Talk:Yoga/Archive 6

Columbia definition of yoga
I suggest we switch to the Columbia definition of yoga in the lead. Or insert the word "also" in the current sentence, as the Columbia definition does. i.e.  "Yoga is also one of the six orthodox schools in Hindu philosophy..."VegeYoga (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is yoga capitalized so much in the article?
Why is yoga capitalized so much in the article? Please fix. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hindu revivalism
I have removed the following section on Hindu revivalism from the article:

The content in this section is unsourced, SOAPish and duplicated from the section on Reception in the West. I also could not find any reliable sources covering the topic. As such, this section does not fit into an article of GA status. Correct Knowledge «৳alk»  12:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality Issues: Lede
I think that there is a sufficient volume of verified information in the main topic so as not to have to defer to Columbia. The phrase "Generic Term" is also superfluous and misleading as it is "a common name used for a range or class of similar things not protected by trademark" - see Generic and so is not an appropriate classification for the etymology of the word, "yoga". It is important that the lede properly reflects the scope of the article as per WP:LEAD. To include "one of the six orthodox schools in Hindu philosophy" requires further justification WITH REFERENCE TO WP:LEAD; the main body of content in the article itself; and the overall structure of the topic. Many other definitions (or perhaps strictly speaking, "descriptions") are given equal weight in the main body of the content of the topic. This same problem occurs when we talk in terms of it being "based on" the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali without referring to any other foundations that have also been verified and also when selecting only ONE from a menu of aims of which "to use meditation to attain salvation" is only one verified under subsection "GOALS...". This is not the same as wanting to strike out or contend the information. Merely that the lede should be balanced and I would suggest some further discussion here in the context of WP:LEAD Thank you Yoga Mat (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

To have content included in the lead section requires further justification WITH REFERENCE TO WP:LEAD
 * Credit - but only where credit is due
 * This means the lede should reflect the main body of content in the article itself; and provide a balanced view of the overall structure of the topic (and not introduce any new content). At the moment the introduction reads a bit like an essay. And by the way, Johnny please "Beware of the Tigers". It is important that the lede properly reflects the scope of the article. To avoid these sorts of problems - PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE LEAD TEMPLATE. Instead - let us discuss...

A very brief summary of the terminology of the word, "yoga" (as found in the terminology section) should be given? I think that there is a sufficient volume of verified information in the main topic so as not to have to defer to a dictionary definition? See Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Describing the word, "yoga" as "Generic" is too vague and superfluous and should be removed? See "You are probably not a lexicologist or a lexicographer"
 * Multiple meanings
 * Dictionary definitions
 * Grammar
 * Yoga is incorporated in the English language as a mass noun and a modifier.

PLEASE NOTE: Many other definitions (or perhaps strictly speaking, "descriptions") are given equal weight in the main body of the content of the topic and this should be reflected in the lead.
 * No consensus
 * A consensus as to incorporating the presentation of the various sources which have been verified is preferable to engaging in competing edits about which article content deserves special treatment or precedence in the view of individual editors.

--Yoga Mat (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You comment is illegible and you have not bothered to explain why the lead section reads like an essay. Please try and identify specific areas in the lead section you have a problem with and the changes you want to see. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  14:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Which part can you not read? My comments here are in clear english and the lead tag should not be removed without further discussion on the points I make, and any others that other editors wish to make. Although you gave references - the content in this section does not reflect the overall content of the article, and gives Undue Weight to particular aspects of yoga. Please respect Wikipedia policy on the quality standards of introductory sections and help to reach a consensus rather that enagage in an "edit war". Thanks. --Yoga Mat (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The templates are not meant to be helpful not disruptive, please don't add them till our discussion is complete. Please give specific examples of what is lacking or where there is undue weight. Saying that parts of the lead are undue doesn't help. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  14:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The introductory section has multiple issues, you may need to familiarize yourself with the policies, especially WP:LEAD. Simply put, the lead section does not accurately reflect the overall content of the topic, undue weight is being given to certain aspects - and this is to the detriment of others. A quick scan of the article is sufficient to appreciate the lead is not doing its job here. If you do not know what changes are required then I suggest you cease editing the introduction for the time being until the main points have been discussed. Please do not remove the quality issue tag before these issues have been resolved, ideally by reaching a consensus amongst editors. Thanks. --Yoga Mat (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am quite familiar with the WP:LEAD guidelines. Your behavior is bordering on being disruptive here. Despite continuous requests you continue to duck the question as to what is specifically wrong with the lead. Your excuse to place that template cannot be as vague as lead section does not accurately reflect the overall content of the topic, undue weight is being given to certain aspects. Once again, what is specifically wrong with the lead? Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  15:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My adding of the lead quality tag could in no way seem to be disruptive other than in a helpful way - since the lede in its current format itself represents a disruption of the broader scope and depth of the article. Lets get to work because lead section does not accurately reflect the overall content of the topic, undue weight is being given to certain aspects. is a not vague and is a very specific quality issue - it emphasizes the need to balancing diverse contexts with an appropriate selection of content from within the main article and it is not about disputing specific content which is handles by the sections within the topic. I hope this makes sense. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoga Mat (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You still have not answered my question. Which aspects of the article have been ignored or have not been given enough weight? Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  17:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

CorrectKnowledge asked me to take a look and I agree that Yoga Mat needs to be more specific. Repeated references to material from WP:LEAD are not helpful. Perhaps a list of things you believe are excluded from the lead? When you insert a tag and another user makes a good faith attempt to address your issues, it is incumbent on you to be helpful by providing specific suggestions or deficiencies. Otherwise, the tag is essentially unaddressable and should be removed. --regentspark (comment) 17:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

