Talk:Yoga/Archive 7

Vivekananda & Early Buddhist Texts
Swami Vivekananda (12 Jan 1863 - 4 July 1902) who brought yoga to the west when he spoke at the World's Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893. Swami Vivekananda, the Indian founder of “modern yoga” (De Michelis 2004: 91–180) left his mark by carrying the gospel of modern yoga to the west. Swami Vivekenanda may not have invented Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (which Patanjali himself did not invent he merely collected, organized and compiled already existing knowledge of yoga into the yoga sutras (aphorisms)) but he did write commentaries and primarily responsible for influencing and inspiring next generation of teachers such as Paramahamsa Yogananda to follow his footsteps to propagate the knowledge of yoga to the west. Buddha's disciples spread the Budhhism to the South and Far Eastern Countries, Vivekananda, disciple of Paramahamsa Ramakrishna, brought yoga and Vedanta to the West. See White (2011) p.20-21 for an assessment of Vivekananda:
 * ''"Modern Yoga

In Calcutta, colonial India’s most important center of intellectual life, the late nineteenth century saw the emergence of a new “holy man” style among leaders of the Indian reform and independence movement. A prime catalyst for this shift was the 1882 publication of Bankim Chandra Chatterji’s powerful and controversial Bengali novel Ānandamath(Lipner 2005), which drew parallels between the Sannyasi and Fakir rebellion and the cause of Indian independence. In the years and decades that followed, numerous (mainly Bengali) reformers shed their Western-style clothing to put on the saffron robes of Indian holy men. These included, most notably, Swami Vivekananda, the Indian founder of “modern yoga” (De Michelis 2004: 91–180); and Sri Aurobindo, who was jailed by the British for plotting a sannyāsī revolt against the empire but who devoted the latter part of his life to yoga, founding his famous āśram in Pondicherry in 1926. While the other leading yoga gurus of the first half of the twentieth century had no reform or political agenda, they left their mark by carrying the gospel of modern yoga to the west. These include Paramahamsa Yogananda, the author of the perennial best-selling 1946 publication, Autobiography of a Yogi; Sivananda, who was for a short time the guru of the pioneering yoga scholar and historian of religions Mirceaeliade; Kuvalayananda, who focused on the modern scientific and medical benefits of yoga practice (alter 2004: 73–108); Hariharananda aranya, the founder of the Kapila Matha [ Jacobsen]; and Krishnamacharya [Singleton,narasimhan, and Jayashree], the guru of the three hatha yoga masters most responsible for popularizing postural yoga throughout the world in the late twentieth century. Vivekananda’s rehabilitation of what he termed “rāja yoga” is exemplary, for its motives, its influences, and its content. A shrewd culture broker seeking a way to turn his countrymen away from practices he termed “kitchen religion,” Vivekananda seized upon the symbolic power of yoga as a genuinely Indian, yet non-sectarian, type of applied philosophy that could be wielded as a “unifying sign of the Indian nation. . . not only for national consumption but for consumption by the entire world” (Van der Veer 2001: 73–74). For Vivekananda, rāja yoga, or “classical yoga,” was the science of yoga taught in the Yoga Sūtra, a notion he took from none other than the Theosophist Madame Blavatsky, who had a strong Indian following in the late nineteenth century. Following his success in introducing rāja yoga to western audiences at the 1892 World Parliament of Religions at Chicago, Vivekananda remained in the United States for much of the next decade (he died in 1902), lecturing and writing on the YS. His quite idiosyncratic interpretations of this work were highly congenial to the religiosity of the period, which found expression in India mainly through the rationalist spirituality of Neo-Vedānta. So it was that Vivekananda defined rāja yoga as the supreme contemplative path to selfrealization, in which the self so realized was the supreme self, the absolute brahman or god-self within."'' Source:

Swami Vivekananda's works on the four Yogas (Karma yoga for the worker, Bhakti yoga for the lover, Raja yoga for the mystic, and Jnana yoga for the philosopher) are very influential and still seen as fundamental texts for anyone interested in the practice of classic Yoga. Source:

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I hope Swami Rama is not an unreliable source on Yoga. He was the first person to demonstrate control over involuntary functions of the body. He himself has quoted Vivekananda in the book "Science of Breath" on the interpretation of Yoga sutras. Do you want page number and additional details. Let us convert this page into a joke by labelling Vivekananda a Hindu nationalist. Can you please cite any specific work of his and point out any mistakes. He is the authority of Raja yoga and yoga in general. Also what is the motive of White in criticizing Vivekananda? I want to understand it based on his opinion of Vivekananda's lectures, not any personal biases. Manipadmehum (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Vivekananda's interpretation of Yoga is completely in alignment with Bhagavad Gita teachings and the Upanishads. It has nothing to with Buddhism except in areas where he criticized the followers of Buddhism who could not understand Buddha's teachings.Manipadmehum (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You're kidding? Vivekananda gave his own interpretations of the Hindu tradition; see also King, Orientalism and Religion, for a description of the development of Neo-Vedanta, and the role of Vivekananda here-in; and Peter van der Veer (1994), Religious Nationalism: Hindus and Muslims in India p.70 for Vivekananda and Hindu nationalism. David Gordon White is one of the best scholars of Yoga, whereas Vivekananda has no academic credibility whatsoever. Nothing. Zero. Nope. He's a hero in India, but he's not a scholar. A few quotes from King:
 * "In an Asian context, the Western-influenced neo-Vedanta of Indians such as Rammohan Roy, Mahatma Gandhi, Vivekananda, Aurobindo and Radhakrishnan has played a seminal role in the construction of contemporary notions of Hinduism as a universal world religion. This influence is so prevalent that today what most Religious Education courses mean by ‘Hinduism’ is a colonially filtered and retrospective Vedanticization of Indian religion." (p.69)
 * "The same transformation can be seen in the Hindu context, where Orientalist presuppositions about the ‘spirituality’ of India, etc., were used by reformers such as Rammohun Roy, Dayananda Saraswati, Swami Vivekananda and Mohandas K. Gandhi in the development of an anti-colonial Hindu nationalism. This no doubt reflects not only the level of permeation of Orientalist ideas amongst the native (and colonially educated) intelligentsia of India" (p.86)
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

