Talk:Yoga

English IPA

@Theknightwho you didn't address my last edit summary. I've already explained why DUALPRON doesn't apply here. Rolando 1208 (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2024

Yoga is also considered a sport that helps people lose weight. 14.248.212.5 (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done - No WP:RS source was offered for either topic. This is the section on potential health effects, which neither describes yoga as a sport nor indicates any weight loss effect. Zefr (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

"Unification with the Divine"

Patanjali's classical definition

@Stormbird: kaivalya is the classical definition of yoga. Yoga sutras of Patanjali, as quoted in the body of the article:

1.2. yogas chitta vritti nirodhah – "Yoga is the calming down the fluctuations/patterns of mind"
1.3. Then the Seer is established in his own essential and fundamental nature.
1.4. In other states there is assimilation (of the Seer) with the modifications (of the mind.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Citing primary sources selectively is not sufficient to challenge the removal of the content.

The content in dispute that you added to the article:

“aim to control (yoke) and still the mind, recognizing a detached witness-consciousness untouched by the mind (Chitta) and mundane suffering (Duḥkha).”

This statement sounds Buddhist and is actually based on a Buddhist technique and philosophy.

The following content, which I prefer, better reflects Wikipedia's policies:

“In Indian traditions, yoga is a practice of spiritual and ascetic discipline aimed at controlling the mind and body, ultimately seeking spiritual purification and self-awareness, leading to samadhi (absorption) or the union of the soul with the absolute or the Divine.” [Note that samadhi is a common goal in Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism.]

This aligns with how yogic traditions and scholars generally describe yoga. Stormbird (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Patanjali is said to be influenced by Buddhism, but kaivalya is pure samkhya. Anyway, the second sentence says (emphsis mine) "There is a wide variety of schools of yoga, practices, and goals. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! on some points such as the importance of

"yogas chitta vritti nirodhah – Yoga is the calming down the fluctuations/patterns of mind",

However, the first sentence is not the place to debate or translate very complex concepts we need a more readable and neutral version as per WP:LEAD and WP:First paragraph. And Stormbird's version is more concise and readable as per WP guidelines.

But, lets try to develop a balance between detailed accuracy and summarized readability.

In my readings, kaivalya is more often mentioned in Jainism than Hinduism, and it has been importanty mentioned by Patanjali Yoga Sutras, but still it may not be needed in first few sentences.

The 34 Yoga Sutras of Patanjali of the fourth chapter deal with impressions left by our endless cycles of birth and the rationale behind the necessity of erasing such impressions. It portrays the yogi, who has attained kaivalya RogerYg (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I can suggest some minor edits in the current version as below:

Yoga (/ˈjoʊɡə/; Sanskrit: योग, lit. 'union' Sanskrit pronunciation: [joːɡɐ] ^ⓘ) is a group of physical, mental, and spiritual practices or disciplines which originated in ancient India and aim to control and still the mind, recognizing a detached self-awareness going beyond mundane suffering (Duḥkha). There are a wide variety of schools of yoga, practices, and goals in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, and traditional and modern yoga is practiced worldwide.

References

RogerYg (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence is the place to introduce the topic, also when it may seem complex. The EB-article on kaivaya doesn'teven mention Jainism. And why would you drop "untouched by the mind"? It's an essential element.

Regarding [[:samadhi] as "unification with the Divine"," as proposed by Stormbird, that's but one understanding, and not the most accurate one. And remember that both Hinduism and (some strands of Buddhism) teach that we already are, or are unseparated from, the Divine, but are not aware of it. We and the Divine are not two different things, but one; and we already are united with it. Note also that most descriptions stop short with "samadhi," but miss the essential next part: recognising Purusha, the witness-consciousness, as one's essential or true 'identity'. That's what stilling the mind and samadhi is about: recognizing who or what you really are, when you're not hindered by thoughts and desire. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@RogerYg@Joshua Jonathan The version I suggested, based on how Oxford's Premium Dictionary defines yoga, doesn't say that samadhi is the union of the soul and the divine, as Joshua says. It simply says that the goal of yoga in Indian religions is self-purification and self-knowledge, leading to either samadhi or the union of the soul with the Absolute. This is a better way to describe yoga in an encyclopedic way than what the current version says. Yoga is not just about calming the mind (as in Buddhism), it is also about controlling the physical body.

