Talk:Yoga/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

External Links

I have a rvd the external link section. I don't know how the 2 left by FVV made the cut when all the others were not good enough. Most of these links provide a good start of finding backup material to the Yoga article. If this page consisted of nothing but these external links, it would indeed be no more than a web directory. Because of the large amount of content preceeding this section however, the external links are, as intended and generally employed by Wikipedia, a helpful adjunct to the reader.--Nemonoman 04:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The two I left were appropriate per Wikipedia:External links; the others were not. --fvw* 04:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I have reread the Wikipedia:External links criteria and I don't recognize specifically which criteria you believe the deleted links violated. Please explain, or I will continue to revert your changes. You apparently do a fair amount of editing and from the comments on your talk page from other users, appear to do so without regard to the nature of what your editing. This page has a lot of personal effort, love, and compromise associated with it, and those involved would appreciate a scalpel not a sledgehammer as you edit. Thank you. --Nemonoman 07:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nemonoman that the yoga article is a work of compromise, and that it's best to use "a scalpel not a sledgehammer."

Wikipedia guidelines sometimes need to be interpreted broadly to get a good result. User fvw didn't say what the problem was, but maybe s/he perceived some links to be "advertising" various types of yoga. I've never edited the links section, and maybe not all links are equally good. If some links are too commercial, let's discuss removing them in talk before proceeding.

Part of the compromise that goes into an article like this one involves making people feel included. There are many different yoga schools and teachers. The links section may always be a bit messy, because (for better or for worse) yoga is so many different things to different people. Not every type of yoga will be well-represented in the main article; but the Yogis section and the External Links help to bridge the gap and reflect the diversity of yoga. --Fencingchamp 00:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

fvw 's talk page is mind-boggling, as is his list of 'contributions'. I can't quite make out his agenda, but he certainly has one. His edits have nothing to do with the Yoga article or with the quality of the external links. I have told him that I will re list any links that he removes unless he gives a specific, supportable reason for the delete of the specific link. His behavior nears on to vandalism. --Nemonoman 01:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's an honest difference of opinion, not vandalism by Fvw or linkcruft by Nemonoman. Fvw seems to be a busy administrator whose way of sending the message "this needs to better" is to freely delete stuff without much discussion. Unfortunately, if there's a Wiki guideline which Nemonoman and I are not interpreting correctly, Fvw is doing little to help us understand it.

Fvw, I know that discussion and consensus-building can be time consuming, but we're not learning anything by just being told to read and reread Wikipedia:External links. If you think we're not getting it, please make a good faith effort to address the specifics being raised in Talk. Suggestions on how we can improve External Links would be more constructive than unexplained mass deletions. Thank you. --Fencingchamp 16:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I am also certain that fvw has the best of intentions. Absent some sort of discussion however, the wholesale deletion has the same effect as the work of a badly intentioned vandal. Or an out-of-control wikibot. Unless there is discussion (beyond boiler plate read the external links guidelines -- which I have done and which I abide by) I will treat this sort of thoughtless deletion as vandalism no matter who does it: administrator, wikibot, named editor, or anonymous IP address.--Nemonoman 17:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I have posted the following on fvw's talk page:

To fvw: On your last edit to Yoga you made the following comments:

rm linkcruft again. Adding personal attacks isn't discussion. Please read Wikipedia:External links

1. Linkcruft. I don't know this word and can't find a definition. 2. Adding personal attacks...I sincerely wish to avoid personal attacks and I don't know that I have made any. If you have taken offense, I offer true apologies. Let me know what I can do to make amends. I am serious about this. 3. Please read Wikipedia:External links -- as previously stated I have done so. I had not read WP:NOT until your suggestions. In all instances, the article's external links fit guidelines.

What I had not done until last night was review the Wiki methodology for resolving disputes. The first step is what I am taking now: asking you formally to reach some agreement or compromise about this matter with the authors of the Yoga page. I'm prepared, of course, to follow every step to a satisfactory conclusion for us both. --Nemonoman 17:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest a compromize of trimming the external links to a few links to sites recognized as being important and replacing the rest with a link to the Dmoz category on Yoga. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the links section -- like every other section of the article -- could use some cleanup. This is why -- it seems to me -- the cleanup flag was developed. What I object to -- strongly -- is wholescale deletion. If cleanup is what is desired, let fvw cleanup what needs cleaning, or request that others more involved do so -- in the helpful way that you have done so, Graemel.

On October 15 at 01.17, fvw edited 49 pages in one minute. This achievement suggests that fvw is editing based on some method other than reading, reviewing, critiquing, changing and saving in manner of the typical Wiki contributor. --Nemonoman 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for link trimming

I will start off by stating that I am not an expert on yoga. I viewed each site in the existing external links section as an outsider to see if I felt that they were generally useful to somebody who was interested in learning more on the subject. I removed sites that were pure Flash as linking to sites that are not accessible is discouraged. I removed links to blogs. I removed some links where there was a link to a front page and a second link deeper in the site, though I left the front page link it I thought it useful.

I would also propose adding <!--Please do not add more external links without first discussing them on the talk page--> as a comment to the external links section.

This is my first draft at a useful external links section and comments/changes are welcome.

• Dmoz category on Yoga - List of yoga links at Dmoz.org
• spam.artofliving.org H.H. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
• Aspects of Yoga — articles on meditation, japa, and other facets of Inner Life
• More information about yoga and practising methods
• The Philosophy of Yoga - An Aesthetic Appraisal
• YogaPoses.net —Beginners site for uniting mind, body and spirit with yoga.

--GraemeL ^(talk) 18:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Nemonoman, I agree that Fvw is being very tough, but I think compromise may be the best course. There may be some External Links which don't have that much explanatory content, and are more like short promotional brochures.