yukta
yukta means idea.........'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.63.44.128 (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct pronunciation of Yoga
Yogabodychakra.com is not a reliable source. Most websites fall under self–published sources because we can't verify whether they are fact-checking academic sources or not. Anyone can create a website and publish content. I am not opposed to the paragraph but it must be referenced by reliable sources preferably a book published by a fact checking publisher. Correct Knowledge «৳alk»  22:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The "correct" form of a word in English is the form of the word normally recognised and accepted in English. There are many thousands of cases where an English word differs from the form of the same word in the language from which it was taken into English: that does not make the English word "incorrect". JamesBWatson (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson! Thankyou for that information. I guess I'm not imposing any pronunciation upon any of the readers. The readers must know the initial and real pronunciation of the word, belonging to the country where Yog originated from. Now, if English speakers have molded and twisted the word to their liking, that doesn't mean the original and meaningful pronunciation be kept hidden from people. By the way, it is not just Yoga, but hundreds of other Indian words which have been molded by appending the needless and meaningless 'aa' behind them, rendering them a Sri Lankan look. Tell me, does Mahabharat (which is pronounced as Mahabharata by the English speaking folk), which is a proper noun also have a separate accepted spelling in English? Why on earth are so many English-adopted words differing from their actual Indian pronunciation? That's not and it points to a large scale pronunciation anomaly among the English speakers when it comes to speaking most Indian words. If non-English speakers were to someday adopt English words in their vocabulary, twist their pronunciation to their liking and promote them to such extent as to erase the original pronunciation off public memory, it wouldn't go down well with English speakers, will it? On the same lines, the actual pronunciation of the word Yog must be brought forth for readers to know. I'm not asking for the article's title to be changed, it's just one sourced paragraph! Kindly respond. --therash09 (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks CorrectKnowledge for creating this subject on the article's talk page! I appreciate this! I post here my initial content for any interested readers to have a look and comment on. Let them know what the fuss is all about... '"Yoga is a mis-represented terminology in English, as the 'a' at the end of the word is actually silent. It is supposed to be spelled as 'Yog' . It is a Sanskrit word and English having far lesser count of alphabets (and hence vowels) than Sanskrit leads to this error in pronunciation- like is the case with writing most Indian words in English, where the last letter 'a' which is supposed to be silent is erroneously pronounced as an 'aa', as in Mahabharata, Ramayana, Maharashtra, Kerala, Dharma, Karma, Mantra, Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Veda, Ayurveda, Buddha, Mahavira, Sutra, Asana, Tantra, etc. In all these words, the last letter 'a' is silent, but they're all popularly pronounced erroneously. Yoga is pronounced with the same logic, as 'Yog'. In fact, the Sanskrit translation in the Devnagari script mentioned at the very beginning of this article itself spells as 'Yog', and 'not Yoga'!"'' ''' --therash09 (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you looking to insert a paragraph on correct pronunciation in all of the articles mentioned above? If so, it would be best to get a wider consensus at Noticeboard for India-related topics. Start a new thread there with your proposal. If not, the discussion here will be adequate. Correct Knowledge «৳alk»  22:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Therash09, I see that you have not taken on board what I have said. What you have written is full of such loaded language as "real pronunciation of the word", "English speakers have molded and twisted the word", "needless and meaningless", "the actual pronunciation of the word", etc etc. The correct pronunciation of a word in a language in which it is used is the pronunciation recognised in that language There is nothing peculiar in this respect about use of Indian words in English: there are words adopted from Latin into French which have changed their form, words adopted from German into Turkish which have changed their form, words adopted from Greek into Russian which have changed their form, words adopted from Sanskrit into Hindi which have changed their form, words adopted from Chinese into Japanese that have changed their form, and so on and so on. The biggest extent of this in modern times, by a very large margin, is adoption of English words into pretty well every language on earth, sometimes with very considerable changes. You ask "If non-English speakers were to someday adopt English words in their vocabulary, twist their pronunciation to their liking and promote them to such extent as to erase the original pronunciation off public memory, it wouldn't go down well with English speakers, will it?" Well, if it "erased the original pronunciation off public memory", then nobody would mind, because nobody would know. On a more realistic level, though, it happens all the time. There may be a few childish English speaking people who get upset about it, but as far as my experience goes most English speaking people couldn't care less. Nor should they care: it is for the speakers of the other languages to determine what is acceptable in their own languages, not for English-speakers to try to dictate to them how to use a word in their own language, just because it happens to come from English. Likewise for words adopted from any language into any other language. I don't know if there is such a word as "languagism", but there is certainly such a concept, and it's just about as infantile and pointless as nationalism, racialism, religionism, tribalism, and all those other forms of narrow mindedness. However, this is completely off the point: whether a large number of people are so petty-minded as to be offended when speakers of another language modify words derived from their language or not, the fact remains that what is "correct" in a language is what is accepted in that language, and there is nothing more "correct" about the form in one language than in another. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding JamesBWatson. You have probably understood me partly wrongly. "whether a large number of people are so petty-minded as to be offended when speakers of another language modify words derived from their language or not, the fact remains that what is "correct" in a language is what is accepted in that language, and there is nothing more "correct" about the form in one language than in another."- I am not bothered about how Indian words are pronounced in other languages as long as Indians themselves are speaking it correctly. English has adopted 'Avataar' from Sanskrit and your way of pronouncing it is totally different from the actual Sanskrit pronunciation. But it's fine because in India people are aware of the original pronunciation. But in case of Yoga, Karma, Mantra, etc. the influence of English has been so heavy that even Indians don't know what the original pronunciation is and mindlessly append the 'aa' behind every word. What I had urged was to just let the people know of the original Sanksrit pronunciation and I'm not sure if that could be of any issue for people who don't mind how a word is pronounced in other languages. I said that I ain't wanting to impose it upon any reader, just wanna let them know through a small paragraph. I don't know if that could be an issue. Your statements show that you are, perhaps, an idealist. "There may be a few childish English speaking people who get upset about it, but as far as my experience goes most English speaking people couldn't care less."- I'm sure this is correct in an ideal world, but when Englishmen themselves start speaking their original words in the way adopted by some other language, it'll begin to come out of other fellows who'd realize what's going wrong. If pronunciation didn't matter, your schools wouldn't have stressed on it! "Well, if it "erased the original pronunciation off public memory", then nobody would mind, because nobody would know."- Well Sir, you certainly are an idealist, it's confirmed! Your interpretation of my quoted sentence reflects it! I wish the world had people like you! :) It wasn't supposed to erase memories off all people's minds, boss! Some were supposed to retain. :D Look mate, I don't know about English, but in Sanskrit every word has a root word behind its origin and hence some meaning behind pronunciation. So, when fellow Indians start speaking Yoga the English way, it sounds ignorant and stupid, since 'Yogaa' is meaningless, but 'Yog' carries meaning. That's distorting their own language to the roots. It don't care about how others pronounce it (they have their freedoms), leave alone "taking offense" about it. And for your information, I must repeat that your argument of English having adopted Sanskrit words and molded them into its own way of pronouncing may not be true with all words. It may be true with Yoga, Mantra, Karma, etc. But when you take up all misspelled words, you realize that it is the shortage of vowels in English that makes a transliterated Sanskrit word spell wrongly in English. If an Indian guy is named Narendra, the English folk shall pronounce it as 'Narendraa', whereas the 'a' at the end is supposed to be silent! Now, English hasn't adopted this word, has it? So ''why the wrong pronunciation here? That's because of the paucity of characters in English unlike the vast Sanskrit, as mentioned above. Eventually the misspelling goes on and like you've mentioned, gets adopted in English, and ultimately overrides local Indian tongues as well!'' Now that we're clear about each-other's posts and messages, you can let me know if adding that extra paragraph is acceptable to you. It won't hurt the accepted English pronunciation- the title shall always carry that, but will only rectify Indian tongues. The content is correct, you don't have to bother about its factual accuracy. Of course, you can edit it to remove the 'mis-represented tag', which I accept could be misleading to an English speaker- you can retain your adoption!! Just let me know if you're fine with that paragraph, so that we can end this moral debate with each other. --therash09 (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the event that you can find a suitably authoritative source (a scholarly paper on Sanskrit pronunciation, for example) then this might merit a note in the "Terminology" section (I'd suggest: "In Vedic Sanskrit, the more commonly used, literal meaning of the Sanskrit word yoga (pronounced "ˈjəʊɡ" citation) which is "to add", "to join", "to unite", or "to attach" from the root yuj, already had..."). However, the inclusion of the text you've been adding is wholly inappropriate - your argument above is irrelevent (Wikipedia is not an arbiter for the pronounciation of words in India), and your proposed paragraph is original research and soapboxing. Find a decent source, then we can discuss this; until then, adding the Sanskrit pronunciation is not necessary in an English article about yoga. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Yunshui! I am very grateful to you for your response. I'm sorry for replying so late as I wasn't expecting any posts on this after the snub from JamesBWatson. At least you're open to discuss this issue with me and haven't out-rightly refuted my arguments without any explanations. It is very unfortunate that Wikipedia works with some bossy admins who seem to moderate edits depending on their personal opinion. I respect your opinion about considerably modifying my content before it may become suitable for a place in the Terminology section. In fact, this is where I had initially put it and also had, during one of my discussions with JamesBWatson, proposed modifications in the content by the admins themselves, to the extent to suit Wikipedia laws! I was in fully agreement with his views that English may have adopted its own pronunciation for this word and therefore, only wanted to put forward the original pronunciation (the way it was invented) for the knowledge of the readers (particularly Indians), without any intent of 'corrupting' English tongues. And I was very clear about all this in my last talk with him.
