of the human and the divine. See this informative video which explains how to make that connection in an easy manner using an ancient mantra. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uyvIrD-gD0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itisitsits (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop shilling. --59.93.201.20 (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Possibly Originating in India"

This is a ridiculous statement. Yoga DID originate in India. Yoga qua Yoga is an Indian practice. The name "yoga" is Sanskrit and was first recorded in India. All the original major scriptures on Yoga originate in India. There is no controversy here. The existence of similar techniques elsewhere doesn't change this. --59.93.201.20 (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I realize this may have been an unintended wording error, where "possibly" refers to the dating of its origin as 3300 BCE... so I have made a Good Faith Edit. Please see article. Again, this shouldn't be controversial. --59.93.201.20 (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Exactly. Well done.--VS ^talk 04:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See next section explaining origins, master u 69.121.221.97 (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Classification of Yogas

We could classify different paths and schools of Yoga according to the types of the techniques they use. Yogacharya (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yogas and religions

I suggest that we leave only the links to the other, religious, practices, such as Buddism, etc. Otherwise, if we list the elements of yoga in every religion, the article can become cumbersome.

After all, yoga is NOT a religion, and is NOT "philosophy". So, all the related stuff should be in the "Related" section, what do you think? Yogacharya (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, yoga needs to be presented in its genuine Vedic form. The various aspects of Yoga together form Hinduism. But it certainly is a philosophy, a Hindu religious philosophy. There may be some indigenous Hindu religions such as Buddhism that have also adopted parts and possibly evolved the practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordKrishnaMyHero (talk • contribs) 14:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently the introduction includes: "The word is associated with meditative practices in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism". It then procedes to expand upon the first and third if these but says nothing about the second. In the interest of consistency... etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.106.127 (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yoga Types

HATHA YOGA: Hatha Yoga makes the spine more flexible. This in turn enhances blood flow so that more oxygen and nutrients are available to the spine. Hatha Yoga is helpful in slows down the aging process, safest and healthiest mode to lose weight, awakens and enhances vision, improves simplicity of feelings, focus and build up powers of attention.

KUNDALINI YOGA: Kundalini yoga gives unique consideration to the role of the spine and the endocrine system, which is a vital part for yogic beginning. This yoga is practiced strictly under the guidance of an experienced yoga teacher

MANTRA YOGA: Mantra yoga meditation involves chanting a word or phrase awaiting the mind and emotions are transcended and the super awake is obviously exposed and practiced. The essential technique is japa, or mental repetition of the mantra to invoke that energy in our selves.

JNANA YOGA: Jnana-Yoga is the path of Self-realization through the exercise of gnostic understanding or, to be more precise the wisdom associated with discering the Real from the unreal or illusory.

KARMA YOGA: It is the path of selfless service. It is the source of true peace and happiness It means result of an action. There is a unknown power in Karma or action termed 'Adrishta' which brings in fruits of Karmas for the human being. This yoga is the key for making the worldly path a divine path, by helping genuine good people.

BHAKTI YOGA: Bhakti Yoga is the system in which love and devotion to God are emphasized. It is a path of complete surrender You perceives everything as God and God in everything..

RAJA YOGA: It is a practical and systematic path, Raja Yoga known as the eightfold path because it is made up of eight angas, or limbs, they are Yamas, Niyamas, Asanas, Pranayama Control of Prana (life force, vital energy)., Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana, Samadhi. Source : Yoga Training on different Yoga types and Yoga Types —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.242.177 (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

how about Yogananda's Kriya Yoga? And Sri Aurobindo's Integral Yoga? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.74.104.181 (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

a typology of yoga would prove to be extremely problematic due to the absence of a reliable chronology Yoga Mat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC).

Abuse of references

There is an obvious abuse of references, which are obviously used to promote the sale of certain books that are of no authority at all. If some people who have no idea of yoga is and have never practised it dare to print some books or thesis, it does not mean that they should be given the right to promote their publications through misuse of Wikipedia.

I suggest that we use two categories of refrences:

1. Authoritative ancient texts on Yoga

2. Texts published by the founders of the major contemporary Yoga styles/schools.

Yogacharya (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sufi

I'm not a sufi, but I know several from different branches of Sufism. Some branches of Sufism may be open-minded. I'm inclined to say that some are more open-minded than others -- I'm not sure I'd call any version open-minded without qualification. Also, I have never once seen any particular inclination of any Sufi group to consider Pantanjali; many are highly critical of yoga, particularly hatha yoga as practiced by Westerners (like me). I suppose that a non-Sufi might see comparisons, for example, between Dhikr and Japa, but this is a lot like my college oriental art professor who compared Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Comparable, maybe, but the comparisons are not apt.

I'm very glad somebody is asking for a citation, and I hope that if one is found that it is a Sufi document being cited, and not some Hindutva treatise such as PN Oak's assertion that Kaabah is a Hindu shrine. Absent some corroborative Sufi or 3rd party source, I think the section needs to be axed. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Where is the criticism section? Only positive views???Andycjp (talk) 14:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC) :Please explain further. The article has a neutral tone throughout, and is mostly about the history and evolution of yoga. What specifically is not being addressed? Please note that articles are not required to have a criticism section - in fact such a practice is deprecated in favor of addressing criticism in the article body, in context. What in the article specifially is not being addressed? What are the 'positive views' in the article that need to be balanced with 'criticism'?~ priyanath ^talk 02:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss the neutrality/criticism/only positive views question below, under GA Reassessment. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If Andycjp can't raise more concerns than his 8 word critique, and that right soon, I will remove the neutrality tag from the article. --nemonoman (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No images of people in poses?

Is this political or something? Downward dog from the side maybe? Emesee (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's encyclopedic. The Hatha yoga article is that way - all kinds of pretty pictures of people doing poses there. ~ priyanath ^talk 20:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Exercise

As far as I can tell, there is no mention of yoga being used purely for exercise in the West. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Findright (talk • contribs) 22:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Third paragraph, in the lead section: "Outside India, the term yoga is typically associated with Hatha Yoga and its asanas (postures) or as a form of exercise." ~ priyanath ^talk 22:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Noted, thank you. I suggest a See Also section to increase ease of use in this article. Findright (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Usually, wikilinks that are already in the article (like the Hatha Yoga link, which is linked prominently a couple of times) aren't included in a See Also section. See WP:SEEALSO in the Wikipedia style guidelines. ~ priyanath ^talk 05:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, I have much to learn. Findright (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

PraiseMoves

What about this new PraiseMoves thing that is just like yoga, but minus the worshipping false idols and going to Hell parts? Should it be mentioned in the article? JIP | Talk 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? So we can help to push some Christian agenda lol?

