Talk:Hatha yoga/Archive 1

Lack of Links
Sentences like these:

''The practices of the Amṛtasiddhi and Dattātreyayogaśāstra are used to raise bindu or prevent it from falling. The mudrās of the Vivekamārtaṇḍa work on bindu, not kuṇḍalinī, even though raising it is an important part of the yoga it teaches. The mudras of the Goraksaśatakạ and Khecarīvidyā are used to raise kuṇḍalinī (they mention bindu only in passing).''

that don't provide any links or background information are more confusing than anything. It took me 10 minutes to figure out what 'bindu' means in this context (the disabiguation page did not really answer the question). I don't have time to research the seven or so other words in that sentence alone that have little meaning without context. I will try to add some, but anyone with more familiarity with the topic would be better suited to clarifying this confusing section.Speedfranklin (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
The last sentence of the introductory paragraph, referring to "promiscuous young females" is inappropriate and should be deleted. - David Maulsby 2007 Oct 15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maulsby (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

STRONGLY suggest merging this in with the yoga entry, which is already full of hatha info (and needs lots more on the other schools).

if the yoga entry ever overflows, we can consider busting out the various branches into their own entries. this is premature IMO. Anyone agree?O. Pen Sauce 08:16, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hatha yoga
Hatha yoga is the traditonal form of yoga that is most associated with the alternative health movement. Of course, there is also the very modern Power Yoga which has absolutely nothing to do with either Hinduism or even Yoga. Thus, this article deserves to exist because it would be a good place talk the non-religous aspects of yoga. Or would you rather have that discussion take place in Yoga? -- John Gohde 15:36, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * First off, hatha yoga is eminently religious. Precedence should be thousands-year old history with sidenotes on Western uses. Of course, western 'yoga' forms are important, and they're huge now, with practitioners in the millions. But yoga is a Hindu philosophy and its foundation should be clearly explicated. yoga is not, by the way, a big philosophy with little branches like hatha, raja, bhakti, etc. What we know was Yoga philosophy is Raja. Hatha is a later school building on many of those precepts but specifically working on body-breath meditative toning techniques. Bhakti, jnana, and karma are particularly associated with orthodox HIndu religion, as is Raja, though hatha has both a Hindu and a secular Western face. Thus, these should not be merged as that would result in complete inaccuracy about the nature of these paths, whether traditional or modern. --LordSuryaofShropshire 05:31, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * As soon as we get enough information together for a separate article, we will create a new article. Until that time please bear with our alternative medicine section. -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health| Talk]] 15:23, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Done, See Yoga (alternative medicine) -- John Gohde | [[User talk:Mr-Natural-Health| Talk]] 16:18, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article is rather weak. What, for instance, is the evidence that Hatha-Yoga derives from Hinayana Buddhism?


 * Deleted the sentence that Hatha-Yoha derives from Buddhism

economize whitespace
"(moved img to economize whitespace)"

On my Browser The image was moved from a black area where the Contents were to an area with text. I think this change may be viewed diffrently diffrent viewing settings--E-Bod 15:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

IPA
The IPA pronunciation is wrong because does not exist in Sanskrit. It should either be or. Which is correct? --Grammatical error 11:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. "th" always = [t̪ʰ]. Additionally, Coulson's Teach Yourself Sanskrit says that Sanskrit did have ə or ʌ (Hindi certainly does). I'm going to make it.

Wiki Project Yoga
Editors with an interest in working collaboratively to improve the encyclopedic quality of Yoga-related articles are encouraged to visit a new project to achieve this at WP:WikiProject_Yoga. Please let us know you're interested, and in what way: we look forward to discussing thing with you there,  Trev M   ~   01:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

--Yoga Mat (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source for lede?
I'd rather a more scholarly reference, especially for the lede. Since it was added against WP:COI without comment, I've moved it here for discussion. --Ronz (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Stephens, Mark (2010). Teaching Yoga: Essential Foundations and Techniques (North Atlantic Books), pages 16-20. Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=yEuhYwEA_gMC&lpg=PP1&dq=intitle%3Ateaching%20intitle%3Ayoga&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=intitle:teaching%20intitle:yoga&f=false

In other words, let's find a reliable, authoritative source please. --Ronz (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Potential references
--Ronz (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Does practicing hatha yoga satisfy recommendations for intensity of physical activity which improves and maintains health and cardiovascular fitness?
 * Yoga
 * Mikel Burley, "Hatha Yoga: Its Context, Theory and Practice"
 * Georg Feuerstein & Larry Payne, "Yoga For Dummies"
 * Georg Feuerstein, "The Encyclopedia of Yoga and Tantra"

