User talk:Iṣṭa Devatā/Archive 1

Iṣṭa Devata, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Iṣṭa Devata! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

malasana

In case you're not watching the malasana talk page, please have a look at my comment Jonathan108 (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Malasana

You have removed the sources from Yoga Journal, Lotus Press from Malasana. On Alvars you hadn't attributed that your academic estimates have no clear historicity. Keep discussion on one side. Stop alleging of vandalism without knowing its true meaning. Also stop edit warring or you will be blocked without further notice. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The yoga journal reference doesn't defend the mala vs mālā change, nor does it stand up to the references from Krishnamacharya, Iyengar, Jois, Ramaswami, and Dharma Mittra. Unless you can defend your undoing of my changes, you are being the disruptive user here. And please explain why you don't agree with the cited dates on Alvars. Saying they have no validity is clearly an opinion. These dates can be found in thousands of published papers.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is discussed before too https://books.google.com/books?id=8TwHhuZrZ-wC&pg=PA11 , you don't even know what is vandalism. Although the Alvars content dispute is likely solved. I am more concerned with your edit warring and nonsensical changes on Malasana. Those references have mention of Malasana,[1]- [2] Bladesmulti (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:ANEW, reported your recent edit warring. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Do not create, add, maintain, insert, or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia like you did on Malasana. Usually, hoaxes will be caught and removed. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia – and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

But Blades, what is the "hoax" here?!? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Mallinson's writings about Malasana that couldn't be found outside Ista Devata's version and his further claim that The Yoga Tradition of the Mysore Palace By N. E. Sjoman includes the opinions of Mallinson about Malasana. He has made similar changes on some other pages after removing the former that was tagged with {{cn/citation needed}}, although Ista Devata wouldn't provide a citation either. I had to recover previous material and sort out from it, as it was easier to cite with reliable citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

Please have a look at Mālāsana. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Anno Domini, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Dyeus

If we start along this path, citing other cultures' deities that were equated with the Greek Zeus or the Roman Jupiter, we would have a ridiculously long list - Jupiter Brixianus, Jupiter Partinus, Jupiter Solutorius, Jupiter Taranis etc.; there is no need to have Zeus Ammon when we already have Zeus. As for Ptah, you will not find a reputable source which can be cited for it, because it is wrong. Egyptian was not an Indo-European language and there is no etymological link between *pH2ter and Ptah. Paul S (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

List of asanas

Typical: a new user who removes the explanation which you'd added with the followng edit summary: "remove original research", including a link to original research. How does a newbie know how to add such a link? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Weird. I'll admit my explanation was a tad excessive (aka thorough), but I don't know about original research. Fancy tagging on his part. It was more like a list of easily verified and common knowledge examples of pose name inconsistencies. It would be nice to keep at least one example. I tell you there's no love in this wiki business. More reverts than barnstars. I could add a citation from here. Or just put a citation from light on yoga by Iyengar for half moon, one for half moon from asana pranayama mudra bandha by Satyananda (bihar school/sivananda lineage), and one for half moon from Bikram's book (which I don't have, but his asana list is all over the internet). It's certainly not an original conclusion. It's hard to say if it's really synthesis of material when all of these are noncontentious common knowledge observations you can read all over.

As an aside: I've got to get better at that fancy html you editors are all so fancy with. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"there's no love in this wiki business" - yep. And yet, it is nice to do research, and learn more bout topics. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

All for the philos of sophos!Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ardha Candrāsana

added links pointing to Obliques, Obturator, Rhomboids, Bikram and Gemellus muscle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

more sense

[3]

This makes more sense. "related styles" could mean related yoga styles, not just Sivananda yoga styles. That makes more sense now. Since I have limited knowledge of yoga, I revert to a more general treatment of facts.Curb Chain (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Vishuddha

No problem! Most likely you were reviewing the page history and were accidentally editing the last-but-one version, I've made the same mistake myself before now. --McGeddon (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Brahma

Neither academic book makes their claim within the context of Vaishnavism. They are both making general statements about pan-Hindu concepts. Even in Shaivism, Brahma grows out the navel of Vishnu.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Maybe you mean in Vaishnav puranas about Shiva. Most often he is born from the hiranyagarbha in a void as in the Rig Veda.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by unrelated sources? Everything I just quoted is from one book.