Btw, there is no requirement to worship or believe anything in Hinduism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.238.142.68 (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Encarta

Is this a reliable source? Is Microsoft an academic publisher? Encarta has been criticized by a former editor-in-chief of the Encyclopedia Brittanica: [1]. Any thoughts on this? I'm bringing this up because I'm not sure what to make of the statement "The strong influence of Yoga can also be seen in Buddhism ... " Mitsube (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree Encarta is very unreliable source.--Anish (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Feuerstein is also not an academic source. Mitsube (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Get real (as they say in the USofA)... most of the sources cited in Wikipedia are not academic. (I had to fight 'editors' for months, once, to get a blatant advert for a porn pay-site removed as a 'source'). Most academic publications would balk at including many of Wikipedia's sources in any academic publication. In this context Encarta is far from the bottom end of what many Wikipedia 'editors' are prepared to cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.106.127 (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Jainism and yoga

This article does not discuss anything about Jainism and yoga, considering the fact that Yoga is one of the most importnat concept in Jainism and many texts of authors like Haribhadra and Hemacandra to name a few are dedicated to yoga.--Anish (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: As long as it does not have a section on Jainism it will remain POVish.--Anish (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added a section on jainism with suitable references.

The five yamas or the restraints in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali bear a strong resemblance to the five major vows of Jainism, which indicates the influence of the, (earlier) Jain tradition.

The Five Vows of Jainism, (The Five Yamas of Yoga) Ahimsa (non-violence) Satya (truthfulness) Asteya (non-stealing) Brahmacharya (continence) Aparigraha (non-coveting)

Yoga Mat (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yoga as the goal of yoga practice

"Yoga practice" can refer to Buddhist activities, and yoga as union is definitely not the goal of Buddhist practices. The introduction should be changed so as to not contradict this state of affairs. Mitsube (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali are widely regarded as being one of the most important ancient texts in regards to yoga philosophy and practice, and held by many experts as being of primary importance. But looking more closely, the Sutras also have common threads of Upanishadic and Buddhist thought running through them. Some experts consider that Patanjali's system is quite unimaginable without reference to Buddhism, and in particular the Abhidharma - the 'higher teachings' of Buddhism as the terminology is highly reminiscent of Buddhist teachings within the Pali Canon. Some believe that Patanjali was influenced by the success of the Buddhist monastic system and used that model to formulate his own framework for what he considered to be an orthodox approach based on Vedanta. Most Hindus (I think) tend to over-simplify Buddhism (rather disappointingly in my view) and dismiss it simply as a "Nastika" lineage of Hinduism. --Yoga Mat (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

McEvilley

Who is he and why is he reliable? Is the publisher "Allworth Communications" an academic press? Mitsube (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

See [2] for journal links. See the journal in the footnote also. There may be other ways to show that there are a fair number of scholars who view those seals as depictions of yoga or yogis, including Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, Heinrich Zimmer, and the current Co-director of the Harappa Archaeological Research Project in Pakistan. Flood disagrees, but only regarding the so-called "Pashupati" seal. Priyanath ^talk 01:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

p.s. and apologies for adding back the "goal" meaning of yoga to the first sentence. I didn't notice or forgot your explanation from a couple months ago. Priyanath ^talk 01:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That's alright! Mitsube (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of archeological evidence

It would be helpful to craft a consensus statement on the archeological evidence. That small section has been the most unstable in the entire article for two years. It's gone from a large paragraph, to being deleted, to growing large again, to being condensed, to having people add nonsense from pop-yoga authors and fringe writers like Egbert Richter Ushanas (which I deleted a few times). It's also gone from a discussion on the long-discredited 'Pashupati' theory, to the more appropriate look at the many seals that show yogi-like figures.

I was fine with the one sentence by Possehl by itself, just because it gave appropriate weight to arguably the most expert specialist in Harappa artifacts, but also appropriate weight to the large number of archeologists who see those seals as suggestive of yoga or meditation. To review:

• Possehl discusses at least sixteen "yogi glyptics" from Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro that depict not only the buffalo god, but a yogi pose that "may have been used by humans and deities alike".[3]
• Kenoyer agrees, and Richard Meadow probably does too (I'm looking for sources for Meadow). Kenoyer describes one as "seated in yogic position" with "the heels...pressed together under the groin."[4]
• The head archeologist (and academic) doing a dig in Cholistan desert agrees with the yogi theory.[5]
• Thomas McEvilley, coming more from the perspective of a cultural historian, artist, and religious history academic also sees the seals (plural) as showing yoga poses.
• Regarding the wrongly called "Pashupati" seal, there seems no reason to rehash that long-discredited theory here, except perhaps that Heinrich Zimmer describes that figure as "seated like a yogi".
• The only academic to even slightly question the yogi connection is Gavin Flood - except that he questions only the one seal, the "Pashupati" one. He gives no opinion on the others.
• So there is a near consensus among academics that these figures on the seals (plural) at the very least suggest yoga and ritual discipline.

My own feeling is that the archeological evidence of the History of Yoga section should be brief, maybe just two sentences. But somehow it needs to show that there is a strong weight of scholars on the side of those seals likely depicting yoga in some form. Here is one suggestion, with supportive references to be added:

"Several seals discovered at Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300–1700 B.C.E.) sites depict figures in positions resembling a common yoga or meditation pose, showing "a form of ritual discipline, suggesting a precursor of yoga", according to archaeologist Gregory Possehl. Most archeologists and academics agree with Possehl's view of these suggestive "yogi glyptics", although Gavin Flood believes that one of the seals (the so-called "Pashupati seal") does not show a figure in yoga pose.

Priyanath ^talk 16:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• And another, which makes the case much more strongly than my suggested rewrite above: Karel Werner says about the Harappa Yogi Glyphs that "The seated deity and other figures, undoubtedly absorbed in meditation, indicate that mental yoga exercises were known and played a substantial part in the religious—or can we perhaps even say philosophical—outlook of the epoch." And "Archeological discoveries allow us therefore to speculate with some justification that a wide range of Yoga activities was already known to the people of pre-Aryan India."[6] I propose that the footnotes include expanded versions of each of these views, including Flood's dissent.