Dubious info in lede
Looking into the information in detail, I've removed the questionable source and tagged the information as dubious after skimming through Hatha Yoga: Its Context, Theory and Practice. Swatmarama doesn't appear to have introduced hatha yoga as much as he compiled earlier works. --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've changed "introduced" to "described," but it would be nice to have a more authoritative and accessible source to draw upon. --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Old commment
I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I have spent close to one hour trying to find out how to change something. If anyone reads this, please delete the second paragraph as it is grossly incorrect and the citation given doesn't pan out. The information in that paragraph is not found at that source. This is the paragraph in question: "The Sanskrit term haṭha refers to the use of persistence or force, and haṭhayoga is translated by the Monier-Williams dictionary as "a kind of forced Yoga or abstract meditation (forcing the mind to withdraw from external objects; treated of in the Haṭha‐pradīpikā by Svātmārāma and performed with much self‐torture, such as standing on one leg, holding up the arms, inhaling smoke with the head inverted &c.)." [1]" Haudegen (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "indian philosophy"
I ask Yoonadue to stop edit warring in this page, and make discussion, because "Hatha Yoga" is founded by hindus, but doesn't means that no other religion or culture performs it. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Even Christians of west perform Hatha yoga. But that doesn't mean that templates like Christianity can be used here. The point is that sources say that the scriptures on which hatha yoga is based are Hindu scriptures (they can't be generalized saying they are Indian scriptures) and hence only Template:Hinduism is apt here. As far as my change of template is concerned, then let me ask Goodfaith17 first, what explanation he gave for this edit ? -Yoonadue (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yoonadue, The culture belongs to India, not to Middle east, so why there would be a need to even think about christianity here? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, i added one more source, hope this conflict is over now. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Clean-up
There was a lot of unsourced info at this page, which I have removed. Also some WP:UNDUE stuff on Raja Yoga, which I've also removed. So, who's going to write more on the history of Hatha Yoga, and on the practices? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Stubbornness?
The James Mallinson essay cited on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatha_yoga#cite_note-JM-1 actually says that haṭḥa means 'force', not 'stubbornness'. Anyone object to me changing it? And maybe adding Jason Birch to the references? http://www.academia.edu/1539699/Meaning_of_ha%E1%B9%ADha_in_Early_Ha%E1%B9%ADhayoga Sidenote: this Jason Birch essay says the oldest mention of the word haṭḥa comes from Buddhist texts, which might have influence on some of the 'hindu yoga' talk here.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even I have found many reliable citations supporting your suggestion. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yay! Go team yoga!Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The letters 'Ha' and 'Tha' also reference the sun and moon: the word 'Hatha' indicating their union at the Ajna Cakra. However the word hatha is commonly translated as 'forceful' in relation to Yoga, though it hardly defines the practice itself. This is why the definition relating to the uniting of ida and pingala nadis (the sun and moon), in order to prepare for and awaken the Kundalini , should be included somewhere in reference to the definition of 'Hatha Yoga'. Aghoradas (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

As a part of Hindu origin
How about chopping off this "As a part of Hindu origin" and just making the second paragraph "Hindu tradition believes that Shiva himself is the founder of hatha yoga."? I'm not sure if I understand what the first part means anyways, but it seems superfluous.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I had discussed this once and it couldn't be removed because it is necessary to state the actual traditional origin. It is also supported by good citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't doubt the citations: I'm sure whatever you're saying is accurate, it's just oddly worded. I don't quite know if you mean that hatha yoga is part of the origin of hinduism or if the word hindu is just in there a second time for no reason. Would you consider rewording it?Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Changed a little. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Perfect! Much clearer.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

8 Limbs
So I've been stewing on this, but I can't understand why there is this eight limbs section (formerly six limbs section). At first I thought it should just be removed, though several texts in the hatha lineage suggest either 8 or 7 or 6 limbs, the current list of six is clearly taken from Pantañjali's Yoga (which you might call raja yoga, but that's a whole different issue) minus the yamas and niyamas. This might be how it appears in the Goraksasatika or some other specific texts, though I'd have to check, but it's definitely not the norm (and there doesn't seem to be a norm). In the intro to the Gheranda Samhita, James Mallinson writes: the gheranda samhita "is unique in teaching a sevenfold path to perfection of the person. A few Hatha Yoga texts replicate Patanjali's classical description of Yoga as ashtanga, or 'eight limbed,' but there are numerous other classifications. For example, the Hatha Yoga Pradipika's four chapters correspond to the four stages of its Yoga, while the Goraksha Samhita, echoing several earlier Tantric texts, describes its Yoga as six limbed." http://www.yogavidya.com/Yoga/GherandaSamhita.pdf Considering this, it might still be best to remove the section, or rewrite it to mention hatha yoga's many different numbered 'anga' systems, including a list of the limbs specific to each text.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It has no citations, you can remove or rephrase, if you believe otherwise you can change that part whenever you want to. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yoga Upanishads
Yoga Upanishads are the last texts to be composed in the Hatha Yoga tradition. They are even later than the Hatha Yoga Pradipika, which itself is very late.
 * "Over the centuries following the composition of the Hathapradīpikā, many more texts teaching the techniques of Hatha Yoga were composed. An exhaustive review of all of them is beyond the scope of this article. Most are derivative of the teachings of the Hathapradīpikā. The brief survey below mentions only the more innovative or idiosyncratic among them and omits such inluential texts as the Hathasamketacandrikā, the Yogacintāmani, the Hathatattvakaumudī and Yogabīja anthologies, the Yoga Upanisads, and Brahmānanda’s  Jyotsnā commentary on the Hathapradīpikā."Reference by Oxford scholar James Mallinson

VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, all very true. I would say Satyananda's statements aren't in accord with what academics would say. A tertiary source would be better if one were available. But either way this makes it seem like the yoga upanishads are the source of hatha yoga, and that it all started as the shatkriyas which is not a common assertion. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Brill Encyclopedia is a tertiary source.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please kindly clarify what you mean with your quote above "They (Yoga Upanishads) are even later than the Hatha Yoga Pradipika". Could you be more specific on the origin of the Yoga Upanishads giving a reference (and if possible link, page number)? --Sankgeo 19:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more specific (link, page number, conclusion?) --Sankgeo 19:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Click on this Link. Page 773.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes the brill is a tertiary source. Everything you said is correct. I was addressing sankgeo. I'm telling him his edit can't stand on one primary/secondary source. Especially if it disagrees with your tertiary source. He needs more to show academic support for this dubious statement from Satyananda. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No doubt Sir James Mallinson has a vast knowledge of, and experience with, Hatha Yoga, as well as the subject in general, however to use a single source of writing by him for almost every reference in describing the various aspects of Hatha Yoga needs to be addressed- find more references. Aghoradas (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Goldberg's book on Yoga
I am a little surprised that Michelle Goldberg's book on Indra Devi and Yoga, The Goddess Pose: The Audacious Life of Indra Devi, the Woman Who Helped Bring Yoga to the West, is not included as a source along with her findings. I don't have time to add this right now, but here is an interview from Fresh Air on the book which seems to be reliable and contradict a lot of what is said in this article. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/01/411202468/those-yoga-poses-may-not-be-ancient-after-all-and-maybe-thats-ok Pengortm (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oxford indologist James Mallinson is a reliable source. Goldberg is just a generic journalist.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See also this review in the NYT. Looks interesting, I think, but she was not the first, of course.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

