Talk:Yoga/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

Archived from Talk:Yoga

Sentence Correction

"(3) Asana This term literally means "seat," and originally referred mainly to seated positions. With the rise of Hatha yoga, it came to be used OF OF these yoga "postures" as well."

I'm not sure exactly how to make it better except to remove one of those "of"s, but I think even the one "of" needs to be changed. With or For maybe?

What about karma yoga and bakti yoga?

This seems to me to be all about hatha yoga. What about karma yoga and bakti yoga and the other kinds? Slrubenstein

Oh, absolutely right. The page needs lots more info. But many visitors will come here for info on hatha, so it should remain fleshed out and near the top. But we're definitely hurting for material on karma, bakti, raja, kundalini, etc. I've done some bolstering, and will fill in more when I have a chance, but will go lightly, hoping real expert in those branches comes by to really elucidate.O. Pen Sauce 07:39, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Lately, I was at a class that started off with hip/hop music as part of the intitial stretching. This was rather unsettling, I walked out of the class and left a note for the instructor. I met her later and she agreed that the music was inappropriate, that it was experimental, it was given to her from the club, she had not previewed it and that she would not use it again. However, this deviation is alarming and it should be noted that either no music or calming music should be played during yoga class.

Personally agreed, but to aspire toward the all-essential Wikipedia neutral point of view, we mustn't make such judgements in the entry, IMO. O. Pen Sauce 07:39, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agreed, all around. I've begun some revisions and additions, as there appears to be a fair amount of inaccuracy, or, shall we say, overembellishment, in the content. mjformica 09:07 EST 9 Dec 2005

todo

• integrate list of yamas & niyamas from Ashtanga Yoga page.
• diferentiate ashtanga yoga as a generic term from the ashtanga yoga of pratabbi jois.
• uh, what happened to yoga between 200 ad and 1931?
• as mentioned above, other forms of yoga. Jfeckstein 03:21, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
• better definition that summarizes better what yoga is. --Arjuna 17:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• remove discussion of Bhagavad Gita and merge it into existing article on Bhagavad Gita; replace it with a short summary and a link to Bhagavad Gita article.
• in the Bhagavad Gita section, there is no citation after the quotes so the reader doesn't know what translation the B.G. quotes are taken from
• Say a little something about Surat Shabda Yoga. RDF 16:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

---

I am not sure about listing qi here. It doesn't seem to belong. Anyone disagree with removing it?

yeah, agreed, I'm removing it. Also, re what happened to yoga between 200 ad and 1931 (above), it followed a pretty traditional course, apparently (there's not a whole lot of history...it's been passed on by verbal tradition). It's only started exploding and fracturing in this century.O. Pen Sauce 06:00, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

RE: (Yoga between 200 ad and 1931) It didn't suddenly start "exploding and fracturing in this century." It's always been a healthy and vigorous part of everyday, practical Hindu and Buddhist cultures in India and beyond. Indeed, Tantra itself is an outgrowth of yogic practices coupled with beliefs in the continuation of the Hindu Vedas into an Agamic line. Some of the greatest texts of yoga and tantra and vajrayana buddhism were all written between 200 and 1931 ad. The only difference in the last century is that Yoga spread to the West, which doesn't suddenly limit its healthy proliferation and life in India.

YREC

Removed plug for YREC as it is not appropriate in Wikipedia.

---

what about shabd yoga? and lets see, whats that uys name.

kriya yoga.

Yoga is a teaching of wisdom and knowledge which has been transmitted to mankind from the great Yogis and Rishis of ancient times, though its geographical origin lies in India, it is universal, all-valid, eternal knowledge.

Certainly this can be said in a less glowing fashion. --Feitclub 21:16, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

"...it is universal, all-valid, eternal knowledge."

Since this is meant to be an encyclopedia article, perhaps we could cut down on the metaphysical lingo?

I agree. I came to this page to learn something about yoga, but found the entry filled with technical words that presumably only mean something to someone versed with Hindu/Yoga terminology. Remember, this is an encyclopedia article not a religious tract or 'how-to' paper. The tone should be objective and not presume that the reader believes the views described. Please look to articles on other religious practices as style guides.

I hate to be critical, the authors have obviously got good knowledge of the area, but need to present it better. Ashmoo 05:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Similar discussion below at "Make this article more professional" 31 Jul 2005)

Evil?

Nothing about how Yoga is seen as evil by many Christian churches? Nothing about how yoga may lead adherents unwittingly, into devil worship (say some Christians)?

The Number 02:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think your many Christian churches think it is evil as they regard all other religions as evil. I think such a section would be best included in the entry of the church in quesion. Ashmoo 05:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why the accent mark?

Is the accent mark over the 'o' in the word Yoga really necessary? I've done a fair amount of reading on yoga and this site was the first place I've seen it. If the consensus is that it is necessary, then shouldn't it be everywhere, including the title (with 'Yoga' being a redirect to 'Yôga')?

Time to correct longstanding bad habits, say I. Unicode finally provides the facilities, so let's "clean up our acts." That said, note that tranliterating non-roman scripts into English, a language without diacritics of any kind (except possibly dieresis), will require tolerance of a great deal of mixing for the time being. How many of us English speakers are willing to update Hawaii to Hawai&lsquot;i, for example? That's the official orthography in the state, but not outside or with the US government.

