Talk:Yoga/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Yoga and Gita

I am pretty sure that there are 4 types of Yoga mentioned in the Bhadavad Gita: Raja, Karma, Jnana and Bhakti. I think this article also confuses jnana "knowledge" with raja "meditation". Also, the "See Also" section here links to Raja, but the Gita section does not. I am going to correct and link to appropriate articles. bodhidharma 15:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, bodhidharma. However, the Gita is usually cited as discussing three main Yogas: Karma, Jnana, and Bhakti. Although Raja Yoga may be explained and justified using passages from the Gita, it more properly belongs to the section on Yoga#Patanjali, where it is already mentioned. Best wishes. --Fencingchamp 18:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, from my own reading, I see lists of four. I think particularly Book 6 deals with the yoga of meditation? Regardless, the Gita article itself lists for in multiple spots? Which is correct?--bodhidharma 19:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In a sense the Gita has everything! But it mainly codifies three Yogas: Karma, Jnana, and Bhakti. Raja Yoga is codified in Patanjali's Sutras. These are not two separate airtight compartments. You can point to passages in the Gita that apply to Raja Yoga. To do so is not wrong. But in terms of major classification, Raja Yoga more properly belongs with Patanjali (IMHO). I think the Bhagavad Gita article is a bit confusing the way it talks about four Yogas. In general, when you see articles discussing "the Four Yogas," often what is meant is three Yogas from the Gita, plus one codified by Patanjali.

What people mostly take from the Gita is a spirit of devotion, and courageous, selfless action. Patanjali's Sutras are of a different character. They do not have dialogue or battle scenes. They contain a terse collection of practical steps. Raja Yoga is not so devotional in nature. It falls more on the scientific end of the spectrum. This is why it's better to keep Raja Yoga with Patanjali. Raja Yoga is based more on Patanjali's Sutras than on the Gita. --Fencingchamp 21:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank You, Paul

Thanks Paul_foord for archiving talk. I was meaning to get around to it, but always found an excuse for delaying. Best regards. --Fencingchamp 18:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Dubious "logic"

In the section "God in Yoga philosophy", it is stated that "The philosophy of Yoga also gave certain logical proofs for the existence of God" and then proceeds to list assertions which are neither logical, nor proofs. For instance: "Law of Continuity: people and things have various degrees of differences among themselves. Some people are foolish, some are wise. Hence it is logical to say that there must be some Being who has the highest level of knowledge among all—who is omniscient. That Being is God." The conclusion does not follow from the premises, as there is a leap required to move from "because some people are X while others are Y, there must be one person who is both XY." The mere fact that one thing has one property while another has another property in no way guarantees that there must be a third thing with all properties. The rest of the proofs mentioned suffer from similar elementary mistakes. I'll attempt to fix the terminology while preserving the intended meaning of the passage (removing references to logic, etc).

well thanks very much for the effort. Get yourself a username and join the crowd. --Nemonoman 04:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

School vs Style of Yoga?

What is the basis for the distinctions you are drawing between Schools and Styles of yoga, and how do these represent a POV. Anahata Yoga has an accredited yoga school. Why is it a style and not a school??--Nemonoman 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yoga schools versus styles

Hey Nem,

There are 4 Yoga lineages...Bhakti, Karma, Raja, Jyana. You know that.

There are several Yoga schools with legitimate Sat-Guric lineages...Sankya/Raja/Jyana (Swami Rama), Raja/Ashtanga (Krishnamikurti/K. Patabi Jois; Sri Satchinanada; Sri Sivanada; BKS Iyengar, etc.), Raja/Bhakta (Vivikenanada; Yogananda, etc.), Karma (Ram Dass, Neem Koroli Baba)...

Everything else is a derivative style, or presentation:

Power Yoga (Beryl Bender Birch) Anasurya (John Friend) Yoga Zone (Alan Finger) all forms of Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga (Baron Baptiste; Shiva Rea) Bhikram Yoga Anahata Yoga Om Yoga etc...