What do you mean by unrelated sources? Everything I just quoted is from one book.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Bryant is not the same person as Frazier. The Krishna book is a different source than the Continuum Companion to Hindu Studies. Neither source gives your full argument.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I just quoted Bryant that talks about popular and secondary creator. They are literally in the same paragraph.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But that source only says that popular hinduism stems from the puranas, not that Brahma being secondary to Vishnu is the popular view. He also never directly says which puranic views became dominant in popular hinduism. And this is not an ideal source because it's not a book about Brahma. And again: the popular view needs to be presented with due weight, not exclusivity. You've made the intro more about Vishnu than Brahma using sources about Vishnu and not about Brahma.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Bryant elsewhere in the same book describes Brahma as 'self-born' (p.68) "The vulgate and numerous texts have vibhuna svayambhuva, ‘‘by the self-born lord,’’ probably Brahma, who could be meant here in either case."Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

And the point is?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is and always was that you put one sectarian perspective (Brahma is born from Vishnu's navel) as the introductory sentence and your citation doesn't give evidence of that idea being solitary or more important than the countless other perspectives. Do you not get that? This is biased POV your pushing on very flimsy textual support. And let's keep this on the talk page, huh?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Sutton says: "There must be some doubt as to whether the Hindu tradition has ever recognized Brahma as the Supreme Deity in the way that Visnu and Siva have been conceived of and worshiped."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Your sources are about Prajapati and Hiranyagarbha, not Brahma.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, some of them are about Prajapati. Are you denying that many sources associate the two? Including the sources I gave? Do you think it's our job to decide which scholars are correct and which ones are not? You're argument is nothing but selective reading. You've still not once engaged the actual topic of a balanced lede. You just keep trying to present your thesis on Brahma. Think like an editor and stop playing pandita. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you trying to promote an Abrahamic notion of Creation? You do realize that even in Buddhism, Brahma is not a Creator right?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about left field. What on earth is Abrahamic about any of this? And how is reverting your edit me promoting anything? And I didn't say that Buddhists believe in Brahma, I gave a Buddhist depiction of the Hindu creation myth. Do you honestly have no idea what we're actually debating?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Buddhists believe in Brahma as a secondary creator. There is a philosophical reason in both Hinduism and Buddhism why Brahma is not a real Creator and why he is not worshiped.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Um source for that? Brahma is not anything in most forms of Buddhism. Where do you find the chutzpah to claim you're able to summarize an entire religion's view on this topic (Hindu or Buddhist)? Again, the quote is a buddhist description of how a group views Brahma. Not the author's view. Not my view. An historical depiction of how Brahma was viewed. I didn't interpret the Buddhist source, I just gave the quote. Are you arguing with me or the quote? Do you even know?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And yes, Brahma is generally not worshiped. The philosophical reason why is not singular, it is multiple. And debated. And in a wiki article we present all valid reasons why he isn't worshiped. That does NOT mean no darshanas view him as a creator. Again I point you to my sources which present him as the creator in multiple schools. One source doesn't trump another. Both views are valid and worth including. You might find the explanation that creation already occurred and does not need to be prayed for unlike change and preservation. You might find the story of the jyotirlingam and Brahma lying to Vishnu. The puranas give multiple explanations of this (and pretty much everything else). Every mahapurana describes the creation myth and they all do it differently. Some with Brahma, Hiranyagarbha, Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti. They are not a uniform view.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Brahma is a fake creator in both Buddhism and Hinduism because time is cyclical, with no beginning. You can read about Brahma in Peter Harvey's Introduction to to Buddhism 2nd edition, page 36-37.VictoriaGrayson^Talk