Maynard Hogg 01:14, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

However much I sympathise with you, Wikipedia isn't an English spelling reform advocacy group. The standard English spelling is yoga without the diacritic, so I think we are obliged to use it, until the spelling changes in the community at large. Ashmoo 02:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The spelling in other western languages

I removed the following content from Terminology:

ioga (common adulteration in the countries in which Portuguese is the official language)

The reasoning: it's an offense to Portuguese speaking people. I included also the name of the article in other languages, that doesn't write yoga. I suppose that, as in Portuguese we have the word ioga in the dictionary, the same happens in other countries. Lígia

Bhagavad Gita

Also, the picture in the Bhagavad-Gita page seems to have nothing to do with the Bhagavad Gita! It is a very nice picture, though. Wouldn't it be better to move it to an article on traditional Indian dance?

Yoga and Hinduism

I think we need to improve the explanation of yoga's relationship with Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma). The current wording of the first paragraph seems to give the impression that yoga is part of Hinduism. This could lead to a false assumption that only Hindus can practice yoga. (There was no response for several days so I commented it out.)

A better wording should be found, explaining that, while commonly associated with Hinduism the religion, yoga itself is not a religion nor part of any religion. Rather, it is a "spiritual science" or path of spiritual practice that enables the practitioner to experience the true meaning of spiritual principles common to all religions and realize them within the practitioner's own self.

References to Hinduism should be taken out of the introductory paragraph and the explanation of yoga's relation to Hinduism that we agree on could be made a separate paragraph or section. The section could carry a subtitle like "Spiritual Dimension of Yoga" or simply "Yoga and Hinduism". (I did this, except the title is "Yoga and Religion".)

I realize this may evoke some discussion, so I wrote it here first so we can discuss it before making the necessary edits in the article. As yoga practitioners, I believe we have a duty to make the article as all-embracing as possible, as yoga is all-embracing. Not just limit it to Hinduism. We could also discuss how the esoteric and monastic traditions in other religions are similar to yoga.

(Again, there was no comment for several days so I went ahead and edited the article in this vein. I'm open to any discussion.) Smithfarm 15:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But historically, Yoga is a part of Hinduism isn't it? See my comment in "...it is universal, all-valid, eternal knowledge." My objection to the current intro, as written, still stands.

I don't really understand your point. What I hear you saying is that the intro should talk more about the historical origins of Yoga. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I agree my feelings are that we shouldn't "ring-fence" Yoga around Hindu teachings, even though Hinduism was quite clearly the major benefactor. The Yoga teachings evolved from the wider Indian Spiritiuality (Vedas) before ehe pre-Christian (BC) era... It became an intrinsic part of and adopted by the many indigenous religions like Hinduism and Buddhism... ** somehting like that would be a better introduction **

I certainly wouldn't object if the introduction mentioned that, according to historians, yoga probably originated within the wider context of Hindu culture but that there is no way to be sure. For their part, yoga teachers say that yoga was taught long, long before the invention of written language and its origins are too ancient to trace. Also, let us not forget that Wikipedia already has a History of Yoga article. We could link to it in the first paragraph in addition to the current link which is buried at the end of the article.

Obviously this article needs a ton of work but arriving at a consensus on the first paragraph would be a good start. I wouldn't agree with language that states or implies that yoga is "a part of" or in any way "limited to" Hinduism. That was my objection to the previous first paragraph that I commented out. Hinduism is a religion, yoga is not. Thanks to Swami Vivekananda and those who followed him, the days when yoga was exclusively a "part of" the Hindu cultural context are long gone. But we could say that, historically, yoga has been and to a certain extent still is seen by many as associated with Hindu culture.

I wrote two more paragraphs but decided to move them to my talk page. Smithfarm 10:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yoga is a part of Hinduism and thats a reality. Yoga first appeared in Hindu texts "Yoga Sutras of Patanjali" and Bhagavad Gita also explanins different types of Yoga in detail. All knowledgable person know that Hindu tradition never stops other from doing Yoga but if some don't want to do it just because it is a Hindu thing, we should leave that on their wish...this can't be an excuse to dissconect Yoga from Hinduism which a reality. We should leave it on the people weather they want it or not but there is definately no need to hide Reality. --Holy Ganga 10:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed Content Here

In the ongoing process of cleaning up the article, I removed the "Yoga Sutra and its followers" section. Parts were integrated elsewhere in the article and the unused portion of the text follows here. --Smithfarm 20:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While meditative practices like asanas (postures) and pranayama (breath control) existed long before Patanjali, his brilliant eight-limbed system was what became the standard for almost all yoga schools that followed. Raja Yoga, being difficult to achieve (one must be focused on the Supreme), several Guru (teacher) lines came to make firm methodologies of realizing it.

A side note on the Guru: Acknowledged as a siddha (adept) who has attained the eight siddhis (powers) afforded by yoga (they range from transportation of the mind to anywhere into the universe to the only truly desirable power, samadhi),

Removed "Yogic Treatment" section. Shameless plug. Misleading. And wrong.--66.72.64.177 08:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for new bits

I have a few suggestions for your excellent article. I'm very unfamiliar with yoga, but am thinking of taking it up. I looked at my local gym and discovered a list of various different types of yoga. I thought I would have a look at wikipedia to help decide which one would be the best one for me. However, your article didn't really help me with that. Could I suggest that you include something along those lines? The ones listed at my gym were Hatha, Iyendar, 'dynamic' and Ashtanga. My specific questions are:

• What is the difference between those types and how do I decide based on my level of interest in flexibility/cardio/meditation/spiritual aspects versus physical exercise?