 * I will be very happy to get you the sources for my content, but kindly be specific about the type of reference you need. One of my sources was considered unreliable (though it was a website dedicated to Yog, yeah not a scholarly paper), so I'm not sure what's regarded as a reliable scholarly paper. Moreover, the bulk of references on Wikipedia is not scholarly papers. I'm not being offensive or targeting you, but it seems this edit has been singled out to be among such selected few for which foolproof references have been demanded by the mods. I may be incorrect here, but my experience on Wikipedia tells me that the quality of references is not always stressed upon. I'm very sure that my content is correct, since I am a native speaker. So you need not doubt the matter. In any case, I'm very much willing to further read from you! Thanks again!! --therash09 (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Examples of suitable sources for the claim would be: scholarly works on Sanskrit pronunciation (as mentioned above); books from mainstream publishers on either yoga or Sanskrit, a public-interest article in a national newspaper about yoga; a segment from a documentary television programme (produced by a respected studio and aired by a national or international channel); or a public record of a statement by a high-ranking yogi, professor of Sanskrit or other widely accepted authority of the subject. Given the preponderance of yoga websites on the internet, you would have to find a very prominent and generally acclaimed website (something like the American Yoga Association, the Ashtanga Yoga Institute, BKS Iyengar's website and so on) in order to use one as a source. Look at the sources currently in the article (it's been assessed as Good Article quality, meaning that the references are considered to be appropriate and reliable) and find something similar to those.
 * This is not an isolated example of "demanding foolproof references" - we demand such references throughout Wikipedia. That we often don't get them doesn't mean the principle is not still valid. In theory, any reader should be able to verify any fact on Wikipedia by reference to a reliable source; it's one of the fundamental tenets of the encyclopedia. One of the biggest issues here is users who see poor references in other articles and think, "oh, that's all I need to provide." Don't be part of the problem; be part of the solution - set an example for other editors and provide valid, reliable sources. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply Yunshui! I agree with your point that proper references are needed here since this article counts among Good Articles! Fine, that's convincing enough. So I'll try and get what you're expecting. American Yoga Association, that you've mentioned as one of the possible references, is run by an American and will therefore not serve my purpose. It will only mention what English speakers say- Yog'aa'! Anyway, I'll get back to you with standard references. --therash09 (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yunshui, I have found one reference that you might want to look into. Have a look at the number of times the word "Yog" appears at the link: http://www.divyayoga.com/. And I'm sure that before declaring this source as unreliable, you'd like to know more about Baba Ramdev (or perhaps you already know!), to whose firm this website belongs. He's far more reliable than the sources you've suggested in your last post. In the meantime, I'll search for more direct references to make my claim more credible. Moreover, searching for any scholarly material, as you'd suggested, has not been an easy task, because either I find what I'm looking for BUT find it written in Devnagari script- something that won't be acceptable as a reference here I'm sure, or I find a text (written by an Indian, of course, for non-Indians would not know anything about the Sanksrit pronunciation) in English BUT again the same word 'Yoga' written in it- because the writer simply goes by the prevailing English spelling and not because he believes that the word is to be pronounced as 'Yogaa'. The same goes for videos, too! Those recorded in Hindi language mention the word 'Yog', while those in English have the word 'Yogaa' spoken with the flow of the tongue. Here is one such video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e77exc7ukI.So, it is tough to find a scholarly paper or a suitable paper, as suggested by you, on this issue. Kindly address this concern of mine, so that I may proceed as suggested. --therash09 (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here, I've got another link, perhaps a sort of work on Sanskrit pronunciation. http://www.sanskritsounds.com/about-sanskrit/46/index.html has details on Sanskrit Phonology. It mentions how the word 'Asana' is supposed to be pronounced as "Aasan" and not "Aasanaa", thereby keeping the 'a' at the end silent. The same logic holds for Yoga and most other Indian words not yet 'adopted' by English. Other than this, it gives an intricate yet concise explanation on how English-transliterated Sanskrit words are supposed to be spoken correctly. Awaiting your feedback. --therash09 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I hate to be pedantic, but I really can't see that these sources support the claim. Baba Ramdev's site uses "Yog-" in compound terms quite extensively, but as far as I can see, uses "yoga" whenever it refers specifically to the practice of yoga. Deriving a claim of pronunciation from that would be original research at best. The same applies to the YouTube clip; extrapolating a claim for that would be to make a statment that isn't made in the source (and YouTube is not generally regarded as a reliable source anyway).
 * The Sanskrit Sounds site appears to me to contradict your claim - according to the tables there, "ग" should be pronounced "ga" (with a voiced "a"), as in (to use their example) "sa ga ". The site also doesn't seem to support your pronunciation of "asana": "The word "āsana" is made of a long "ā", short "sa" and short "na", so it is pronounced more like "aasana" and gets 2+1+1=4 beats total." I don't see that there's anything there to suggest Sanskrit speakers would drop the "a" at the end of a word. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying Yunshui! What I'll be posting now is going to be pretty long. So, it is requested that you patiently go through the contents, as I'll be attempting to clear any misconceptions in a detailed manner. I'm hoping that I'll not need to post such longer messages in the future, as I'm explaining every damn thing needed to make a layman understand!
 * You claim to have found an anomaly (regarding my claim) in Baba Ramdev's site, whereas there's none. I'll surely get to this, but before that I'd like to clarify to you the misunderstanding regarding the more reliable source, i.e.- the latter one. Look, first of all, you have to believe what I'm telling you. Whatever I'm telling can NOT be wrong, because I am a native speaker- to be very frank. Secondly and without sounding offensive, you have all authority to ask for better sources or seek explanation from me, but you can NOT refute my assertion- for God's sake I use these words in day-to-day life, and have devoted half my life till date studying my native tongue and Sanskrit (I'm from Delhi, to make things clear and Sanskrit is compulsory in most of North India)! I'll give you an explanation to erase any doubts, like I must, but I urge you to kindly erase any preconceptions before judging. Let me come to 'aasan' first. Firstly, as I had told JamesBWatson too, English has a limited set of alphabets, far far lesser than those in Sanskrit. As such you cannot pronounce most Sanskrit words (or for that matter of any Indian language) using the restricted set of 26 alphabets. And that's where phonology comes handy! "āsana" uses Phonology to get as close to the actual pronunciation as possible. Secondly, you correctly received the fact that the "initial a" is supposed to be stretched longer, while the remaining a's here are supposed to be kept short. But that's way short of an explanation behind the English-speaking folk incorrectly calling it 'aasanaa', wherein the 'last a' is dragged miles beyond where it must be stopped. In short, the 'last a' too is wrongly pronounced as 'long a' by them. So for the English people, "āsana" becomes "āsanā"! This is what exactly happens with "Yoga". It is pronounced and spoken as "Yogā", the last 'a' getting stretched way beyond the actual limit. Even though you got it right- the beat concepts and short-long stretching of 'a' in "āsana", you perhaps didn't reason it or link it with Yoga and trashed my claim straightaway!
 * I'd rather give you a more generic explanation on Sanskrit writing from my side. In Sanksrit, the alphabets are all root words, i.e. those carrying no vowels behind them. They are pronounced as 'Half the alphabet', i.e.- the consonant not fully pronounced. Now any vowel superimposed on it modulates the root word and that gives it the corresponding sound. For example, Bee is the root letter "B"(not English letter B, rather English can't express it and this is where the wrong pronunciation begins!) added to "ee"(which is 'i' stretched, just like 'a' stretched in āsana). This is in sharp contrast to English, where a similar sounding letter is present as a fundamental alphabet- B! Now, in writing "Yoga" in Sanskrit, I'll first write down the root letters, i.e.- "Half Y" and "Half G" (I'm sorry, I've no better way to explain it to you using English). Now I see that the "Half Y" has to be modulated using the vowel 'O'(the same as O in English) while the "Half G" has to be modulated using the vowel 'small A'(which is what corresponds to the '1 beat' you understood, i.e.- 'a' unstetched). So Yoga = "Half Y" + "O" + "Half G" + "Small (unstretched) A". I hope that made sense, or I can explain further, if you're willing!
 * Now I'll explain you why I have been pronouncing 'Yoga' as 'Yog' and not 'Yoga'. Firstly, English without phonology is too deficient and cannot transliterate any damn language, at least from India. What Wikipedia and common people like us use in writing English is Common English, i.e.- one without the phonemes (like ā). Now, if I am to explain you the correct way of pronouncing Yoga using Common English, what other way could you suggest me other than writing Yog (even though as per Sanskrit, Yog = "Half Y" + "O" + "Half G" and therefore incorrect since G has not been applied any vowels)? Moreover, the way the English-speaking folk shall pronounce "Yog"(Common English) is exactly how "Yoga"(Phonological English) is supposed to be pronounced. Similarly, "Aasan" in Common English is pronounced the same as "āsana" in Phonological English (that's because "n" of English is not the same as "n" of Sanskrit, in that unlike the "n" of Sanksrit, that of English already carries a vowel superimposed on it therefore does not qualify to become what a "Root Word" or "Half Consonant" in Sanskrit is. So, whether or not do you put that "last a" after 'n' while writing in Common English hardly alters the way the correct pronunciation is to be depicted, albeit putting it surely adulterates the actual way of speaking it). So, you need not throttle me over providing you with the wrong spelling, because it is not!! ;) Now, it becomes very clear that Yoga is correctly written in English ONLY when it employes phonemes, without which English becomes what it is- horrifyingly lacking in characters! And we all know what the outcome of this is- "Yoga" has commonly become "Yogā", which is very unfortunate, because "Yogā" is meaningless in Sanskrit, unlike "Yoga". You must realize that grammar is very inherent to Sanskrit language and it is illogical, stupid and ignorant to pronounce words that carry no meaning or rather a meaning totally out-of-context (something that English commonly does with Sanskrit words, when not employing Phonology). And the reason why Sanskrit gradually declined to its present situation is because its strong grammar ethics made it extremely difficult to learn and grasp, and hence got replaced by easier languages like Hindi and other Indian languages- all derived from it directly or indirectly. Yet to carry it on for over so many millenia was a significant achievement of the Ancient Indians!