Wikipedia:External links is a guide to best practices, and maybe we could be tougher in applying it. That being said, I know one reason I'm not keen to remove any links is because someone might take it personally. Each link may be "important" to the person who put it there. If we do try and pare down the links, I think an important consideration is whether the site linked to is rich in high quality information about whatever type of yoga it discusses, and whether that information supplements what's already available on Wikipedia. I join you in thanking GraemeL for suggestions. No opinion yet on Graemel's first draft. --Fencingchamp 19:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Please also see WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a repository of external links, and some links ("Find a yoga class in America") are clearly inappropriate given our international focus, so I've removed them. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I have read WP:NOT and while there may be some disagreement about some of these links, they are not all wrong or inappropriate. While I have rv'd the others, I have removed yoga classes in america link based on your objection. Please continue to discuss which links you find objectionable so that others may follow your helpful reasoning. --Nemonoman 06:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Present-Day India

Sorry, user 24.43.172.130. You have edited the lead to say:

Yoga is a family of spiritual practices that originated in present-day India...

This could create a number of misunderstandings among readers: that yoga originated in our present day, or that its history did not include development in parts of Bengal which are now Bangladesh...

For these reasons I have reverted to the previous language:

Yoga is a family of spiritual practices that developed on the Indian subcontinent...

Thank you for your interest in the yoga article. --Fencingchamp 21:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Go search in encyclopedias and many other sources which claim it is from India. Don't add your personal bias her.

The very fact that Yoga is mostly practiced in India proves the point. Most of the people living in Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan are not even familiar with the term Yoga. However, the exact origin of yoga is disputed. This site doesnt say much about its exact origin but links Yoga with Shamanism which began in mehgrah in Afghanistan. What I could conclude from this site was that the modern-day yoga is a result of series of development and changes to yogic methods happening throughout India over the ages. This site refers to a place Patanjali in India as the birthplace of Yoga. On the whole, Yoga is regarded as an Indian tradition and has plently of followers in India, so I'd say that even though its hard for any of us to prove its exact origin, think that sayin Yoga originated in India is accurate enough and also gives due recognition to its founders and developers. --Deepak|वार्ता 03:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Please forgive me, there seems to be some misunderstanding. I personally regard yoga as something inherently Indian. I did not author the phrase "Indian subcontinent" which has been part of the yoga article since March 2005. I did champion the phrase because it seems broad and inclusive, and unlikely to lead to conflict. I always thought the phrase denoted historical India. It never occurred to me that someone would interpret it as not being Indian enough. I stand corrected. :-) --Fencingchamp 06:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Deepak's "present-day India" better indicates the location of yoga origins, but also agree that Fencingchamp's comment the phrase was ambiguous and confusing as written. I'll be thinking on a nicer phrasing...maybe others will too??--Nemonoman 06:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Deepak also. Nemonoman, go search in encyclopedias and other sources, because they all say that yoga's origins are from India. I even learned this in one of my health science classes. Anakinskywalker 09:39, 05 November 2005 (UTC)

Graphic Layout

Thank you Deepak Gupta for very kindly adding the long vertical "Part of the series on Hinduism" template. This template looks very nice, but placing it at the beginning of this article seems to create an unfortunate "bookend" effect with the table of contents, leaving a large square hole in the middle. Also, the hatha yoga picture isn't so appropriate to the Goals of yoga section. I hope nobody minds, but in order to improve the graphic layout and visual sense, I've restored the hatha yoga pic to the top of the article, and put Deepak's long vertical template in the Common Themes section, which is the first complete section long enough to accommodate it. I've also moved the Yogini pic down to Origins. Feedback welcome. --Fencingchamp 22:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, its not about whether the template is good looking or long or vertical. The template was recently created and is being added to all Hinduism-related articles or rather all those articles whose link appear on the template making it easier for a reader to have a quick look at all other major Hinduism topics. Hmm.. I have no objections to yr edit though. Cheers --Deepak|वार्ता 23:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Types of Yoga - Guidelines?

There are many types/methods of Yoga. They include modern/old, radical/conservative and fringe/mainstream. There are also many that may use the word yoga for their ideas, to promote them. Can we use some guidelines to restrict the types mentioned here? I propose that anything that deserves mention have passed the test of time. It should be for ex. be atleast a hundred years old, not have a living founder - unless it has undeniable popularity etc. As an example - Sahaja Yoga (which I did not like the recent addition of, but further object to after reading up on it). It may be called yoga by it's founder but I'd like to remove from current page. Please discuss objections or I will remove shortly.--Pranathi 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If you don't, I will. It doesn't belong as such a big entry in Yoga.--Nemonoman 06:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. There are many types of Yoga which take on similar ideas to traditional forms of Yoga.

We could, however, filter them by the traditional meaning of Yoga, which has spiritual connotations - excluding such forms wich only talk of physical benefits.

Shane 08:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There were two Sahaja Yoga articles - I have merged them and removed the heading & paragraph from the body of the article. Ref is made to Sahaja Yoga in the list of yoga schools and in the see also. If all schools got there own paragraph the article would loose its balance/focus. Paul foord 13:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There appears to be POV issues here - who is to say which type of yoga belongs on this page? Shane

Sahaja Yoga of Nirmala Devi in particular - it is called Yoga by it's founder; (can anyone declare something a path to God and name it Yoga? does that qualify it to be in this page?) Maybe we can use the # of followers - but there are no stats on who follows what Yoga. Even so, weightage of Sahaja Yoga is pretty small.