• Should I even be considering my local gym or would a yoga centre be better? I understand there are some debates about whether it should even be considered 'exercise'.

• Does it have any relationship to Pilates? What are the common themes and differences?

Thanks.

Make this article more professional

I think for readers to be able to trust Wikipedia articles, articles need to stick to the tasks of classifying, summarizing, providing historical information, or otherwise describing the context and constituent "parts" of a subject. So while talking about Yoga in its cultural, religious and modern contexts is a good thing, I think this article loses credibility because it strays into the promotion of yoga.

For example, "Most religions, when viewed through their ethical and spiritual standpoints without the trappings of dogma, are easily reconcilable with Yoga philosophy in general because of its transcendental message." This implicity puts yoga above other beliefs. Also, this sort of statement without any examples is difficult for a reader to evaluate and comes across as mere promotion.

Another example, "It may be possible to explain the yogic cure of acquired diseases like AIDS, but it is not possible for medical science to cure congenital or hereditary ailments. This impossible looking task has also been made possible by the Indian Yoga Philosophy. A patient of Haemophilia, Master Hemant, has been completely cured through Siddha Yoga. His cure is an open challenge to physical sciences." This sort of stuff is just downright fishy. Not that I doubt the power of yoga outright, but this is a very strong claim of medical benefits for yoga that may or may not be supported/supportable by inquiry that conforms to contemporary standards. It is also blatantly antagonistic towards modern medicine, and, once again, it offers no data on which the reader could make a reasonable assessment of the claim. I would suggest that this sort of statement is irresponsible.

Wikipedia articles should stay away from this sort of writing because if we get a large number of articles making these sorts of claims, the combined effect will be to damage the credibility of the project itself. I'm not anti yoga. I would just like to see a more responsible treatment of the subject on Wikipedia. If I want hype, there are thousands of other yoga sites. Wikipedia is a place for reliable info. (31 Jul 2005 Anon.)

I totally agree. The claims that a Master Yogi has cured 'millions' of cancer, and a long string of other diseases is downright preposterous. I added the 'pov' and 'cleanup' templates. I saw many spelling errors. Gbeeker 04:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Remove section Great Modern Yogis?

Maybe the whole section about Great Modern Yogis should be removed. Gbeeker 07:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, i don't think the whole section on the Great Modern Yogis should be removes, in fact, its very important aspect when talking about Yoga to point to the real Spiritual teachers of Yoga, there has been too much deviation, too much 'cocktail' mixing of Yoga, to the point, many are not teaching it correctly and it becomes a cardivascular exercise. It is therefore important to Wiki readers to be be pointed to the great Yogi teachers. BUT, i do agree that we need to ease up on the boombastic, however remarkable the secrets of Yoga are and unknown to the West..

Yes, I think the section on modern yogis could be interesting and useful, but any discussion of modern yogis should be biographical and from an "objective" point of view (as much as this is possible). So instead of saying things like "Master Hemant, has been completely cured through Siddha Yoga", we should be saying things like "Master Hemant claims to have been completely cured through Siddha Yoga" or "Some people claim that...." In cases like these, Wikipedia articles should avoid asserting that the claims are actually true (no matter how much the authors may believe them to be so). Anon Aug 6 2005

To be fair, the need to read the word "claims" after a statement is itself an indication of the author's POV. In this case that it's difficult for the author to believe.

We don't read "modern physicists claim that gravity is the visible effect of a curvature of spacetime" in the wiki precisely because the writers have such faith in it.

Not to excuse the muddiness of this article however. It's a mess. —Clarknova 05:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, however, a techer of yoga is traditionally known as a Guru. As for POV, doesn't the mere fact of calling a person a Yogi show bias? It would have to be claims to be a yogi. Shane 08:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

great yoga teachers section doesn't include Yogi Bhajan?

Is it just me or do I detect a bias against the late Harbhajan Singh Khalsa Yogiji, aka Yogi Bhajan, as well as his kundalini yoga? Since bringing his style of kundalini yoga from India in 1968, a lot of his teachers and students have benefited from this discipline. Does his organization, the Healthy, Happy, Holy Organization (3HO) (http://www.3ho.org) deserve to be so ignored in your yoga and kundalini yoga sections?

Hey 68. It's not "our" page. "We" aren't ignoring Yogi Bhajan. He was my first yoga teacher, and a great man in many, many ways. Write it up, buddy! --Nemonoman 00:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Christian View

What christian? I don't know any christians who believe that, altho I'm sure certain calvinist / baptist types could be persuaded (maybe you should ring up Fred Phelps and ask him to make a press release on the subject...). Anyways, unless you can cite someone else expressing these views (or get notable yourself in a hurry) they shouldn't be in an encyclipedia article. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 21:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Excercise

Why nothing on Yoga as an excercise form? Trollderella 16:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Health (Hatha Yoga)

I'd like to see a section about the supposed health benefits of yoga. What has been proved, etc.?--Sonjaaa 08:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