 * Finally coming to the first point of your reply- that of Baba Ramdev's site. Well there are two explanations behind this. Having explained to you the rules of Sanskrit writing myself, I guess it won't be a task explaining this part to you! Firstly, like I've said, writing "Yog" in Common English is the same as writing "Yoga" in Phonological English. So I don't think the creator of this website would have bothered himself too much with deciding on which spelling to prefer- the commonly understood one (Yoga) or the more meaningful one (Yog) (because even the Indians- mostly urban, themselves are unaware of Yoga's correct pronunciation). Secondly, and more importantly, if you closely analyze where they've used 'Yog' and 'Yoga', you'll realize that there is no randomness, rather a pattern, which again asks of you to delve into the grammatical intricacies of Sanskrit! You could see that wherever the word 'Yoga' has been used, it is mostly as standalone- correct pronunciation and method of writing of which I've already explained. Coming to the remaining words now. For example, "Yogacharya"... well, this word will quite tell you why MOST Indian words are wrongly pronounced in English. For a Common English speaker, this word is "Yogāchāryā", whereas it is NOT! It is "Yogāchārya", where the 'last a' is again kept short! Now, coming to the more important part, the 'ā' between 'g' and 'c'. Why is this 'a' stretched? This is because "Yogāchārya" is not a single word but a merger (called 'Sandhi' in Sanskrit and one of the most important concepts in its grammar) of "Yog"(not Yoga this time, because the G at the end is a root G or 'Half G' and carries no vowel unlike unstretched 'a' for standalone Yoga, ready to be modulated by ā of āchārya) and "āchārya"(meaning male teacher). So "Yog" + "āchārya" = Yogāchārya. "Yogāchāryā", though not wrong refers to female teacher (āchāryā). In Sanskrit, a 'stretched a (ā)' usually refers to female term, though it may not always be so, and the 'unstretched a (a)' refers to the male term, though again it may not always be true! Coming to another example, say Yogpeeth. Why is there no 'a' between g and p, stretched or unstretched? This is because "Yog"(with 'half G') is the root word here too, like it is for standalone Yoga and Yogāchārya. This time, it is to be merged with peeth (which is certain to be wrongly pronounced by the English speakers, but I won't explain it correct pronunciation here). Now, if you see, the first character of the next word is 'p', which is a consonant. So obviously it cannot modulate the 'Half G' of Yog. And therefore Yog stays as 'Yog'(with Half G) only and does not become Yoga, and thus the word after appending peeth becomes Yogpeeth! Now follow these rules in going through the website and you'll realize that what I've been fighting for here is perhaps not wrong! And in case, you find any word on the website written contrary to the laws I've told above, then kindly ignore it simple because it ain't an easy task to write a Sanskrit word in Common English and yet make it sound the closest to how it actually is! So, the person writing contents for the site may have made mistakes! Moreover, Baba Ramdev's site became a secondary reference once I found the second website- where you picked up 'aasan' from. So, I'm banking more on the latter as a reference.
 * I apologize, in case you feel I've needlessly took your time. I thought it was needed from my side- to convince you is what my responsibility as an editor is. I've explained in quite detail, but am still willing to go deeper to convince you if you so command! I hope you'll take the pains, hopefully for the last time, to go through this vast post of mine, with no preconceptions and give appropriate feedback! --therash09 (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. In your previous posts, it appeared that you were advocating the pronunciation "yog" which, to any English reader (myself included) would be pronounced (using IPA) 'jɔg (to rhyme with dog, fog, bog etc.). Now it seems you're advancing a pronunciation closer to ˈjəʊɡə (trochaic stress, with a semivoiced schwa at the end), which as you can see from the article, is exactly the way Wikipedia shows it should be pronounced. The pronunciation jəʊɡ'aː (iambic stress, long ā at the end) which seems to be what you're describing as the incorrect pronunciation, doesn't exist in English, at least not amongst people who've heard the word "yoga" before... Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  00:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we're finally beginning to understand each other's points! We may not have yet reached consensus, but at least the misunderstanding seems considerably down now. And that's what I was hoping for while typing that essay last time, which I'm hoping you had fully read before commenting (it was so requested! :)).
 * "you were advocating the pronunciation "yog" which, to any English reader (myself included) would be pronounced (using IPA) 'jɔg (to rhyme with dog, fog, bog etc.)" I must apologize here. I hadn't foreseen this coming! You are perhaps right! An English speaker would read 'Yog' the way 'Log' is read. If JamesBWatson had the same concern, then I owe him an apology, despite his disinterest in going ahead with the "petty" discussion. Now, let me tell you what the pronunciation I've been trying to convey to you is. It is like you speak "choke" (or "yoke") in English, with "ch"("y") replaced by "y"(of Yoga) and "ke" replaced by "ga". To refine it further, it is like pronouncing "Rogue" or "Vogue". So the pronunciation that I've been advocating (the true one) can be written as "Yogue" (just like Rogue or Vogue) or "Yowg" (with 'w' silent). I wasn't totally wrong when pushing for "Yog" because I had mentioned beside (most of the times) that "Yog" is pronounced as "Yoga" with the "a" kept silent. So the "Yo" part of Yoga would have naturally become clear to the reader- it's just the same as commonly spoken! But, still your point (drawing parallel between Yog and Log) makes sense and I acknowledge the mistake there!
 * To the other part of your comment now- "The pronunciation jəʊɡ'aː (iambic stress, long ā at the end) which seems to be what you're describing as the incorrect pronunciation, doesn't exist in English, at least not amongst people who've heard the word "yoga" before...". Frankly, I do not understand such representations as "jəʊɡ'a", etc. or whatever they convey. But I can understand what you're trying to convey through this. Mate, I've watched plenty of videos of foreigners teaching or doing "Yoga" online and have seen foreigners practice "Yoga" in Delhi. So, it is certain that I've heard them speak "Yoga" very clearly. How they speak "Yoga" is clearly not like "Rogue" described by me above, where the 'a' at the end has to be only minimally expressed. This 'a' at the last is to be suppressed to the extent that it appears to the listener you just finished at 'g'. That is what "Half G" modulated by "a" (small 'a' in Sanskrit) means. You may be wondering if this is how "Half G" modulated by "a" is, what the pronunciation of "Half G" itself would be! To that, I must repeat that it is impossible to express that in English and that can only be cleared when I speak it to you.
 * In case my usage of Phonology (Yogā, Yoga) was wrong, I honestly apologize for that! The only languages known to me are Hindustani(Hindi/Urdu) in Devnagari, Sanskrit, Common English and some amount of Punjabi. Phonemes are new to me and I had to go through on Wikipedia after finding that reference website and before using them here. So I didn't know how these phonemes pronounce (so if 'ā' means 'a' stretched for a long time and 'a' means 'a' stretched for some time, then this is not what I had meant. I meant that 'a' means 'a' unstretched). My sole intention was to make myself clear to you, which of course is difficult when expressing Sanskrit in English. I hope the technique adopted this time will make the actual pronunciation of Yoga and most other Indian words like Mahabharata, Ramayana, Maharashtra, Kerala, Dharma, Karma, Mantra, Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Veda, Ayurveda, Buddha, Mahavira, Sutra, Asana, Tantra, Aasana, etc. clear to you. In all these words, the 'last a' is spoken minimally, to the extent that to a listener, the alphabet preceding it appears as the last character of the word. This is the best I can express myself in Simple English, but am yet open to giving explanations, where possible and sought by you . Awaiting your response... --therash09 (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here, I have another link for you to clarify. I guess the phonemes I used as reference weren't wrong, but POSSIBLY wrongly interpreted by you. Have a look at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_phonology#Phonology. This will give you clarity over how one is supposed to speak 'a' and 'ā'. 'a'- the term used in Yoga and all other words mentioned by me in the previous post, is spoken as 'u' is in Bun or Bunny. On the other hand, 'ā' is pronounced as the 'a' in Father or Barber. As far as I have (surely) known, English speakers pronounce Yoga (and all the words enlisted by me above) like Father and not Bunny. The 'u' in Bunny is quite like 'Rogue' or 'Yoke' mentioned by me in the previous post, though not exactly the same. I guess you now have enough content to realise what I am trying to convey. Kindly post your views on it... --therash09 (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, regardless of what pronunciation you've heard English-speakers use (I've never heard anyone pronounce it "yogaaa" here in the UK, but maybe it's an American thing) the article as it stands actually supports your preferred version. In all Wikipedia articles concerning foreign language terms, the standard pronunciation is usually provided by an IPA redition in the lead section, just as it is here. ˈjəʊɡə - the IPA pronunciation listed in the article - is pretty much exactly what you describe; a lengthened "o" sound (as in "goal" or "hole") in the middle and a semi-voiced mid-central vowel (similar to the "a" in "sofa") at the end. That's Wikipedia's "official" statement on how the word should be said, and since it seems to be pretty much identical to what you're describing, I don't think there's anything here to actually argue about. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I had described is like Rogue and Vogue (as mentioned earlier). So, as told then, in my version (and hence the actual one), one would write Yoga as Yogue or Yowg. Still, your drawing parallel with Sofa is not that wayward and even though wrong again, it is far better than the Yoga (as the 'a' in Father) that I've heard foreigners and many fellow 'Anglicized' Indians speak. Your version (and that of the IPA code as you say) is yet quite close to what I've been trying to explain (Vo'gue' = Yo'ga'). Maybe, as you said, the foreigners I heard speak the word Yoga were Americans, but I'm sure about this!
 * We've had quite an exhaustive discussion over this issue, even though I couldn't get what I'd wanted- a paragraph in the Terminology section, explaining the pronunciation that I've been advocating for. Despite the failure, I'm not disappointed, for you gave me an opportunity to express myself- you read my posts, you replied to them (despite, perhaps, at times feeling my entire concern to be a non-issue).... and I'm grateful to you about it! With this, I wish to end this discussion with you. If possible, kindly don't quarantine or archive this entire section 'Yoga Pronunciation Issue', so that anybody interested in the topic may share his/ her views! However, to make a stand on this is totally upto you! Thanks for debating with me, and have a great time ahead!!! --therash09 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'm glad that we've been able to come to (what I hope is) a satisfactory conclusion. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  14:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Reception in the West
I'm new so please bear with me as I ask to insert what may be a significant point. Exercise vs Religion currently being disputed with a law suit in California. http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/02/is-doing-yoga-at-a-public-school-really-unconstitutional/ http://abcnews.go.com/US/yoga-lawsuit-encinitas-union-school-district-california-sued/story?id=18561237 Matipop (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting that the religious nature of Yoga is debated up to this day - so much so that it inspired a lawsuit. So many non-religious people practice it. Is it really preaching religion when we do it in school? I don't think so.Matipop (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Effects of yoga on genetic level
I just came across a research citing beneficial effects of yoga and meditation on gene expressions. I intend to add this to the benefits section, "A recent research from the University of Oslo has determined that yoga practices can have an almost immediate impact on gene expression, particularly in immune cells  . Gene expression is a scientific term for whether a specific gene is “turned on,” meaning its protein or RNA product is being made. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traintogain (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 April 2013‎
 * Interesting study, but very preliminary at this time. I don't think this meets WP:MEDRS.
 * I'd also be interested to know the reputation of PLOS as the publisher of such research. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Buddhist sources
I just want to note that the dates given for the Pali texts (29-17 BC) are ludicrous, and that the Schopen quote isn't germane. -   Metalello    talk 07:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted the assertion that the Maha-sihanada Sutta contains a reference to pressing the heel into the perineum. As you can read for yourself here the sutta contains no such statement. Also "Majjhima Nikaya 1:78" is not the Maha-sihanada Sutta, and the paper cited as a source for this claim does not itself give a full source, merely asserting in a footnote that this is so. It is not. -   Metalello    talk 17:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Copy of deleted text for easy reference/review:


 * "The Mahāsīhanadāsutta (Majjhima Nikaya 1:78) mentions the Buddha using a posture where pressure is put on the perineum with the heel, similar even to modern postures intended to stimulate kundalini."
 * Source: pp. 20-21 of http://www.khecari.com/resources/SaktismHathayoga.pdf


 * Copy of source text used for Wikipedia text/edit:


 * "The Buddha himself is said to have tried both pressing his tongue to the back of his mouth, in a manner similar to that of the hathayogic khecarīmudrā, and ukkutikappadhāna, a squatting posture which may be related to hathayogic techniques such as mahāmudrā, mahābandha, mahāvedha, mūlabandha, and vajrāsana in which pressure is put on the perineum with the heel, in order to force upwards the breath or Kundalinī."


 * Note 96 for this sentence indicates: "The Buddha is said to try this and a variety of other ascetic techniques in the Mahāsīhanādasutta (Majjhima Nikāya I:78)".


 * The source appears to refer the Buddha trying "ukkutikappadhana", a squatting posture.  This is defined and translated here:


 * ukkutikappadhanaj: ukkutikappadhana-, N.n.: practice of sitting on one's heels for a long period of time (an ascetic practice). It is a compound of:
 * ukkutika-, N.m.: squatting, sitting on one's heels.
 * padhana-, N.n.: exertion, effort, striving.
 * Euphonic combination: ukkutika- + padhana- = ukkutikappadhana-.
 * Nom.Sg. = ukkutikappadhanaj.
 * Source: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/DBLM/olcourse/pali/reading/gatha141.htm


 * It may be necessary to check the Pali version of this translation to determine whether there is a reference to this term or whether the Buddha is mentioned performing "ukkutikappadhana" in another early Buddhist text.  Suggest further review of source texts and translations to clear up whether this inclusion is valid or not. --Ewj001 (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No. 45 of Maha-sihanada Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html) indicates:
 * "I [Buddha] was one who squatted continuously, devoted to maintaining the squatting position." --Ewj001 (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Dhammapada 141 (collection of sayings of the Buddha) indicates:


 * na naggacariya na jata na pavka
 * nanasaka thandilasayika va
 * rajo ca jallaj ukkutikappadhanaj
 * sodhenti maccaj avitinnakavkhaj


 * Translation:
 * Not wandering around naked, not matted hair, not mud on the body,
 * not fasting, nor lying on the bare ground,
 * dust and sweat, sitting on one's heels -
 * nothing can purify a mortal who has not overcome his doubts.
 * Sources: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/DBLM/olcourse/pali/reading/gatha141.htm and http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/BDLM/en/lesson/pali/reading/gatha141.htm --Ewj001 (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Christian Meditation as Religious Pluralism
There are other views on Christian Meditation, not just the ones indicated in the current version of this Wiki. Based on a scholarly study, I've added a alternate viewpoint on this phenomenon.Matipop (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Made an addition to the lead paragraph, relating to the religious and practical nature of Yoga.Matipop (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also suggest changing the following sentence: "The Roman Catholic Church, and some other Christian organizations have expressed concerns and disapproval with respect to some eastern and New Age practices that include yoga and meditation." – Meditation is not an eastern or a New Age practice. There are numerous schools of Christian meditation (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2707). I may mention the famous Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius of Loyola, which are still being given today by the Society of Jesus. Saint Francis de Sales, in his famous book called Filotea also gives guidance towards the practice of meditation. Many other church fathers did the same. Furthermore, the Catechism of the Catholic Church expressly lists meditation as one of the basic forms of prayer (CCC 2705 - 2708), and goes as far as to say that: "Christians owe it to themselves to develop the desire to meditate regularly, lest they come to resemble the three first kinds of soil in the parable of the sower." (CCC 2707) fluchta (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

In the news
"Meyer then blasted the rationale of the parents suing the San Diego County School District as personal opinion based on Internet searches. The plaintiffs also relied on the testimony of a religious studies professor who found the course pervasively religious.