We should avoid using complex and technical phrases like recognizing a detached witness-consciousness untouched by the mind (Chitta), and go by how scholars generally describe yoga. In yogic traditions, yoga is generally thought of as a means of attaining samadhi, or union with the ultimate principle or God. How Patanjali or the Mahabharata or the Upanishads define yoga is a topic reserved for the body of the article.

Here are some scholarly entries on yoga:

"In general, the purpose of Yoga is to attain Union with Brahman."

"[Yoga] Term used for a number of Hindu disciplines to aid the union of the soul with God.

"The term yoga is derived from the Sanskrit for “joining” or “yoking.” As a discipline, it takes many forms leading to extreme focusing of one's physical and mental powers and to consciousness raising and liberation ( Moksha ) from samsara or—ultimately and ideally—to a “joining” with Brahman."

References

• The Oxford Companion to World Mythology. Oxford University Press. 2005-01-01. doi:10.1093/acref/9780195156690.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-515669-0.

This is the most important view on the subject of yoga and should be given its due weight in the lead section.

“In Indian traditions, yoga is a practice of spiritual and ascetic discipline aimed at controlling the mind and body, ultimately seeking spiritual purification and self-awareness, leading to samadhi (absorption) or the union of the soul with the absolute or the Divine.”

This version that better reflects Wikipedia's policies. Stormbird (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD summarizes the article. We have a section on Yoga#Definitions in classical texts; the 'classical' definition given in the lead is based on this section. Before you add a 'general' definition to the lead, you should first try to gain consensus for a 'general' definition in the body of the article. Such a section should certainly also mention that scholars have widely diversely views on such a 'general' definition, given the wide range of traditions. Regarding the sources you provided:

• MacShane (1964): Buddhists, but also Saivists, will certainly disagree that 'union with Brahman' is the goal of yoga. See, for example, Karen O'Brien-Kop, Rethinking 'Classical Yoga' and Buddhism: Meditation, Metaphors and Materiality, p.1;
• Oxford World Encyclopedia: yoga is not limited to Hinduism;
• World Mythology, Oxford Universty Press (2005), union with Brahman: see MacShane.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

As both Feuerstein and Olsson explain, stilling the mind and recognition of the witness-consciousness, Patanjali's definition, is the classical definition of yoga. Unification with the highest Self (paramatman), Brahman, or God, is the other classical definition, based on the Bhagavad Gita and Vedanta. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yoke

Based on above discussion, there is at least no consensus to include additional translation "yoke" in the opening first sentence, where "union" is a more widely accepted translation, and as per MOS:LEADCLUTTER, we need to avoid multiple translations in first sentence. RogerYg (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@RogerYg:

• Regarding Based on above discussion - how do you read the 'discussion above'? You skipped "The term yoga is derived from the Sanskrit for “joining” or “yoking”", from The Oxford Companion to World Mythology? A few cherrypicked sources which one-sidedly define the goal of yoga as 'union with the Divine', ignoring the most basic definition of yoga, namely that of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras as explained by Feuerstein, among others, is a very poor argument to remove diff the basic translation of yoga as 'yoke' from the lead.
• Regarding consensus, "yoke" has been there for years; you have absolutely no consensus to remove this.
• Regarding additional translation, it's not an additional translation, it's the main translation; "union" isn't even mentioned in the etymology section.
• Regarding MOS:LEADCLUTTER, it says

Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. Avoid cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthetical containing items like alternative spellings and pronunciations: these can make the sentence difficult to read. This information should be placed elsewhere.

Giving the most essential translation of yoga is not "describing everything notable about the subject"; it's the basis. Selectively removing one of two or three possible translations is even worse.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Joshua Jonathan here. The link between yoga and yoking is central to the subject; scholars such as Mallinson discuss in detail what exactly is being "yoked" when yoga is practised. The article cannot exist without a clear statement of the etymology and the relationship to yoking. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Agee with Joshua. In yoga, the term yoke refers to the concept of union or connection. The word "yoga" itself comes from the Sanskrit root "yuj", which means "to yoke" or "to join." It signifies the practice of bringing together various elements—mind, body, spirit, and consciousness—into a harmonious and unified whole. The metaphor of a yoke, which traditionally connects oxen to a plow, is also used to describe how yoga connects the individual self (Jivatman) with the universal self (Paramatman) or the divine. DangalOh (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

"Connect" is indeed much better than union; "union" implies some sort of symbiosis. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Kaivalya

On the previous issue on "Kaivalya", its mentioned in many Jainism books that Mahavir achieved Kaivalya. It seems Wikipedia page Kaivalya is incomplete, and missing many aspects from Jainism. See Kevala jnana also known as Kaivalya, means omniscience in Jainism and is roughly translated as complete understanding or supreme wisdom.