Types of Yoga in general - maybe we can establish guidelines to prevent this page from mentioning the word Yoga from potentially being used to promote personal agendas or cults. I propose that anything that deserves mention have passed the test of time and popularity. That is, any Joe can't come along and declare that he invented a new kind of Yoga. Since these are spiritual matters and are not scientifically verifiable, we need some type of rules around the inclusion. Maybe something on the lines of include those with 10 million practitioners or over 100 years old? Anything else may have mention in See Also section but not in main page? Shall we vote on this and maybe add the guidlines to the edit version of the page? --Pranathi 02:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Pranathi, I sympathize with what you're saying. I think editors can make good decisions without the need for a rule based on age or number of followers (which might give the impression of penalizing small, innovative groups). It seems to me what we should try to catch are:

1. Things which are clearly not yoga

2. Things which are simply rebrandings of existing types of yoga

3. Things which are minor variations on existing types of yoga

4. Things which are yoga schools rather than distinct types of yoga

Where we catch these things, we can delete them, move them, or link to them as appropriate. It's important to remember that people might add these things innocently. We should try to avoid language which stigmatizes others' sincerely held beliefs and practices (even if we disagree with them). Consider this humorous definition of a "cult": It's the temple down the street from yours, the one your neighbor goes to. Who knows? Maybe when Patanjali first showed up, some people thought he was just "any Joe." :-)

Seriously though, I think we can get the same good result you're looking for by making good editing decisions on a case by case basis. Sahaja Yoga might be seen as a variation on Kundalini Yoga or as a yoga school. It's linked to under "See also" and is part of the "Topics in Yoga" template. I agree it doesn't need its own section in Yoga.

Incidentally, I believe that after Paul foord merged the two Sahaja Yoga articles, user Kill Bossy (who is critical of Sahaja Yoga) removed much of the information about beliefs and practices. Paul foord or Shane might want to revert to Paul's last merged version. This would not solve all problems with the Sahaja Yoga article, but would be more fair. (Kill Bossy may also be an inappropriate user name.) --Fencingchamp 14:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Fenchingchamp, Given our differences of opinion on degree of inclusiveness in the page, I am glad we are able to sort things out amicably. I am presenting my own POV when I call it a cult, and the person who included it obviously has high respect for Sahaja Yoga. So it could be innovative -Patanjali types (btw, I think Patanjali did not discover Raja Yoga but only expounded on existing elements)- or a means to self-promotion. The point is there are many grey areas in between. If someone thinks of the temple down the street as a cult then it is his POV and he can present arguments as long as they are logical in the temple page. Similarly, sahaja yoga has a page of it's own and both opinions can be voiced there. If things were as simple as Where we catch these things, we can delete them, move them, or link to them as appropriate., I would not have any objections - but they usually are not. The gray areas can potentially be points of contention and lead to never ending debate between the 2 sides.. that's what I am trying to prevent.

Actually, I just thought of something. How about a section on new types of Yoga. In it, we can mention that- Apart from the traditional Yoga, many people in their quest for spiritual truth bla bla bla.. beleive that they may have discovered or (re)discovered a kind of Yoga. Of them , a few have stood the test of time (such as Hatha Yoga). In the modern world, there are many new methods that claim kinship with Yoga. Some even have a large following, while some are criticized for using the Yoga tag as a means for self-promotion. This section can only include the internal links to new yoga..

On the otherhand, the more I think about it, I am liking your suggestions as well. The four points you listed could be our guidelines. And maybe we won't have points of contention.. What do you think.. but how about like Bikram Yoga or Power yoga - new Hatha yoga variations - would they be excluded from the hatha yoga page? --Pranathi 19:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Edited article to reincorporate beliefs, noted as beliefs. Paul foord 19:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I'm glad you were able to find a compromise over at the Sahaja Yoga article.

Pranathi, I don't think of us as having major disagreements, but I may be living in a fool's paradise. ;-) I admit I'm generally not keen to pass judgement on other people's forms of yoga, unless I've studied them really well. In the West, anything that's not Christian, Jewish, or Secular Rationalist may get labeled a cult. I don't find such labeling helpful. If you're concerned about the smear-hinduism trend, you might want to consider how the "c" word plays into that.

My "list of four things we should try to catch" is based mainly on classification rather than any negative value judgement. How would I deal with "Power Yoga" in the Hatha Yoga article? I suppose I would accept it, perhaps with a proviso like: "The original purpose of Hatha Yoga asanas was to calm the body for meditation. Where yoga is done vigorously to create a cardiovascular workout, some critics claim it is no longer yoga." (That's just off the top of my head.)

Anyway, these things are always messy. I love Hinduism, but it does contain a few "tangled hierarchies." I've never found an article that could clearly and logically explain the relationship between the goddesses Devi, Durga, Parvati, Kali, and Tara.

I think we should just stay flexible. It's actually pretty rare for somebody to invent a truly new form of yoga, but if it happens I'd like to think it wouldn't automatically get tossed out by a rule.

If there's an initial consensus among editors that something isn't yoga, or is a rebranding, or minor variation, or yoga school, that should cover most situations. If there's a grey area, let the person making the case for inclusion persuade the other editors. If they make a good case, then accept it.

In a subtle way, we've already edited the Yoga article so that it leans toward well-established yogas. But if we try to hard-wire this, with a special "hold your nose" section for "new" yogas, that might be too much. The people who "believe that they may have discovered or (re)discovered a kind of Yoga" will write their own Wikipedia article about it anyway. If it doesn't involve swinging dead cats out of a Volkswagon, we can just link to it without getting into a tussle. --Fencingchamp 14:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I must object to this idea of classifying the different forms of Yoga into subcategories of other Yogas - if there is a difference in practice/beliefs, then they belong in seperate categories of their own - in the same way Catholicism and Protestantism aren't features as pertaining to any category.

Sahaja Yoga, for example, isn't just some subset of Kundalini, although certain beliefs are shared.

I agree that there may be contraversy in regard to such a sensitive subject - but it would be inexact to classify Yoga forms among themselves, which would result in even more chaotic argument...