...and therefore, in my opinion, reference to it is POV, as most of the style/presentation derivatives are driven by the need to market a product or present a personal interpretation of the sutras by a single individual, usually someone more than once removed from a lineage, and in many cases not even a Sadhaka (initiated disciple). This is akin to a black belt, who is generally considered a beginner in traditional martial arts practice, opening a school, versus an "inner door" disciple doing the same.

And this a lot like the issues we have in martial arts. Unless, you can trace the lineage of the style you practice through your teacher back to the developer/founder (Chen, Ling, Ueshiba, Musashi, etc.) in a straight line, what you're doing is likely dervative. Like, there isn't a hell of a lot of difference between Shotokan Kai, Seido, and Oyama...but Nakamura Sensei (Seido) and Oyama Sensei (Oyama) are presenting Shotokan Kai in a personal/family dervative form. So Shotokan is a lineage, but Seido and Oyama are dervative styles. The same could be said of the Kung Fu lineages...there are 5 legitimate Temple lineages. Everything else is derivative, even someone like Vincent Lin, who can trace his Ling Gar system back to his 23 generations back grandfather.

On a personal note, I am both a Sadhaka of Sri Swami Rama, and an "inner door" disciple of the Lung Men Taoist Grandmaster Li Ten Tung. I would neither presume to present my own style of Yoga, nor open a martial arts school. It reflects ego, and presumption.

It's a slippery slope, and one upon which I would welcome debate, but I felt it was it legitimate distinction. Mjformica 11:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The four you have listed, I have seen called the four "major" schools of yoga, however I have also seen: mantra, kundalini and tantra listed as major schools. Yoga is much larger then those four schools. Sethie 16:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say these were schools, but lineages. Mantram is a practice within Bhakti I am certain my teacher Gurudhan Sihng would agree that Kundalini is a specific branch within Ashtanga. And Tantra, both Red and White, is distinguished by both Pandit Rajmani Tuginate and Yogi Bhajan as a branch of Raja. Mjformica 16:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't 'know' any such thing

I know that one is supposed to be bold when editing Wikipedia, but the yoga article particularly has been notable for the attempts of its editors to find consensus before making large scale changes. If you intend to support your initial edits with this logic, you have made a major change.

Your say that I "know" there are four major schools, and your further description of how those lineages play out. I don't know any such thing. In fact, my knowledge on this subject is quite different. I don't pretend that my knowledge is scholarship, but what little I know is at variance from the 'facts' as you present them.

I am particularly disturbed by your suggestion that yogic lineage must conform to your personal standards based on your understanding of martial arts. I don't 'know' that I agree.

I am copying our discussion to the Yoga talk page, where it really belongs, it turns out.--Nemonoman 15:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"See also" is inherently Neutral POV

I have returned the See also section to its original grab bag state. I'm not prepared to accept without discussion these categorizations and their characterizations of the articles. I personally found those distinctions doubtful and disagreeable. The logic for the change was at the very least debatable, and the change introduced rather than reduced POV.--Nemonoman 16:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

First, I didn't say that there were 4 Yoga schools. I said lineages, and that comes from the sutras. Secondly, if you "knew" anything regards the scholarship of Yoga, you would know this...I made that statement based on good faith of your background. It was intended as a compliment. Third, this is not my opinion, nor personal standard. It's a simple state of affairs. Finally, what does accredited mean to you? Anahata is, and I quote;,

"Anahata Yoga is a meditative hatha yoga developed by Ana Costa. It was registered with the Yoga Alliance in 2002. More than 60 teachers have received certification since then.

The method was inspired by this quote from Yogananda Paramahansa: "It is slow but sure suicide to walk, sit, rest, talk, or lie down with a caved-in chest. The cells of the lungs become starved thereby, and maladjustments of the vertebrae often occur."