You must be talking about Hatha Yoga which is the yoga that uses physical exercises. Unfortunately, that page isn't as well developed as this one. I will try to add something to clarify in this page - as most traffic is generated on this page for Hatha Yoga.--Pranathi 14:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Addition: Sri Chinmoy

Thank you to all contributors. You are doing an excellent job of working together. With your kind permission, I would like to propose the following addition, to come just after the entry on Sri Aurobindo:

Sri Chinmoy (born 1931) brought a similar synthesis of elements to the West when he emigrated to America in 1964, having spent the previous twenty years at the Sri Aurobindo ashram in Pondicherry. His play The Descent of the Blue dramatizes the life of Sri Aurobindo. Other writings emphasize love for God, and religious tolerance rooted in modern Vedantic principles. He is a prolific artist and composer of devotional songs in English and Bengali, and the founder of Sri Chinmoy Centre.

I have not linked to The Descent of the Blue, but it may be read online here:

http://www.srichinmoylibrary.com/descent-blue/

It was originally published serially in the fortnightly Mother India.

Thank you most sincerely for considering this entry on Sri Chinmoy.--Fencingchamp 13:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I personally think that the whole section should be pared down -it's dominating the article on Yoga. Ideally, we should have one, max two sentences on prominent Yogis with links to their articles where the reader can go for depth. Also, the focus is equally divided on yogis that came to the west and ones in India.. so it's more west oriented. See the first sentence, which speaks cmpltly from a western perspective. We need to make it more global. I think the detail on Sri Chinmoy needs to go in his main article with maybe a reference here.. sorry :( --Pranathi 17:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Pranathi, thank you for your suggestions. Maybe the "Yogis" section is like a lifeboat that's already full and can't take any more passengers. But even under those circumstances, people have been known to make a little more room out of compassion. :-) On the one hand, the article should not become too long; on the other hand, the Yoga tradition strongly emphasizes the role of the guru, so it's not altogether inappropriate that gurus have an important place in the article.

Because the article is being published in English in an online encyclopedia originating in North America, I think people have worked in good faith to try and dispel some Western misconceptions about Yoga (such as that it's just physical exercises).

Those sincere Indian gurus who try to teach the true Yoga in the West sometimes face tremendous hardship. Although the West has material advantages, it does not have the tradition of guru devotion which has been handed down over millennia in India.

I worded the proposed entry on Sri Chinmoy to try and make it cohesive with the entry on Sri Aurobindo. But if you feel it's too long, would this shorter version be appropriate?

Sri Chinmoy (born 1931) brought a similar synthesis of elements to the West, after spending twenty years at the Sri Aurobindo ashram in Pondicherry. His teachings emphasize love for God, meditation on the heart, and religious tolerance rooted in modern Vedantic principles.

Of course, if editors ever reach a consensus on paring down the "Yogis" section, this could be subject to further trimming. I am flexible and open to further suggestions. Thank you again for your kind consideration. --Fencingchamp 14:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Fencingchamp, I made a mental note to attempt to pare down the section or discuss paring but forgot about it until I came back to this page today. I agree with most of the things you say - this page is good about not being eurocentric and that gurus in the west face a lot of hardships. Also I think the western yogis are the most well known and publicized. But to put it in perspective, compare the % of yoga practioners (mostly hatha yoga) and the % (all types) in India. Compare the # of years the west and India have been exposed to the practice. The section (not the entire page) is too focussed on, speaks from the pov of yoga in the western world and speaks to a western audience. The section needs to be rephrased in the least. --Pranathi 04:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Pranathi, thank you for your comments. Looking at the history of the article and the talk page, I feel it's a real challenge to please everyone. When I recently revised the opening sections (everything before Origins), I tried hard to do justice to both the traditional Indian and Western views. My goal was to be flexible and inclusive, so that everyone who is interested in yoga would feel represented. Wikipedia is - for better or worse - a Western publication, with underlying policies which tend to favour a secular rationalist "map" of the universe. To write the article from the POV of yoga as a Hindu religious practice seems difficult. The best I could hope for was to present up front the ideas that:

- Yoga is a family of spiritual practices

- It has its orgins in the Indian subcontinent

- It is primarily concerned with enlightenment

- It is central to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism

- The main yogas are Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Jnana Yoga, and Raja Yoga

- Only Westerners associate it with the Hatha Yoga postures

- Yoga has certain ultimate goals and perceived short-term benefits

- Some people see yoga as religion, while others see it as science

- Some people maintain that yoga cannot exist apart from Hinduism

- Others claim that it may be practiced sincerely by non-Hindus

- Some people see hope that yoga can flourish in the West

- Others claim that yoga in the West is sometimes watered down, corrupted, or cut off from its spiritual roots.

This is a good faith attempt at NPOV, and though I may have some pride of authorship, I feel it comes closer to NPOV than previous versions, is fair, and does a better job of explaining up front why people practice yoga.

Later in the article, there's a lengthy section on Hindu yoga, including discussions of the Bhagavad-Gita, Patanjali, etc. This area could still use some work to clarify the concepts, and since it's specifically about Hindu yoga, this would be a good place to include more of the traditional Hindu view.

You noted that the section Great modern yogis is too focussed on the western world. I've never edited that section, but I think you're right. Maybe the intro implies that the "great modern yogis" are those who came to the West. If so, maybe you'd like to try revising so that modern yogis who never left India are better represented. If you think it would help, you could even divide Great modern yogis into:

- Yogis in India

- Yogis who came to the the West

Then you could try balancing those sections in a way that you feel is fair.