Priyanath ^talk 03:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You have presented a good case. Let us see if dab knows of any more reliably sourced skeptical views. I am not an expert. Mitsube (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I like your suggestion. Keep it brief and to the point. I am all for a detailed discussion of these seals, but not in this article. This is the article on Yoga, a huge topic, the history of which begins with Patanjali and spans the Middle Ages. The Indus seal stuff is just a marginal remark of possible prehistoric predecessors, worth mentioning, but not within the article scope proper. Details should be moved to Pashupati article, or better yet to an Indus seals one. --dab (𒁳) 05:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your feedback. Even though I think it's much more than marginal, it shouldn't overwhelm the textual history in that section, which it keeps trying to do. I'll work on the new version, making it as succinct as I can. And I hope that pointing to this discussion can keep the archeological evidence and claims from taking over again. An Indus seals article is a very good suggestion. Priyanath ^talk 14:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've published an even more-shortened version to the article, which goes further than my suggestion above. Please read the footnotes to get the full picture. I think that version is much more succinct and also fair. If Flood's objection to the single seal is included, then in all fairness the names of the others should be included also. This would be a longer version that I am also ok with, but isn't as good, in my opinion:

Several seals discovered at Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300–1700 B.C.E.) sites depict figures in positions resembling a common yoga or meditation pose, showing "a form of ritual discipline, suggesting a precursor of yoga", according to archaeologist Gregory Possehl. Most Indus archeologists (Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, Farzand Mahih) and other academics (Heinrich Zimmer, Karel Werner, Thomas McEvilley) agree with that view, although Gavin Flood disagrees regarding one seal, the so-called "Pashupati seal".

Priyanath ^talk 17:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Jainism primary source reference

Anish, could you explain this addition: [7]? Have you drawn this conclusion yourself after reading the primary source? This may be acceptable because there is not as much secondary literature on Jainism. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Mitsube, you are right there are very few secondary sources in English for Jainism. I will search for better secondary sources.--Anish (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2009

---

The Philosophy of Yoga-----------

Yoga literally means union, i.e union of indivisual self(atma) with ultimate reality(paramatma) however this would be valid only in vedantic sense.Yoga is a tactical philosophy thus the emphasis lies more in spiritual and physical culture than spirtual union with supreme soul(Paramatma).yoga is allied to Samkhya system of indian philosophy, it's practises could be best understood in light of it's deep Philosophical foundation. yoga relies on sankhya's dualistic explaination for explianing metaphysical entities(Prakriti, purusha) and idea of creation, distruction, bondage, and liberation etc.

Patanjalisutra discribes yoga as "chitta vritti nirodhasya yogah:" i.e cessation of modification of chitta. To understand Chitta it is necessary to understand the process of creation as per yogic metaphysics.according to it, the universe and all lifeforms originate due to union of Prakriti(the material principal of universe)and Purusha(the spiritual element).Mahat(intellect) is first evolute, followed by Ahankar(Ego) and later mind(along with other five senses)

Chitta could to understood as combination of mind, intellect and ego.it is the false principal of identity we assosiate ourselfs with. chitta acquires the form of ever thing it is assosiated with due to sensual contact. this continous modification leads to ignorance and bondage since we wrongly try true knowledge in external realities ignoring the absolute knowledge that actually resides in purusha that resides in ourself.

---

Patanjali's Astanga Yoga----------

Patanjali envisaged an eight step path towards attainment of ultimate(differential)knowledge.they are 1.Yama(Restrain) 2.Niyama(dsciplined life) 3.Asana(perfect postures to achieve bodily perfection) 4.Pranayam(Breath control) 5.Pratyahar(control over senses) 6.dharana(withdrawal of senses) 7.Dhyana(concentrated meditation) 8.Samadhi(dissolution of chitta and realisation of perfect state)

Fundamental Christianity

I reverted User:Priyanath's recent delete of an edit regarding Fundamental Christianity. The Harvest House Publisher is a reasonable publisher of fundamentalist Christian materials, and one can assume the citation is reliable for this fact until proven otherwise. I'd guess it to be MUCH more reliable than the Islamic sources cited in the previous section. I don't regard the new edit to be POV or soapboxing, but rather a reasoably NPOV summary of a widely held belief of many fundamentalist Christians -- at least it's consistent with in my personal experience -- FYI, I live on the buckle of US's Bible Belt, and my wife runs a yoga studio and faces this criticism regularly. ]

However I am removing the Greek Orthodox edits, and asking the editor to provide some sort of translation. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Toward a fuller yoga presence on Wikipedia

This is a great article, considering that millions of Americans practice yoga. I am disappointed to note, however, that there are no "See also" links on this page. Wikipedians would be doing a great service by creating articles on (presumed or debated) "Benefits of Yoga," "Yoga in America," or "Yoga in the West" articles. Most Americans (and Europeans?) practice Yoga because they perceive subjective benefits, not necessarily because of its ancient pedigree or spiritual gradations. Such articles would be useful and probably more useful to visitors of this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.106.137 (talk) 10:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

History Section

I put that Yoga come's From Ancient India and it was taken away. Why? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Project Yoga

Editors with an in interest in working collaboratively to improve the encyclopedic quality of Yoga-related articles are encouraged to visit a new project to achieve this at WP:WikiProject_Yoga. Please let us know you're interested. See you there, Trev M ~  01:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

--Yoga Mat (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Yoga Position (har har?)

The previous version of page said:

In 1989, the Vatican declared that Eastern meditation practices such as Zen and yoga can "degenerate into a cult of the body".[87] In spite of the Vatican statement, many Roman Catholics bring elements of Yoga, Buddhism, and Hinduism into their spiritual practices.[88]

This is a false and misleading summary. First, the cited statement from 1989 is a Letter to Bishops, not a Declaration, which is an important distinction in terms of the function and scope of a document released from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Secondly, the single quote cited from the letter does not accurately convey the tone and message of the instruction. This quote by itself tends to imply that the Church does not allow the practice of Yoga which is then further compounded by the next statement which says that Catholics use it "in spite of" the document. A more careful reading of the document says that exploration of Eastern practices is allowed as long as important notions of Christian prayer are kept in mind. Eastern traditions are not to be dismissed simply because they're not Christian. The new summary which includes more extensive quotes from the original citations points this out:

In 1989, the Vatican stated in a letter to Bishops that, "[u]nderstood in an inadequate and incorrect way, the symbolism" of the body in Eastern meditation practices such as Zen and yoga can "degenerate into a cult of the body". However, "one can see if and how [Christian Prayer] might be enriched by meditation methods which have been developed in other religions and cultures" if one bears in mind that Christian prayer is "a personal, intimate and profound dialogue between man and God" and one avoids "concentrating on oneself... in a spiritual privatism...." [87] "As the text of the letter became more widely available..., some Catholic experts on Eastern meditation concluded that it was far more measured than the early press notices had indicated. Eastern approaches to prayer, the document said, should not 'be rejected out of hand simply because they are not Christian.'"[88]

Therefore, the notion that Catholics who do incorporate elements of Eastern traditions into their spirituality are somehow acting "in spite of" this instruction is patently false.