You're only presenting an additional view. Not a universal view. It can be included as well. That doesn't mean other sources can be undermined by a new source. And time isn't always cyclical in Buddhism. It traces back to sunyata which precedes all kalpas and Brahmas. YOU can read about it in Eliade's Yoga Immortality and Freedom. Still not the issue.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I am a long time Tibetan Buddhist, so I don't need to read Eliade. Sunyata is not a thing that precedes the universe.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well done. So you know that time is described multiple ways that don't always agree. You know that enlightenment, buddhahood, Brahma, etc can be viewed multiple ways, right? That, in fact, religion is a long history of interpretation and reinterpretation marked by constant disagreement. So why do you feel the need to emphasize one view over another? First you said it was the pan-Hindu view. When I disproved that you said it was the most popular view because it's the puranic view and the puranas make the popular religion. When I said it's only the view of some Puranas and that not all schools use the puranas or believe their creation myths, you started trying to undermine my sources. When it became clear they are all academic you tried to trump them with sources that disagree. When I point out that we're not trying to come to a conclusion but instead include all valid sources you keep trying to show sources that disagree with other sources. That is not how this works. If a valid source gives a view, that view can be included. Do you object to the prajapati story? Do you deny it is interpreted (by many) to be Brahma (as shown in multiple furnished sources)? If multiple views are given, we do not decide which one gets emphasized. So again: why do you feel the need to emphasize one Vaishnav perspective over all the others?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"...thus one reaches the paradoxical moment beyond which time did not exist because nothing was yet manifested. The meaning and the end of this yogic technique, which consist in unrolling time in reverse, are perfectly clear. Through it the practitioner obtains the true superknowledge, for he not only succeeds in re-cognizing all his former lives, but he reaches the very beginning of the world; proceeding backward against the stream, one must necessarily come to the point of deparure, which in the last analysis, coincides with the cosmogony, with the first cosmic manifestation." -Eliade, YIF, pp.184-185. Buddhist meditation as a means to travel to the point before the universe was formed before all kalpas. Multiple views exist on all theological concepts. Take a step back. Time isn't always cyclical, Brahma isn't always secondary, Victoria isn't always right.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This is an outdated junk book from the 1950's.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And so we're back to your opinions. So arrogant. Everything that you don't agree with has no credit. Why don't we just cite everything as VictoriaSays. Are you denying that there are multiple perspectives? Are you trying to redefine reliable sources policy to suit your needs? Are you bending over backwards to defend an edit just because it's yours? Tell us what it adds or why it is necessary. Do you deny all other hindu cosmogonies exist, or are you saying they are all wrong? Do you honestly think so little of Eliade, Feuerstein, Bhattacharya, Bronkhorst and your fellow editors? An actual answer would be appreciated instead of more ad hominems against my sources and strawmans against my position. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Its the same cosmology across Hinduism and Buddhism. Frazier says:

Cosmology, while it is often ignored in Western conceptions of religiosity, forms an overarching framework that spans diverse regions, languages and religions within Indic culture. The cosmological picture of the universe as a series of hierarchically structured demonic, earthly and heavenly worlds, through which sentient creatures move via the natural process of reincarnation, links not only most Hindu traditions, but also Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism.

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That is not a refutation of anything I said. Yes, these schools share certain aspects of cosmology (though I was talking about cosmogony). He describes those aspects being a hierarchical depiction of demonic and heavenly, worlds, etc. He doesn't say that they have identical cosmogonies or cosmologies, just commonalities. He doesn't suggest anything that denies the multiplicity of views. He points out similarities common to most schools of Hinduism making no mention of creation mythos. Is that what you are trying to say with this quote, because it's non-sequitur. Is your thesis that all Hindus view the Brahma as coming from Vishnu's navel? You certainly have not and will not be able to prove that. For what it's worth, not all Hindu schools believe in reincarnation, the existence of God, or the cyclical nature of time.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Devanagari

Why do we need to add devanagari to the body of the text? We have the IAST. It's a lossless conversion. Sanskrit isn't "native" to devanagari, it's an all-purpose script created to be useful to writers in Indic scripts, not a magical keychain for Sanskrit. It's useful, but outside of spoken languages or quotes, why do we need to write on the English Wikipedia the name of the article in devanagari? Ogress _smash! 22:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

In general, Ogress, you're probably right, but I still think it's useful to have it in certain places. Especially when, like the word bhakti, it isn't clear that it is rendered in accurate IAST since it is never marked as such. If a word has long vowels or something to give it a diacrit it would be clear that it is in IAST, but bhakti and yoga both render the same either way making it unclear. But as an aside, devanagari is a standard tool in the emerging yoga studies field.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC) I've also yet to see the sanskrit textbook that doesn't use Devanagari. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

However corrected Komati (Tribe) Caste to early 20th Century

However, I have accordingly corrected indoctrination to early 20th Century(British Colonial Rule)Mondivadu (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

With a citation...? Or more of your POV?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)of course with citationMondivadu (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Babaji is not real