"It's almost like a trial by Wikipedia, which isn't what this court does," said Meyer, who took nearly two hours to explain a decision that explored yoga's Indian roots and philosophy."

"(...) a San Diego County Superior Court judge said some opponents of an Encinitas elementary school yoga program seem to have gotten their information from inaccurate sources on the Internet.

“It's almost like a trial by Wikipedia, which isn't what this court does,” Judge John Meyer said."

--Enric Naval (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference not working
Reference 87 (Stiles) doesn't point anywhere.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 01:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Norman Sjoman - article up for deletion
A yoga-related article - Norman Sjoman is up for deletion. It contains details of a somewhat controversial view of yoga history. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Article being vandalized by Goodfaith17
Concept of Yoga is prominent in Hinduism, not Buddhism. Buddha attempted Yoga but rejected it. Buddhists should know that. Yoga was adopted in later Buddhism, but it is hardly a Buddhist philosophy. Buddhists only profess meditation. goodfaith17 is vandalizing this and other Hindu articles. Apalaria (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, it is common knowledge that the concept of yoga is integral to Hinduism. The concept was borrowed into Buddhism from Hinduism (like many other things). I think this article needs to be put under protection to avoid further vandalism by Goodfaith. Samenewguy (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do agree that the article is under a process of vandalism by User:Goodfaith17. -Yoonadue (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Yoga is also integral to buddhism, so concepts of both should remain.Goodfaith17 (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Before your edits, both concepts remained there in the article. Template:Hindu philosophy was present there as it has a mention of yoga. However it you who is trying to put Buddhism instead of Hinduism in the lead and trying to change to overall meaning of yoga. -Yoonadue (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * yoga is central to zen and tibetan buddhism. can you change this fact/ I am just trying to make the article more informative. And by the way i am not buddhist at all.read my user pageGoodfaith17 (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Full protection
I have fully protected the article for 1 week to stop the edit warring. Please note that this is not an endorsement of the current version; I have absolutely no opinion whatsoever about the underlying dispute. Please discuss the matter here and use dispute resolution if you need to. However, one thing that I saw while reading through the article history must stop immediately: calling edits made in good faith "vandalism" is considered a personal attack and is not allowed. Please note that WP:VANDAL says that even aggressive POV pushing (if that's what is going on) does not constitute vandalism. Please have a civil discussion here. I'll keep the article watchlisted for awhile, and if the edit warring resumes after the week is up, I'll hand out blocks instead of protection if necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That sounds good, but in the meantime, please revert the article to its most stable form before modifications by User Lotje.Samenewguy (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier, but unless there is a clear "pre-edit war" version, admins generally just protect the most recent version, even though it may be "wrong"; see WP:WRONGVERSION for more information. In this article, there were so many interlaced changes that I couldn't identify a clear point to which to revert. However, I will point out that I don't see very much discussion going on here...Qwyrxian (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Lets discuss It
please discuss this page to find solutions of the problems related to this article.Goodfaith17 (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Yoga is a philosophy propounded in Hinduism. That is not even to be disputed, because it is a well-known fact from all history and can be found in any book. Putting yoga in Buddhism right upfront in the article is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV pushing. The concept of yoga starts in Hinduism and was later borrowed first in Jainism and last in Buddhism. Buddha himself attempted yoga before he sat under the Bodhi tree,but he rejected the idea of attaining peace through yogic postures. First of all, goodfaith17 needs to provide sufficient references that explicitly state that "yoga" (we are not talking of meditation, but the term "yoga") is important in Tibetan Buddhism and Zen Buddhism. I have not seen "yoga" term used explicitly in connection with Buddhist literature or Buddhist philosophy until recent times when people have confused a lot of things. "Meditation" is, no doubt, important in Buddhism and there is a full separate article on that already. If goodfaith17 comes up with solid references on the importance of Yoga as central in Buddhism, the "Hindu philosophy" info-box should be shown first (because yoga is originally a Hindu concept) followed by the the Buddhism info-box, but it should then also show the Jainism info-box. The first paragraph in the Lead should first carry the meaning of "yoga", next it should talk about the origin (Taittiriya Upanishad) and its meaning as originally given in the oldest texts that talk about "yoga". Finally, it should talk about it being one of the six schools of Hindu phiolosophy and the fact that various schools can be found within Hindusim, Buddhism and Jainism. This is exactly how the article was written before goodfaith17 decided to personalize it. Actually tracing the history, the article was first disfigured by user:lotje, who inserted WP:UNDUE and WP:POV sentences on Buddhism in the Lead. Regarding goodfaith17's claim, he is not a Buddhist, first of all, it is beside the point - anyone can vandalize the article - Hindu, Buddhist or neither. Secondly, nobody knows who he/ she really is - the User page is not an identity card. Samenewguy (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Dear Samenewguy. Why do academic books, by scholars, have Buddhist imagery on the front cover? See cover of "Yoga in Practice", Princeton University Press.Lightocha (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The information given by you is misleading. please go to the refrences given at the end of statements. yoga is not an entirely hindu pratice, it was a part of incient vedic religion, from whom buddhism, jainism and hinduism inherited the practice.Goodfaith17 (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yoga is a Hindu concept and an integral part of Hindu philosophy. Samaneguy is right here that Buddha had actually rejected Yoga, but someone is trying to portray it as a Buddhist concept here in this article. Description of Yoga in some Buddhist texts doesn't make it a Buddhist philosophy.