References

RogerYg (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a basic term in samkhya, and thus also yoga philosophy. See, for example, Jane Wiesner (2015), Freedom Beyond Conditioning: East-West, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, p.60 (White, Yoga in Practice, p.79; idem, p.8: "also employed in Jain soterology."). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Unintelligible for the average reader

Lead is full of jargon junk without covering the basics that you'd find in any definition. medical opening. A reader should not have to refer to definitions multiple times in the first paragraph just to get an understanding of what this is Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Lead section. Current setup leads our readers to find basic information in other websites. Asking for a GA review of the lead with/by people that aren't familiar with the topic might help the situation.Moxy🍁 19:01, 24 September 2024 (the jUTC)

The Medical News Today article is a non-specialist article, which seems to refer to Yoga as exercise, not to yoga as a spiritual discipline. But you seem to have noticed that yourself diff. Your comment "Spiritual crap is overwhelming" is not exactly a token of interest in the subject of this article... Regarding Lead is full of jargon junk without covering the basics that you'd find in any definition, see Feuerstein and White, among others: the YS-definitiona and the 'union-definition' are the basic-definitions. But if that's not what you're interested in, and you search for pop-yoga as a health-benefitting exercise, yes, any yoga studio sales-talk, or the MNT article, may do. But if you want to know more than this, the Wiki-article serves as a good entry. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead is a mass mess..... anyone's first impression is that this is some sort of worship article.... I'm left wondering what deity I am supposed to worship.Moxy🍁 19:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Depends on the faith you're following; almost any substitute will do, I guess. But if you don't like it, yoy can also go to the pub, have a beer, and play darts. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead should stand on its own without having to referred to multiple definitions and sections within the article for comprehension. This is an example of what not to do MOS:INTRO. The question is are we pushing a philosophy or an understanding of the topic?Moxy🍁 19:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's quote our guideline "Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where possible, avoid difficult-to-understand terminology,.....Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked, and briefly defined." Moxy🍁 19:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

What we are looking for something more along the lines of Yoga is a holistic practice that originated in ancient India and has been around for thousands of years. It is a practice that combines physical movements, controlled breathing, meditation, and mindfulness to promote overall well-being and inner peace. The word "yoga" itself means to yoke or unite, signifying the union of the mind, body, and spirit. Moxy🍁 20:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

If you read the article and certain related articles, you will understand that there are all sorts of definitions for yoga and meditation, including non-divine or non-worship practices, as seen in Buddhist philosophy. Indeed, there are various subcategories of yoga. However, this article focuses on the original concept of 'yoga,' which was primarily concerned with spiritual well-being, with physical and mental wellness being consequences of that. The context of its development, along with the practices and cultural goals of the society in which it emerged, cannot be neglected. Additionally, mental wellness is subjective; some might feel mentally fit sitting in the same position for hours, trying to connect with the divine, while others might engage in various physical motions that lead to fitness, which in turn can foster mental well-being. However, I suspect this exploration might be too philosophical for you, as you seem overly focused on how yoga has been marketed to you. Yes, I agree that even if you are brain dead, certain yoga positions can provide physical fitness, which will ultimately contribute to your mental happiness. But its not the actual version. DangalOh (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

More inflammatory comments wonderful. I can see accessibility and understanding for the average person isn't of concern here.... wish you all the best of luck with the spiritual guided article. yoke Moxy🍁 20:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I didn’t mean to be sarcastic towards you. "Brain dead" was not meant personally for you; it was intended in a general sense. I understand your concern about the "average reader," but we need to stay true to the subject. Perhaps the language can be improved. Joshua might have a better idea of what to do here. DangalOh (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Multiple replies and not one to address the concerns raised not even an example of what can be done except for my reply..... Just explaining how dumb the readers are. Clearly this lead needs working on as per the MOS linked above and the ongoing talk about terminologies used. Added and remove from my watch list in one-day..... no more comments from me. Moxy🍁 20:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe if you had initially engaged in more good faith and refrained from using terms like 'jargon junk' and 'spiritual shit,' the editors here would have taken you more seriously. DangalOh (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