Every yoga guru nowadays says they met Babaji. Babaji is not real. He is fictitious. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You are not making me miss wikipedia. I am not writing from the perspective that Babaji is or isn't real. Nor am I writing from the assumption that Lahiri Mahasaya, Sivananda, Yogananda, Satyananda, M Govindan or anyone else is lying about Babaji or Kriya yoga. To say he is fictitious is a rather condescending way of calling these teachers liars which would not make for a compelling research project. I am attempting to solve the mystery of how Chinese subtle body concepts came to be used in a supposedly ancient Indian meditation practice, a point Satyananda himself ponders in his book. There are multiple mentions in the hatha yoga corpus of a rear channel (paścimamarga) in the Amanaska, Hathapradipika, Sivasamhita, etc. There is a connection between alchemical traditions in India and China including the influence of the Tamil Siddhar Bhogarnath (who supposedly taught Babaji), the import of cinnabar from China into Tamil Nadu, the appropriation of Vajrayana in Taoist circles, and the possibility for ancient precedents linking the I-Ching with the ontology of the Samkhya Karika. When you are studying ancient magical traditions like Siddha yoga, the last thing you're trying to do is disprove their beliefs. We all know eating mercury doesn't lead to immortality and that you cannot turn your body into diamond or gold and live forever. There is a certain degree of anthropological objectivity that goes into a research project like this (not that you seem to know or care what I'm working on). If you're done trying to sadistically burst my bubble, maybe you would notice that my only question is whether the subtle body view of chinese alchemy (with three channels sagittally arranged) had any imitations or inspirations in tibetan or tantric buddhist contexts. If you have anything useful to offer I'm all ears. If you're just trying to be obnoxious there's lots of blogs where you can do that. There's a reason why I didn't ask you. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You do realize that Chinese emperors had Tibetan lamas, and that Tibetan Buddhism was practiced in China? Read Tibet A History by Sam van Schaik.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and Indian alchemists too. The question is whether the subtle body concept of front and rear channels made it to historical India during or before the heyday of haṭha and if there is anything to suggest (for example) if the Tamil Daśaṇāmis were influenced by it during the Cinnabar trade (David Gordon White mentions a gift of the I-Ching made by a Chinese emperor to India). If that book talks at all about the subtle body in Tibetan influenced Chinese mileus than that might be a good source. Mostly I'm just looking at possible paths of transmission between China and India that could explain the similarity of their subtle physiology (though David Gordon White told me he has searched in vain for solid links between the two alchemical traditions, pointing me to Joseph Needham). Whatever my take on kriya yoga, I have to honor the possibility of its historicity to write objectively. Much of the history of tantric buddhism in China was wiped out during the Great_Anti-Buddhist_Persecution so practices that may have been originally Indian were appropriated by Taoism during periods of anti-buddhist sentiment. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Taoism is just a Chinese copy of Buddhism. See middle paragraph HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing it, but that seems to be more about monastic rules than subtle physiology being appropriated. Potentially useful, but more so if the path goes all the way between India and China or mentions alchemical and subtle body practices, particularly the link between microcosmic orbit and Indian prāṇāyāma. I could spend all day reading about how BOTH Taoism and Buddhism influenced each other, but that part of my research is pretty much done. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Swami Nithyananda page

Refering to your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swami_Nithyananda&oldid=717532059 you removed some lines with the comment "These citations all incriminate him, not exhonerate him. You can't quote Nithyananda claiming the video was morphed and write "experts say the video was morphed"

Basically you removed the following lines: Many maintain Nithyananda is innocent and has been framed and intentionally defamed by this fake video.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-03-14/india/28130631_1_sleaze-tape-trance-swami-nithyananda |title=I was in a trance when video was recorded: Swami Nithyananda |publisher=Times of India |date=14 March 2010 |accessdate=16 October 2013}}</ref> Forensic tests later found the video to be morphed.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Nithyananda-video-Ranjitha-dons-saffron-now-Ma-Anandmayi/articleshow/28024175.cms|title=Nithyananda video: Ranjitha dons saffron, now Ma Anandmayi|publisher=Times of India |date=28 December 2013|accessdate=15 March 2015|location=Bangalore, India}}</ref>

(1) The video was proven to be morphed and banned to be aired as per orders of BCCC. http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Channel-ordered-to-apologise-to-Ranjitha/2013/09/03/article1765099.ece It was created for blackmailing. Justice AP Shah (retired)-led self regulatory body, Broadcast Content Complaints Council (BCCC), directed the channels such as ‘Star Vijay’ to apologise to Ranjitha Menon for telecast of these kind of fake videos on 21 March 2012. The channels had been asked to run a scroll featuring the apology every two hours on its channel for seven days. (2) This news article http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Nithyananda-video-Ranjitha-dons-saffron-now-Ma-Anandmayi/articleshow/28024175.cms also clearly writes Forensic tests later found the video to be morphed.