Shane 05:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yoga as exercise

I think it is important to recognize that there exists a thing called yoga which is a modern practice that has little to do with Hinduism. Perhpas we need to make this page a disambiguation page? Trollderella 00:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You are talking of Hatha Yoga which is one method of Yoga. It has a page of it's own and a disambiguation was provided at the top of this page (see- [1]) - maybe we should put it back? It was removed because the disambig is in the intro. Or we could say somthing like "This article is about Yoga as a spiritual practice, for Hatha Yoga.. " But I think the editors in this page did a good job of minimizing the Hindu element and focussing on the universal spiritual features of Yoga. It may be a modern practice in the west, but in order to keep the page in line with it's global meaning (it is also practised by hundreds of millions around the world in its other forms), it should stay as is. Keep in mind also that Hatha Yogis are a minority in the world of Yoga practitioners. I think this page serves well to explain Yoga and provide links to the different ways it is practised (sort of like a long disambiguation page). (Even in the west, Hatha Yoga is practised with a touch of spirituality (see any yoga journal))

In your recent edits, you changed a common definition of Yoga to one that includes Yoga as just an exercise. For example, to It is common to speak of each form of yoga as a "path" to enlightenment, you added or simply as an excercise regime. Many may do Yoga for exercise but that is not the intent of the concept. Maybe instead of changing phrases to suit Hatha Yoga as an exrecise only, we can add a phrase somewhere on the lines of, as Fencingchamps suggests above, Yoga is increasingly divorced from it's original purpose in the west and seen as purely an exercise regime. While some critics claim it is no longer Yoga, this practice is the most popular form of Yoga in the west. --Pranathi 04:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand your desire to promote a particular meaning or understanding of yoga, and I think that that is admirable, but this is not the place. This article should certainly deal with spiritual elements, hinduism etc, but to ignore the most common meaning for english speakers is confusing to say the least. Hatha yoga is not the same thing as western excercise yoga. I find it hard to take your removal of the image of an excercise class seriously, since there is a large blank space on the right of the toc. Hatha Yoga has the image in the Indian temple already, and yet you want to exclude the image of the western practice of yoga from this page. My edits reflect my desire to see this page include all of the common definitions of yoga. Trollderella 15:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It is particularly disapointing to note that the edit you removed noting that it was also an excercise regime was under the heading 'diversity of yoga'. Trollderella 15:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Your comments may be valid if this was a US encyclopedia. But it is global (BTW there are many more english speaking people in say India than in the US). If Yoga as exercise is understood to be complete Yoga by a minority in the Yoga world, then that's wrong. In that sense, this article is doing a good job of removing the misconception. You say that this article promotes a particular meaning/understanding of Yoga - in fact it is the other way around - Yoga as an exercise is a particular meaning and the spiritual meaning is the more common one.

Also, How is Hatha Yoga not western exrecise yoga? I am confused. My understanding is that exercise yoga is a portion of Hatha yoga that has been adapted for solely exercise in the west. The reason the image was removed was because there are 2 images of hatha yoga introducing 'Yoga', which has many more methods. --Pranathi 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I've no desire to argue with you about your religious beliefs, nor about the origin of the practice. The fact is that, as well as your beliefs, there are some others. I am simply wanting the article to reflect that. Removing any reference to yoga as a form of excercise from a section entitled 'deiversity of yoga' is confusing and erroneous. I realise that you are confused, but Hatha Yoga, while it is certainly practiced in the west, is also not only western exercise yoga. It has a much broader meaning. Trollderella 20:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the disambiguation note at the top is necessary. a simple link (see: yoga as exercise) in the intro is sufficient. — goethean ॐ 20:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is helpful if no coverage is going to be given in this article to make it an explicit disambiguation. Trollderella 20:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to work out a compromise based on input from Pranathi and Trollderella. I've created Yoga as exercise and added links to it in the main Yoga article. I agree with Goethean that the disambiguation note at the top is not strictly necessary, but if it helps address Trollderella's concerns, I can live with it.

My other minor edits:

1. Added "Some Westerners pursue yoga as exercise divorced from spiritual practice" to the Diversity of yoga section.

2. Restored Trollderella's change from "popular myth" to "popular view."

3. Added Yoga as exercise to the bottom of "See also:"

What we have now is a Yoga article which mainly discusses yoga as a family of spiritual practices, a Hatha Yoga article which discusses a particular branch of Hindu Yoga that is still a spiritual path (even though it places a lot of emphasis on asanas), and a Yoga as exercise article which presents yoga as physical fitness exercises completely divorced from Hinduism or spiritual practice. The main Yoga article links to both Hatha Yoga and Yoga as exercise. Over time, one would expect Hatha Yoga and Yoga as exercise to develop along different lines.

I hope this is a compromise people can live with. In response, Trollderella wrote on my talk page that this "might be the best way to do it." Thanks to all contributors. --Fencingchamp 20:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you FC, I think what you've done is sane and reasonable! Trollderella 20:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Then it represents the exception rather than the rule. :-) Fencingchamp 21:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I am glad the issue is resolved. just a note: I am realizing as I dig deeper into Yoga in america, I find it is more in touch with it's spiritual roots and tied to Hatha Yoga than I thought. see just as a sample, yoga.com or yogajournal.com. As I read more about Yoga in the US, I am understanding that it is mostly taught in some spiritual context (not necessarily Hindu). Also I am reading in several sites that people that start it for exercise and think of the spiritual aspects as 'mumbo-jumbo' tend to appreciate the spiritual aspects after a year or 2 of practice. Having been to several Hatha yoga classes in the US & India, I think that it's not completely divorced from spiritual aspects and purely physical. --Pranathi 00:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Pranathi, this could also be seen as a means to attain therapeutic benefits: the repetitive utterance of Aum, as seen in some forms of "physical yoga" for example may appear have spiritual connotations, however still have no actual spiritual roots, as the traditional meaning of the word isn't observed, and/or understood. This is yoga taken out of context. So there are a few strands between the two "forms", but there is a larger rift...