The focus of Anahata yoga is the opening of the anahata chakra, or heart center: simultaneously correcting bad posture, opening the chest, shoulders, and lungs, and allowing the life force to flow into the body." ...by your own hand.

It is not a lineage or a school, it is a style developed by Ana Costa. Just because Georg Feurstein blesses it, doesn't mean it's anything other than what it is, and I'm certain Georg would be the first to support that statement.

Finally, this is not an attack or an elitist ploy on my part. It sounds to me, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that -- given the history of the Anahata page, and your 99% contribution there -- your ego is getting in the way. We all want to protect our teachers. I was simply making a distinction that I felt was apppropriate. And, to that point, it's not a major change...it's two words.

Do as you wish, I have no investment in it. Mjformica 16:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mjformica:

I asked you to help me understand the distinctions you were drawing between a "school" and "style". Based on your logic, I agree that Anahata represents a style of yoga.

But I don't happen to agree with all of your logic, particularly as relates to your distinctions about "schools" of yoga.

I'm not sure that there are 4 yoga lineages "defined by the sutras". Aren't there 8? Pantanjali's 8 branches? Anyway, I'm not sure that any sutras define yoga. Part of the discussion on this article on yoga is a debate about the origins of yoga -- are the sutras the 'basis' of yoga?

:::Actually, Bhakti, Raja, Jyana, and Karma are defined by the Yoga Sutra, The Bagavhad Gita, the Rig Veda, the Hatha Yoga Pradhapika, The Holy Science (a commentary on the Yoga Sutra), the Shambhala Guide to Yoga (Feurstein), and half a dozen other texts, sutras, commentaries and scholarly works inclusive, as the 4 primary Paths or Schools of Yoga.

If there are 4 yoga lineages, you further state that there are then "several Yoga schools with legitimate Sat-Guric lineages" I can't imagine who will arbitrate the legitimacy of the Satguru status of the founder, nor the integrity of succession. In my own experience of yoga, guru status & succession concerns are often highly argued.

:::There is no need to argue legitamacy. Here's my logic...Beryl Bender Birch is a respected teacher. She was a student of K. Patabi Jois, who's Sat-Guru was Krishnamikurti of Mysore, etc. Birch teaches Power Yoga...a style derivative of Mysore Ashtanga...a style derivative of something else...back to Raja...a School.

For you to take the uncategorized "see also" section, and begin to divide yoga into "legitimate" schools and "derivative" styles opens a can of worms, for no particular benefit in my view.

:::Point taken.

You say: "Do as you wish, I have no investment in it."

But it has been done, so now this concern belongs not only to you or to me but to the Wiki community to understand and consider. --Nemonoman 16:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Further discussion

:::Is it really a concern, or, as you first pointed out, my POV. I'm beginning to wonder at mu own logic. --Mjformica 18:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, frankly, I think your action gives me a chance to consider the "Notable Yogis" section, which I have thought for some time is a complete mess. I haven't had any good method for thinking about this, however.

Also I think the "external links" section needs logic: now there is only opinion. I am not happy about that.

I might not agree with your logic, but at least you HAVE some logic! That's a step ahead. And I think your logic has application for the entire article.

Also as relates to Anahata Yoga, and probably to other similar schools or styles or whatever they are: 1) What criteria sort of makes Anahata or other flavors a legit article, not a candidate for speedy deletion? I think, personally, Anahata should make the cut, and others shouldn't. It would be nice if this group of editors could provide some guidelines.

2) As relates to "See Also" and "External Links", what should go there? I'm very confident that Anahata Yoga deserves and article; I'm not so confident that it specifically deserves a callout on the Yoga page, however. It's keeping company with a lot of callouts that I wonder about, frankly.

So in discussing your changes, I think we'll be considering bigger questions.--Nemonoman 19:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said. --Mjformica 20:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

SERIOUS CONCERNS about the Yoga article

Is Yoga Specifically Hindu??

I have very much been considering removing the Hinduism templates from the article, even as Deepak Gupta has been removing the mention other religions.