I believe the two references shared above make it clear that the video is fake. I am making changes in the article to align to the facts shared above. Kindly point out if any doubt still exists. Shashank Tulsyan (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not simply role back changes without discussing what you find as Abusive misconstruing of sources https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swami_Nithyananda&diff=next&oldid=723917504 I have clearly pointed out in detail both here and in the talk page of the article justification for each and every single edit. I have also given clear references and pointed to clear phrases from the references. Please specific where the problem is before reverting such detailed edits. And even if you want to change, change only the part where problem persists do not revert the entire article. Please help establishing consensus WP:CON Shashank Tulsyan (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Shashaanktulsyan: You are misrepresenting those sources which are themselves misrepresenting information. A confession used in the article is misrepresented in the article itself: he accuses his company of using videos for extortion and claims no responsibility or involvement which means he cannot 'prove' the video was morphed as he was not involved. The other article that says it was proven to be morphed does not give a source for that conclusion. And a ruling by a broadcasting agency only says that the violations were of privacy and dignity, but the council itself did not deem the video to be 'morphed'. You and these articles clearly fail to grasp the difference between proof and evidence. No court of law or expert has gone on record to say the video is morphed, only editorializing writers have surreptitiously slipped the claim into their articles uncited. Everything that you altered was incorrect and dishonest. You have been asked not to edit this page already based on a conflict of interest and it is clear that your edits lack impartiality. You should not edit this page, and you are well aware that you are blatantly misrepresenting your sources. Frankly I don't have time to argue with devotees over blatant disregard of wiki policy. My edit summary was sufficient. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: Thank you for your time and patience and effort. I see two points which you are making and accordingly the article can be modified. So I assume that other parts of the edit that I made like, removing a line which said, "Nithyananda was removed as chairman of HUA" those edits are alright. So coming to 2 things which you pointed. (1) You are telling, that COO's confession is a evidence not a proof. I agree with this. Your edit was removed by some other user without any citation. So I believe that whatever you wrote for the COO reference should be brought back to the page. Agree?

(2) You said, No court of law or expert has gone on record to say the video is morphed, only editorializing writers have surreptitiously slipped the claim into their articles uncitedThere are 4 independent U.S.-based experts forensic experts/agencies which have given their report giving over 60 technical reasons to clearly prove the video was morphed, and manipulated :
(a)Edward Joe, 27+ years experience in audio and video forensic analysis court expert in USA, Registered Investigator (RI), Primeau Productions Inc.
In this video he personally testifies and explains his report https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ITsoaJWILw
(b) David Notowitz, Forensic Video Expert in USA , Los Angeles Superior Court Expert Witness, National Center for Audio and Video Forensics
(c)Joe Yonowitz, 58+ years experience in audio/video analysis in USA, Canada, Mexico, UK, Sri Lanka, Australia, Singapore, UAE; testified in state and Federal courts in civil, criminal and administrative matters throughout the USA as well as overseas.
In these videos he personally in good detail testifies and explains his report http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueg1_-BL8mk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtpUEmen2Og http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpWVEc17284 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKs_qhEiTiw
(d) Bryan Neumeister, Certified Federal, US District, State, Department of Justice, Civil & Aviation Forensic Expert, 31 Years Professional Experience, USA Forensic Audio & Video Labs.
(e) There is a fifth report by FSL Delhi.
Before coming to that, sharing other important facts.
March 2010 An FIR was registered charging Swami Nithyananda of rape even though there was no victim named. In the over 2,75,000 cases of rape registered in India in the last decade, this is the only case of rape where there is no victim. He was arrested.
21 April 2010 To substantiate the arrest, the police in an unheard of move, made an open appeal on television, newspapers, social media like Facebook for “victims” to come forward and declared that even their travel expenses would be given by the police. Ref : http://indianexpress.com/article/india/crime/nityanand-probe-cid-asks-victims-to-depose/
17 August 2010 High Court was about to quash the case as it was a rape case without victim. It is then that Aarti Rao came forward as witness/victim. Till now the video was used to justify imprisonment and trial for rape. And please note even if the video is considered 100% authentic, it doesn't show rape, even so called sexual acts are not clear.
16 March 2012 Reports by 4 independent U.S.-based experts forensic experts/agencies which are often employed by FBI, was submitted to CID by Swami Nithyananda. During the same time the video was also taken out from the FIR against Swami Nithyananda. The CID didn't retain the video as evidence in court. The video, therefore became irrelevant to the criminal proceedings against Swami Nithyananda. The 4 forensic reports are unchallenged since. Further validation of the 4 forensic reports is not possible because the opponent is not interested in countering it. SunTV executives now face trial, as already earlier mentioned. May be in further trial the video may be again brought back if SunTV challenges the authenticity of the four reports.
Public reference to Edward Joe's statement where he said, "video is not genuine and authentic. It is not a representation of facts and events as they occurred. Furthermore, the video appears to be layered and not a composite video. As a video forensic expert, I recommend that this video be excluded from any factual relevance to the events that appear to be happening", can be found here, http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=123627 . Another helpful reference, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/nithyananda-cites-us-experts-to-claim-videotape-is-fake/article2999685.ece (Edward Joe statement is not present here however) ; Edward Joe expressed his willingness to testify in USA or India and answer any questions regarding this forensic investigation
Similarly other forensic experts like, David Notowitz, Joe Yonowitz went ahead to give detailed explanation on shortfalls FSL Delhi's report. Bryan Neumeister further pointed to major shortfall in FSL report pointing out that The report has no actual scientific data on it whatsoever. It is an inventory sheet of what was received and a persons best guess that the client and person on the video matched. No forensic tests were performed according to the report.
All these reports became part irrelevant to the legal proceeding as the video was withdrawn as evidence. All 5 reports are available, but all of them would be primary reference and hence useless to wikipedia. Shashank Tulsyan (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Shashaanktulsyan: As long as you line up your sources with the claims it should be all good. I would be careful about some of the news sources, but I don't know that you'll find anything better. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: Thank you for helping making the article better and according to Wikipedia standards. In all probability there are no better links on the internet. Rest all are primary references. I will work on the article and make best attempt to align the article. I would revert back for your kind review. You review is important because my edits raise COI concerns. I really want touch the article as less as possible, but what to do fake accounts keep removing critical references, and effectively undo hard work of months of discussion on wiki. The high level monitoring in wikipedia is excellent. But I really wish some wiki contributor (like you) does the micro monitoring. I hope someone has time, and takes interest in this page. Shashank Tulsyan (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: Please see this, this is a draft of changes that I am making based on points you highlighted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shashaanktulsyan/SwamiNithyanadaControversySection . Please have a glance. Take your time 1 week, 2 week. If you are not available then let me know. However it would be nice if you could spend 10-15minutes on it and review it for meeting wiki standards and NPOV. Shashank Tulsyan (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Nous