What we need is academics at the article. Moxy🍁 20:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Relevant and specialized sources are already here. What you are actually talking about is this: Yoga as exercise, which the Medical News Today article (supposedly academia) is discussing. The changes you want here, especially in the lead, are not in line with the original meaning(s) of yoga. Don’t think readers are that dumb; they can understand what this article is about and what Yoga as exercise is about. The original connotations will always be spiritual (divine involved or not), whether any reader (or editor) likes it or not. DangalOh (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This may be true but the lead is so abstract that it's undefiable. Moxy🍁 19:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh ho ho ho… look who decided to read the page on their watchlist! Ahhh, it was I who stopped you when you were going away, wasn’t it? Lol. I love drama. Well, I’m glad you decided to stay :). So yes, if we can agree that the context of this article is different from the typical understanding of yoga in the West—for which we already have a separate article—then we can move ahead. The scope of this article is much wider, and that might be one reason you find the lead complex. Since I am more involved in the talk page side rather than the editing part of this article, I can only suggest that you present your new improvements in a way that stays true to the original context without removing relevant and important information from the lead. Some information may be pushed further down, or I don’t know, maybe it may be redundant.

You might feel like vomiting at the thought of religion or spirituality, but do remember that this is an important part of this article, definitely not for the other one. If someone adds any spiritual or religious content there, I’ll be the first one on your side. If your changes are accepted by others, I won’t stand in your way—that’s a promise. However, for me, anyone trying to work on the lead should at least have enough knowledge of what they are talking about and at least some empathy for the subject, so proper sourcing would be a good start.

Thanks and best of luck! I don’t want to come across as the gatekeeper of the page. There was already a war commencing for a different reason when I arrived here. You might need to engage with those editors and work in harmony. My comments for you and your suggested improvements for the lead end here. Best regards, DangalOh (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

In line with what I proposed, create a Scholarly definitions-section and summarize that in the lead, I have shortened the definition in the lead to "aimed at controlling body and mind and attaining a soteriological goal as specified by a specific tradition." Maybe frustrating that no exact goal is given, and maybe "soteriological" is a complex word for some, but the authors in the Scholarly definitions-section are quite clear: the goals are varied, and depend on the tradition; 'union with the Divine' is just one goal.
And, personally speaking, a meaningless goal when you don't believe in a God. But if you take this as a transcripted description of a naturalistic event, then it's quite clear what it means: yoga (meditation) calms the mind, and looses the attachment to fleeting phenomena ('dukkha'; this may seem odd, but 'dukkha' does not refer to suffering in general, but to this quality of fleeting phenomena: they are dukkha, and the mind should avoid contact with them. See Bhagavad Gita as quoted in the article: "Know that which is called yoga to be separation from contact with suffering"). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections. Yes, Belief in the divine is not a prerequisite. Both divine and divineless spirituality can indeed be summarized in this one line: 'Know that which is called yoga to be separation from contact with suffering.' This is also in line with the Buddhist concept of dukkha and indicates a state of mental bliss, which can be interpreted by some as divineless spiritual bliss or, by others, as divine-like spiritual bliss. This connection may relate more to their ishta, be it Krishna or Buddha. DangalOh (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Here, 'suffering' can be interpreted as the quality of fleeting phenomena. One good interpretation is to go thoughtless to experience bliss. Some may see it as unity with the divine. So many possibilities. Phew! DangalOh (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Pedantic comment: personally, I would avoid "bliss"; it reminds of Bliss point (food). For westerners, it would immediately activate an intense longing, an everlasting heroin-shot without the negative health-consewuences. It translates "sukkha," doesn't it? That is, sustained 'well-being', in contrast to transient pleasure. The well-being of a healthy diet, regular exercise, good sleep and realistic expectations, which all take effort, versus sugar-kicks and coffee-highs, which is instantaneous . Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Haha! Yes, bliss might be interpreted as sukha, but not the ordinary sukha associated with a sugar rush. Let’s delve a bit deeper. According to mainstream Dharmic philosophy, there is no true sukha in this world; rather, everything is dukha. The constant change we experience is dukha, and existence itself is essentially suffering. Therefore, actual sukha would mean being free from this dukha—liberated from samsara.