False association with the Nath
Given this fundamental change of pov, I'm starting this discussion by recommending that if anyone objects it would be extremely helpful to detail why some sources are preferred over others, and that we are giving proper weight to the sources given their academic quality. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * In another article, Mallinson gives a more balanced view, which should be preferred because it's probably more compatible with the predominant scientific view:
 * "Within the texts of the haṭha yoga corpus, we can identify two yogic paradigms. One, the older, is the tradition of the yogis described in our earliest sources and is linked to the physical practices of tapas— asceticism. (...) In classical formulations of haṭhayoga—such as that found in the most influential text on the subject, the fifteenth-century Haṭhapradīpikā—a second paradigm, that of Tantric yoga, is superimposed onto this older ascetic method (...) But although the two yogi traditions clearly interacted, sharing both theory and practice, their lineages remained distinct.17 They were represented, in the case of the ancient tradition of celibate asceticism, by groups that today constitute sections of the Daśanāmī Saṃnyāsī and Rāmānandī ascetic orders, and, in the case of the tradition of Tantric adepts such as Matsyendra and Gorakṣa,18 by groups that today constitute sections of an ascetic order now known as the Nāths.19 These orders were only starting to be formalized in the early Mughal period."
 * This article can be found here: http://www.asia.si.edu/research/articles/yogic-identities.asp (Later, he differentiated his view again, stating that tantric buddhist traditions influenced the "Amrtasiddhi", a classical text he associated rather with the ascetic method before). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.115.206.133 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I’ve written now a proposal that could replace the section „False association with the Naths“. Since I’m not a native english speaker and also not familiar with editing Wikipedia articles, I won’t change it by myself but the text below can be used by others as a basis.
 * Title: Haṭha yoga, Nāths and Daśanāmī Saṃnyāsī
 * Text: Haṭha yoga is seen by some scholars as originating from the Nāth Order. According to British indologist James Mallinson, one may differentiate between two yogic paradigms in Haṭha yoga, an older one that is more linked to the physical practices of asceticism and a newer one, that is more linked to tantric shaivist yoga and that is superimposed onto the ancient ascetic method. (1) Mallinson see the ancient tradition of celibate asceticism represented by groups that today constitute sections of the Daśanāmī Saṃnyāsī and Rāmānandī ascetic orders, while the tradition of Tantric adepts such as Matsyendra and Gorakṣa is represented by the Nāth order. Although probably ocurring later, the second tradition is nevertheless often seen as the classic one as it is represented in the „Haṭhapradīpikā“, the most influential text on the subject (2). Additionally, the older Dattātreyayogaśāstra, according to Mallinson the first text that explicitly mentions Haṭha yoga, although representing the older ascetic tradition and speaking rather disparaging about the use of mantras, is nevertheless influenced by the Amṛtasiddhi, a text that was written in a tantric buddhist millieu (3). Therefore the Dattātreyayogaśāstra presents itself als non-sectarian, stating: “Whether a Brahmin, an ascetic, a Buddhist, a Jain, a Skull-Bearer or a materialist, the wise one who is endowed with faith and constantly devoted to the practice of [haṭha] yoga will attain complete success.” (4)
 * (1, 2, 4) http://www.asia.si.edu/research/articles/yogic-identities.asp
 * (3) http://www.academia.edu/26700528/The_Am%E1%B9%9Btasiddhi_Ha%E1%B9%ADhayogas_Tantric_Buddhist_Source_Text
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vliperdius (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As a fan of James who has met him and emailed several times with him, I say this with the highest respect: this is a small and not well developed idea he plays around with but it's hardly important enough to be included in the article. More practical would be mentioning the more obvious facts that its origins are unknown but there are many theories, or mention that both the dasanami and nath orders are clearly too young to be the founders of hatha, and the figures of Matsyendranath (Minanath, Minapa) and Ghorakshanath may originally have been Buddhist figures. Frankly we could pitch James Mallinson, Jason Birch, Alexis Sanderson, and David Gordon White against each other to see who has the better thesis, but that will make this page even more of a mess. I've deleted the section as it added little and was given undue weight.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mallinson wrote an entire article just on this topic. It is a well developed idea. Read the conclusion here.VictoriaGraysonTalk</b> 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mallinson wrote one article on it, and that article does not credit the dasanamis with inventing hatha yoga; it clearly states that the dasanamis and hatha yoga come from a shared origin, but that the dasanamis didn't exist before the 1600s which makes this statement literally an absurdity and impossible. His current thesis credits the Ramanandis instead.
 * What matters is that there are millions of people in India who associate with the very well cited legends of Matsyendra. There is one major obscure text on Dattatreya's Yoga that is not from the dasanami (because it is hundreds of years too old). The Hathapradipika which is undeniably a central text of hatha credits the Naths by name. We know it is a legend and it was presented in the article as such, just the same way Iyengar and Feuerstein present it. Removing it because one article proposes a theory that the naths didn't invent hatha is not only undue weight for a single author, but it is clearly a selective presentation of the legend. A search for Matsyendra will show he is more prevalant than Dattatreya. If you want to add more to the Dattatreya explanation, stop misrepresenting the ONE article that you are using to argue against the incredibly ubiquitous and well cited story that you have removed multiple times with a different explanation every time. Stop edit warring and read what other people are writing and stop throwing around baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks to justify your sloppy editing.
 * And there is something incredibly offensive about claiming my edits are religiously inspired because I am not religious. I am not Hindu, I am a scholar of yoga history, working on a masters thesis in yoga at Loyola Marymount University where I have personally met with James Mallinson, Jason Birch, Christopher Chapple and countless other leading scholars in the field. My only goal is to fix the articles people keep slanting with their opinions.
 * I am going to revert back to restore my countless highly valuable edits that you have given no credible defense for deleting. Please discuss before reverting and starting one of your beloved edit wars. Bring in a second opinion like Joshua Jonathan and stop attempting to disparage the character of your fellow editors.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what millions of Indian people believe. We don't go by myths anywhere on Wikipedia. We don't say Krishna lived 5,000 B.C. Also I don't think millions of Indians even believe that in the first place.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 18:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dattatreya and Matsyendra are both legends, they both matter. We don't choose one over the other and we don't delete other contributions with credible sources. There is no rationale to delete Matsyendra's legend and replace it with a terse sentence about Dattatreya. They both belong in the article.
 * And of course we say that Krishna worshippers say Krishna lived in 5,000 B.C. because that is the legend. We don't have the real date, we have the myth. That's why the heading of the section was legend! We don't know who started hatha, we know that the most prevalent and cited myth is that of the Naths. Mallinson's paper only exists to address the fact that most people believe it was the Naths. And if you want to throw bias accusations around, Mallinson is Mahant of the Ramanandi order in India.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dattatreya is mentioned briefly for textual reasons. This is not equivalent to you stuffing the article with mythological stories.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 05:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Iṣṭa Devatā asked me to take a neutral look at this article. I know close to nothing about Hatha Yoga, but if I understand correctly the recent edits and reverts, the discussion is about two traditions of yoga, namely an older tapas-oriented tradition, and a younder tantra-oriented tradition. Both (traditions of Hatha yoga) have their (legendary?) founders. Have I understood correctly here? And if there are various (legendary?) origin-accounts, doesn't it make sense to emntion them both? Sorry if I don't quite get it yet; I'm just out of bed, I didn't have coffee yet, and I'm plumping right into this debate, so if my questions are too stupid, I'll reread later, with more attention. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The association with Dashanami Sampradaya is historical. The association with Nath is mythological. It is not the same.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 05:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Shouldn't that section be expanded a little bit, so that niwitz like me can understand it?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that section was 'stuffed'. Honestly the mythical origins of hatha are a central part of it and mentioned in most books on the history of hatha. It is so prevalent that Mallinson's paper is addressing it as the mainstream assumption. And because of his one theory we don't erase the nath legend, we just add the description that it is a legend and mention Dattatreya's connection. My reverted edits actually included both, but literally five hours of work to multiple sections with thorough citations were all deleted simultaneously, including a section on Dattatreya in the intro. It was balanced but now half of the story is being excluded based on a single author.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe I have expanded this section neutrally multiple times, as Joshua Jonathan also noted is needed, and it has been reverted every time immediately without discussion or any attempt at building concensus. This is just aggressive. What is even slightly reproachable about the last version? The one Vic keeps restoring is a next to meaningless statement that takes a balanced edit and censors half of it? Bring in any support before you assume bad faith and revert.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And sidenote: if you agree about the Sierra Leone thing (as per your edit summary) than you should have noticed it was one of my edits you reverted. When you revert everything at once it shows just what your motivation is.