Coming back to my original question: I had revised the proposed addition on Sri Chinmoy as follows:

Sri Chinmoy (born 1931) brought a similar synthesis of elements to the West, after spending twenty years at the Sri Aurobindo ashram in Pondicherry. His teachings emphasize love for God, meditation on the heart, and religious tolerance rooted in modern Vedantic principles.

Is there anything specific in this language which you object to? If so, would you like to propose alternate language? (Please note that in the intervening weeks I have never added Sri Chinmoy, but have waited for further input.)

As a footnote, I would add that although Sri Chinmoy is one of those yogis who came to the West, he continues to compose thousands of devotional songs in his native Bengali. Learning and performing these songs is one of the spiritual disciplines undertaken by his students. The sheet music for many of these songs is available online. See, for example, Birat Bishwa Sabha Majhe Dukhi Kebal Jara.

I very much share your concern that topics such as Yoga and Hinduism should not be presented in a eurocentric way - especially where the eurocentric view might be insulting or degrading. When it comes to yoga, my feeling is that it's good to point readers toward the Indian tradition, while not making Westerners feel like they're hopeless idiots knocking at the door of a tradition that's unwilling to admit them. :-) To the extent that Westerners feel yoga has become a part of their own culture, they are less likely to denigrate it, or to subscribe to false views that yoga is something "evil" or "dangerous."

Yoga purists might reasonably wish that yoga should remain free from Western influence; but that boat has already sailed. To me, it's now a question of dealing with the reality that yoga (in one form or another) is now well-known (if not always well-understood) in the West. A flexible and inclusive approach, which points back to the traditions of India, but which also lets Westerners feel included, may be helpful. --Fencingchamp 21:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Fencingchamp, I appreciate your understanding, tone and responses to my comments. I did note that you did not make any changes in the meanwhile. I'm going to say that I am fine with the additions, since I now think that the content in the section may stay as it is but it needs rewording (and hopefully condensing - since the section is nearly 1/4 the entry on yoga) - for now. We can work together on any changes that I would like to make later on.

I think yoga is the core of eastern religions and it's important texts. It cannot be divorced from it easily but at the same time can be practiced in a secular setting (if that makes sense). On the other hand, 'Hatha' yoga most lends itself to secular/non-spiritual applications and most of your comments on inclusivist yoga apply to that page. Other types of Yoga are mainly practised by eastern religions (dare I say more than 95%) and this page should reflect that while giving leeway to secular considerations. IMO, the current page on Yoga is extremely well presented (congrats!) and balanced.

The only section I have issue with is Yogis section - I don't envision splitting it into 2 sections - because great yogis are great wherever they are - but change the wording to not address a western audience. It may be difficult to refer (even justify) to many Yogis that have not come to the west, as they are not well known - or may we can dip into history and rename it 'Great Yogis' with a subsection on 'Modern Yogis' - I think that's a bad idea as I can see it growing endlessly... anyway will share more food for thought as it comes.. meanwhile will reword the section. If I condense too much just rap me in talk.--Pranathi 23:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts, as I am working through it, I feel it needs to pruned majorly and the content as it is moved to a separate page. I have created Yogi for this. I will try to discuss before I make changes that may be objectionable. Any initial objections to heavy pruning? - since we have a main page now. Also I'm trying to put the Yogis with a short summary in chronological order to avoid centering on when they came to the US and how they influenced the US. --Pranathi 00:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

More About The Yogis Section

Thanks, Pranathi. I look forward to seeing your improvements. Some pruning and rewording sounds good. Moving the yogis elsewhere may be more controversial for the following reasons:

1. There is some danger of "orphaning" them. Your new Yogi article would seem to lie outside the "Topics in Hinduism" template. Also, the ratio of people who search for Yoga may be rather high compared to the number of people who search for Yogi.

2. Some of the yogis are there representing types of yoga not discussed in the main article, e.g. Paramahansa Yogananda (Kriya Yoga); Sri Aurobindo (Integral Yoga); Gopi Krishna (Kundalini Yoga); Swami Satyananda Saraswati (Yoga Nidra). So their presence may help to round out the article.

3. There is a "human factor" in that the presence of the yogis at the bottom provides name recognition that may help put a more human face on yoga. Also, the article's revision history suggests that some people care about seeing certain teachers mentioned. It might be argued that the yogis section and the external links section help provide a feeling of inclusiveness - even if they are a bit messy. :-)

4. It's easier for caring editors to rally around one article than two. Keeping the yogis with the yoga makes it easier to defend both from possible mischief.

To the extent that Patanjali is credited with having formulated the system of Raja Yoga, it may not be ideal to describe him as being "from the Raja yoga tradition." (Did that tradition exist before Patanjali? Was Einstein from the "relativity tradition"?)

If you look at the revision history from early August and the talk page here, you may decide it's not worth the potential fallout to say that "Some refer to Jesus Christ as a Karma Yogi." This is no doubt meant in kindly and brotherly fashion, but is not always interpreted that way. :-) A minor edit, subject to your approval, would be:

History is replete with Yogis that have inspired people for many generations: Yogini Meera from the Bhakti Yoga tradition, Shankaracharya from the Jnana Yoga tradition, and Patanjali--who formalized the system of Raja Yoga--are just a few examples.