Shane 01:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right, and would like to explore how to get the best arangement of the articles in a non-confrontational way. Any ideas? Trollderella 01:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Pranathi, America is a land of individuals. It's a place where (compared to India) the family has broken down. People often do not like to listen to any teachings, but they may begin some type of Hatha Yoga because they find it enjoyable. Then, as they discover that some foods are better not to eat, some things are better not to be taken into one's system, they develop a hunger for different things, pure things. They may become more receptive to the higher teachings of yoga. So you are right, there is some value. (Shane, Aum has a spiritual vibration. Even if people chant Aum with no mental understanding, if they chant sincerely they will get a good result. Aum itself will teach them its meaning.) --Fencingchamp 14:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Fencingchamp, I agree, (personally) with what you say about AUM being a spiritual vibration, however, I still believe that not knowing about the origins of the Sound demonstartes a rift between 'traditional' and 'western' forms of Yoga. I merely used it as an example - like Meditation, for example, in the east, meditation connotes a connection with the divine/with or without mental use, whereas in the west it is a metaphor for 'deep thought' > there are two completely different cultural and social worlds behind the same word.

Shane 07:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

But Shane, every Hindu (lay and even meditating ones) doesn't know the origin of the sound. Many associate it with the sacred but not much else. Meditating could mean being in deep thought but meditation has the same meaning as in the east, especially since the past century. I personally don't see as much dichotomy between the two. Especially in the context of Yoga - I see it much more in line with it's original intent than I would have expected. Basically, I think in reality it's better than (my) theory. --Pranathi 12:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

latest anonymous edits are very messy

Anons 71..and 201.. have really messified the intro. Hoping one of the senior editors here will dive in before I do something foolish like revising it myself.

Consistency in transliteration...?

Are we agreeing on Sri or Shri as an honorific? My experience is that Sri is a more common usage.

Are we agreeing on ashtanga or astanga when referring to the eight fold path? My experience is that, while astanga is correct, ashtanga is the common Western usage.

I always use 'ś', but by all means in the body of the text one should use more common usage. Khirad^talk 11:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

recent edits

I came back to this page after a while and surprised to see it has gone down in quality. Firstly, the intro is messy & repitetive. It is trying to emphasize hatha yoga, which is only a part of yoga and doesn't belong in intro. Maybe we can go back to a cleaner version from mid november and add a separate section for hatha yoga, since it looks like many people are keen on seeing it represented here. --Pranathi 02:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree. It's painful, but I agree that a revert to an older version would easier than trying to rework the current mess.--Nemonoman 04:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Second. However, I disagree that the page is "attempting to emphasize Hatha Yoga". In point fo fact, I spent some time making edits de-emphasizing that aspect of the practice, while trying to maintain the integrity of pointing out that Hatha has become the focus of Western practice, an idea introduced by another writer. For my part, I would see the whole thing deleted, and begun again from scratch. As for the intro being "messy and repetative [sic]", I will, as a published author of some note, make an effort not to take offense to that observation. :-)Mjformica 17:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I aplogize if I have offended you, that was not my intent. I like short intros that leave it up to the sections for further explanation. I feel intro is too long and has info that was already in the subsections.

Also, I don't know the origin of the first sentence but I feel it is incorrect. Yoga is a family of ancient spiritual practices that originated in India and have been absorbed into Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism. It was not absorbed into Hinduism but originated in Hinduism. The origins section mentions the Rig Veda, upanishad , Gita etc - all Hindu texts- in tracing the origins of Yoga. Why the ambiguity in acknowledging it's sources? It's application and usage may not be limited to Hinduism or even religion but it's origins are clear. Am I missing something? Let me know or I will change shortly --Pranathi 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No offense taken, and none taken, I hope. That's why the smile - :-) - a well-intentioned jibe, not an ill-intentioned retort.

As for that first sentence, I am im complete agreement with you. I do not know, nor would I be quick to endorse its origins. Change away. Being new to this venue I (perhaps foolishly) operated under the assumption that the lion's share of the information presented was from a position of knowledge, and proceeded to work with what was there, rather than swooping in with wholesale edits. And the sections, as you noted, sorely need some sheperding and some real work.

Maybe we could collaborate. Jai - Mjformica 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)"

There are a lot of reputable sources that claim that Yoga pre-dates Hinduism. Here are a few:

http://www.americanyogaassociation.org/general.html

http://yogahealth.org/yogaInfo.html

http://www.yogamagazine.co.uk/article.php?sectionid=1&articleid=59

However the passage is revised, I think it should reflect the diversity of opinion on the matter.~Sylvain1972 12/15/05

I don't doubt the validity of your statement. However, the gross generalization made by the manner in which the information in the first sentence is presented should, as you point out, be parsed for both clarity and validity.

I'll take a look at Georg Fuerstein's Encyclopedia of Yoga...I seem to recall he's got a time line in there that addresses all of the traditions mentioned, and their relationship to the codification and dissemination of Yoga as discussed in the article. Mjformica 17:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's how I see it. The first 2 links above are the same material and belabour how Yoga is not part of religion or did not originate from Hinduism. The third link helped me understand why the first two are written the way they are. It is fear of the fact that Christian practitioners are following Hindu practices. I agree with their conclusions that Yoga is a means to an end and believe that the goal and beliefs are what differentiate religions, not the means. Yoga is applicable across all religions in their spiritual journey - whatever the goal of the journey may be. But I don't agree with delinking Hinduism from Yoga's roots just in order to give it acceptability. Hinduism did not evolve as a distinct religion from India. It developed in the subcontinent gradually, incorporating the Vedas and other holy books along the way. It was only distinguished as a religion with the advent of Buddhism and Jainism, that repudiated the authority of the Vedas. In that sense, the first pictures of Yogis found in the Indus valley are Hindu in nature. Even if we do not see in that sense, apart from the few images, not much is known of Yoga until Hindu texts mention them. And all the texts (from the origins section) are Hindu. From my viewpoint it's clear that Yoga's roots are Hindu. I fail to understand the other interpretations - except as a means to gove Yoga acceptability in the non-hindu world. --Pranathi 16:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the earlier suggestion - we should consult Feuerstein. He's a solid authority. Regarding your assertions (Pranathi), I don't necesarily disagree with you. However, given that what we now call "Hinduism" evolved gradually from earlier practices, as you say, I think it's fair to say that "Yoga is a family of ancient spiritual practices that originated in India and have been absorbed into Hinduism." We don't know if yoga predated the Vedas - if so, then one would have to say that there was "Yoga" before there was "Hinduism". That is the basis of the other interpretations, as I see it. ~Sylvain 12/22/05

It's my impression however that "Hinduism" is a western term used to describe a variety of individual spiritual paths native to India. The term evolved in the eighteenth century, more or less, as more westerners became attentive to India's spiritual heritage; I think the main source of the concept of "Hinduism" came from 18th century german cultural philosophers, and spread throughout Europe, and eventually, back to India, which (typically) absorbed it and enlarged on it.