How did Blavatsky who had no knowledge of Vedas, upanishads and yoga sutras teach Vivekananda about all this ? How could Vivekananda write about Raja yoga, Karma yoga and Bhakti yoga which are in alignment with Bhagavad gita and the upanishads ? Mr White's material covers tantric sex and yoga sutras. so how do you rate him bigger than Vivekananda ? Buddha also was not a scholar from a western university as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manipadmehum (talk • contribs) 07:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Start reading; start with King. Full text available via the link. Then read . And   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Vivekananda is scholarly on the elements of Hinduism, which includes Yoga. He should be added somewhere here. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He's being mentioned in the "Modern history"-section, and that's where he belongs, as far as I can see. Read Rambachan for an assessment of Vivekanda's reliability as a scholar.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Vivekananda's comment is probably criticism.. Is it? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

who is in control of this page is it?
Bladesmulti or Joshua Jonathan, im just looking through the page and feel that more western writers are accepted while Indian writers seem to be more rejected, For Indians it is important for them to have a mark on their own culture and history, i mean its them who have been keeping yoga and its information alive for over two thousand years, not some western Cambridge university graduate.82.38.161.217 (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)veda
 * I know, but different opinions are listed, it's same with just every good article of wikipedia. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is international, not Indian. And yes, many insights on Indian history and religion are very uncomfortable for Indians. But "we" are also critical of our own culture and history. See for example Biblical criticism and Documentary hypothesis (great theory!). And personally, although being a "convert" to Buddhism, I'm also highly critical of Buddhism. See, for example Zen Narratives. Nevertheless, I meditate every morning, and try to be a decent human being. Being critical helps me in this respect, to strip the "stories" from the "facts", and find out what really matters.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sections are in the wrong chronological order
Obviously Samkhya existed before the Bhagavad Gita etc.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request on Patanjali
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan In the lead of the Yoga page, there is way too much emphasis on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Indeed, the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali don't need to be mentioned at all. Please eliminate Yoga Sutras of Patanjali in lead. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with you, but what exactly have you got in mind?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you should rewrite the whole lead. You have knowledge in this area.  Also throw in Sramanic origin in lead. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your confidence in my capabilities. It might take some time, though.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See the edits I made. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree there is too much emphasis on Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Hatha yoga is derived from the Nath and ultimately Kaula, not Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HathaYogin (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I have removed a paragraph regarding claims of improved cognitive function etc from the article, as a clear copyright violation - it is copy-pasted direct from the source. I would also note that the Huffington Post is unlikely to be recognised as a reliable source concerning such claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Is "Neo-" (as in "Neo-Vedanta") pejorative?
Question to all: Is the prefix "Neo-", as in "Neo-Vedanta", a value-neutral prefix? It seems to be one that western scholars use, and that Joshua Jonathan has on that basis inserted into many Wikipedia articles. But I don't hear the words "Neo-Christian" or "Neo-Jewish" used much on WP, and I wonder whether modern-day Christians and Jews would feel comfortable being described with such a phrase. In fact, my suspicion that they wouldn't like those terms was just now this moment confirmed : The urban dictionary defines a neo-Christian as "An individual who calls himself a christian, yet fails to act in accordance with the teachings of Jesus." In other words, a fake Christian.

Furthermore, although others may feel differently, my ear tells me that "Neo-Vedanta", which is defined in the 4th word of its WP article lede as synonymous with "Neo-Hinduism", has negative connotations built in. It seems to connote the idea that modern Hindus such as Swami Vivekananda are not in a direct line with a millennial tradition. To my ear, it makes them sound a bit like amateurs in their own tradition. Now I lack the time to delve in detail into the writings of the scholars (e.g., White) that Joshua Jonathan cites. But I know enough about scholarship to know that many scholars of religion/spirituality can miss the boat: They can focus on externals but miss the inner coherence. This is true of scholars of many religious traditions, but my perception is that the problem has been especially acute in scholarship on Hinduism.

Furthermore, there are scholars such as Julius Lipner -- e.g., Religious Studies, 32(1), 109-126 - that emphasize the dynamic, evolving nature of Hinduism, portraying it as constantly putting down new roots, and sending up new branches, but all in a coherent relation (connection) with earlier manifestations. To designate some of the more recent variations of that process as "Neo-" is a rhetorical move that has a lot of potential implications, not all of them free of POV. I think WP should take a careful look at whether this "Neo-" designator may in fact be somewhat malodorously paternalistic (or worse) in its connotations, despite its recent usage and perhaps origin in a scholarly context. If it is malodorous to a lot of ears (or should I say noses?) then I suppose Wikipedia may not have a totally free hand in how it seeks to redress the situation, since WP must still rely on reliable sources, which most commonly means scholarship, but sometimes can mean other things. At least we'd have identified a problem that needs to be addressed. And - if the term is indeed determined to have POV connotations - perhaps we can be much more careful in balancing it with other perspectives that balance out the hidden pejorative message the term contains. More generally, we could (if the term is found to be pejorative) try to identify appropriate resources and approaches to rebalance any text where the term is used. If this issue is real and we were to totally neglect it, then I fear we risk being "neo-Wikipedians", or "neo-" whatever we are, in a pejorative sense parallel to "neo-Christian" as defined above by the urban dictionary.