This edit of Goodfaith17 can be clearly seen as an attempt to put Buddhism in the very lead using the same reference which is present in the later part of the lead section which says that various traditions of Yoga are found in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. He took only Buddhism from this and uplifted it to the very lead. In his next edit, he replaced Template:Hindu philosophy by Template:Buddhist philosophy giving a misleading edit summary. Here, he replaced image of Shiva by that of Buddha giving confusing edit summary again. These edits can't be taken as good faith edits at all. -Yoonadue (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop. I have no prefrence for Buddhism over Hinduism. I added only sourced information to the article.Goodfaith17 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes you added the sourced info, but is this the way of editing? Why did you take Buddhism to the very lead ,and very interestingly, with the same reference? -Yoonadue (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yoga is a practice of all dharmic religions nod just hinduism.Goodfaith17 (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate this edit by User:Lightocha and also appreciate its edit summary 'compromise'. At some place Goodfaith17 had to compromise as the claimed source for Yoga being central to Vajrayana doesn't actually have that. Also, Goodfaith17 can't give any satisfactory explanation for these three edits in which he either removed 'Hindu' or replaced it by 'Indian' : 1, 2, 3. You can't say that Swami Vivekananda was a non-Hindu or Patanjali was not a Hindu saint. You also cannot say that this source about Malaysia doesn't mention the word 'Hindu'. Overall, you can't justify your edits. Hence they are very likely to be reverted. -Yoonadue (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Compromise occurs when someone don't say that the other is stating wrong information. you said that source doesnot state that. I ask you, Did you read the whole book(source). Its not a site where you go and confirm it at once. the line "yoga is central to vijrayana" is written at the end part of lion"s roar.please view it once againGoodfaith17 (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I checked it but couldn't find that. If you still say that its present in any part of the book, then you have to give quotations from that book. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Total Heart Health book
A book about a heart disease, Transcendental Meditation etc. is a rubbish source to be used as history. Its the same as using New Age books as sources. Lightocha (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article is not just about history. The source seems reliable. -Yoonadue (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Buddhist Roots of Yoga
Karel Werner states: "Patanjali's system is unthinkable without Buddhism. As far as its terminology goes there is much in the Yoga Sutras that reminds us of Buddhist formulations from the Pali Canon and even more so from the Sarvastivada Abhidharma and from Sautrantika." Then if you want to trace Yoga back farther, Yoga comes from Shramana, not Vedism. The problem is that the Hindus on here, keep editing this kind of information out. Both pages used to have all sorts of well referenced information. Please follow the lead of academic books on yoga which have Buddhist imagery on the title cover. See the cover of "Yoga in Practice", Princeton University Press. Lightocha (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * you are right Lightocha, thanks for your information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodfaith17 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. The yoga article used to have much more Buddhist information about 15 months ago, but the information was selectively deleted.  I have noticed the same pattern in many articles on Wikipedia.  Lightocha (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have noticed here that many Indians on wikipedia are trying to make articles Hindufied, making the neutrality of the articles disputed and marginalizing other dharmic religions. Hinduism related information should only be placed where it needs to beGoodfaith17 (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You only have to read the unfounded comments of Samenewguy above. Or maybe Samenewguy is unaware of the Indian Buddhist Mahasiddhas and their yoga.  Lightocha (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have blocked Goodfaith17 for 24 hours for the comment above. I'm not joking here: everyone had better stop casting aspersions on people based on their religion, or I will issue out more blocks for longer periods of time. I also want to say I'm very disappointed that basically no conversation has been going on while the article is fully protected, and I want to remind everyone that if edit warring resumes after the protection expires, I will either protect the article again, or hand out blocks instead for edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The Varenne book does not support the statement "The concepts of Chakra and Kundalini are first mentioned in these Upanishads."Lightocha (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Lightocha, your claims of Buddhist origins of Yoga have no grounds. Read the article. Yoga has Vedic and even pre-Vedic origins. Pashupati seal of pre-Vedic Indus valley civilization is seen as Shiva in yogic posture by many historians.

The yoga article used to have much more Buddhist information about 15 months ago, but the information was selectively deleted.

Can you please show me which 15 month version had more Buddhist information. As far as my knowledge goes, this article has always been Hindu centred which is right as well. As far as Buddhist material is concerned, there is much unsourced Buddhist-related content in the article which is misleading. that needs to be cleaned as well. -Yoonadue (talk) 13:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Its not my claim. Its the claim of scholars.  By the way, your comments above indicate you are unaware of Buddhist yoga such as tummo, trul khor etc. as taught by the Indian Mahasiddhas. Lightocha (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Any Buddhist yoga was modeled on Hindu yoga and meditation. This whole discussion is ridiculous. Samenewguy (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If any scholar claims that Buddhism existed before the Buddha, that says enough about him/ her. Buddha himself learnt and practised yoga and meditation from other yogis, and by the way, rejected it. Most important of all, Vajrayana Buddhism is one of the last Buddhist thoughts to have evolved in India. In fact, Vajrayana Buddhism was itself an off-shoot of Shaiva and Tantra philosophies, both of which are Hindu philosophies. So that puts the claim of Vajrayana's importance to yoga in its place. I am surprised that people are fighting over such petty issues. Buddhism evolved out of the dharmic thought. Buddha was himself a Hindu very much like Jesus was a Jew. Buddhism and Hinduism evolved side-by-side in India. Everyone knows that. (By the way, one major difference is that Hinduism is way broader than Buddhism and includes way more philosophies than Buddhism does - the idea that Hinduism has only to do with Vedas, which I noticed implied somewhere above, is highly flawed. Several Hindus do not even consider Vedas as scriptures. Understandably though, that is what some may be led to believe because the Vedas were one of the major contention points for the Buddha.) Then what is all this unnecessary argument about? It puts both Hinduism and Buddhism to shame. Samenewguy (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hatha yoga is a late development too, later than Vajrayana. And Buddha was NOT a Hindu.  Buddha was a Sramana, and learned yoga from Sramana. I can cite Indian scholars such as Lal Mani Joshi and western scholars such as J. Bronkhorst. Please don't derail discussion with your various incorrect views.  Lightocha (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, that's what he professed. But he was born in a Hindu family, and later on rejected the authority of the Brahmins. Very similar to how Jesus was born a Jew, but rejected the dealings of the Jewish priests. So I did not state any "incorrect views". I think you need to be more careful about your language and attacks on other Wikipedia editors. Samenewguy (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Buddha was NOT born in a Hindu family. Indian scholar Lal Mani Joshi said "To say that Gautama was born a Hindu [as some comtemporary Hindus and Western observers have claimed] is entirely nonsensical.  There is no evidence to think that Vedic religion was prevalent among the Sakyas, Mallas, or Licchavis....." I think you should stop insisting on your own personal views as being fact.  Lightocha (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You state a couple of scholars. You should understand that Wikipedia policy only accepts widely accepted views, not what a handful of scholars say. The one guy you mention above contests the view that Buddha was born a Hindu of multiple other scholars (by his own statement). I think we are going back to the point of what being a "Hindu" means and there is really no clearcut definition for it. (The well-known and professed story of the Buddha states that his father invited Brahmin priests to his court to predict the child's future. He would not have done that if he did not regard the Brahmin priests. As I said, one can be a Hindu and not believe Vedas or even some "Hindu gods".) In any case, that is beside the main point here. If you do not like my stating Buddha WAS born a Hindu based on what multiple scholars say, that is fine. I do not mind retracting that statement from my argument. It hardly has anything to do with the core of my argument. Samenewguy (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No he contests the view of "contemporary Hindus", not other scholars. All scholars agree Buddha was not born in a Hindu family.  But since you are retracting your statement, we should move on. Lightocha (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all I am surprised by your statement that defies logic. Your statement contradicts itself and also the quotation that you yourself posted. If contemporary Hindu scholars do not agree, then we do not have agreement among all scholars. (And after all, who a Hindu is would not be defined by Western scholars.) Though according to the scholar you quoted, it is not just "Hindu" but also Western scholars that claim Siddharta's family was Hindu. In any case, this is not at all important here because as I said, I stated that based on what I have read written by some scholars. It is not my personal opinion and I am not even interested in pursuing the debate on the issue because it is not at all important in the current context. Samenewguy (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He is talking about "contemporary Hindus". The general populace of India.  Not scholars.  How many times do I have to say it?   Lightocha (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I caught why there is a confusion. The scholar is not talking about "Hindus", he is talking about "Vedic religion", a difference I have stressed several times above. Hindu philosophy is way broader than the Vedic religion. I do not know how much you know about Hinduism, but several gods of Hinduism find no mention in any Veda at all. Some forms of Shaivism have beliefs and practices older than the Vedas. Samenewguy (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The root of this edit war was not that the article should not be more inclusive (we would all like to make these articles more informative and useful for the readers), but that it should READ neutral and true to history, chronology and known facts. It should not have WP:UNDUE and WP:POV insertions. In my view, inserting "Tibetan Buddhism" upfront into the lead of the article was not a proper way of expressing the intent to include information on yoga in Buddhism into the lead of article. It could simply first have been discussed here or it could have been added without disturbing the validity and integrity of the existing information in the article. Also, the fact that yoga is important in Buddhism and Jainism was already there in the Lead. Only the reference to Vajrayana was not. Also, the body of the article already had information about Buddhist texts in a manner similar to information about Hindu texts. Because the concept of "yoga" goes beyond just asanas and pranayam in Hinduism, a majority of the article appeared to discuss Hindu texts. After all, this article should include information about all types of yoga, not just asanas and pranayam. Samenewguy (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Lightocha, I like your latest edit to the Lead. I think that is the proper way of making edits without disrupting what is already there. It would be nice if you also add reference there. Samenewguy (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Lightocha, are you seriously saying that buddha wasn't a hindu? I would like to know which "all scholars" says that he wasn't a hindu either. You can't change something that has been already done, i would like to add that, also you should stop taking these matters personally, because they are based on facts, not some untold bias. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yoga: What are you?
This page doesn't really have a definition of Yoga - it only says what category it belongs to (hindu disciplines), but does not say concisely what uniquely defines it. Can someone please write a nice succinct definition? Fresheneesz (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see a definition that was added to the Lead section. Your comments would be appreciated. --Ewj001 (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

