Talk:Surya Namaskar Origins

Unsigned comment
Why so difficult and too many things to learn... --Unsigned user


 * This content is not necessary to learn, but is provided for reference because of its historical, philosophic/religious value. By ::browsing the article via the ToC, it should be easy to find exactly the information needed.


 * Supaiku (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

superfluous mumbo jumbo, sections like these should be taken out of wiki, they have no scholarly basis at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.74.161 (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed and I'm willing to sign my username to it Tumacama (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Western Scholarship?
I deleted "take a narrow view of the word "origin" and question the ancient origins. They are of the view that an old manuscript with the exact sequence of the whole procedure needs to be present for it to be considered ancient"-- That's a ridiculous claim. Nothing "exact" is necessary, furthermore paintings, engravings, even sculpture would constitute acceptable evidence, not just "old manuscripts". Any depiction of a series of even three positions that resemble the series of K.P.Jois. It is not a narrow view, it is the standard of international scholarship. In fact, I've read many Western yoga writers that accept depictions of a single pose constituting "origins" of asanas, they are just as enthusiastic about finding an ancient lineage; this is not correct and also unacceptable for Wikipedia. By this example, one could connect asanas to ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and we would argue about Egyptian origins of yoga. Even Celtic gods are depicted as sitting in lotus position, but it would be irresponsible to suggest there was a connection.Tumacama (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)