I am adding this to the Yoga page since it was catalyzed by conversations on the Yoga page. But please feel free to copy it to the neo-Vedanta page. Best regards to all.-- Presearch (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Very good points you're raising here. Insightfull.
 * To me, "Neo-Hinduism" has a different "sound" than "Neo-Vedanta". I understand your association of "Neo-Hinduism" with "Neo-Christian". "Neo-Vedanta", to me, sounds more like 'a further development of Vedanta', which is itself of course a tradition of interpretation. So a 'new interpretation', atuned to the present times, sounds (seems) logically to me.
 * Many more scholars have noticed this "evolving nature". Axel Michaels (2004) calls it "the identificatory habit". And scholars like Hiltebeitel (2003), Nicholson (2010) and Samuel (2010 (2008)) have described this ongoing development in detail.
 * As my personal understanding is developing, I'm becoming more appreciative of the efforts of man like Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan. They lived in an oppressive, colonial system, and/but used the narratives of this system on Hinduism against this system. That's almost brilliant. And they were fighting a just fight. This context should be mentioned.
 * But (sorry, here's also another side) this does not change the fact that people like Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan have also been criticized for their approach, especially for 'blurring together' a broad range of traditions. Of course, their view can be seen as a further development of Hinduism. But it can also be seen as a "veiling" of the differences within the Hindu tradition (see also Flood 1996, last chapter (sorry, I haven't got the book at hand right now; it's lying besides my bed, and my wife is sleeping; I don't want to wake her up. My apologies)), and as a 'simplification'. I suspect that this is also a reason for the strong reactions in the west: some people here want to know the details, the differences, and get frustrated about this "identificatory habitus". But that's my personal thought.
 * Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Neo-Vedanta To be continued there? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

my reversion in Purpose section
In this edit I removed this: The various branches of yoga all supply benefits to those who practice, and the entire concept of it is based on a complex structure. Yoga recognizes the natural human condition. It communicates to its practicers that the mind is restless, and there is a way to bring your mind under full control. Yoga supplies methods for reaching the full potential of the human body, as well as the mind.<

I see two problems with this. First, it's written in a non-neutral tone. Rather than describing aspects of Yoga it endorses them. Second I don't think it belongs in the "Purpose" section. It seems too weirdly general. Side note: This is related to Education Program:Duquesne University/UCOR 143 (Spring 2014).&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Indus valley criticism.. white theory is a train wreck at best
[P]rior to the end of the first millennium CE, detailed descriptions of āsanas were nowhere to be found in the Indian textual record. In the light of this, any claim that sculpted images of cross-legged figures—including those represented on the famous clay seals from third millennium BCE Indus Valley archeological sites—represent yogic postures are speculative at best.

that's like saying Egypt's religion has no links to pyramids just because no archaeologist has found a text which talks about the pyramids being triangular in shape!

Yoga teachers fly to india not to read diagrams or carvings of yoga positions, they come to india to learn yoga face to face sight to sight, thats how india has done it for over 3,000 years and thats how buddha himself was taught in india, he was not taught yoga by text he was taught by hindu rishis of india face to face, text is to explain the purpose of yoga and its roots Buddha reminds me of western yoga teachers that come to india to get taught yoga then go back to america re-brand everything and start to try and self proclaim its history and knowledge to what suits them.82.38.160.13 (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)ve

Joshua Jonathan Yoga Origins or Yoga criticism?
I think instead of arguing in the yoga origin sections, with According to Zimmer this and Samuel argues and says that, we should give Western criticism its own section on the page, to me it seems like another aryan theory train wreck waiting to happen.

Archaeological Origins of yoga at the Proto-Shiva seal indus valley no one from india disputes it, in fact Wikipedia states that Hinduism began life at the indus valley.

Also the religious text of Hinduism is called The Bharitiya scriptures, this is a text which forms ties to both vedic and indus cultures blended into this mass of publications which vedas are just a fragment of. See 82.38.160.13 (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)ve

Reply by JJ:  Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Western criticism section: Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, so WP:RS are being used to describe the origins of yoga. To label this "Western criticism" misses the point of WP:RS
 * Proto-Shiva seal: "no one from india disputes it". See Pashupati seal for conclusions on this seal; see also the introduction of Samuel for a discussion on this seal, and the conclusion that it can't be seen as a proto-Shiva image.

politics through the back door
Under 'yoga'. I t is written "Also, yoga is used in developing countries like Palestine" Palestine is not a developing country. Unfortunately it is not even a country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.209.250 (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "region" seemed fine. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yoga also gained a foothold in America in the l920's through the work of Paramhansa Yogananda who was the first yogi from India to make his home in the West.

500 million
I can see that different IPs are still inserting this information, but this is an outdated weblink, it is from 2006. Also how it is relevant for the lead? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is relevant for the lead because it shows how big the business of yoga is. (121.219.237.2 (talk))
 * You should see -- Bladesmulti (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read them, are they listed as sources on the Yoga Wikipedia page? (121.219.237.2 (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC))
 * No and you have to tell that what you think about them, how you will rephrase, anyone else who is reading this conversation will also observe and may propose a change. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Small ambiguity in the lead
The second sentence in the lead contains the fragment "...in its ascetic circles". What is the "its" referring to? As it stands it could be taken to refer to "Yoga" or, if a plurality error is assumed, to "pre-Vedic Indian traditions" or even to "the sixth and fifth centuries BCE". The fix should be simple but depends on which of those meanings is intended. Thomask0 (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Buddhism is not a school of yoga"
This line was added twice:
 * "Although Buddhism is not a school of yoga, Buddhist meditation is often practices alongside other yogic practices in West."

This statement is only true when you take a limited definition of yaga, c.q. as being Hinduistic or so. Taking a broader definition, Buddhism is also yoga, c.q. a yuk to train the mind. See: Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   09:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

World Record yoga
Do we have any Images of a yoga world records gathering in Europe or america or even asia that we can use for this wiki page, if so would it be poss to pop one up on here?92.236.96.38 (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Caplock

Origins
I've been pondering over a question for the past few days, and I would be happy to receive some responses from other editors. First this quote from Flood:
 * "...continuities can undoubtedly be found between renunciation and vedic Brahmanism, while elements from non-Brahmanical, Sramana traditions also played an important part in the formation of the renunciate ideal." (Flood 1996, p. 77)

I wonder, is renunciation possible in a small-scale agricultural society ? I mean, who's going to feed you when you don't work, in a society that needs all the labour available? Did yoga and meditation ponly appear when renunciation was possible, and there was a writing-system which could be used to write down thoughts and practices?