Hi! Noted your edits on Nous. The section you found is from an older version of the article, never deleted, but also still unsourced. It would be nice to know that some sort of publication might have ever compared the Greek concept to the Indian one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Just fancy!

I thought this might be of interest to you. Best wishes, Haploidavey (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Haploidavey: Ha! Nice work. Still a very strange phenomenon. Print on demand books that just contain unmarked wikipedia content. Seems like a pretty shady way to make money. It's also a shame that this leaves me without the reliable citation about the three-tiered cosmos I needed for a paper I'm writing. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Can't you make do with a one-tiered version?? Seriously, I'd be hard-pressed to suggest how anyone could make money that way; not much sense of natural morality in evidence - though how anyone could be so naive as to buy such things is beyond me. Perhaps they don't. Perhaps it's all just small, cumulative click-bait percentages. Sad, really. But maybe, in the other two tiers, none of this is happening... that's a pleasant thought. Haploidavey (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Iṣṭa Devatā. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Bold text== Two Mallinson sources on the Dashanami== There are two Mallinson sources on the Dashanami. Not one.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That does not explain why it means you should remove Matsyendra from the page. And you are misrepresenting the source. Plus the statement that it is 'associated with' really adds nothing to the article.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There are two sources cited. You did not read both. I am not misrepresenting anything.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Quotes, hotshot.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

What does that even mean?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It means pull a quote to support your mathematically impossible claim that a group from the 1600s (according to your source) started a tradition 400 years older than itself. Like the quotes in all my citations you deleted and still haven't explained.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't even say that Dashanami started hatha yoga. You are just using straw man arguments. I am simply saying what Mallinson says.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Then it is poorly worded to say it is not founded by the naths but is associated with the dasanami. Much better edits were suggested on the talk page. And this still does not justify deleting everything about Matsyendra.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Matsyendranath is mentioned appropriately in the article, without legendary stories.VictoriaGrayson^Talk

So your current argument is that legends do not belong in the article? Why? It's the origin story. You couldn't write about superman without mentioning Krypton.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Your recent editing history at Hatha yoga shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

All the best,

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You're my rock JJ.

A pie for you!