The difference is that I plan to make my case in the discussion pages before I make this change.

I am very concerned that Deepak Gupta's edits are not valid. This matter is clearly not resolved, and clearly not resolved enough to change the opening as drastically as he is doing.

I am rv'ing his changes.--Nemonoman 23:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Further Concerns

Yoga and Hinduism are very intertwined, but is Yoga a specifically Hindu practice??

I think not so.

I therefore don't think this article belongs as part of the Hinduism Project.

I also don't think this article should have a "Hinduism" template.

Are there analogs with other practices and other religions? Consider Christmas: Originally a simple feast of the Catholic Church, now an international, denomination-neutral, often secular celebration. It would out of place to put a "Roman Catholicism" Template in that article.

In much the same way, Yoga -- whose Hindu origins are NOT proven, although clearly relevant -- has passed outside the boundaries of Hinduism.

Further, what might reasonably called Yoga is central to many forms of Buddhism, in particular. I don't know that it would be proper to say that Buddhism is simply an offshoot of Hinduism.

I THEREFORE PROPOSE that the HINDUISM template be removed from this article.

I FURTHER PROPOSE that we agree that in this article, Yoga will be presented as a practice NOT CURRENTLY OWNED BY ANY SPECIFIC FAITH.--Nemonoman 00:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

More proposals: Notable Yogis

The "Notable Yogis" section has become a complete mess. There is no coherence to it.

I THEREFORE PROPOSE that the "Notable Yogis" section be restructured:

(1)Notable Yogis: This section to be a CHRONOLOGICALLY ORDERED SECTION identifying individuals, principally DEAD individuals, and their specific contributions to the awareness, expansion, or spread of Yoga practices.

(2)Modern Yogis: This section to be an ALPHABETICAL LISTING of LIVING individuals with SUBSTANTIAL CREDENTIALS. Specifically, I recommend that it ONLY INCLUDE individuals with non-stubbed Wiki articles.

--Nemonoman 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Style question: number of "Sri"s per Yogi?

How many Sri's are required. Neem Karoli Baba's followers called him Sri Sri 1008 Sri Nem Karoli Baba. Are all 1008 Sri's strictly necessary for this article? I'm particularly looking at Sri Sri Anandamurti...

What about ZERO Sri's per Yogi? If not Zero, how about maximum of 1 (one) Sri per Yogi??--Nemonoman 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made the changes I described above. I couldn't think of a good reason not to.--Nemonoman 02:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

More Dialog: Is Yoga == Hinduism??

I should have discussed the matter on the discussion page. Apologies for that. Yoga is central only to Hinduism and not to any other religions. It is because of ignorance that people do not link Yoga to Hinduism. In fact, any person who performs Yoga is actually practising Hinduism. It is also because of ignorance that people think of Hinduism as a religion. Actually Hinduism is nothing but a way of living. I do understand your concerns but it is my belief that Yoga is central only to Hinduism. The very fact that other cultures have adopted Yoga doesn't mean that Yoga looses its Hindu identity. Gautama Buddha is believed to be an avatar of Lord Vishnu in Hinduism - now should I remove Buddhism template from the page claiming that Gautama is not central to Buddhism only. Buddha never preached Yoga, neither did Guru Nanak nor Mahavira. But Krishna does. Yoga plays a much more significant role in Hinduism than in any other religion. People in other religions look at Yoga as a mere stress buster and fitness exercise but for Hindus it is mean of coming in contact with the Supreme Being and to know the inner self. Many Hindus consider Yoga as a form of prayer which clearly shows the importance Yoga plays in Hinduism. Fact remains that people are highly ignorant about Yoga. Yoga is a much more broader term than Anahata Yoga (I guess you haven't read the Bhagavad Gita. What your yoga instructors teach you is a fitness exercise not a form of spiritual prayer). Not adding the Hinduism template to Anahata Yoga article is justified. But I strongly oppose the removal of Hinduism template from the main Yoga article. Thanks and I would like to express my apologies again for not using the discussion page --Deepak|वार्ता 03:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add more to my comment. The article itself says that the earliest written account of Yoga is in the Rig Veda.