As discussed earlier in talk, we should be careful of letting the language become too promotional. This is especially true in the Yogis section, where individual contributors are apt to make glowing recommendations which depart too much from encyclopedic style.

Over time, it may be helpful to bring a unified style to the Yogis section, so that no one entry sticks out - either because it is too long or too filled with promotional language.

Thanks again to Pranathi and all contributors. --Fencingchamp 15:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree with your comments - I will change the first parah to your version. I don't agree on not moving the article though.

1. There is some danger of "orphaning" them. - agreed, as also for example, in most sub pages in Hinduism. hopefully once the main articles are standardized, people will move on to the subpages. Your new Yogi article would seem to lie outside the "Topics in Hinduism" template. - we can find a place for it in the template Also, the ratio of people who search for Yoga may be rather high compared to the number of people who search for Yogi. so we are essentially making people read about yogis when they came for yoga. If they want to learn more about yogis, once in yoga, they can click the main article.

2. Some of the yogis are there representing types of yoga not discussed in the main article, e.g. Paramahansa Yogananda (Kriya Yoga); Sri Aurobindo (Integral Yoga); Gopi Krishna (Kundalini Yoga); Swami Satyananda Saraswati (Yoga Nidra). So their presence may help to round out the article. I will try to incorporate the different yogas in this page

3. There is a "human factor" in that the presence of the yogis at the bottom provides name recognition that may help put a more human face on yoga. the section can still remain. just pruned. Also, the article's revision history suggests that some people care about seeing certain teachers mentioned. but it is an encyclopediac article. editors' feelings shouln't matter and it should be objective. in any case, that can go in the main article. It might be argued that the yogis section and the external links section help provide a feeling of inclusiveness - even if they are a bit messy. :-) don't understand?

4. It's easier for caring editors to rally around one article than two. Keeping the yogis with the yoga makes it easier to defend both from possible mischief. agreed. but to make the page readable, we need to siphon off the bigger sections into their own articles. that's pretty standard.

Does anyone else feel the same way as fencingchamp? I would appreciate other feedback as well. --Pranathi 16:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Vedas or Gita are not that old

Vedas or Gita are not as old as 6000 BC , We can see frequent references of Horses in Vedas where the archeological evidence shows the early usage of horses is in Arabia around 2000 BC, The scientifical and archeological date for Vedas is 1200 - 1550 BC moreover the old manuscript available is only 1500 AD

This is not a widely accepted opinion. Why is the article disputed? Sam Spade 23:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions, Karma2Grace. I'm sure other editors will be happy to discuss the age of the Vedas with you. Please forgive me, but the NPOV banner is a drastic means of calling attention to this point. As a new user, you may be getting too aggressive with it. Often these points are resolved through discussion and editing. It's also customary to sign talk entries. You can do this using the tilde symbol ~. At the end, just type four tildes with no spaces. That will cause your user name, the time and the date to appear. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. When editing an article, it's also customary to include an edit summary.

The passage on the Gita says that The book is thought to have been written some time between the 5th and the 2nd century BC (i.e., between 500 BC and 200 BC). If this errs at all, it errs on the side of conservatism. I do not see a problem here.

The passage dating the Vedas was less clear, so I've edited it and removed the NPOV banner.

Old version:

Yoga's origins date back to before recorded history. Images of a meditating yogi from the Indus Valley Civilization are thought to be 6 to 7 thousand years old. The earliest written accounts of yoga appear in the Rig Veda, dated between 5000 and 2000 BC. Since the Vedas were transmitted through oral tradition for many generations, the practice of Yoga may also be much older.

New version:

Yoga's origins date back to before recorded history. Images of a meditating yogi from the Indus Valley Civilization are thought to be 6 to 7 thousand years old. The earliest written accounts of yoga appear in the Rig Veda, dated conservatively between 1500 and 1200 BC. Since the Vedas were transmitted through oral tradition for many generations, the practice of Yoga may be much older.

One reason I was willing to make this change is that the article on the Rig Veda uses this conservative dating. Perhaps the Rig Veda is much older, but by using the same figure in both articles we get consistency and quickly resolve a dispute. --Fencingchamp 02:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes, "Indus Valley Civilization" is not an Aryan civilization, the evidence shows that the culture and life style of Vedas entirely different from the Indus Valley Civilization which belongs to Dravidians where Cow is the central figure not Horse. Pasupathi (Siva) is a Dravidian God not Aryan God, it is a tendency of the Vedic religion is to pull all the other successful world views, people and Gods in to theirs that is how Siva (Dravidian God of Animals became Rudra of Vedas) , Buddha (Who didn’t even accept Vedas and Caste in Gita) and Even Jesus (Who has nothing to do with pantheism and Polytheism) became one of the Avatars

By the way Indus Valley Civilization is not dated back to 5000 BC but to 3000-2500 BC --karma2grace 12:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your views, Karma2Grace. I'm sure they are respected and will receive careful consideration. By the way, Hinduism being a rich field of study, some people view it as essentially monotheistic, with the different gods and goddesses representing different aspects of one universal God.