If you think about, only the cultural aspects of worship are similar throughout what we call "Hinduism" -- murtis, puja, prasad, sanskrit chants, etc., etc. The philosophical and spiritual underpinnings of each faith are remarkably different...and were much more distinct before India became additionally influenced by Western ideas that there was some sort of unifying gestalt.

I'm not precisely sure how to apply this insight to Yoga. Yoga appears to me to be yet another spiritual practice which arose in India; one that was lumped in haphazard with a hundred others, and called "Hindu". "Hindu" is about as useful a concept as "race"...much more a useful social convention than any precisely defined characteristic, and in many ways, just as misleading.--Nemonoman 21:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I see it a little differently, Nemonoman. The basic philosophical and spiritual underpinning is to a large extent the same among different faiths (being derived or based on the vedas) and varies mainly on the emphasis that each faith gives to certain ideas. There is a common element and texts that tie Hinduism together and even with it's loosely defined history as a religion - it can be defined as a religion (in the abrahamic sense of the word). Even before western influence, I don't think every Hindu aligned themselves with the different faiths. There was a unifying thread (vedas, upanishads, the epics etc) even back then.

Sylvain, The only proof we have that Yoga originated from prior spiritual practices is the image of the meditating man and image of what 'might' be an inverted pose. The bulk (99%) of it's history comes though from Hindu texts. I will wait for Feuerstein though.--Pranathi 02:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Pranathi, but your further comments in effect prove my point, or at least that's how I read it. Yoga is not by history based on the vedas. Yoga was, in effect, a set of practices that took a totally different path from Vedic rites: practices designed for mystical, personal realization not based on Brahmanic rites. From our current perspective of lumping all this stuff together, we can call both paths "Hindu"; I doubt that the persons of those times who developed and practiced those individual paths would agree that they shared a common "religion".

However you and I both live in these modern times, and lumping is our current practice. Yoga is certainly more "Hindu" in origin than not. I just sort of think that "Hindus" don't really exist, much the same way I no longer believe that "Negroes" exist. Those words are convenient social conventions and powerful metaphors. They just aren't as specific as we suppose.--Nemonoman 03:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

To all: Feurstein, "The Shambhala Guide to Yoga"...and I quote (Chp 1., pg.5): "No one knows exactly when the Yoga tradition began. What is certain is that is was already considered ancient at the time of the Bhagavad-Gita...composed some 2500 years ago. Evidence of Yogic beliefs and practices can be seen in the archaic Rig-Veda, which is the fountainhead of the sacred heritage of Hinduism,. ... [it dates] back to the 3rd millenium BCE ... (NP) ... All subsequent sages and religious thinkers within the fold of Hinduism...based themselves on the Vedic tradition. (NP) We can safely say that the earliest beginnings of the Yoga tradition can be found [with] ... the Vedic people."

Ergo, Veda begets Hinduism; Buddhism and Jainism stand outside the pale of Hinduism; and the Yoga traditional is considered coincident all the way around. All of this is clearly documented in this reference, as well as the Feurstein/Kak/Frawley monograph entitled, "In Search of the Cradle of Civilization". Mjformica 15:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

So I guess it's partly an issue of semantics, as Nemonoman points out. If "Hinduism" starts with the Vedas, then I would say that yoga, which we seem to have established as an antecedent of the Vedas, was absorbed into Hinduism. Even if most of what we know about the earliest Yoga comes from Hindu texts, I think it can still be argued that Yoga is "coincident all the way around," as Mjfromica puts it, rather than derived from Hinduism. ~Sylvain ~12/23

Nemonoman, Hindus did not need to explicitly identify themselves as a Dharma (closest approx in english is religion) until they encountered an irreconcilable split with Buddhism & Jainism (just as Islam and Christianity did with judaism). In spite of this, their indigenuos name for their dharma was always 'Sanatana Dharma' - what we call now Hinduism. Also, Brahmanical rites and Yoga were never divergent exclusive paths (in fact, the other way around) one was an external means and one was more internalized. People did not practice them exclusively but they were intermixed - it was far from a separate religion or tradition.

Sylvian, I am confused. Where is it established that yoga is an antecedent of Vedas? In fact, Feurstein says "We can say.. earliest beginnings of the Yoga tradition ..found ... the Vedic people". --Pranathi 22:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That quote is so fractured it's hard to tell exactly whether Feuerstein puts the start of Yoga post-Vedas or not. I'm afraid I haven't had a chance to look at his books yet myself, but I'm sure he has more to say about it than that. The reason why I say that it seems to be the established convention on Wikipedia is because the article itself (and the "History of Yoga" article) has a heading "Pre-Vedic (ca. 6000 - 3000 BCE [?])" which states "findings are believed by some to show that 'yoga' existed in some form well before the establishment of vedas in the Indian subcontinent." Perhaps this is premature. There doesn't seem to be a lot of readily available info online, but I will try to get to Feuerstein asap, and invite everyone else to do the same. Mjformica, can you flesh out the yoga orgins a little if there is more in there?~Sylvain 12/23/05

The quote is not at all fractured. I left out some non-relevant asides that would not influence the content.

I can scan the section and post it...is that a copyright thing?...