Please give more detailed information about how or why you feel this is unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einheber (talk • contribs) 15:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion on this.

"is a Letter to Bishops" Good catch. That should be fixed.

"single quote cited from the letter does not accurately convey the tone and message of the instruction." We have to be careful how we summarize documents such as this letter, per WP:NPOV. We have one independent source (the New York Times article) on the topic, that is not easily summarized itself. Without other such sources, we risk violating WP:NPOV or even WP:SYN if we rely upon anything other than the NYT article.

Whatever we include, it at least has to be coherent. The rewrites that I've repeatedly removed are not coherent. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Referring to the rewrite above, it's unclear what "symbolism" refers to, making the first sentence incoherent, especially in comparison to the current version.

This article is about yoga, so we should be focused upon what the letter says specifically about yoga. Much of the rest of the rewrite appears to stray to far from this topic. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My text may appear to be personal analysis because the subsection is meant to reflect analysis of Yoga by a different religion. This subsection is not a commentary on the letter but a summary of the Catholic position on Yoga, so the letter is the first independent source. The analysis presented is that from the cited material and not my own. I believe this is consistent with the tone of the previous section on Islam's understanding of Yoga and fatwas issued by certain bodies forbidding its practice and citations describing how it is or isn't consistent with Islam. The tone of my edit is also consistent with the text directly following it, which contains a fundamentalist Christian analysis. Einheber (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Einheber

Thanks for the explanation. Any response to my concerns? --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've come up with another revision which should address all your concerns. I've simplified reading of the quotes by using even more extended versions of them, explained the implied reference to "symbolism" in brackets, prefaced with an explanation that the quotes refer to "eastern methods" of prayer including Yoga, removed NYT references to reception of the letter itself (which are somewhat off topic), and expanded NYT quote for corroboration of the meaning of the letter's text. I do think this fits with the tone of the previous and next sections which deal with other religions' reception of Yoga for their own believers, with both the letter and the article as the two sources speaking about the reception by the Catholic Church. Please let me know if you have further suggestions. Einheber (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Einheber

Hmm... Should I try to summarize the position more succinctly rather than using extended quotes from the document? Einheber (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Einheber

Yoga - a proper noun?

I notice there is an inconsistent use of capitalized "Yoga" in this article. It is my opinion that the word "yoga" is not a proper noun and therefore shouldn't be capitalized, unless it is part of a proper noun such as Hatha Yoga. I was going to do a search and replace but then noticed that many of the references use the capitalized version. What to do then about the inconsistencies? If all the instances are changed to lower case, should the capitalization also be changed in the references? The other option is to change them all to capitalized but is that correct? This is stressing me out, I better do some deep breathing exercises. Freelion (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I think I hear the sound of one hand clapping. Now I am in silence. The answer has come to me spontaneously. The word "Yoga" is a proper noun and should be capitalised when used to describe one of the schools of Indian philosophy or a specific branch of it, such as Bhakti Yoga. The word "yoga" also exists as a common noun to refer to the general science and practice of inner harmony. I changed a couple of upper case instances in the Islamic section and one in the Christian section where I believe the word "yoga" is used in the more general sense. Freelion (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider for one moment the effects of capitalisation on the word "yoga":-

We are, on the face of it dealing with the same thing, but look more closely and you will see how important contextual information can be conveyed either as a common noun or as a proper name.

There is no obvious difference, and it does seem "Picky" at first but the way we interpret them depends on the specific meaning that the capitalization conveys.

For yogis - the word can only be evaluated within an existentialist framework - subjectively if you like and yet encyclopedia editors are asked to view it more objectively.

The word can be used as a common noun but it can also be put "on proper noun duty".

The common noun "yoga" might denote any school of religion or philosophy that advocates and prescribes a course of physical or mental discipline for attaining a greater understanding of the body, mind, self et al.

Whereas the proper noun Yoga references a specific approach or conceptualisation of the practice, such as Hatha Yoga, or Zen Yoga.

The unifying theme here is that the word "yoga" is a very special case, in terms of shifting from common to proper, that is, from many instances to one, specific designation.

In addition, it is important to note that the sense which came first was the common sense.

As Sanskrit - Latin translations were developed to the extent that the readership knew the context, yoga became a dynamic, personal conceptualisation of "union" - or I prefer "holism" as it denotes a more capacious quality rather than union which can (in a political sense) imply some form of coercion or at the very least a rather uncomfortable idea of "binding together".

As yoga was introduced across many different cultures, there was a need for the common noun to become a name, and the simplest way of doing this is to attach the word "yoga" to whatever one was specialising in, so the general practice and movement of yoga now has an almost limiteless number of specific designators masquerading as the common noun interpretation.

I have found yogis to be as precise or as imprecise in this regard as they need or wish to be, if they are running a fitness session they might call it a Yoga class, if they own a business they might call it a Yoga shop without a second thought as to what that might actually mean.

Inappropriate use of the word "yoga" then can cause subtle and yet powerful deceptions - in fact Yoga is not necessarily yoga (but the reverse must always hold true)

In general, words are imprecise, but since the meanings of these words carry so much weight then proper use of them, and their attributed meanings should be tied down, not by bringing in more words and irreleveant detail, but just meaning yoga when you mean yoga (and Yoga when you mean Yoga).

Yoga Mat (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In Sufism

I've copied the following for discussion after it was removed with a very confusing edit summary. I cannot access either reference for verification. Can someone else? --Ronz (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The second one is publicly accessible and it confirms what the article says. Mitsube (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed section

The development of Sufism was considerably influenced by Indian yogic practises, where they adapted both physical postures (asanas) and breath control (pranayama). The ancient Indian yogic text, Amritakunda, ("Pool of Nectar)" was translated into Arabic and Persian as early as the 11th century.

different yoga styles for different personality types - true? useful?

This sentence is not relevant to the page of Meditation so I put it here for potential future use. The different types of Yoga in Hinduism are designed to appeal to varieties of personality types, but to take the sincere practitioner to the same destinations in each case: first samadhi in which non-dual consciousness is experienced only in meditation and then samadhi where non-dual consciousness is experienced throughout waking activities. makeswell (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation

In the introduction the article gives translations for "yoga" include "joining", "uniting", "union", "conjunction", "means", "contemplation" and "absorption".

It goes on to equate "Raja Yoga" as a dualistic, philosophical paradigm consisting of two separate concepts: prakrti (nature) and purusha (pure consciousness) which seems to me to want to reduce yoga almost out of existence.