Or did these practices already exist, maybe in other forms, without the lotus-posture? What could have been the "predecessors" of yoga and meditation? Somehow it seems unlikely, to me, that yoga and meditation appeared such a relatively short time away in human history. It seems to me that this capacity to concentrate, or focus, or pay close attention, must be innate to humans.

At Bonaire, I've seen a small rock shelter at the sea side with insrciptions of the stars. In prehistoric times man probbaly sat there throughout the night, watching the stars. What happens if you sit there, for hours, just focussing on the sky at night?

And how about prehistoric hunters, squatting down, silently and motionless, paying close attention to their surroundings and waiting for their prey? What effect does this have?

What do others think of this? And does anyone know of literature, either scholarly or speculative, with further thoughts on this? Thanks in advance for your responses,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

International Yoga Sports Federation and its World Yoga Sports Championship
Should they be mentioned here? Ref: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2015
Please change "there are a variety of schools, practices and goals" on the first line of text to "there is a variety of schools, practices and goals" because variety is a singular noun.

129.2.14.86 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Done! Thanks!!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"Potential benefits for adults" section
The first sentence, "While much of the medical community...", is misleading (and duplicated word-for-word on the "Yoga as exercise or alternative medicine" Wikipedia page, where Hatha Yoga is specified). In fact, the scientific consensus is that the flaws in the studies that have taken place are usually so great as to prevent their results from being considered significant, while the article appears to assert the opposite. In fact, I'm not sure that the article benefits from this sentence at all, as the second sentence appears to reflect scientific consensus far better, and the rest of the section appears to document the scientifically-supportable health impacts quite well. I'll have a go at rewriting, though it may be best to just remove it.

I'm also not sure what the point about increasing GABA levels is supposed to be - it is asserted as if it were positive, but with no context and although it may well be true the reader is forced to ask: So what? I will be looking into this further, to supplement my own limited knowledge, and have a go at touching this up at the same time.194.75.37.250 (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This article is altogether too cautious in referring to the medical benefits of yoga. Yoga is a very ancient and completely unscientific practice. If adherents enjoy the process, and some believe that they are benefiting from it, good for them. But we should not let PC sensitivities get in the way of facts. Yoga has no medical benefits. This should be stated, less some people be induced into following Yoga instead of real medicine. The only proven medical effect of Yoga is that a small number of followers develop physical injuries....Royalcourtier (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Pashupati seal
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan

Hi, this is about edits, re-edits and reversals in Yoga article. You seem to have strong opinion regarding pre-Buddhist Nikayas sources about origins of yoga. Your description “speculative” seems to be a biased approach that labels material evidence to fit that label. ‘Speculative’ is rather a theoretical realm, where people argue about semantics and such, but here we’re talking about something that you can see and possibly touch. So, what is speculative here? You need to explain that before arbitrarily removing some description. Also, I might point out there’s growing number of commentators who indeed support the view that Pashupati seals testify to yoga’s origins. It’s not a certainty but a possibility that needs to be mention for the sake of completeness. Thanks. Pradeepwb. (Pradeepwb) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeepwb (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It might be helpful to read this article that outlines the views and opinions regarding this subject: (Pradeepwb 17:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC))

Reply by JJ: Hi Pradeepwb. I'm glad to see that more Indians are loosing their fixation on Vedic history, and are aware of the broader history of India. Nevertheless, I called your edits "speculative". I'll explain why.

You added the following text to the lead:
 * "The origins of Yoga may date back to pre-vedic Indian traditions. Several seals discovered at Indus Valley Civilization sites (also known as the Harappan Civilization or the Indus Sarasvati Civilization, flourished from 3300 B.C. to 1800 B.C.) depict figures in positions resembling a common yoga or meditation pose. "

It's a copy of a line at Yoga, with an additional source:
 * "Several seals discovered at Indus Valley Civilization sites depict figures in positions resembling a common yoga or meditation pose. "

The first problem is that this is not a summary, but a repetition. The article does not contain anymore info on the seal than that line.

The Pashupati seal does, though. An dmakes very clear that any interpretation of this seal as depicting Shiva is speculative. The same goes for putting this line in the lead: it suggests that it is a yoga-posture, whereas Possehl says "resembling", that is, "looks like". Possehl treats Marshall's influential interpretation of this seal as proto-Shiva; an interpretation rejected by later research as, indeed, "speculative".

Regarding the additional sources you gave:
 * : this site takes Feuerstein serious, with the idea of the Aryans arriving at India as early as 7,000 BCE...
 * : this is not a source; it's a commercial site from a yoga-practitioner...

You should read pp 2-10 for a serious overview of the Pashupati-seal, instead of these phantasies. For a quote:
 * "There is nothing, however, to imply yogic practice, in the sense of a developed set of techniques for operating with the mind-body complex. Our best evidence to date suggests that such practices developed in the same ascetic circles as the early sramana movements (Buddhists, Jainas and Ajivikas), probably in around the sixth and fifth centuries BCE." (Samuel (2010) p.8

Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Pradeepwb, there is some general agreement that people(in general) don't use to perform Yoga as much as it was required to be called Yog practitioner before 1st millennium BCE. Pashupati seal depicts yoga but here we are also talking about the practices, not just Yoga. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Blades, happy to see you around here - but you disagree with Samuel?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, as he is talking about the practices. The routine ones, 1st millennium BCE can be period anywhere between 1000 BCE to 1 BCE, that means his view is relevant. There was some good yogic revolution in late 18th - 20th century C.E. as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I could agree with your observations that my choice of supporting sources was inadequate. I intended to research the subject further so it was not a finish product so to speak. Yet, in the Wiki’s Pashupati seal, there’s no description “speculative” to be found regarding Pashupati interpretation. Furthermore, “makes very clear that any interpretation of this seal as depicting Shiva is speculative” is not what it says. That article gives, I think, fair overview of existing arguments. It says that John Marshall’s initial “the title Pashupati ('lord of the cattle') in historic times” was prevailing view and now there are few challenges, most recently by Gregory L. Possehl, “regarding it as a proto-Shiva would "go too far."’ How “going too far” can be equated with “speculative”? Both descriptions are subjectively charged. ‘Too far’ implies that someone without a doubt knows the full extent what is acceptable and what is not, he assigns to himself the supreme judgeship in the matter so as to make impression of some unchallenged authority. Yet it is a fake claim ‘cause none assigns that kind of authority and it is a classical Argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate). In other words, this is psychology at work not the merits of his argument per se. Also, if we notice, Gregory L. Possehl’s view is just one single sentence, it doesn't establish prevailing view or interpretation, and therefore it cannot be taken as final. Pashupati seal article simply states existing status in that field and avoids making one-sided judgment. “There is nothing, however, to imply yogic practice” – how do we get from something (a physical artifact) into “nothing”?; this is semantic manipulation. After one agrees to it the measuring stick becomes “nothing” with regard to those seals and what they represent. We have the yogic pose on that seal. Can you arrive to that pose without some practice? Practice is implied here, not described. By using inference we can reasonably say that practice was indeed needed to establish that pose. The word “asana” means a fixed position, a form that necessitates training to achieve that pose, a perfected physical form. That form is meant to be held. Therefore, that pose is being practiced right there and then while it is held in a fixed manner for some period of time.

To summarize, let me say that "The origins of Yoga may date back to pre-vedic Indian traditions..” is a non-conclusive statement. Opinions are still in the formative stages but for the sake of completeness different views need to be included, otherwise this article is running a risk of being perceived as one-sided, or prejudiced. Regards. Pradeepwb. (Pradeepwb 03:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeepwb (talk • contribs)


 * I'm sorry Pradeepwb, but "We have the yogic pose on that seal [...] By using inference we can reasonably say that practice was indeed needed to establish that pose" is simply WP:OR, and contardicted by what Samuel says.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Inference "is the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true"; yogic pose on that seal is true and possible conclusion-inference is valid form of doing research; so, there's nothing of WP:OR here; you're misusing that term; also, "contradicted by what Samuel says" is one person's opinion; we should strive for better than that, is all I'm saying; so presenting more than one opinion is just legitimate point to make. Pradeepwb (Pradeepwb 16:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradeepwb (talk • contribs)


 * Pradeepwb, presenting scholarly reasearch as "just one opinion" is a well-known but cheap rhetorical strategy, which shows your lack of understanding. Your statement "yogic pose on that seal is true" is your personal understanding, which also shows that you're not interested in scholarly reasearch. Please try to understand Wiki-policies, like WP:OR. Samuel is one of the best you can get; I'm sorry for you if he doesn't confirm your personal worldview. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * A "scholarly research" argument is not a rhetorical strategy, because one view unlike religious ideas, should not be relied upon as a dogma, even if that research is of very good quality. Over-reliance on Samuel is suspect in this case; the discussion on this subject is still evolving; can we agree at least on that?; if it is evolving it means that the present view can change and be even undermined by future research; On the other hand, I would like to quote Feuerstein on Pashupati seal, "there is little doubt that the figure (whether male or female) represents a secret being in a ritualized posture that has not been conclusively identified, but that resembles bhadra-, or goraksha asana." Asana is a yoga practice, in Hatha or Ashtanga Yoga. So, again, this is not a case closed situation by any side of the argument; thanks; Pradeepwb (talk)


 * The discussion is indeed evolving, away from your interpretation. Samuel gives an overview of this discussion. Feuerstein is not a reliable source; it's no more than an illustration of a misinterpretation. For the time being, the case is closed, as based on WP:RS, instead of personal beliefs and interpretations.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Feuerstein is not a reliable source", based on what? As of now I read Feuerstain, I read Samuel, and several other sources. Samuel in “The Origins of Yoga and Tantra: Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century” (2009), writes, “In particular, it seems to me, that the evidence for a yogic or 'Tantric' practices is so dependent on reading later practices into the material that it is of little or no use for constructing any kind of history of practices” (Ch I, Intro.) On the logic side, this argument is suspect, because the existance of difficulties in interpreting some evidence does not reduce that evidence to nothing; it's just shows that our knowledge may be insufficient.

So, Samuel is going too far in dismissing Pashupati seals as evidence of any yogic parctices. At best, we could say that the issue is inconclusive. But even if we agree with Samuel, he himself propeses: “Our best evidence to date suggest that such practices developed in the same ascetic circles as the early sramana movements (Buddhist, Jainas and Ajivikas), probably in around in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE.” So, he gives some benchmark as “the sixth and fifth centuries BCE.”

In the Yoga article, “The earliest accounts of yoga-practices are in the Buddhist Nikayas”, the Buddhist Nikayas is not yet generally accepted reference point, but even so, also Nikaya Buddhism article dating of Nikayas is not explicitely stated, so it can't be some authoritative benchmark in the yoga-practices timeline.