Hello Iṣṭa Devatā, Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, especially articles about Yoga. Thanks, by user 2know4power (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Archive

Hi Iṣṭa Devata. How about creating an automatic archive? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

How do I do that?Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. I'll also create an archive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think it's funny how much trouble it was to modify mālāsana. The yoga world is very opinionated.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I don't think the auto archive is working.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No, obviously not. I hadn't specified the archive-name... Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

So, that was quick! One minute after I changed it! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

hi Ista Devata -hi there and thanks for your caring work in yoga! Ok to talk please about notability and sources on Core Strength Vinyasa article? Yoga is wonderful and there are many different disciplines--so, i worked closely with wikipedia editors to get this article right! I've got mainstream pubs and industry sources---and CSV a very popular Practice. When you get a sec, could you please review those templates? Thanks ever so much!Nerudap (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)nerudap

Read your comments in Samkhya, not impressed.106.51.19.129 (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, 106.51.19.129, I think we all I agree I could be much more impressive.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Mass reverts without proper checks, Why?

I noticed you mass vandalised/reverted my multiple edits here without valid reason or proper checks with a vague, non-specific and invalid observation of "reference spam".

Q1. On what "real" "valid" basis did you mass revert those?

Q2. You even reverted msg I left on talk pages. You do not even allow me to discuss things with others. This is insane, how can yo shut or try to run someone off like this. Your violations are reaching mammoth proportions. See here. This just shows you are blindly reverting without even looking. vandalism of this type will get you banned fast. Do not touch/revert edits on talk pages, unless it is attack on someone. Are you trying to preserve some POV? or do you assume you own those articles? Are you trying to keep certain editors out? you was it just lazy blind mass reverts (if you can not add or enhance, do not destroy without checking. it is someone's effort you are putting down the drain. if you are too lazy to check each and every thing, unable to provide specific objections, do not lazily revert or destroy. You will ot like it if i or others start doing it to your edits.

Q3. Did you verify the reference before calling is spam?

Q4. How is this reference from INTACH a spam? Source here, INTACH newsletter

Q5. The source also mentions and directly supports my edits, page 33-34. Did you ever bother to read?

Q6. Were your reverts were based on some other reasons? If so remember that inventing new reasons post-fact is against the spirit of "assume good faith" and "constructive, collaborative, incremental edits" (rephrase, enhance with additional sources, discuss on talk page, instead of mass reverts with vague and invalid observation?

Q7. All of the articles I have edited, have edited that you reverted have lots of unsupported text, why have you not reverted any of those?

Point is my edits within the articles are better quality (sourced, directly support my claims, compared to unsourced). Do not jump to lazy conclusions and destroy others work. Seems you easily determined it to be spam and blindly reverted it everywhere else without checking if edits and source are applicable to each article or not, without making attempts for constructive edits to enhance, or add tags for ref improvement or tags for "add more references". Seems you subjectively applied your judgment by quickly jumping to conclusion on the first edits and then might have blindly reverted it everywhere else with one non-specific lazy and unacceptable copy-paste non-specific explanation inserted with each revert. I am deeply concerned and antagonised even if it is one off mistake by you. Even then it is big enough to cause sever concern, for destroy work across multiple articles. Bigger concern is if you have been doing it to others, mass vandalizing, easily and lazily reverting without being objective. Did you weigh the edits you reverted against the current quality of content? If you left even lower quality and unsourced content within those article but chose to revert mine (and other victims of your mass reverts if you have done so to others elsewhere), then it means you being subjective and only 'stalking" one editor/ Stalking would get you ban, so will mass vandalizing and subjective reverts. I do not want to issue warnings, mass revert your work or tag talk page of every user you mass reverted. I want you to learn from this experience and fix this behavior. I might have to review your own edits to see if it meets the quality, if not I might have to mass revert and BRD it across all articles wherever it fails the criteria. What I am trying to say is that you may no0t like if I do to you exactly what you do to me nor others. I want to avoid doing it, because it is not my intention, not my style and I prefer constructive collaborative incremental improvements rather than mass destroying others works. Instead of trigger-happy mass reverts, based on assumption without checking each edit, please collaborate, be responsible, more careful, do not mass revert even new editors work. Better insert tags for improvements, rephrase, add additional, if you are mass destroying others work then at least discuss it on the talk page, or try to find constructive incremental solution because lazy vandalizing reverts without being considerate are not acceptable.

Please answer each question by specifically addressing those? Also suggest a solution to make it work. And, please just restore the edits. And, in future avoid blanket disruptive reverts like this. For now I will assume good faith that might be one off Mass mistake by you, just restore my edits, otherwise I will be forced to review your history to check if you have made it a habit to lazily vandalize by mass reverting valid edits.