As far as I gather, (certainly in both Hinduism and Buddhism) the key for the yogi is to "transcend" dualistic thinking, without merely substituting dualism with some form of monism or pluralism.

Purusha can be seen as "the self" but one that pervades the universal Prakrti which - itself is made up of the three gunas.

I suggest that we give as many alternative definitions as we dare - as the task of defining yoga absolutely just in linguistic terms (and in any other language other than Sanskrit) will offer us no useful meaning. It is difficult to infer anything about yoga from parsing Vedic Sanskrit and comparing conjugates to those from the old, Indo-Europoean languages such as Greek and Latin.

Linguistically - all we can probably hope for with this is an array of semantic markers.

In terms of philosophical concepts generally EITHER we can remove all such references OR come up with a more accurate analogy of its main philosophical orientation which (as a yogi) is one something far removed from dualism - and is perhaps something more akin to "holism" ? --Yoga Mat (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is duality in an ontological sense. The Buddha's explanation of the limits of conceptualizing in general is a different issue. Mitsube (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

An ontological, (or any other) interpretation of prakrti and purusha for that matter does not give a dualistic conception at all - there is no clear demarcation between the two concepts - Purusha can be seen as "the self" but also something that pervades the universal Prakrti. This section is very misleading. We must EITHER remove some parts OR come up with a more accurate conceptualisation of the meaning behind the word, "yoga" using more appropriate references than this. --Yoga Mat (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure if any reliable sources agree with your ideas. Mitsube (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need look no further than the references on related Wikipedia pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purusha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prakrti. The current definition offered on this important page is a bit of a mess. We must EITHER remove some parts (especailly the line about Raja yoga and "dualism" which is a very misleading word - dualism is not a yogic philosophy as such - it is Cartesian). We must come up with a more accurate conceptualisation of the meaning behind the word, "yoga" using more appropriate references than what is currently on offer. Yoga Mat (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed statement about prakrti and purusha WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. There is some good context here: http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/schools/samkhya-uni.htm esp. end of SECTION 1 Historical Overview: "Patañjali's Yoga Sūtras... unlike Sāṃkhya, accepted the existence of God (identifying God with puruṣa). Yoga also rejected the Sāṃkhyan duality of puruṣa and prakṛti, claiming instead that ultimately the latter dissolves into the former."

--Yoga Mat (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Christianity is broader

While other religions in this article are given an (albeit scant) international perspective that explores viewpoints from a number of nations where those faiths are practiced, the Christian perspective on yoga is touted only from its Western strongholds. What of the huge populations of Christians (both Catholic, as well as those that pre- and post-date Catholicism's popularity) in India, yoga's own motherland? Morganfitzp (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

Why is there no criticism section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.98 (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

More than likely because there is no criticism of Yoga that actually has a sound basis. 99.99% of all criticism of Yoga is baseless and ridiculous. If you feel differently, why don't you try writing a criticism section? I dare you to, in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asherek (talk • contribs) 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine! Dare accepted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.98 (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

First sentence of a "good article"

Yoga is(Sanskrit, Pāli: योग yóga) refers to traditional physical, mental, and spiritual disciplines that originated in India.[1]

Yoga is refers? Either "is" or "refers". And if it "refers", than not Yoga refers, but the word "Yoga" does. Because Yoga itself "is" a set of disciplines.

See WP:SOFIXIT. Easier than commenting here. --CliffC (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:TURNEVERYTHINGINTOANARGUMENT. And besides that Yoga still does not refer, but the word does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.140.232 (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

sure, fix it. This doesn't change the fact that this article is listed as a "Good Article", and at the same time is an absolutely terrible article. Which I suppose simply goes to show that Wikipedia's "Good Article" scheme has nothing whatsoever to do with article quality. Sad but true. --dab (𒁳) 20:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"traditional physical, mental, and spiritual disciplines" - reading further into the article, what is described is more like "religious/mystic practise", similar to prayers or other religious meditation. The whole article seems written by insider "gurus". As an outsider knowing nothing about Yoga, the article fail to give me a clear understanding of what is meant by Yoga. For example, here in my town, a lot of elderly ladies "do Yoga" - this is more described as a kind of relaxing anti-stress gymnastics. Is that also "Yoga" or is it perhaps a misuse of the word? Taoist breathing and streching exercises is sometimes called Taoist Yoga, whilst Taoism has nothing in common with the religious philosophies in this article. I hope the authors will help with a more concise description of what is, and what is not, Yoga. I recommend the good article on Prayer as a useful model. Uffe (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Uffe, you are right - a lot of people use the word in different contexts. If you have reliable secondary sources then we should be able to add such information to the article provided we are able to establish here on this page that such uses of the word are in a majority (see WP:WEIGHT). Zuggernaut (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the scope of this article

The problem is that yoga is the Sanskrit term for "union". It is also, as it were as capitalized Yoga, the Sanskrit term for a specific system described by Patanjali, and of later systems explicitly derived from that.

Does this article discuss yoga, the Sanskrit term for union, or does it discuss Yoga, the system of Patanjali? The question is justified, because "Bhakti Yoga" (Union through Devotion) or "Karma Yoga" (Union through Deeds) does not necessarily have anything to do with that, any more than the terms Soviet Union or Labour union: Just because they happen to contain the term "union" (Sanskrit yoga) doesn't mean they have anything to do with the technical term.

Lots of things are called "yoga" in Sanskrit. But this isn't a dictionary entry on the Sanskrit word; that would be at wikt:योग. In my opinion, this article needs to stick strictly to discussing Patanjali's system of Raja Yoga, and direct developments from that. It cannot be about the general concept of meditation in Buddhism or Jaininsm, nor can it be about random things that in Sanskrit happen to contain the word "yoga". --dab (𒁳) 11:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

After some research, I see the issues involved here more clearly. There are basically three topics that could be discussed under the heading "Yoga":

1. the Sanskrit word and its entire range of applications. This covers all conceivable shades of meaning related to "union, contact, conjunction, attachment connection, means, method, performance, etc. etc.". This provides no kind of topical unity whatsoever and should be delegated to the dictionary entry at wikt:योग.
2. "Yoga" as the name of the system of meditation introduced by Patanjali, i.e. Raja Yoga, and its derivations, i.e. Hatha Yoga and sub-schools.
3. "Yoga" in the sense of "mystical union with God" in Hindu monotheism, i.e. the Three Yogas of the Bhakti movement.

The two latter topics are basically unrelated, and are in origin different uses out of the large field of meanings of the word yoga. They cannot and should not be conflated as simply a set of various "Category:Yoga styles".

