Talk:Indra Devi

with Groucho Marx
At some point in the 1950s or so, she appeared as a guest on Groucho Marx's American television show "You Bet Your Life". The episode is (or at least was, for many years) available amongst the set of episodes that have been rerun; possibly now on DVD (?) --Groucho asked her about what was involved in taking up a spiritual life. In response, she included a remark that sometimes it involved giving up a favorite activity..."For instance, you might have to give up your cigars." Groucho paused to move his cigar, and his eyes fell on it as he briefly contemplated the difficulty this might involve. He nodded and expressed this; you could see that he understood this small introduction to yoga. Publius3 (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You Bet Your Life #54-08, Nov 4, 1954. 82.69.73.157 (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Krishnamachariya etc
Man I don't know how the wikipedia works exactly. But my edits are mostly from Michelle Goldberg's book, with some other Russian sources from https://wildyogi.info/ru/issue/natalya-klevalina-%C2%ABindra-devi-postavivshaya-mir-na-golovu%C2%BB ... Added by Serge from unit 108. This is stupid.

If anything the death of her first husband would be a controversial topic. He was most likely killed by NKVD, if you ask me. Otherwise how would a former diplomat disappear all of a sudden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unit108yoga (talk • contribs) 04:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

And if you ever saw any evidence of Krishnamachariya's worldwide fame prior to the 1953 "Forever young forever healthy" book please let me know. (added by User:Unit108yoga)


 * Hi, and thanks for replying. Wikipedia works by referencing reliable sources so that other editors can verify any claims made. I'm glad you have used a good source in Michelle Goldberg's book. All you need to do, therefore, is add a citation to the pages of the book that you are referencing after each claim. Your cited texts will look like this:


 * Devi did such-and-such in 19xx.


 * where you replace "123" with the actual page number. You can use pages=123-127 instead when you need to name a range of pages. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am surprised that after all the discussions, here and on user pages, you are STILL seeing fit to restore uncited materials. That is wholly unacceptable, and grossly uncollegiate given that we were talking about how to do the job properly. Please stop, and either learn how to cite sources, indeed to cite them at all, or stop editing: it's disruptive and a waste of time and effort. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, but why the Russian article was removed as a source? It corroborates almost all the information, plus it has a bunch of details that Goldberg doesn't know about. It was originally published in 2010, years before Goldberg's book - http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/vs/article/7175/ For me the easiest source is an autobiographical interview she gave to the Russian TV, republished in 2009 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEjEM4VMNoY  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unit108yoga (talk • contribs) 04:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no point dumping materials at the end of an article as external links unless they have a function in the article, i.e. to support specific claims. Where it says the same as the existing sources, adding more refs won't help much; so, clearly, the value will lie in any verifiable claims that add usefully to the article. If you want to use Vokrug sveta as a source, best would be to cite it properly like the other items in "Sources", and then add sfn links to it from the places in the article that it supports; maybe I'll have a go with it. Not sure which Goldberg (Michelle or Elliott) you are talking about, by the way. I've mainly used Elliott G., along with Syman. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok got it. I'll try to comply with the format. I just thought it's weird that the person who essentially introduced what is now called "asana" to the mainstream western world has an article that is so dismissive of her. Without her the western "yoga" would not happen, there would be no Iyengar and no Pattabhi Jois to talk about. I referred to Michelle Goldberg, the NYT columnist. I'll get the Elliot's book, sounds interesting. Although there's also Alpert's "Be Here Now" thing that can't be avoided, if you are talking about resacralizing yoga (and incorrectly linking Tantra to sex). Indra Devi was a self-proclaimed atheist who sincerely believed in miracles (and the UFOs and all of that). I'll read anything about Kuvalayananda I can get my hands on, because a lot of misinformation comes from him. They did have Paramahamsa Madhavdas as a guide, so in a way it should be more authentic than whatever came from Mysore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1280:C56B:281A:D755:E2CC:51BD (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It is vital that you sign your comments on talk pages: please add ~ at the end of each comment to sign and date it (or press the signature button near the top left of the edit window). I don't see anything "dismissive" about the article; on the contrary, it is quiet, detailed, of necessity neutral, but certainly respectful, and it explains her contribution at some length. She did not bring Iyengar to the West, however, and her influence on Jois was indirect at best: MG writes that she "planted the seeds for the yoga boom of the 1990s" (p271) which probably states the case as strongly as it could be put. Kuvalayananda made a major contribution by helping to make the practice of asana acceptable in 20th century India, by "medicalising" it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)