All i want is restore my edits. That is it. I am not letting it pass, it was lots of work. Do not make me review your work, and identify other victims of your mass reverts, initiate action to ban you. I want mutual peace, sanity, collaborate and not revert just like that. Lot of unregistsred users might not even be aware if you butcher their work like this. This is dangerous the way you are operating in a selective and subjective way, while stalking specific editor without objectively applying same review criteria to other editors work on the same articles. Start using more of the positive approach, such as practice good faith (embrace its spirit and not just throw it at others, many editors misuse it, throw this around without practicing, not saying you are doing it, I have not reviewed your behavioral pattern), suggest improvements (instead of BRD, etc), discuss first (do not mass destroy), do not destroy work of unknown unregistered users (even they come back to check their work, like I did, even they can fight back and confront the bad irresponsible behavior by vandal reverters). Hope we can settle this with peace.

Just restore everything you vandalised (my edits), or insert tags for improvement, welcome to rephrase and find additional sources. Thanks.

222.165.9.81 (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Demanding type, aren't you? Maybe you can explain how a newbee know's about Wiki's banning policies? Let me guess: you're banned yourself. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Iṣṭa Devatā. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Mālāsana

I would really appreciate it if you could provide an image for the basic Mālāsana.--Penbat (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I will try to upload a few pictures very soon. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Penbat:

Yoga asana 'mālāsana' viewed from the front.

Yoga asana 'upaveśāsana' sometimes known as mālāsana.

Yoga asana 'mālāsana' viewed from the side.

Here are the files if you want to edit them in and make them pretty...I'm late for work!Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I have put the middle one in Mālāsana. Just a small point, the tail of the garment worn above the waist makes it look superficially like the person is sitting on a cushion. It isnt much of a big deal but if you could do another one without the tail showing that would be good.--Penbat (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Penbat:Point taken. Maybe when I have a photographer on hand I'll redo the photos. In the mean time I've added the other photos and cleaned up a few points. Luckily, even if it was a cushion, it would still be the right pose...not as distracting as the bright red outfit the woman doing bhujapindasana is wearing! I think we need at least two photos to show the different foot placement and spinal position. Maybe three is overkill. Thoughts?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The other two are presumably another variant as the head is bowed down so may relate to a subsection ? Thanks for cleaning up some of the text in Mālāsana. Actually my main focus on Mālāsana is from the squatting perspective so I also have the image here squatting position#Mālāsana or upavesasana in yoga as it is an important manifestation of squatting. If the image were perceived as sitting on a cushion it would not be deemed as squatting but instead sitting which is something else. --Penbat (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Penbat: So if you look at the text of the article, you'll see that the other picture which you removed is the traditional malasana. Even though the other variation is more common in the west, the most popular asana books (Iyengar, Ramaswami, Jois, etc) call the feet together pose malasana. It is not a variation but rather a different pose sometimes called by the same name. For this reason it is absolutely necessary to have at least two pictures to show the two variations. I am going to restore the other pictures because having just the one undermines the point of the article.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

That is cool. As I said, my focus is mainly on squatting position#Mālāsana or upavesasana in yoga.--Penbat (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Penbat:Cool. I'll reshoot the squat without the long shirt soon so you can have the clearer illustration for squatting.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nandinatha Sampradaya

It's regarding Nandinatha's Philosophy. Yes you are right in saying that "If it is Advaita then by definition it CANNOT be Shaiva Siddhanta." It's Shaiva Siddhanta and not the Advaita. So I am going to fix it after your reply. .__शिव साहिल (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. As long as the inconsistencies on the page are eliminated, I am happy to assume you know more about this sampradaya than I.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Pedantic observation you can ignore

It's either iṣṭadevatā or (if you leave a space) iṣṭā devatā. Basemetal 14:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The rules are a little looser than one might think when transliterating compounds like this. Most authors would actually use a hyphen. I did not. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Yoga asana image requests

Hi, I see you have met image requests before ;-} ..... if you are interested, there is now a list of requested images at Wikipedia:WikiProject Yoga#Image requests.

Another thing you might like to help with is the state of the names of asana articles - quite a few contain diacritics, which isn't really right (I now realise). I believe the Sanskrit and IAST for the asanas is pretty much correct but there are bound to be a few (recent) mistakes in there.... Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed that we're lacking images also for what Iyengar calls "krounchāsana"; and for all four forms of mandukāsana, which we didn't even have an article for until today! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

This guy

.. had a busy 10 minutes - I think I've reverted them all, but could you kindly check this was correct. Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)