But due to their being connected by use of the word yoga, the Three Yogas and Raja Yoga have, apparently by Vivekananda, been connected as Four Yogas. This apparently is an idea dating to the 1890s, but more research is needed. Inasmuch as these "Four Yogas" have caused interference between the system of meditation and Hindu monotheism, they must of course be noted. Such interferences have been caused, as is evident from a casual google search. There are now "The Six Yoga Systems" Historically, these "Six Yogas" are two unrelated sets of three:

1. karma, jnana and bhakti in Hindu monotheism
2. Yoga as the system of meditation, within which kriyayoga used to refer to its application in daily life, and hathayoga was established as a radical sub-branch

Both sets use yoga in the sense of "mystical union", but the similarity ends there. Notably, one is theistic and the other isn't. Consequently, one is compatible with theist religions of any sort, while the other is a theist religion in itself.

If this article is to serve any encyclopedic purpose, as opposed to its past occupation of spreading semantic confusion and misconceptions, it should focus on this problem, while the discussion of the clear-cut fields of "Patanjali's Yoga" vs. "Bhakti yogas" should be treated at Raja Yoga and Three Yogas, respectively. Of course, "Yoga" as a term in common English parlance (not as a Sanskrit term, but as an everyday English word), belongs disambiguated to Yoga (exercise), as it has ceased to be about "mystical union" of any kind (theistic or nontheistic), being rather a pragmatic form of exercise to improve physical and mental health. --dab (𒁳) 12:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Refer to the Jain defination of Yoga: activities of body, mind and speech. Even activity of mind including falls under yoga. 5 vows of Ascetics and 12 Vows of laity come under yoga. So does sin and merit. Also refer to history of Yoga by Vivian Wothington. Do not take a narrow view of Yoga that ultimately perpetuates the systemic biases.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You pointed out a problem and proposed a solution too - the article should begin with the definition and etymology of the term "Yoga" and then it should focus on Patanjali's Yoga since this is the most common type of Yoga referred to in reliable sources (WP:WEIGHT). Other Yogas (Bhakti, Karma, Dnyana) should be mentioned too and the reader can be directed to visit their respective articles via See also links. Your link to the six Yoga systems is probably not a reliable source. Like all GAs, the article can be improved to A-class and then to FA class. It does meet GA criterion. If someone can take it to A-class or FA class, it will be a great addition to Wikipedia's better articles. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut: Could you please expand on this claim of yours: Patanjali's Yoga since this is the most common type of Yoga referred to in reliable sources? It's not at all clear, what set of sources you are referring to, or who's analysis. Lentower (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to a well-established tertiary source, the Britannica. Here's how the article on Yoga there beings with:

"Yoga, (Sanskrit: “Yoking” or “Union”) one of the six orthodox systems (darshans) of Indian philosophy. Its influence has been widespread among many other schools of Indian thought. Its basic text is the Yoga-sutras by Patanjali (c. 2nd century bce?)."

Also, other paths (marga in Sanskrit) like the Bhakti, Karma and Dnyan Yoga have been covered in the article so I'm not sure I agree with Dab's argument. They may need some re-organization to structure them properly but the distinguishing aspects of those paths with Patanjali/Raja Yoga have been covered in the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"Indo-Tibetan Yoga"

Here is a problem: The article supposes that "The word [Yoga] is associated with meditative practices in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism."

This is true if and only if we take "Yoga" as an English word, used in a fuzzy sense "any kind of meditation from the East". The Indic (Sanskrit, Pali) word yoga is not at all associated with "meditative practices" in Buddhism and Jainism. Much rather, the same word takes a meaning very much akin to "sin" in these traditions. The Sanskrit or Pali word yoga means "meditation, religion, unio mystica" in Hinduism, and only in Hinduism. The related meditative practices in Buddhism are known as dhyana, but not as yoga. It wouldn't occur to any Buddhist or Jainist to refer to "meditation" as "yoga" in Sanskrit or Pali. The word means "attachment", and in Buddhist and Jainist doctrine, "attachment" is what you want to get rid of. In fact, you will meditate in order to eliminate the yogas that keep generating karma.

Now if we say the English word "Yoga" is applied in a widened sense to "meditation", and make this the topic of this article, we will end up with more or less a WP:CFORK of the meditation article.

Since when does the English word have this widened sense? Check out google books on Indo-Tibetan Yoga: 13 hits, so while this term has been used in print, it isn't exactly common. Of these 13 hits, 10 date to after 1995. Of the remaining three, two date to 1980 and one to 1955.[8]. This indicates, to my mind, that the loose sense of English "Yoga" is a product of the "second Yoga boom" of the 1980s to 1990s. As such, this development can be mentioned under the "in the west" section, but apart from that it is a matter for disambiguation,

• any school of meditation based on or loosely derived from Eastern traditions: see Dhyāna in Buddhism, Dhyāna in Hinduism, Tao Yi, etc.

--dab (𒁳) 07:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That statement could be truncated to indicate that Yoga means meditation in Hinduism and the article can then go on to describe briefly various other meanings in Jainism and Buddhism. Since the majority of reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to Patanjali Yoga when they talk about Yoga, I don't see the problem of WP:CFORK as long as other meanings of the word are covered in the article briefly by giving them the weight they deserve. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yoga does not mean "meditation, religion, unio mystica" in Hinduism as mis-stated above. Yoga and Dhyana are Sanskrit / Pali words with fairly uniform usage. Dhyana means meditation in most Indian languages. However, In the practice of Yoga, Dhyana and Pranayama are often considered included in common parlance. - tellasitis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellasitis (talk • contribs) 12:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Free images

As it seems, there are already good and enough images showing yoga positions, neverthless I will point at this yoga images at flickr. --Pilettes (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But each image has to be added to Commons with a use rationale, and usually permission from the copyright holder. See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy. If you could work with the owner(s) of these images to get them added to Wikipedia, that would be a big help. They should also be added to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Asana. Lentower (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The images are licensed under CC-BY 2.0. See this image for example. They can be uploaded at Wikimedia Commons under the same license, there is nothing more to do. It would be nice to place a comment under the image, so they know, and other potential Wikimedia Commons uploaders too, that this image is already uploaded. But this is not necessary. --Pilettes (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. Hopefully, someone will use the resource. Lentower (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I THINK

Yoga means MEDITATION...Ryans.lewis3365 (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Article starts oddly... "Yoga : योग yóga)"

Is that colon supposed to be a left parenthesis? --95.34.7.47 (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yoga Origins

See section just above - while most understand the practice apparently beginning in India and logged there as Indian, the actual orgins are Egyptian and esp on Crete 2,500 BC, where we esp see grave goods with small statues in yoga postures.