We should avoid using 'a term' or 'a word' because wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary, so that article focuses on topics, not words. The opening sentence should clearly define what the article is about and what we mean when we use the term 'yoga' in the article. If yoga covers a wide variety of practices, the intro should say that. If you believe that the word 'yoga' covers activities or philosophies that are too different from each other to come under the same word, you will need to create separate articles and a disambiguation page. Ashmoo (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Needs to Lock this Article
I see the same thing happen over and over again. Hindus delete good references, and then insert junk websites — Preceding unsigned comment added by FedUpReader (talk • contribs) 02:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Vedic origins of yoga?
Four "sources" are give for "The disciplines related to Yoga originated in ancient Vedic religion, from whom, Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism inherited the practice." Friendly regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * [maitrihouseyoga.com/wp-content/uploads/history.pdf Maitri House Yoga, A Brief History of Yoga] - A yoga centre, no sources given in the document. Unreliable source. No support for the "inheritence"-statement. Quotes:
 * "Pre-Vedic period (before 3000bc, aprox)—archeologists discovered statues and paintings of figures representing what we see as Shiva, in various meditation and asana poses. Yoga is ageless-time eternal"
 * "Vedic Period (around 2000bc)—The development of Yoga begins here."
 * Did Yoga Originate?What is Yoga? - Dead link
 * MedIndia, Yoga History - No sources are given; unreliable source. No support for "Vedic origins"-statement. Quote:
 * "Vedic Yoga can also be called Archaic Yoga, as people believed in a ritualistic way of life. Rituals, sacrifices, and ceremonies existed because they were considered a means of connection to the spirit world. People turned to rishis or Vedic yogis for illumination."
 * http://sacred-earth.typepad.com, Origins of Yoga - The Vedas - A blog, unreliable source. The word yoga is only being mentioned in the title. No support for both statements.
 * "And now for soemthing completely different":
 * Geoffrey Samuel, The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, Cambridge University Press: "Our best evidence suggests that [yogic practice] developed in the same ascetic circles as the early shramanic movements (Buddhists, Jainasand Ajivikas), probbably in around the sixth and fifth centuries BCE." (p.8)
 * David Gordon White, Yoga, Brief History of an idea. According to White, the first use of the word "yoga" is in the Rg Veda, where it denotes a yoke, but also a war chariot. In the Mahabarata it comes to mean "a divine chariot, that carried him upward in a burst of light to and through the sun, and on to the heaven of gods and heroes." (p4) White further states: "The earliest extant systematic account of yoga and a bridge from the earlier Vedic uses of the term is found in the Hindu Kathaka Upanisad(Ku), a scripture dating from about the third century Bce." (p.4). But White also states: "[I]t describes the hierarchy of mind-body constituents—the senses, mind, intellect, etc.—that comprise the foundational categories of Sāmkhya philosophy, whose metaphysical system grounds the yoga of the YS, Bhg, and other texts and schools (Ku3.10–11; 6.7–8)" (emphasis JJ).
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the sources are unreliable, you should be free to delete them — Preceding unsigned comment added by EtatLEal (talk • contribs) 16:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear fellow editors, there's a lot more to find on the origins of yoga. When you use Google, you can go to Google Books straight away, instead of the web. Take care of the publisher; academic press is the best, of course. And beware of 'popular' books and books defending particular points of view; they are less reliable. Best regards to everyone,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Patanjali
There is no need to mention Patanjali's Yoga Sutras twice in the beginning of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelChicken (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Changes by Samenewguy : Reversal of material added by other editors and order of info-boxes
Goodfaith17, STOP! You are reverting changes made by other editors without proper discussion. Samenewguy (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yoga is a way broader philosophy and discipline in Hinduism than in Buddhism and Jainism. In Hinduism, Yoga means more than just asanas and pranayam. For instance, the Bhagavad Gita defines 4 types of yoga - Karma, Jnana, Raja, Bhakti - only one of which (Raja) includes asanas and pranayam. Also, though there is no consensus on this, yoga may have existed even before the Vedas. In either case, the philosophy is definitely there in Vedas and Upanishads (Hindu scriptures), which pre-date Gautama Buddha or Mahavira Jain. It makes complete sense to show the Hinduism info-box on top. Another suggestion is remove the info-boxes altogether. After all, the article also goes on to discuss about influence of yoga on other religions like Islam and Christianity. But showing the info-boxes in an alphabetical order does not make sense.Samenewguy (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * other means only you.before your edits, religions in the article were arranged alphabetically.you have disturbed the sequence drastically. please stop it.Goodfaith17 (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Others" doesn't mean only me. Did you look at the history of the article? Can you also see that there has been a long discussion above? There is no basis for alphabetical arrangement of the info-boxes. They come in order of where the philosophy is more prominent and important. Please read WP policies before disfiguring articles. Samenewguy (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * we had already a huge talk on lets discuss it section on either yoga is buddhist or hindu practice. please read it.Goodfaith17 (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Importance and prominence of yoga in Hinduism is an undisputable fact. It can only be disputed by people of ridiculously little knowledge. Regarding the "Let's discuss it" section, all I see there are personal attacks on other editors and individualistic views. It has hardly anything to do with civil and intellectual discussion. Samenewguy (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * dear. who is asking you that hinduism has no importance for yoga. but you also know that yoga is also a practice of buddhists and jains.Goodfaith17 (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Alphabetical order is not mandatory everywhere on Wikipedia articles. -Yoonadue (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Prominence of yoga in Hinduism is disputable. The vast majority of Hindus, Brahmin priests etc. do not practice yoga. Yoga developed among the tantrics of society, not the mainstream. That is indisputable fact. Indeed scholars call the promotion of yoga as neo-Hinduism tracing to Vivekananda.  I would argue that Vajrayana yogis practice more asanas and pranayamas, percentage wise.  Lightocha (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

All of you need to stop arguing based on your own opinions and start arguing based upon reliable sources. This edit warring needs to stop. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I accept Samenewguy's suggestion of removing all the info boxes. This is how the article was 2 years ago.  Lightocha (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Buddha was a hindu. He was born as a Kshatriya, not a Shramana. Yoga Sutras follow Upanishads. Please note the 5 th Niyama of the yoga sutras "Iswara pranidhana". When did Buddha start working Ishwar, means God or Brahman. Buddha taught theory of karma which is nothing but a vedic concept. The concepts of yoga are eclearly explained in the Bhagavad Gita. There are 20 yoga upanishads out of the 108 upanishadsManipadmehum (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Manipadmehum


 * He was a hindu, but it's matter of dispute that what caste he was, these castes were created by 200 BCE or later, while buddha is at least 200 years older than these cultural values. Everyone knows that many of the buddhist theories have been either derived from Hinduism or inspired from it, it just happens who gets attracted to who, it's by time, likeness, etc. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course the Buddha was not a Hindu; he was a kshatriya, born in a moderate Vedic culture at the central Ganges Plain area, where the shramana-traditions developed. This area had a moderate Vedic culture, where the kshatriyas were the highest varna, in contrast to the Brahmanic ideology of Kuru-Panchala, were the Brahmins had become the highest varna. Both the Vedic culture and the shramana tradition contributed to the emergence of Hinduism around the start of the Common Era. See Samuel (2008), The Origins of Yga and Tantra, especially p.127-128.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)