To see the Christ as an Avatar is the Hindu way of understanding and appreciating this great spiritual figure from the Christian world. It is meant as a compliment, and if one looks at it in a certain light, one can see how this could foster religious tolerance and brotherhood between peoples. Some Christians feel it's important to set boundaries between Christianity and other religions. That is fine. Here we are working on an article about yoga, but we are not in competition with those of the Christian faith. By writing enthusiastically on the subject of yoga, we mean no disrespect to other religions. I'm sure none of the editors here will go to the article about Christianity and seek to bring in Hindu views. We respect Christianity far too much for that. --Fencingchamp 18:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a blasphemy to claim Jesus as one among the avatars because that is not the way He revealed Himself in bible. I understand your longing ness for "religious tolerance and brotherhood between people" but that should not be done by diluting or giving wrong information about Christianity, It really makes me hurt, Jesus made exclusive claims and I believe "Truth by definition is Exclusive" (A is not equal to !A )If you wish to specify Jesus as one of the avatar (or Yogi) in an article like Yoga and you believe you don't mean any disrespect to Christianity then it is true for a Christian to condemn Hindu gods as demons and practicing of Yoga or Astrology is demonic and occultic (as it was supported in bible).

--Karma2Grace 14:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Karma2grace, I've read the bible fairly extensively, and I believe it does reveal that Jesus was An avatar as Hinduism defines the term. Perhaps it reveals him as the ONLY avatar -- you could argue that it does so. But I don't see the claim of exclusivity as clearly as you do.

I think that other personages may reasonably be regarded as incarnations. Krishna says "When the wick of righteousness burns low, I come yet again..." Surely God did not ignore the millions of people of the many other cultures outside the Judeo-Christian world for the whole history of the Earth?

I know of no biblical reference or injunction specifically mentioning Yoga. I don't know that any reasonable person equates astrology with Yoga.

Who knows: we may discover that your views are the Truth as God Gives It. But sadly we can have no OBJECTIVE proof of that truth, for the moment. Your opinions are based on FAITH. Reasonable faith, to be sure. But you and I live in a very crowded space, and your faith and your truth are not my truth. Fencingchamp is saying, I think, that we need to find the common ground that will allow us to share this crowded space with politeness and dignity, rather than scratching each other's eyes out demanding agreement that truth as our faith defines it is an objective truth that must be agreed by all.--Nemonoman 01:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Karma2Grace, I apologize for any misunderstanding. In Hindu philosophy, the highest tribute to any spiritual figure is to say he is an avatar, an incarnation of God. So if some Hindus think of the Christ as an avatar, this is their way of paying the highest respect to the Christ. Seeing it this way makes it easier for people of different faiths to get along with no hurt feelings. Religious adherents don't always agree, but they can show benevolence, charity, and a brotherly attitude.

One can say that each religion is like a house, and the principal deity worshipped in each house is like the father. Each child naturally loves his own father best. But when the child visits a neighbor's house, he sees that his friend also has a father. Naturally, his friend loves his own father best.

When we all meet together in a public square, we may see that a Hindu has love for Krishna, a Buddhist has love for the Buddha, and a Christian has love for the Christ. If the Hindu and the Buddhist also speak well of the Christ and say he is an avatar, this is not meant as blasphemy. It is meant in kindly, respectful fashion.

The Christ is a figure of universal importance, a major player on the stage of world history. It is a tribute to the greatness of the Christ that he has also influenced great yogis. The Yoga article does not contain any information about Christianity. Only it mentions in passing that when Paramahansa Yogananda came to the West, he carried with him the New Testament, spoke to his disciples in a pluralist philosophy, and sought to establish an underlying unity between yoga and Christianity. This is information about Paramahansa Yogananda and what he taught. It is not information about what Christians believe. For that one can turn to the series of articles on Christianity.

If I say that the Christ is an avatar, I might feel I'm paying a compliment, but an orthodox Christian might feel I am placing the Christ in the company of others; and as Karma2Grace has pointed out, Christians often demand exclusivity. That demand is reasonable within the Christian church; but as Nemonoman suggested, when we meet together in the public square of the Internet, "we need to find the common ground that will allow us to share this crowded space with politeness and dignity."

Not all Christians respond to the existence of other faiths in the same way. For some it is a "boundary issue," while for others it's an opportunity to practice ecumenism. See this Anglican sermon on the topic Jesus Is Born Into a World of Many Faiths. --Fencingchamp 07:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I myself an easterner, I am well informed of Yoga and what it means, Yoga is a worship of creation than the creator, It is occultic and opposite to the biblical thoughts. Moreover the experience of Yoga is similar to the acid LSD addicts both will get the out of body and sprit Guidance experience

Yoga is a technique to find salvation, through union with the divine (universe l.e creation). This enlightenment to divinity is merely something that must be realized—because man is already divine. Yoga assumes that the problem of man is one of perception or realization. In contrast, Christianity assumes the basic problem of man is not one of knowledge or enlightenment, but a moral problem where man has willed and acted against God and His ways. The solution for the Christian is forgiveness. So there is a serious and deep difference between the assumption of what man’s problem is and therefore how to go about finding a solution to this problem. It was forbidden for a Christian to have a ‘union’ with creation and experience astral travel! And top of that these experience are defined as “occultic”

Jesus did claimed exclusivity for e.g. Acts 4:12 "There is salvation in no one else (than Jesus), for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved"