I dispute this notion.--Nemonoman 04:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

So, may I know the facts please --Deepak|वार्ता 04:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters, I can't find the word "yoga" in my edition of the Rig Veda. So I can only assume that what is being described are so-called yogic practices: meditation, breathing, etc. Such practices are mentioned in early Egyptian writing as well.

But I'm still trying to get my arms wrapped around the content of the Yoga article. I'm certainly not prepared to say that yoga isn't mentioned in the Vedas, nor that it began in Egypt. I'm just saying that nothing as obvious nor explicit as Pantanjali's Yoga Sutras is in the Vedas, and that its origins are more obscure than the article suggests, and which you seem to believe.--Nemonoman 16:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainsim denounced the Vedas as illogical (the very reason why the seperated from Hinduism).

This shows a remarkably doubtful view. You could really use a little study in this area. You remind me of how US fundamentalist preachers describe other religions.'

Buddha didn't agree with the Vedanta philosophy. I am pretty sure about that.

Neither did Guru Nanak nor Mahavira. Or else why would they create a new religion. Read this --Deepak|वार्ता 04:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism and Jainism developed as a reaction to the exploitative Yajnik practices at that time and Sikkhism developed as a reaction to the continued invasions on the North West frontier. --Kaveri 18:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My dear editorial colleague, may I respectfully suggest that if you want information about Buddha and Buddhism that you consider exploring primary or secondary sources -- sources, for example, other than a unsigned, modern-day interpretation by a group that is trying to continue the bhakti yoga and Krishna worship inspired by Chaitanya. That article might be entirely true, but it is certainly a version of the truth at variance from what most scholars would say.

That article reminds me of reading what fundamentalist U.S. Christians say about Hinduism. So Deepak, I'm sure you've found that your US Christian classmates have very concrete ideas about Hinduism already: But have you found that they have can discuss the nuances of Kashmir Shavism? Or understand the subtleties of Dharma?

Or do they just assume that you worship cows?

Why read the ISKON version of Buddhist teachings?? Why not simply read what, for example, the BUDDHA actually taught?--Nemonoman 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism is the only true Vedic religion. Your comment Yoga -- whose Hindu origins are NOT proven shows your ignorance about Yoga and Hinduism.

Perhaps you will now tell us YOUR credentials on the subject?? You tell me yours, and I'll tell you mine.

Apologies. I wrote that comment before I read your reply. I didn't know you possesed so much knowledge about Hinduism. My crenditials are that I am an engineering student who is in search of the truth. --Deepak|वार्ता 04:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In that respect we are equals, sir. Some people may be possessed of the truth, but I don't think any of them are currently editing the Yoga article on Wikipedia.--Nemonoman 16:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Those Yoga centers in western countries are fitness centers...

In the main you may be right. In specifics, however, you are misinformed, or misstating the facts.

...and have nothing to do with the Indo-Aryan Vedic culture (aka Hindu culture). What most people in western countries know about Yoga is just the tip of the ice --Deepak|वार्ता 04:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Interspersed comment above by me--Nemonoman 04:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I hear you Deepak, but I must maintain my position. I first read the Gita over 40 years ago, and have now read at least 11 translations, as well as 4 translations of the complete Mahabharata of which it is but part. When it comes to Hinduism, do not doubt me, nor my scholarship. You would be hard pressed to find a Westerner more loving or familiar with Hinduism than me. Hinduism may not be my native language, but I speak it quite well.

It is my love of Hinduism of Yoga, and my scholarship that makes me say the things I say about Yoga. It is apparent to me that Hinduism adopted elements of Yoga. This view is controversial.