Copyvio in direct quotations from Mallinson article
I have added the copyvio tag to this article. So there are some massive sections where Mallinson is quoted verbatim and others where is paraphrased or his quotes are merged midsentence, all credited sloppily with a single citation without listing page numbers. Despite being good information, this all needs to be removed or reworded.

The article:


 * example from wiki page: "In its section on Hatha Yoga, after teaching a traditional eightfold yoga that it attributes to Yajnavalkya and others, the Dattātreyayogaśāstra describes ten Hatha Yoga practices that it says were undertaken by the rishi Kapila and other ṛishis in addition to those of Yājñavalkya (DYŚa. 52–61).[1] These practices, which will be examined in more detail below, are of the variety that came to be known collectively as mudras (lit. seals) in later Hatha Yoga."


 * And from Mallinson article: "In its section on Hatha Yoga, after teaching a traditional eightfold yoga that it attributes to Yājñavalkya and others, the Dattātreyayogaśāstra describes ten Haṭha Yoga practices that it says were undertaken by the →ṛṣi Kapila and other ṛṣis in addition to those of Yājñavalkya (DYŚa. 52–61). These practices, which will be examined in more detail below, are of the variety that came to be known collectively as mudrās (lit. seals, a variety of physical techniques for controlling vital energies, including kuṇḍalinī, breath, and bindu) in later Hatha Yoga texts and that..."

Not acceptible. This article could be paired down considerably and parts rewritten, starting with removing all the copyright violations from this article. It has more detail than it needs and does not need a survey of all its texts.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This has been corrected.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 15:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In what if any sense has it been corrected? Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I readded page numbers that went missing. I varied wording more through entire article.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 18:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's good. Still, I think a more fundamental rewrite needs to happen because this article lifts the tone and arrangement of most of the Mallinson Encyclopedia entry. Please try to make separate edits for reverts and your rewrites so that your work and mine can both be preserved in future compromise edits. You are making it hard to restore my disputed work without deleting yours, which I suspect may be an intentional ploy to avoid the three revert rule.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ...which I suspect may be... If you can't put such suspicions aside, then it will be extremely difficult to take any of your other comments as not being based upon similar assumptions. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand Ronz. I saw a large amount of my work reverted with a reason that doesn't make sense embedded with other changes to make it not look like a revert. You can check for yourself how frequently my every edit invites an edit war from only this one user. I've seen this user get a little revert happy and this does not seem like a legitimate practice to obscure a revert. If you disagree I'm happy to hear it, but really I just want to resolve the issue of why five hours of vigorously well cited work was reverted with accusations of religious bias. I thought editing was collaborative not competitive.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Mudras
Apart from the discussion on the origins of Hatha Yoga, I was wondering why this was removed:
 * "The most central of these physical techniques is the mūdra of which, according to the Hatha Yoga Pradipika, there are said to be ten. According to James Mallinson, these mudras may have either evolved from internal physical embodiments of older external tantric rituals or may be derived from involuntary movements associated with possession such as rolling the eyes, swallowing the tongue, and assuming certain bodily postures. "