Presenting an attributed quote of under a thousand words in support of an academic argument would pass most "fair use" tests.--Nemonoman 14:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've had a look at Feuerstein. In "The Yoga Tradition", he basically has a whole chapter devoted to the origins of Yoga. According to him, "we find as many proto-yogic notions in the Vedas as we find in the Indus-Sarasvati artifacts." "Most contemporary schlars agree that there are traces of an early yoga in the Indus cities." "In the past, this has always been taken as confirmation for the non-Vedic origin of the Yoga tradition." He asserts a continuity between the shamanic, pre-Vedic civilization of Mehrgarh and the early Hinduism that followed. "Some scholars have suggested that Yoga grew directly out of Shamanism, but this is difficult to prove. While Yoga contains shamanic elements, it absorbed many other teachings as well. According to Michael Harner, the transition from Shamanism to Yoga occured at the time fo teh early city states in the East, when shamans were suppressed by the representatives of official religion." Basically, according to Feuerstein, so little is known about the prehistoric period that we can't say anything for sure.

It is clear is that the development of yoga was coincident and deeply intertwined with the development of what we would now call Hinduism - no one could dispute that. I don't think that the sentence in question "delinks" yoga from Hinduism. Nevertheless, perhaps someone could suggest a revision? Sylvain1972 16:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Etymology, language

Okay, so I'm not into the Yoga scene or anything but I have read Pātāñjalī's Yogasūtra, among the other Hindu scriptures. My point here is, despite enjoying the previous topic - and how on earth you're going to prove Yoga predates the Vedas apart from pure, unmitigated conjecture. You might point to the Indus Valley seal for example; but I, in turn, would point to Cernunnos and other Horned Gods, which don't prove those cultures practiced Yoga anymore than the seal of the seated "Śiva." Sorry for adding my comment here, just my two cents, I'm not invested in the debate; and I digress from my intended topic:

Where did yuj come from (not literally; who added it I mean, and from what source)? My knowledge is mainly in Hindi, so I'm not claiming any 'special' knowledge concerning Sanskrit etymology. First off Yoga is directly from Sanskrit: योग, which is transliterated as, -- wait for it -- yoga! not yuj. It's पाताञ्जलीकृत योगसूत्र, not his yuj-sūtra (I admit, I have no idea how to conjugate Sanskrit). Indeed it is a cognate with yoke but wouldn't a better translation be union, its PIE base being *yeug- = to join[2]? The Online Sanskrit Dictionary[3] defines yoga as effort (but it is meant as a concise glossary more than a comprehensive lexicon). So don't get me wrong, you'd be preachin' to the choir if you assumed I didn't realize the consciously ambiguous/poetic use of these terms; esp. in the broad sphere of Sanātama Dharma. My Hindi Dictionary gives these definitions: 1. connection, union. 2. combination; conjuncture (as of heavenly bodies); agreement, similarity. 3. application, use. 4. means; occasion, opportunity... (and it goes on taking up a good chunk of the page). So have I just made an ass out of myself by assuming someone didn't know their etymology, when 'tis I whom needs to be schooled? And even though it does appear upon further review that योग may indeed derive from युज् (to yoke, join, concentrate on) originally (if not just a variant), would we really need to know that obscure piece of information in the opening sentence?

Now then, as to the section on the word Yoga - where the aforementioned information rightfully belongs IMHO - as interesting as I may find it, do we really need a list of Yoga in every conceivable language? Start a seperate page for that, or justify why it's important that we have its transliteration (or translation in Chinese, don't know about that) into Hebrew, German, Hangul, Katakana, and every conceivable language everybody knows (I could add quite a few Indic languages which wouldn't be any more pertinent). Although the Tibetan might be appropriate for anyone who knows Tibetan - I searched and found only that yog means downstairs; obviously something else! Anyway, looks like this talk page needs to be archived, so I'll leave it at that. शांति: Khirad^talk 13:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Khirad. No need for the Hebrew, Chinese, etc. This is the English Wikipedia.

Recent edits getting even messier

In my opinion, this article is much, much messier today than it was when first described as messy by Pranathi two and a half weeks ago.

What's needed, in my opinion, is a top to bottom rewrite, based on some sort of strcuture and logic. At present the logic of this article, if any remains, is buried in parenthetcial comments and proseletizing. --Nemonoman 16:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

well, yes this article needs more attention but some here wants to hide things realted to Yoga. There are continous attempts here to disconnect Yoga from Hinduism just because it suits some western needs. Also, providing complete and true information is not proseletizing. There is no need to hide anything but need to improve further.--Holy Ganga 12:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally consider yoga strongly connected with Hinduism and have no wish to disembody it. I would also support creation of a Hindu Yoga article which is free to discuss yoga entirely in a Hindu context from the get go, without the need to make compromises intended to please Buddhists and non-theistic Western practitioners.

However, the present article has always been under pressure from two sides: those who want to present yoga as something which cannot be separated from Hinduism; and those who want to present yoga as something which has nothing to do with "religious" concepts like God, Deities, or worship. As a practical matter, the ongoing issue is how to reach a good compromise that everyone can live with, while maintaining accuracy.

There is a very large section on Hindu Yoga further down in the article, and there are about 5 templates of various sorts which will take the reader to related topics in Hinduism. Anyone who reads the article would certainly gain healthy exposure to Hindu viewpoints on yoga.

I feel the intro and opening sections should be clear and easy to read, and should not bog down in distinctions that a first time reader will only find confusing. I also think the first order of business should be to give readers a quick introduction to what practices are typical to yoga, and why people practice yoga. Since this is part of a general introduction, it should try and explain general concepts in neutral language, and remain flexible - i.e., not insisting that yoga is or is not religious, that yoga is or is not Hindu, etc. The long section on Hindu Yoga makes the case for a Hindu religious viewpoint on yoga. This same material does not need to be stuffed into the introduction.