What cannot be argued is that Yoga has expanded beyond Hinduism. Using my Western culture as figure, the Christmas analogy is very apt. I have been in Bombay, Pune, and Ahmednagar at Christmastime, and seen the plastic trees and wreaths and candy canes and Christmas lights shaped like OM on Hindu and Muslim houses. Is it legitimate for me to demand that those people accept Christ as their personal savior? In Japan, Christmas is a huge celebration, and there's not a Christian in sight.

Should the Christianity template be used on the Christmas article??

As to your Anahata comments, please forgive my very poor description of that remarkably wonderful practice and do not judge it because of my inadequacies. I find that Anahata is extremely pure and spiritual, and as Hatha Yoga goes, much more Hindu in essence and practice than the foolishness taught at many so-called Hindu ashrams. That said, I am very disturbed that Hatha Yoga and Yoga are terms so interchangable to most westerners, and if I had my way, the Yoga article would start:

This article is about YOGA, not the exercise regime most people imagine when they hear the word. That's "Hatha" Yoga. And REAL Hatha Yoga is not about bending or sweating or twisting into a knot. If you're interested in that stuff see Hatha Yoga Isn't Really Yoga.

I have watched the Yoga article deteriorate over these last few months, and it needs an overhaul. The Hinduism Project category is a problem I think for non-hindus who may still be well versed in many aspects Yoga. I think it sends a very wrong message, quite literally, telling potential editors to shape up to Hinduism Project standards to ship out. I particularly read to mean that my scholarship is not welcome, since it is at variance with a strictly Hindu interpretation.

Anyway, while I'm autocratic and unbendable about changes Aurangzeb and Taj Mahal, I make every effort to pre-discuss changes to Yoga, because it is, at its heart, the path all of us must eventually tread. We might as well get comfortable about describing it. --Nemonoman 03:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case my rationale for removing Buddhism template from Gautama Buddha is justified too. Gautama plays a major role in Hinduism. Buddha Purnima is one of the most Hindu festivals celebrating the birth of Buddha.

Yes, and Christmas celebrates the birth of Jew, so maybe it should show the Judaism template.--Nemonoman 04:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have many Sikh and Jain friends but they don't view Yoga in a manner most Hindus do. As I said before, Hinduism is the only true Vedic religion left (I am contradicting myself here by saying Hinduism is a religion but I am not left with much option) and Yoga orginated from the Vedas. Vedas is not central to Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism. Infact the founders of these religions denounced the Vedas. So how can Yoga be central to these religions? And if it is, the very ideology of these religions is questionable. --Deepak|वार्ता 04:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Deepak, I have just looked at your user page, and I understand you better now. I have lived 3 times as long as you, and I can assure you that the very ideology of most religions is often questionable.

It's important to truly attempt to understand a faith on its own terms before making snap judgements. It's not really enough simply to read about it.

From your edits on other pages I have worked on, I note that you are determined to drive what I might call a "corrective" point of view, and that you like being quick on the trigger.

May I suggest that in the instance of this article, you give a little slack? Some of us old coots really care that the words in this article truly express the nature of yoga...which may be different than what you think you have learned...its nature might be much bigger than what you have learned.

I have been thinking about how to revise this article for almost 4 months. It takes time, my friend, to do it right.

In the meantime, you might take a longer look into Tibetan Buddhism and Zen Buddhism. I think you might discover in their core that looks remarkably like...Yoga. Yogic practices are very central to these forms of Buddhism. As for the Sikhs -- Well for some time I lived in and practiced yoga in a Sikh Ashram in North Carolina dedicated to both Sikhism and Yoga. So for some Sikhs, at least, it was a central concern.

--Nemonoman 04:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A Tolerant Approach

I don't advise removing the Hinduism templates from the Yoga article, as that will offend many Hindus, perhaps rightly so. I continue to recommend a middle course, which is to make clear that Yoga has Hindu roots, but to also accept that it is sometimes practiced by non-Hindus in a non-religious context. While this may sometimes constitute a "corruption" of Yoga, it may also be a fond Western imitation by people who are sincerely interested in Yoga. Let us remain grateful to India and Hinduism for nurturing the traditions of Yoga, and let us not try to rip Yoga away from its roots; but let us allow it grow as naturally as possible in the West.