Yes I totally agree that "we need to find the common ground that will allow us to share this crowded space with politeness and dignity." , The better practice is not to create cult out of others believe , As I explained Hinduism in well known for sucking the core of other faiths and making them look stupid but fortunately that is not the case for Christianity after all the Christian Salvation is not by works (Karma) but by Grace , The problem in not union but communion, I don't see any commonality between Hinduism (a.k.a New Age to the Westerner)and Christianity in core doctrine (Other than love your neighbor and do good)--Karma2Grace 20:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we discuss the article rather than evangelizing please? --goethean ॐ 21:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Thought I'd make a slight correction here. CHRIST as a KARMA YOGI is an exclusively ISKCONian view, not shared by many Hindus. Most Hindus don't regard Christ as an avatar either. A new stock (Hindutva) has begun seeing him an an evangelical artifice for aggression again Indian traditions

Diversity of yoga

User Wikimachine, thank you for your interest in the Diversity of yoga section. Your turning of this section into a list of definitions was well-intentioned and made in good faith, but you might have missed the fine shades of what I was trying to do here. I did not intend this section to contain definitions of the four main yogas. Such definitions can be found both in the section on Hindu yoga (needs work) and in the separate articles. Also, the article leads by saying that:

Traditionally, Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Jnana Yoga, and Raja Yoga are considered the four main yogas.

I have since added:

(See section on Hindu yoga for definitions.)

I hope this helps resolve your concerns.

The Diversity section discusses a continuum of practices which yoga may include. This is intended to overcome the confusion that arises in readers when presented (too soon) with definitions which tend to separate and restrict (rather than unify) the different yogas. I have respectfully reverted, because imposing a definitional structure here defeats the original intent of this section - which was to explain that the four main yogas admit of subdivision and synthesis, and that there is a continuum of practices which need not be mutually exclusive. Keeping things fluid and inclusive here also helps avoid offending practitioners of yogas other than the main four.

Perhaps your definitions might be integrated into the Hindu yoga section. Having reverted, I'm posting your definitions here:

• Bhakti Yoga - the way of devotion and piety.
• Karma Yoga - the way of good actions, such as helping others and donating to temples.
• Jnana Yoga - the way of knowledge: to know the sacred scripts (vedas) and understand the workings in the universe.
• Raja Yoga - the way of contemplation or meditation.

I'm not crazy about these definitions, but want to keep them on the table. I'm also not crazy about the current definitions (in the Bhagavad-Gita section), which are:

(1) Karma yoga, the yoga of "action" in the world

(2) Jnana yoga, the yoga of meditation or intellectual endeavor

(3) Bhakti yoga, the yoga of devotion to a deity (for example, to Krishna)

Long term, maybe people can make suggestions about the definitions and work toward consensus. Thanks again for your interest and your time. --Fencingchamp 19:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Yoga/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

well, first i shall tell you that Yoga is hardly a religious practice. It has many goals, Yoga is a path, and a path can take you to many places. I shall also remember to correct one thing: the article sais the tantra sees reality as an illusion( Maya), but for the tantric Maya is "nature", the illusion concept and the goal of joining with Brahman belongs to the Vedanta philosophy. For those seeking about Yoga's goals: Improve strenght, balance, posture, health at pregnancy and latter ages, increasing of Auratic power, (something i'm amazed haven't been talked about in this article). As for how many types of Yoga are there: There are countless, all of them have something in common: Here are a few examples: Hatha yoga, Shivam Yoga, Power Yoga, Astanga, Karma Yoga, Mantra Yoga,etc... there are a ton of them About martial arts:Most chinese and japanese martial arts are based on the energetic phisiology of Yoga. ie. kung fu,ninjutsu... About the creation of Yoga Yoga was created at about 8000 dc. (yes it's that old), by a man called Shiva(Incarnation of indian God Vishnu). Later several Asanas tought first by Shiva, were brought back by a master named Matsyendra. ( One of them is called Matsyendrasana). It's said Shiva tought the ways of Yoga to a fish, and that Matsyendra is the very reincarnation of that fish( Matsyendra means Lord of the fishes) but this part is just a legend. thought the fact that this man existed is true. About Tantra PLEASE !!! ignore what you read about tantra in this article. It's describing Vedanta instead. Tantra is a much more "active" way of life, and a rather complex philosophy. it is even more ancient than Yoga so obviously there are controversies. Yet if anyone has questions please ask me in this very comment page. i'll do my best to answer them, i have good sources. The meaning of the word Yoga: We have many attempts at saying where yoga may have come from and discussions as to the different parts of yoga, however the general consensus is that the literal meaning of the word "yoga" is "unity" and the practice of yoga is therefore a path that leads toward this unity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity. One of the misfortunes of this academic process is that the unity of yoga, or the result of an individual persons practice has no external references, simply a collection of anecdotal experiences which seldom qualifies as evidence. As a result of my research yet to be published I am of the opinion that all contemporary religious/spiritual history including yoga flows back to the Paleolithic region between Persia - Northern India and Tibet and while it may never be proved, it is very likely that yoga as with other beliefs grew simply out of mankind's natural curiosity about our inner space and why we are the way we are.. Namaste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suanqu (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC) translations for "yoga" include "joining", "uniting", "union", "conjunction", "means", "contemplation" and "absorption". 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. --Yoga Mat (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 21:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)