Therefore, if you/we follow Samuel, we could at least agree on the sixth and fifth centuries BCE and include that date in the Yoga article. Pradeepwb (talk)


 * Practicing yoga, occasionally and practicing yoga in daily lives. Both differs. Yoga practices for specific benefits(notably) in daily lives originated afterwards. There was evolution in yoga, during 19th - 20th century as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yoga Benefits: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijitha1416 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You're reading Samuel; you make me a happy man today. I've added his dating to the lead. Regarding Feuerstein: I really like his writings, but they're not comparable to academic writers like Samuel. A writer who takes the "Out of India" serious discredits his reliability...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it is a speculation or most of the scholars disagrees with it, I was recently reading this one, there is usual agreement that the yoga can be traced since IVC but dispute too, not overall rejection. Shall we insert former lead sentence? The origins of Yoga may date back to pre-vedic Indian traditions. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Joshua Jonathan and User:VictoriaGrayson, what you think about the above? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent source (2011), published by BRILL. So, impeccable. But Lamb doesn't give any reference for his statement, nor does he engage into discussion with other scholars, as Geoffrey samuel does. And it's only one source, so I would't say that there is "usual agreement". I think "have been speculated" is a better formulation than "may date back". Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That is just one example that there is some agreement. Gregory Possehl, while he establishes none of these origins, he has named a few. If you have something else to suggest it could be as better. Even the whole sentence can be replace or rephrased. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Blades, it's not a matter of simply collecting sources which support a specific point of view. You've got to weight them, and search for contrasting views. Popper's white swans & black swans: no matter how many white swans you find, it's not a garantue taht there don't exist black swans (to which you may, clever, respond: "See, it could be that the seal is a black swan!" ;) Thanks God, you've got a sense of humor.)  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out why past wiki editors have named Yoga (philosophy) as Raja Yoga. Voila, I stumbled into this article and its talk page. While I am here, a few suggestions: For these reasons, the relevant sentences in the lead and the main article need a bit of revision and wordsmithing. Alternatively, if someone is aware of recent scholarly sources that strengthen Werner's Nikaya POV, at least a second source needs to be added to retain the text as it currently is in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I concur that scholarly evidence on Pashupati seal is speculative, inconclusive. But "speculation/not being able to conclude either way" is not "rejection", as the text in the main text states. See lines 11-22 of [1], and page 25 of [2]. ([1] Samuel, Geoffrey (2008), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-69534-3; [2] Mark Singleton (2010), Yoga Body: The Origins of Modern Posture Practice, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195395341, pages 25-34)
 * 2) Consider [3] Karel Werner (1977, Reprinted in 1998). Yoga And Indian Philosophy. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 81-208-1609-9. Werner is cited in this article's lead and main. This cite has few issues. One, Werner's 1977 work is a dated source. It would be better to use more recent, reliable sources such as [1] and [2]. Second, Werner does not suggest nor imply that the Pali Canon mentioned on pages 119-120 is from 500-200 BCE. He does not name a specific Nikāya either, to infer the 500-200 BCE information. Neither [1] nor [2], the more recent sources, in their chapters on the history of yoga, mention Nikaya or any specific Pali Canon or this date range as "earliest accounts" of yoga. There is nothing in Samuel or Singleton to suggest that the widely held view after recent scholarship is "The earliest accounts of yoga-practices are in the Buddhist Nikayas" as this article's lead asserts. If anything, Samuel's [1] expresses doubt on the dating of Pali Canons in last para pages 31-32. Singleton's [2] too in chapter 1.
 * Go ahead.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2015
Risikesh vinyasa yoga school

Trigunayatchetan (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:LINKSPAM. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  16:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

translation of reference
I notice that footnote 254 goes to an Italian text, but is quoted in the article in English. Does this count as original research? Or is it allowed? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems acceptable to me.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2015
It seems that the image caption 'Six chakras of a Yogin' is not accurate. Tradition and research confirm seven chakras not six. Please change this caption to 'Seven chakras of a Yogin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0E:52AF:FFFF:0:0:4F70:5B93 (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks for noticing.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Evaluate request for addition of External Link
Hi,

May I ask for your evaluation of this request. The request is to include this under external link section http://vidency.org/home/article/yoga. The link provides background information on Yoga by organizing videos on various aspects of Yoga (Youtube and other publicly viewable videos). I have a conflict of interest because I am founder of this website. Please let me know if this external link will be helpful for users and if it can be included. Thanks. Shobhitsharma9 (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"Prehistoric Origin" and Shiva
Content on Socalled "prehistoric origins" and Shiva was added twice, and removed twice. It's a mythological story, and non-encyclopedical. At best, it should be introduced as "According to [this-or-that tradition", etc. See Guru_Purnima for a proper contextualisation. Yest, as such, it is WP:UNDUE at the Yoga-article. And it has also been removed from []. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

1987sagarkaul/Swamikrishananda edits
Out of concern with a fair treatment of 1987sagarkaul's edits, I'm going through them. I'm merging his comments here as subsections, adding subheaders, diffs, and my comments. I'll skip his fist round, in which a lot of links weere added. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

1987sagarkaul: Yuj - Chitta-vritti-nirodhah - four main forms
Info added Diff:


 * "The word Yoga comes from the Sanskrit root “Yuj” which means “to join.” Yoga is Chitta-vritti-nirodhah, restraint of the mind-stuff or the psychological apparatus inside, generally known as the mind. The different ways of controlling the mind or restraining the Chitta constitute the whole procedure of Yoga. The Chitta is the stuff from which our minds are made and which is being constantly churned into waves by external and internal influences. Yoga teaches us how to control the mind so that it is not thrown out of balance into wave forms.


 * "There are four main forms of Yoga, according to one school of thought, namely Mantra Yoga, Hatha Yoga, Laya Yoga and Raja Yoga; Kundalini Yoga is really Laya Yoga. There is another classification: Jnana Yoga, Raja Yoga, Laya Yoga, Hatha Yoga and Mantra Yoga."

Comment by JJ:
 * "yuj": correct. Could be included in the lead; could also be excluded;
 * "Chitta-vritti-nirodhah": that's the Patanjali-definition, isn't it? That seems to be too limited as a definition;
 * Four main forms: sort of correct, but not exactly correct. And according to which school?

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

1987sagarkaul: "Sayings from some great Yogis of India"
diff diff diff diff diff diff diff

Hi All,

I'm adding new text which gives clear definition of Yoga from few greatest Modern Saints of India. Below is the new addition:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1987sagarkaul (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment by JJ: WP:UNDUE for lead; WP:QUOTEFARM; WP:PRIMARY. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This Page needs correct information
Note: Shankramadhava (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of 1987sagarkaul (talk • contribs).