Those statues are further derived from even further back practices rites as e.g. the Namer pallette detailing such info, which many date to 4,500 BC (others date later). And that info on the Namer pallette is a fully developed understanding of all of the later yoga practices encapsulated into that small area. ...

What we esp see and can understand in yoga practices is a parsing into multiple areas what was once far more simple and unified; and the enlightenment that results can be understood to produce a manic yakiing that so splinters the formerly unified whole into the many different streams that is yoga today.

lil AO jr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have references? If not, this is all just speculative nonsense. Asherek (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The book entitled 'Yoga Body: The Origins of Modern Posture Practice' by Mark Singleton suggests that 'yoga was invented in India in the nineteenth century, as a compound of British body-building and physical culture, American transcendentalism and Christian Science, naturopathy, Swedish gymnastics, the YMCA, and yoga postures adapted specifically for a Western audience'. Which of course goes against the romantic notion of it coming solely from India thousands of years ago. I would recommend someone investigates this who is non-biased and who has an open mind, and then consider adding this to the 'yoga origins' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandrani (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Kundalini Yoga

"Kundalini Yoga...was on the whole a secretive and misunderstood technology" What? This is possible vandalism.Trashbird1240 (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yoga

look at http://www.americanyogaassociation.org/general.html for a proper interpretation of yoga.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.206.18 (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Pranayama Root Words

From the definition of 'pranayama' under The Eight Limbs:

• "āyāma", to restrain or stop. Also interpreted as control of the life force.

From the Pranayama Wikipedia article:

• "ayāma", to extend or draw out. (Not 'restrain, or control' as is often incorrectly translated from 'yama' instead of 'ayama')
• Macdonell gives the etymology as prāṇa + āyāma and defines it as "m. suspension of breath
• Apte's definition of āyāmaḥ derives it from ā + yām and provides several variant meanings for it when used in compounds
• An alternative etymology for the compound is cited by Ramamurti Mishra - ayām, expansion

Reading the Wikipedia entry for Yama and Yama (Hinduism), there is no mention of 'restraint', 'control', or 'extend', and it is not clear how the 'god of death' and 'guardian of directions' relates to these concepts. There doesn't appear to be any Wikipedia entry for the word Ayama.

Mantarhei (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hindu in first sentence of lede

I considered removing it as Riley Huntley did, but held off after looking closely at the article and Hindu_philosophy#Yoga. I like the subsequent change to "...Hindu practice..." better. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the problem with the lede as it stands is that it starts out implying that yoga is exclusively Hindu, which is, (quite rightly) contradicted later in the very same paragraph. This section should be edited so that the obvious historical, cultural, philosophical and religious linkages to Hinduism are not denigrated, but also that yoga is not portrayed as being nothing but Hinduism. I will attempt to do this in the next edit. Yoga Mat (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Position of images

One of the unaddressed concerns on the recent changes is the positioning of the images. Could editors please explain their preferences? --Ronz (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Just based on the progression of history, I prefer Buddha first. VegeYoga (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