It's three (or four) pieces of info: most central, ten, evolved from tantric rituals or involuntary movements. Is this information incorrect, undue, or what? I find the last piece of information, on involuntary movements, fascinating. It's in line with research by Ann Taves on Fits, Trances, and Visions, and also links to older "research" by William James and some of his contemporaries (Freud!), who were interested in socalled "automatisms." James ended-up with a highly influential psychology of mysticism; Freud ended-up as a highly influential "philosopher" of the unconsciousness. Therefore, Mallinson's observation makes sense, I think. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Haṭhapradīpika is a primary source. Page 28 of Khecarīvidyā of Adinatha is solely talking about Khecarī mudrā. Also there seems to be a mixing of things talked elsewhere in the book such as possession.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 06:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's in Mallinson's intro to the translation of the Khecarividya. It's a solid citation that I added and was removed likely because I added it. And Mallinson defines mudras as the central feature of early hatha in almost everything he writes, the primary source citation is just good color, not an inadequate source. It just could use a second citation. Of course it's easier to expand on an edit if it stands more than a day.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your cited page 28 only talks about Kechari mudra: "The hathayogic khecarīmudrā is also a corporealisation of the tantric ritual practices of eating meat and drinking wine...." <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned it is hard to expand the citations when you delete it all right away. Read more of the same piece and you will see he talks about a larger concept of the corporealization of tantric ritual, citing other people and referring to Abhinavagupta.
 * But I changed a lot of different unrelated material over a five hour editing stint. It just seems odd to me that you disagreed with every single one of them and are slowly trying to find reasons to discredit each one. Honestly you're the only person who seems to disagree with anything I've written here. You're original edit accused me of religious bias which really seems non-sequitur, so it just feels more like you're harassing me than defending a page from vandalism (but I would love to find I'm wrong). Honestly it is just harmful to wikipedia to chase away those few career experts in a field who are willing to put in the time. I'm sorry we are not able to work collaboratively instead of constantly at odds. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've quoted the page. Your "citation" makes no sense.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 20:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

False association with the Nath, again
This is what Mallinson says (calls Nath "Yogis"): Of course there is much more, but they are too long passages to quote here.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 21:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "But these Yogis were in fact the willing and complicit beneficiaries of the semantic confusion which has caught out White and many other scholars.
 * "Meanwhile ascetic orders which did practise the physical techniques of hathayoga but were quite separate from the Yogis were flourishing from at least the early medieval period."
 * "To this day the Nath Yogis association with yoga is little more than in name...."


 * Granted, the Naths are not likely the factual founders of yoga. Nor does my edit say the Naths are the founders, but addresses the prevalent mythos which is central to the living tradition (there are in fact asanas named for Matsyendra and Goraksha). What my edit says about the Naths is what Mallinson says: that the very popular and important historical text the Hatha Yoga Pradipika says the Naths founded Hatha yoga. He also says that the older and more obscure source (Dattatreya Yoga Sastra) credits Yajnavalkya and Kapila with two streams of hatha: the bindu preservation vedic version (Yajnavalkya) and the tantric version (Kapila). What the Naths may also have usurped is the early Buddhist cakra system and yogini cult and credited it to Kaula Saivism, but this is where you get into the disagreements between Alexis Sanderson, Mallinson, and David Gordon White about where the cakras come from. Mallinson would not have written this paper in the first place if he were not arguing against the prevailing (and probably false) association with the Naths, so it would be strange to dismiss the myth without mentioning the myth first. However, Mallinson's writings are already the predominant content of this page, largely drawn from a single encyclopedia entry, so I think we might be drifting into balance issues. The mythology and the theoretical history are two separate entities that both belong in the article, but we could definitely be more superficial. Right now this looks like its just the philology of hatha yoga.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An austrian ip editor already provided the quote for most of this above:
 * "Within the texts of the haṭha yoga corpus, we can identify two yogic paradigms. One, the older, is the tradition of the yogis described in our earliest sources and is linked to the physical practices of tapas— asceticism. (...) In classical formulations of haṭhayoga—such as that found in the most influential text on the subject, the fifteenth-century Haṭhapradīpikā—a second paradigm, that of Tantric yoga, is superimposed onto this older ascetic method (...) But although the two yogi traditions clearly interacted, sharing both theory and practice, their lineages remained distinct.17 They were represented, in the case of the ancient tradition of celibate asceticism, by groups that today constitute sections of the Daśanāmī Saṃnyāsī and Rāmānandī ascetic orders, and, in the case of the tradition of Tantric adepts such as Matsyendra and Gorakṣa,18 by groups that today constitute sections of an ascetic order now known as the Nāths.19 These orders were only starting to be formalized in the early Mughal period." found here: Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The "quote" is combining 2 parts of the article that are not combined in the original, resulting in your confusion.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 22:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