Although the above user added many critical details of Yoga but the formatting need to be done. Details should be compact and crisped which will give the gist of Yoga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankramadhava (talk • contribs) 17:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Swamikrishananda: "Union"
Info added diff:

Comment by JJ: undue for lead. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Swamikrishananda: Number of American practitioners
Added info diff diff

Comment by JJ: block evasion; undue for lead. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Wynne's Meditation book, page 95
Wynne admits on page 95, third paragraph, that his discussion on yoga and "after death", etc, is his theory. He writes, "the veracity of this theory depends upon my interpretation of a few important pieces of textual evidence. The starting point is my interpretation of the Ariyapariyesana Sutta." This is WP:PRIMARY, and his representation of the non-Buddhist position is neither majority nor minority accepted. The Wynne summary was also undue to origins and chronology theme of the section. I removed it. If someone wants to add it, it needs to go into another section somewhere in this article, with non-primary scholarly sources and better balance. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2015
Greetings,

Please change "The best-known are Hatha yoga and Raja yoga."

to

"The best-known are Hatha yoga, Raja yoga, and Vinyasa yoga."

Thanks,

Holly Williford

Holly Williford (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Thank you for the request, but is Vinyasa yoga really one of the best known? I would like to see either a consensus on this page for the change or reliable sources which support the change before adding it. Mz7 (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Mark Singleton
Mark Singleton (2010), Yoga Body: The Origins of Modern Posture Practice, Oxford University Press, argues that the popularity of asana-practice is of very recent origin, and that even Vivekananda did not promote this kind of practice, since it was associated with "a variety of ascetics, magicians, and street performers" (Singleton 2010 p.4). Interesting, and discomforting source. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's definitely worth reading James Mallinson's response to yoga body, especially since Singleton and Mallinson are collaborating now. Long story short: there is a lot of speculation and possibly half-truth in Singleton's book, though it is still well researched. A big problem is the rate at which manuscripts are disintegrating (fellow wiki editor Wujastyc writes a great piece on this), but the discovery of the sritattvanidhi in Mysore alone raises some doubts about some of Singleton's assertions. 'Discomforting' conclusions sell books: just ask William Broad!Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Last paragraph of introduction (and other statements about health benefits)
Discusses cancer, schizophrenia, heart disease and asthma, but the references only refer to asthma, cancer and schizophrenia. It seems heart disease is not supported by sources as having been studied. Also, the paragraph implies that the cancer studies may have been unclear on the use of yoga as a complementary treatment for cancer. (Further implying that it might help treat cancer.) However, the study in the source cited was about using yoga as aid to "psychological adjustment among cancer patients", not as a treatment for cancer as implied. The full article used as the asthma source is not available and the abstract is not definitive regarding the outcome. One publicly available source (https://nccih.nih.gov/health/providers/digest/yoga-science#asthma) found no effect from practicing yoga on asthma. Why is it mentioned if yoga doesn't provide a therapeutic effect? The last phrase of the last sentence of the paragraph is unreferenced. If their are studies suggesting yoga reduces risk factors why are they not presented here? Frankly, I think the whole last paragraph is misleading and leads to the false impression that their more medical benefit from yoga than has been demonstrated to exist. Seems like maybe an issue with WEIGHT The Wellness section of the article has similar problems. The statements made are not supported by the single reference, which is a tertiary source and makes only broad and general statements. It seems like the statements about health benefits should be toned down or perhaps excised unless better references can be found. Klaun (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Then the problem is the good citations simply have not been added yet. I can tell you Dean Ornish's famous studies cover heart disease and cancer and a preliminary search of pubmed will show that there is much more. Not to mention the mountains of anecdotal evidence you can glean from some of the more well known yoga therapists around these days. However a reason why there are not more double-blind studies on yoga is because that would require somehow teaching a control group a class of 'fake yoga' that they all believed was authentic. Take a moment to picture a fake yoga class that doesn't do any action that might accidentally be part of 'real' yoga (when real yoga uses just about every action at every joint). Since this is all but impossible, it means almost all data on yoga's health benefits suffers from a placebo effect type of bias. It is also important to note that improper instruction is very common with the proliferation of yoga teachers and pranayama must be very carefully taught to asthma patients. A study of asthma patients just taking yoga at their local studio would be a flawed approach, although its effects on mood and parasympathetic tone alone is effective at decreasing the frequency of asthma attacks. But it can still be dangerous and ineffective for a novice teacher to blindly teach pranayama to an asthmatic. That said here are six studies:

 
 * The first few are metastudies. The last two are just on asthma. These all came up with a simple google search and all have positive outcomes. I did not have to pick and choose because every study that came up had positive results. So any evidence lacking is only yet to be added.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Several of your references are not actually meta-studies they are just reviews or collections of existing studies. A meta-study is using statistical analysis on (generally) a collection of data sets from previous studies.  That's not what most of these references are doing.  They are just cherry-picking studies that had a positive result and pointing to them.  Also, the original studies pointed to in some cases are rather old and the positive results are not indicative of a therapeutic outcome in treating a pathology.  The claim being made in the intro paragraph isn't that yoga is good exercise and exercise is good for you.  It's that yoga can be used to treat cancer and heart disease.  A reference needs to be cited to show that yoga reduces morbidity associated with cancer and heart disease to make the claim that it is an effective treatment, unless the claim being made is only that it is a palliative treatment.  Anecdotes are not evidence of anything.  Yoga therapist are going to suffer from all sorts of biases like selection bias and confirmation bias.  Also, if there is such a large body of evidence for yoga's efficacy in treating pathologies, why are the references available published in sources like the "Ethiopian Medical Journal" and "Indian Journal of Preventive Medicine."  The most well documented case for the benefit of yoga is in treating asthma, but it is no more effective than other modalities of breathing exercises.  (http://www.annallergy.org/article/S1081-1206(14)00198-7/abstract)  Articles published in obscure journals seem indicative of media shopping on the part of the author.  One of the above sources has the author state his bias in the introduction, saying he is "gratified to see yoga" used in the west.  Another, the author makes a blatantly false statement in that the Rigveda is the oldest extent piece of human literature.  (The Epic of Gilgamesh predates it by at least 600 years.)  Strong statements that are potentially harmful to people and misleading should be removed from the article until there are reputable sources supporting them or else rewritten to reflect the fact that no evidence exists for yoga reducing morbidity for any pathology. Klaun (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Like I said: I copied the first things that came up on google, among thousands. THOUSANDS. Cherry picking things you don't like about these six studies off the top of the pile, like an off-handed comment about the Vedas, does not discredit anything except your approach. You are constructing ad hominem and strawman attacks on these articles. I never said they were all metastudies; I said the first two were (I thought), but apperently you disagree with me which is fine, just off-topic. Attacking the biases that exist among all health practitioners (not just Yoga Therapists) doesn't change anything since all studies are vulnerable to bias and attempt to take account of them. And I'm not sure what your problem is with the "Indian Journal of Preventative Medicine", but I don't know why you would assume it isn't reputable. All of these studies I gave are on the National Institute of Health's .gov website. Any conclusions you want to make about the mountain of studies available are clearly your carefully crafted conclusions and so I will remind you of wikipedia's WP:NOR policy. For example, it's your own uncited conclusion that "The most well documented case for the benefit of yoga is in treating asthma", which is not a claim made in your study or apparently anywhere else. And the study you cited (not from pubmed or nih) actually gave positive outcomes but found similar benefit in the control group. So what it does say is "No evidence for effects of yoga compared with sham yoga or breathing exercises was revealed". As I pointed out before, whatever 'sham yoga' is supposed to be, it is not a particularly well controlled variable for a study to use. Especially since these fake breathing exercises could easily be just as effective as whatever authentic practice the other group learned. Any act of concentrating on controlled breathing is a form of yoga breathwork. Just like physical yoga, breath-based yoga utilizes almost every imaginable thing one can do with their breath. Furthermore, a real double-blind study means the people administering the 'medicine' can't know which people are in the control group so you would need a teacher who thinks that they are teaching a real yoga class to teach a fake yoga class. Ideally, the same teacher would teach the authentic yoga class also not knowing if it was real or 'sham' yoga. You see how ridiculous of an idea that is, rightco? If you happen to have a few citations with which to actually discredit these health claims please bring them, but it's apparent from even a cursory search that the research indicates all of the stated health outcomes. I've yet to see one study quoted here that states a negligible or negative outcome, despite how easily a test could be negatively biased. Meanwhile Dean Ornish is well known in the medical community for his positive outcomes with heart disease as shown in an extensive study about which several books are available. As an aside, the dates of the Rig Veda are impossible to know, but most modern scholarship insists that it predates the conventional dates assigned to it by many centuries. In other words, we don't really know if it or Gilgamesh is older, regardless of how strong our opinions might be. I don't claim to be a forensic archaeologist, so I'm open to either. However, accusing the author of "blatantly false statements" is failing to allow a man his valid and defensible position simply because it is not your own. Besides being an off-topic attack, I think your statements displaya bit of bias against Indian Journals (and I guess Ethiopian as well), Indian culture, and this Indian yoga. It almost seems like you just read and William Broad's widely discredited book and mistake his list of yoga injuries for a lack of benefits. What is your actual argument, with citations, to say that we should remove the listed health benefits from this page? As opposed to your carefully gleaned issues with a random handful of studies.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Klaun: I am responding to concerns you posted at 22:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC) above. Did you miss Kim Innes paper, "Collectively, these studies suggest that yoga may reduce many IRS-related risk factors for CVD"? You allege no reference discusses yoga and heart diseases, but did you miss that article on cardiovascular diseases? "None to unclear effectiveness" is a good neutral summary of the main article and the references. If you do not have access to a complete article, you may try getting help at WP:RX. You must assume good faith, if you are unable to access the article. WP:Verifiability does not mean "verifiability without going to library, or verifiability without payment". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Ms Sarah Welch: Indeed I said heart disease had not been studied, which I'd retract. It was studied in the context of preventing it via the ISR risk factor.  However, that isn't what the paragraph is about; it's about treatment.  I would say that reducing risk factors for a disease is not equivalent to treating that disease.   I read the article regarding ISR and CVD with regards to Yoga(it is free) and it is entirely about prophylactic measures related to CVD and more specifically focuses on Inulin Resistance Syndrome.  To characterize it as a study of yoga as an intervention for heart disease, seems to me, incorrect.  It is about the preventative value of yoga related to heart disease.  As it reads to me, this wikipedia article gives the impression that treating cancer and cardiovascular diseases with yoga is an active area of research as opposed to how I read the references which indicate that treating cancer's psychological co-morbidities with yoga are studied and preventing risk-factors for CVD (but not CVD itself) with yoga are studied. Klaun (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @Iṣṭa Devatā: I'm not here to discuss Yoga, I'm here to discuss the Wikipedia article on Yoga. I don't need to discredit anything.  Assertions made in the article need to be supported by reliable references and they are not.  I responded to the citations you made.  I commented on the journals they were commented on because they are obscure, which goes to reliability.  I commented on the statements of the authors in the articles because it goes to credibility.  I don't have to worry about WP:NOR because I'm not suggesting anything be added to this article.  I am not particularly interested in Yoga one way or the other and am not familiar with Dean Ornish.  I stumbled upon this article while researching quotes falsely attributed to the Buddha.  If you can find reliable sources for the assertion that Yoga as a treatment (not a preventative measure against, but treatment) for cancer and heart disease (not co-morbidities like depression or anxiety) is even debatably effective, you should add them to the article.  If not the misleading verbiage in the introduction should be re-worded or removed.  Klaun (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Klaun: The last para of the lead makes no mention of "treatment" anywhere. I feel you are misreading it. It is explicit in asserting "none to unclear effectiveness", which is a balanced summary. The risk factors phrasing is well supported. The sources seem okay under WP:MEDRS. Do you know of any better recent relevant review articles? That would be really welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)