In trying to reach a compromise with Nemonoman, Holy Ganga, Pranathi, and others - all of whom have worked hard on the article - I've rewritten the intro and first couple of subheads. I hope it helps to move things in a good direction. My rewrite is not meant as the last word (as if it could be!). I'm hoping it does bring back some of the clarity we had in early November. If so, then the ideal would be not to lose that clarity moving forward.

Holy Ganga has written some excellent material about Hindu Yoga, and it would be great to see that worked into the section on Hindu Yoga.

Magicalsaumy recently added a section called "God in Yoga philosophy" discussing "logical proofs for the existence of God." I'm wondering how people feel about this section - whether or not it works. I'm sure there's something to it, but in a yoga article which is getting rather long, I wonder if this section should perhaps be cut, and integrated into the article on Indian logic. Fencingchamp 20:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

In article on Yoga, everything connected to Yoga will get place like Hindu scriptures , Hindu Sages etc. Yoga is not something which people don't practice today. Even today more than 10 million Hindu holy men practice full version Yoga (not watered down western version) all over India. Millions of Hindus also practice Yoga which is much much more than limited western version. There is no need to create any article "Hindu Yoga" when Yoga itself is a part of Hinduism and explained in its scriptures from where it was later absorbed into Buddhism, Jainism and VERY recently in Western lifesyle. Just because something suits western lifestyle and western money making shops, we can't hide original age old things related to Yoga and destroy real meaning and purpose of Yoga. We can create separate articles like "Yoga in Western countries" and can explain watered down western version of Yoga in that article.-Holy Ganga 16:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Holy Ganga, I agree with much of what you say. I too dislike the way Yoga is often watered down or commercialized in western countries. I think many people would agree it's easier to find authentic Yoga in India, where it evolved together with Hinduism. I'm only trying to play the role of a peacemaker.

Yoga is Hinduism's great gift to the world, and the world has accepted that gift to a considerable extent. There are millions of people outside India who practice some form of Yoga. Whether it is "real Yoga" God only knows!

If there is such a thing as Buddhist Yoga or Western Yoga, then there is also such a thing as Hindu Yoga - which is a vibrant living tradition that was later absorbed into other traditions and cultures. That's why one can speak of Hindu Yoga: because Yoga practice was later adopted by people who do not identify themselves as Hindu.

Because this is a general article on Yoga, it should deal with the reality that there are people who believe (perhaps mistakenly) that they are practicing Yoga even though they are Buddhists or non-theistic westerners. If you look at the history of this article, it seems clear that there's a need to compromise with those who take a non-Hindu or non-religious view of Yoga, otherwise there will never be peace. We will never be able to have a stable version of this article which most people can live with.

In this revision, I don't think it's fair to say Hinduism is being hidden away. It's not 100% Hinduism all the time, but Hinduism is mentioned in the intro, and is an almost constant theme and presence throughout the article, links and templates. But we should also make some accommodation for Buddhists, westerners, and so forth. That way the article will be more balanced. --Fencingchamp 21:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Buddhist Yoga evolved from Yoga, Jain Yoga evolved from Yoga, Western version evolved from Yoga....and What is Yoga? Yoga originally is a part of Hinduism and explained in its scriptures. So, is there any need to create Hindu Yoga? It's an attempt to dissconnect Yoga from Hinduism to suit western purpose. Instead, there should be separate articles like Buddhist Yoga, Western Yoga etc. who absorbed Yoga into themselves and can be explained that in detail. Yes, this is general article and it should deal with reality and hence there is no need to hide reality and also there is no need to hide western version of yoga. I think there is already an accomodation for Buddhists Yoga and western exercises and that should be improved without making any compromise with reality. --Holy Ganga 09:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Holy Ganga, I apologize for any misunderstanding. I do not want to disconnect Yoga from Hinduism, or to cut Hindu Yoga to a separate article. I was only saying that those who feel the main Yoga article makes too many compromises might like to have an additional article which focuses exclusively on Hindu Yoga. In the opening paragraph they could talk about Krishna, God, devotion to deities, and so forth. These are topics dear to my heart, but it is difficult to present them at the beginning of a general article on Yoga. Too many people will edit that kind of introduction because it does not reflect their experience.

Yoga is a family of spiritual practices. Sometimes when the son moves far away and starts a new life, the father does not want to be identified with what the son is doing, and the son does not want to be identified with what the father is doing. But here in a general article on Yoga, we should talk about how Yoga is being practiced, both by Hindus and non-Hindus. What the father is doing is most important, but the son is also making some small contribution. Even if we feel the son is ruining everything, still we have to report on his activities. Without the father, the son would not exist, true. But now the son has developed some life of his own. So we try and report neutrally on what the father and son are doing, without rigidly imposing one paradigm over another. In this general article, we aim for a compromise that everyone can live with. Other articles we link to, such as History of Yoga and Yoga Piracy, help to clarify the relationship between the father and the son. Best wishes. --Fencingchamp 13:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Fencingchamp, I have boundless admiration for your attempt to find a middle road on this issue, and I also admire the efforts you have made to rework the intro. I still feel that the article is a hodge-podge at present.

Is there ANY WAY to create an article that is clear, succinct, and yet manages to thread the middle path you are striving for? I for one would like to think so, and I'm ready to participate with you and anyone who wants to give a top-to-bottom rewrite a shot. --Nemonoman 23:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Nemonoman, while I can't promise to make a time commitment, you and others who would like the article to be more clear, succinct and balanced have my support. It may be that the article has become jam-packed with compromise language intended to address various objections; but the people and issues who spawned such compromise language may no longer be at the forefront of the discussion. So the virtue of a new rewrite is that it might clear away some dead wood and come up with a fresh vision for explaining yoga clearly.

You might start with a blank page, or you might look for a version from November 2005 that is closer to where you'd like things to be, and work from there. For my part, I'll try not to object if some of the language I've written and grown fond of has to go. I hope others will also be forgiving in this regard. If you get a good result that most people can live with, that will go a long way to smoothing the waters. Best of luck, and a very happy New Year to all contributors! --Fencingchamp 12:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)