And on the view that tantric rituals became bodily practices in hatha: "hathayogic khecarīmudrā is also a corporealisation of the tantric ritual practices of eating meat and drinking wine: the tongue is meat and amrta is wine. It is is explicitly stated in the Hathapradīpikā:124 “the yogin should constantly eat the meat of the cow and drink the liquor of the gods. I reckon him to be a Kaula; the others are destroyers of the kula. By the word ‘cow’ the tongue is meant, because the insertion of [the tongue] at the palate is the eating of the meat of the cow, which destroys great sins. The essence that flows from the moon, brought about by the fire generated by the tongue’s insertion, is the liquor of the gods.”... (Mallinson, "Khecarīvidyā", p.28) in other words describing the tantric 5m ritual becoming a less antinomian bodily practice in hatha.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * and for possession rites "As I have said above, these five passages describing techniques for the conquest of death are all from scriptures of possession-based Yoginī cults or their Kaula derivatives. They contain the first references to practices in which the tongue enters the hollow above the palate, so it seems likely that the technique has its roots in rites of possession. The tongue’s entry into the cavity above the palate has been reported to occur spontaneously as a result of altered mental states... Thus these techniques may be attempts to recreate a state of possession." (Khecarividya, Mallinson, p.23,24)Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * and to show it's not just khecari: "An example of corporealisation from elsewhere in the hathayogic corpus is the mudrā called mahāvedha, “the great piercing”, described at Hathapradīpikā. The yogin is to sit cross-legged with his left heel under his perineum. Putting his hands flat on the ground, he should raise his body and then gently drop it, thus making his heel tap against the perineum, forcing the breath or Kundalinī into the central channel. This is a corporealisation of the tantric vedhadīksā, “piercing initiation”. TĀ describes several different types of vedhadīksā. Using mantras and visualisations, the guru causes śakti to rise up the pupil’s middle path and pierce the cakras and ādhāras stationed along it." (Khecarividya, p.27) He also compares amaroli to tantric rasayana rituals on the same page.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You simply need to find a source that explicitly says what you want to say. Combining different passages like that is WP:OR.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 22:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My source does say what I say without any synthesis: these are two examples he provides, but this whole section is his theories on where mudras come from and what I have done is summarize not synthesize. And he cites other people who say it to in the referenced pages. The quotes are just the examples. Read the source. We can add citations (Csaba Kiss, Carl Jung, William James, etc) on to it only if it can stand long enough to be worked on. Assume good faith. And let things stand for a little while.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Carl Jung? You gotta be kidding me.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 04:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to JJ's comment about Jung. But if you simply read the source and stop trying to nitpick my quotes, you will see that Mallinson is presenting these ideas about mudras, that he provides citations for, as a piece of background to the work he translated and not as a central thesis, so there is not a flawless quote in this source. But it is a common idea in indology that mudras might evolve from involuntary actions in trance and that other hatha mudras might be interiorizations (Mallinson also uses the word corporealizations) of external tantric rituals.
 * With the slightest attempt to build on and refine my edits (as per ) instead of deleting them, I'm sure you could find excellent sources to support both of these points. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Mallinson does say interiorisation and corporealisation of tantra on pages 26-7. But wouldn't that only be applicable to late Hatha yoga when tantra becomes overlaid onto earlier hatha yoga? I think Mallinson's later works are more clear on the subject.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The confusion there is that tantra is actually older than hatha and hatha is often considered a cleaning up of the antinomian practices of tantra. Hence the Khecarī Vidyā takes the rituals of eating meat and drinking wine and replaces them with khecarī and drinking amṛta, and other texts take the ritual coupling of fluids from the tantric 5m ritual and turns it into the combining of inner masculine and feminine energies (and fluids), just like Vajrayana schools internalized the ritual sexual intercourse they received from older tantra. There are other activities called mudras that he thinks come from possession cults referencing the different facial expressions Abhinavagupta writes about and the involuntary movements of trance states which might cover hand eye and tongue mudras. Mallinson's arguments get confusing after a point because there are so many predecessors and influences on the mudras (one of Sanskrit's infuriatingly polyvalent words). But essentially the idea as I understand it is that hatha yoga took tantric rituals related to the Kaula and Mahasiddha tradition (but possibly originally Buddhist) as well as celibacy techniques and combined them, as we see in the two paths of Hatha yoga in the Dattatreya Yoga Śastra, eventually leading to mudras being the way to awaken kuṇḍalinī in later texts, especially in more sex positive works like the Śiva Samhita. He points out that the syncretism between the two makes it often impossible to determine which texts are tantric and which are hathic (i.e. Śiva Samhita and Khecarī Vidyā mix the goals of both schools). That is why we see some mudras as interiorizations of outer tantric rituals (khecari mudra, mahavedha, the combining of bindu and nada, the combining of prana and apana, etc) and others as continuations of older celibacy practices (which are common across Eurasian religious history). Essentially those parts related to the yoginis, kuṇḍalinī, and cakras comes through the forerunners to Kaula which is credited as Mina or Matsyendra and supposedly 'cleaned up' by Goraksha, while those parts concerning the preservation of bindu come from the forerunners to the ascetic orders like the Ramanandis and Dasanamis who connect it to the mythical three headed Dattatreya. Worth noting that DYS (in the section on Laya), like the Kaula texts (HYP, Matsyendra Samhita, Goraksasataka, etc) still credits Shiva as the founder of yoga, just honor different transmissions: Dattatreya or the Kaula.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a little excerpt from James Mallinson's newest book:
 * "Mudrās in Tantric Ritual - Prior to the Amṛtasiddhi and Dattātreyayogaśāstra, from at least the sixth century CE onwards, mudrās of an altogether different sort were taught extensively in tantric texts. With a small number of important exceptions, tantric mudrās are not methods of manipulating vital energies; they are physical attitudes and gestures adopted in ritual in order to bring about certain supernatural effects or, in fewer cases, possession by the deities with which they are associated. The deities’ mudrās are also said to manifest spontaneously in the practitioner when possession occurs through other means."
 * Mallinson, James; Singleton, Mark (2017-01-26). Roots of Yoga (Penguin Classics) (p. 229). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.
 * Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * and from KV's intro:
 * Many of the practices of haṭhayoga can be understood as tantric ritual within the realm of the yogin’s own body. The haṭhayogin can accomplish the ends of tantric practice without external ritual or a consort with whom to engage in sexual rites.
 * (Mallinson, "Khecarīvidyā", p.26)
 * The idea seems to be that a pro-sex and possession school of mudra (possibly buddhist or hindu tantric) and pro-celibacy tradition of mudra (that Mallinson prefers to call early hatha, despite the term coming from a buddhist tantra) coexisted and when they were combined in texts like the Dattatreya Yoga Śastra we get some of the very interesting combinations of mudras taught in the hatha corpus with their mixed goals of preserving seed, drinking nectar, and awakening kuṇḍalinī.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Further evidence for the interiorization argument for mudras from Mallinson:
 * "Much of hathayoga's development can be seen as a reaction against the exclusivity and complexity of Tantric cults and practices. The esoteric physiology of Tantra is taken as the template for the human body, but the means of accessing and controlling the energies and substances within has become purely physical. The only external aid necessary is a guru qualified to teach hathayoga's practices. There is no need for Tantra's elaborate initiations, nor the secret mandalas and mantras as passed down within occult Tantric lineages, nor elaborate ritual paraphenalia, including the in­famous pañcamakāra or "five Ms": madya ("wine"), mamsa :"meat"), matsya ("fish"), mudra ("hand gestures"), and maithuna ("sex"). As is made clear in the last verse of the Gorakṣaśataka, alternatives for these can be found within the body of the yogi."
 * Mallinson, James. "The Original Gorakṣaśataka" Yoga in Practice (edited David Gordon White), p.257
 * Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