VegeYoga, BrahmanAdvaita blocked as sockpuppets
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Incorporate work by Mallinson? I've reverted the recent contributions here because they removed sourced information without explanation. Seems like the new information and sources are appropriate to merge in, but it's not clear how to do so following NPOV. I've asked the editor that added the material for help. If it's appropriate to replace the sources and sourced information as he did, then we need an explanation. The new sources are: Mallinson, James. 2012. Sāktism and Hathayoga. http://www.khecari.com/resources/SaktismHathayoga.pdf Accssed June 10 2012. Mallinson, James. 2007. The Khecarīvidyā of Adinathā. London: Routledge. pg.17-19. --Ronz (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC) There is no doubt that Dr. Mallinson is a reliable source. He has published books under series editor Gavin Flood (cited all over wikipedia) with the publisher Routledge (one of the top academic publishers). Regarding me removing "sourced info", I'm sorry but links such as this, don't count as sourced info. Thirdly, I cleaned up my citations modelled on this wikipedia instruction.. Lastly, I reintroduced the Gavin Flood reference, having read the relevent portion on Google Books. VegeYoga (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for following up. I agree with the removal of the bharatadesam.com link as a reference. Thanks for re-incorporating the Flood reference and information. It would be helpful to identify if the SaktismHathayoga.pdf reference has been published or has been submitted for publication. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC) I don't think that matters since Wikipedia explicitly says "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." James Mallinson qualifies for this special criterion, since he has published multiple writings on yoga, including individual chapters in other editors' academic books (example Dr. White's book Yoga in Practice). VegeYoga (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Mallinson is talking about Hathayoga in specific in the reference, not Yoga as a philosophy in general. Please do not remove references or text, which changes the meaning of the sentence as per the reference eg. The referenced "The early Buddhist texts describe meditative practices and states that existed before the Buddha, as well as those first developed within Buddhism" was changed to "The early Buddhist texts also describe meditative practices and states". Complete change of meaning. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I disagree with your assertions, and your reinstatement of the this source, which Ronz and I agreed is not a proper source. It is said that the Buddha is the first historical figure of India, and therefore any references to yoga, and of any type, is quite pertinent. Moreover, hatha yoga is medieval category, retroactively imposed on older practices. By the way, the sources don't say anything like what was written previously, so please don't complain about changed sentences. In fact the changed sentence for the Flood reference is much more keeping in line with what the book actually says. VegeYoga (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC) The last edited version by me does not use that source. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC) VegeYoga, as you have been quoting wiki policy/community consensus may I remind you of this particular one consensus? Significant changes to the article such as the ones you have made should always be discussed on the talk page if they have been reverted & challenged, such as in the case of yours. Please do not revert again, as it may just cause problems. Best wishes - --Τασουλα (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC) As there WAS previous consensus, and I have addressed all the issues of one individual, I will reinstate my edits in a couple of days, if there are no further objections. VegeYoga (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Redtigerxyz may have some valid concerns. I'd certainly like to hear someone follow up on them with sources. That said, without someone following up on them, removal of Mallison's work from the "Early Buddhist and Upanishadic era" section is inappropriate. As I pointed out at the start of this discussion, the information should be merged and done so in an unbiased manner. I believe VegeYoga's solution is a very good attempt to do so. I realize there are cultural and social concerns here. If editors appear to be edit-warring to promote a certain cultural or social viewpoint, we should protect the article to prevent disruptive escalations that generally occur in such situations. --Ronz (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC) I agree. VegeYoga (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Mallison's work is about hatha yoga, not yoga as a whole. If one reads Mallison's work, Mallison is talking about 8th century Pali canons which are not "early Buddhist". That info is already in "Hatha Yoga" section. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC) I agree with Redtigerxyz here. He knows what he is saying. This article is about Yoga as a philosophy. Not Hatha Yoga. Not about Asanas and Yogic exercises which is popular in India and West. These two often gets mixed up as Hatha yoga is popularly known as yoga.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC) When you say yoga is a philosophy, whose philosophy? Are you for example talking about the Buddhist Atiyoga, Buddhist yantra yoga or Patanjali's yoga? I guess for you and Redtigerxyz, "yoga" defaults in your mind to the philosophy of Patanjali's yoga. This is a typical Hindu perspective. Hatha yoga is a mostly Hindu category. As a compromise, I can flip the first two paragraphs. How does that sound to everyone? VegeYoga (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Definitions of Yoga: Merriam-webster: "a Hindu theistic philosophy teaching the suppression of all activity of body, mind, and will in order that the self may realize its distinction from them and attain liberation " Britannica: "Yoga, ( Sanskrit: “Yoking” or “Union”) yoga [Credit: © Pete Saloutos/Shutterstock.com] one of the six orthodox systems (darshans) of Indian philosophy. Its influence has been widespread among many other schools of Indian thought. Its basic text is the Yoga-sutras by Patanjali (c. 2nd century bce?)." Oxford: "a Hindu spiritual and ascetic discipline, a part of which, including breath control, simple meditation, and the adoption of specific bodily postures, is widely practised for health and relaxation" Dictionary.com: "a school of Hindu philosophy advocating and prescribing a course of physical and mental disciplines for attaining liberation from the material world and union of the self with the Supreme Being or ultimate principle. " Columbia Encyclopedia: "general term for spiritual disciplines in Hinduism, Buddhism, and throughout S Asia that are directed toward attaining higher consciousness and liberation from ignorance, suffering, and rebirth. More specifically it is also the name of one of the six orthodox systems of Hindu philosophy." Chambers 21st Century Dictionary: "a system of Hindu philosophy showing how to free the soul from reincarnation and reunite it with God." Major dictionaries define Yoga as primarily (first definition) as Hindu philosophy, rather than just exercises.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Three references back the fact: "The early Buddhist texts describe meditative practices and states that existed before the Buddha, as well as those first developed within Buddhism". NOT the statement, "The early Buddhist texts also describe meditative practices and states". Removal of the text is pushing a POV and misinterpreting the reference. Another change "The Buddha also departed from earlier yogic thought in discarding the early Brahminic notion of liberation at death." (as supported by the reference Wynne, p. 96) -> "The Buddha also departed from the early Brahminic notion of liberation at death"--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC) I am glad to rephrase close to what the sources say. For example, page 44 cited in the Gombrich book specifically says "There is nothing said in the Vedic literature about the technique of meditation. The Buddhist texts are probably the earliest we have on the subject." Lastly, thank you for providing the Oxford definition which specifcally mentions "bodily postures" and "breath control" as part of yoga. VegeYoga (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Please note again yoga is not just mediation, bodily postures and breath control. It includes this and more. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not the one who insisted on a narrow definition of yoga my friend. VegeYoga (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Katha Upanishad and Shvetashvatara Upanishad postdate Buddha Even though the Katha Upanishad and Shvetashvatara Upanishad postdate Buddha, I find it interesting that now they are being mentioned first. They should be mentioned after Buddha. P.S. Yes I know the Pali Canon was written down after the Buddha, but the Upanishads were written down even later, so that argument is a wash. VegeYoga (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Yes the Upanishads postdate the Buddha, but please provide a reference that says the Pali canons predate Upanishads in mentioning Yoga in specific. The reference specifically calls Katha Upanishad the earliest literary work to talk about yoga in specific (read "not mediation in general"). --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC) This is like pulling teeth. I am granting that the Upanishads use the word "yoga" first. So what? The first cars were called motorwagen. The name of something can always be invented or changed much later. A rose by any other name, is still a rose. The Pali Canon mentions kechari mudra, asanas, meditation etc. This is yoga, and is considered yoga by scholars. But all of this detracts from the fact that the Katha and Shetashvatara Upanishad posdate Buddha. Period end of story. VegeYoga (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC) The assertion that Pali canon - allegedly which quotes the Buddha, is older - is still not proven by a reference.--Redtigerxyz Talk 11:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC) If you want to play that game, I think you need to prove that the Upanishad manuscripts predate the writing of the Pali canon. The earliest surviving manuscripts for the Vedas is medieval 11th century. See http://books.google.com/books?id=GW5Gx0HSXKUC&pg=PA184&dq=Vedas+first+written+down&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6XTcT5TuBKGJ6gGd6ODDCw&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Vedas%20first%20written%20down&f=false These are all ridiculous arguments you see. VegeYoga (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) The reference gives the dates for Upanishads and clearly use "earliest work" using yoga. Physically surviving manuscripts and compositions are two different things altogether. The surviving manuscripts of many ancient texts most older than the composition. Manuscripts age and are destroyed, but the texts are copied and remain alive. So tomorrow if all original copies, barring 21st century ones, of the Hamlet are destroyed by time, we are going to date the Hamlet as a 21st century work? --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC) I see you won't grant the same courtesies to the Pali Canon, which is in direct line the the Buddha himself. Double standard? I think there is a direct contradiction between the claims of Feurstein and Gombrich. Actually not really since Feurstein is specifically talking about Hindu literature. VegeYoga (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC) The article Pali Canon says it was first written in 29 BCE. Alexander Wynne says it may be composed earlier and transmitted orally. It is traditionally attributed to the Buddha, but it is compilation of oral teachings of many people. Compare with the Puranas (oral tales complied in c. 5th to 15th centuries CE) traditionally to Vyasa, author of the Mahabharata (BCE dating). Richard Gombrich and The Columbia Encyclopedia contradict in view about mediation. Flood clearly says Katha Upanishad is first to use "yoga" for the system. He also discusses Buddhist and Jain influences on Yoga. He notes a common heritage when Upanishads were composed and Buddhism and Jainism rose. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC) I don't know why you keep harping on a point that I concede. As Flood says "The actual term yoga first occurs...." He even italicizes "yoga". I already went over this with my car analogy above. I don't have objections to the material for the most part. The issue is the order discussed. VegeYoga (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Werner in discussing the chronology mentions about "indirect evidence" of the Upanishads and then "direct evidence of Pali Canon" and has sections on the major schools, Buddhist were the first one, then Patanjali. The text is traditionally attributed to the Buddha. That does not mean historic attribution. Since text Pali Canon is 29 BCE, there is possibility that the elements from other schools were borrowed and attributed to the Buddha. This is the same argument by which Buddhist is considered the first school, not Jain or Hindu. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)