In traditional beliefs, maya plays a significant role. Those who indulge in maya will experience a temporary afterlife and rebirth according to their karma. In contrast, those who transcend maya—often by becoming ascetics (though there are other paths)—will attain moksha. However, truly escaping maya is not an easy task.

Real sukha is achieved through the merging of atman into paramatman or by reaching a state where you are free from your dukha, which is synonymous with attaining Buddhahood. This represents the ultimate culmination of the Four Noble Truths as well. But let’s not get too philosophical on the talk page, or the philosophy control police might come after us! Lol! It’s been a good conversation, and I understand your frustration regarding how Western audiences approach these topics. :D DangalOh (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

One thing I really wanted to add is that, in the case of deity involvement (the aatma-parmatma concept), rather than seeing it as symbiosis, one can view it as a drop of water merging back into the ocean. Regards. DangalOh (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

'Outside Brahmanical traditions'

Moved from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#More nuance?

 – Appropriate talkpage, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Rig Veda uses the term Antigriha (अन्तिगृह) in hymn 10.95.4, as still a part of the extended family, where older people lived in ancient India, with an outwardly role. I guess it would not be entirely accurate to term the rishis, munis, and similar figures from the Rigvedic period as completely non-Vedic. Instead, describing them as 'outside or on the fringes of Brahmanical traditions' would be more appropriate. Many of them might very well have been former Vedic practitioners. Do let me know what you think. DangalOh (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think there was any group of non-Vedic Indo-Aryans waiting for the arrival of Vedic Indo-Aryans. There is a high probability that the "non-Vedic Indo-Aryans" were, or their forefathers were, former Vedic people. I believe we are overestimating the number of ascetics; no society can be built purely by wanderers and ascetics. One thing is clear: during Rigvedic times, those who left their homes for new adventures were fringe elements. I agree there’s no need to directly relate ascetic or sannyasi movements to the roots of any Brahmanical tradition; they might very well represent completely new ideas. The term itself isn’t entirely reflective. Whatever you deem fit, I will not argue. I just wanted to add a little nuance. Thank you. DangalOh (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

--- End of copied part ---

This edit? It changed

The earliest yoga-practices may have developed in the Jain tradition at ca. 900 BCE.Yoga-like practices were first mentioned in the ancient Hindu text known as Rigveda.

into

The earliest yoga-practices may have developed in the Jain tradition at ca. 900 BCE.Yoga-like practices, from non-Vedic people, were first mentioned in the youngest book of the Rigveda, composed ca. 1000 BCE

References

kwerneryrv289 is wener. The article says

According to Flood, "The Samhitas [the mantras of the Vedas] contain some references ... to ascetics, namely the Munis or Keśins and the Vratyas." Werner wrote in 1977 that the Rigveda does not describe yoga, and there is little evidence of practices. The earliest description of "an outsider who does not belong to the Brahminic establishment" is found in the Keśin hymn 10.136, the Rigveda's youngest book, which was codified around 1000 BCE. Werner wrote that there were

... individuals who were active outside the trend of Vedic mythological creativity and the Brahminic religious orthodoxy and therefore little evidence of their existence, practices and achievements has survived. And such evidence as is available in the Vedas themselves is scanty and indirect. Nevertheless the indirect evidence is strong enough not to allow any doubt about the existence of spiritually highly advanced wanderers.

"outside or on the fringes of Brahmanical traditions" is indeed better. regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Avoiding Very difficult English words in Lead

As per WP:LEAD and WP:READABILITY, we must avoid using very difficult English words in the lead. An example is "Soteriological" goals which most Wikipedia readers may not understand. Wiki readers are not PhD's. Therefore, I humbly request very respected senior editor Joshua Jonathan to please look for simpler alternatives in such cases. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think for "Soteriological goals", a reasonable and more understandable alternative can be "salvaltion goals". We are not writing academic journal article, we are writing a Wiki article for average reader. We use the difficult and scholarly more accurate words such as "Soteriological goals" in the BODY. RogerYg (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)