In defense of restoring the sections on naths and matsyendra
Mallinson's views on this subject are being given undue weight on this subject (especially since they reflect a disagreement between him and David Gordon White where White's view is not expressed). The discussion of the naths is necessary to understand the history and mythology behind hatha yoga (hence their inclusion in every book on its premodern history). Also favoring one sect (vaisnav) over another (saiva) risks picking sides in an ongoing debate:

"Closely related to these new Tantra traditions, at least in their Saiva and Sakti-Saiva formulations, is a new kind of Yoga, namely, Hatha Yoga (literally 'Exertion-Yoga'), attributed by and large to the work of two mahasiddhas, who worked somewhere between the ninth and twelfth centuries either in the northwestern or northeastern margins of South Asia: Matsyendranatha and his near-disciple Goraksanatha, said to be the founder of the Natha Yoga order. Some have maintained that both Matsyendranatha and Goraksanatha are only legendary or mythical figures, but there seems to be a growing consensus that they were historical figures even though, of course, much hyperbole has come to surround their exploits."

Larson, Gerald James Differntiating the Concepts of "yoga" and "tantra" in Sanskrit Literary History p.492

I will continue to drop relevant quotes and sources as I come across them. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Mallinson in describing the Natha text Gorakṣaśataka: "The Gorakṣaśataka or "Hundred Verses of Gorakṣa" contains some of the earliest teachings on haṭhayoga to be found in Sanskrit texts. It is the first text to describe complex methods of prāṇāyāma, breath control, and the first to teach the esoteric sarasvati cālana, "the stimulation of Sarasvati," a technique for arousing kuṇḍalini, the coiled serpent goddess who lies dormant at the base of the spine of the unenlightened." Mallinson, James. Yoga in Practice (edited David Gordon White), p.257 Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Rearranged with the hatha yoga pradipika article
I noticed that this article had some information on the hatha yoga pradipika that really should have belonged in the hatha yoga pradipika article. I moved that information (located under "classic texts") and replaced it with a brief section of an overview of the hatha yoga pradipika. Laurasimmons (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Chart
@Vic: please identify the page numbers you drew the chart from? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)