Regarding the "four Yogas," I've tried to finesse this issue by saying that there are four main Yogas, but many other types as well. Think of it as a tent. This is the Yoga tent, which has four main poles. But there are many other people inside the tent, some of whom practice specialized variations or derivations - different styles or schools. None of us has a perfect divining rod that can separate "authentic" from "non-authentic" forms of Yoga, so we should all try and be fairly tolerant of the variations (and of each other).

Of course, one has to draw the line somewhere. As I jokingly remarked in a now archived thread, Yoga shouldn't involve swinging dead cats out of a Volkswagon. ;-)

Anyway, attempts to forcibly separate Yoga from Hinduism will meet with anger from Hindus, while insistence that Yoga can only be practiced in a Hindu religious context will anger some non-Hindus. So let's try and compromise by respecting Hindu traditions, while also making non-Hindu practitioners feel welcome.

If you are a Westerner, please try and sympathize with Hindus who feel they have a special relationship with Yoga. If you are a Hindu, please feel that Yoga is something so good and spiritual that many non-Hindus also practice it because they find it pure and inspiring. A successful export, if you will.

I feel that Westerners should bear it graciously when Hindus rap them on the knuckles and say, "You know, Yoga really belongs to us." :-) I feel that Hindus should also be gracious when they see that some Westerners are sincerely trying to practice Yoga.

We should try not to be exclusivists on either side, but recognize that there is diversity in the Yoga community, and try and deal with that diversity in a Godlike spirit, with kindness and love. I believe God loves both his Eastern and Western children, and would like to see them get along well together, in spite of differences. Fencingchamp 13:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fencingchamp: I am at peace with your attitude in general, but there are some practical considerations I'm concerned about.

I am frankly concerned in political agendas twisting truth. And the "Hinduism project", which appears to be made up primarily by rather young persons who are not as mature as you (nor as old and crotchety as me), feel the need to push a political agenda into articles, even if fact vary.

We see this in the determined effort to establish -- with no practical backup that I can find -- that Yoga is somehow a practice set out and defined in the Rig Veda. I've looked and can't find it.

God forbid I ask for citation from one of the Hinduism editor, however. I get a lecture on intolerance.

etc.

How do you feel that this intro to Category:Yoga contradicts and subsumes the content of the Yoga article?

Yoga is one of the six philosophies/schools of Hinduism. It also refers to many meditative and spiritual practices within the Hindu religion.

This article has become, in my mind, tolerant to the point of being a simple mishmash.

Back in my old smalltalk programming days, we described groups of elements in several ways. One extremely structured obect was an ordered list. An entirely unstructured grouping was called a bag.

Yoga has become a bag, not an ordered list. In part this appears due to the reluctance of the wiser hands to guide and prune the enthusiastic efforts of every sidewalk artist who walks past with a spraycan of paint.

Tolerance, yes, but tolerance with order would please me most.

Tolerance, but tolerance of facts and scholarship, even if they are disagreeable.

Fencingchamp, I very much appreciate the discuss first, then edit with agreement approach that has made this article a real beacon in Wikipedia.

--Nemonoman 19:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign this)

Nemonoman,

1) How can you say Hindus are doing political agenda?

I say this about SOME of the editors involved. See Talk:History of Hinduism, and Talk:Taj Mahal for examples. Talk:Shiva is also revealing.

I don't mean to suggest that Hindus as a group have a political agenda. I do mean to suggest that some editors who associate themselves with Project:Hinduism and similar projects have acted in ways that suggest that they have a political agenda. Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable if I described this as a Non-neutral Point of View?

2) How can you pass judgement on the age of Hindus taking part in Hinduism portal? Do you know them personally?

It's not a judgement that they are younger than I am. I am simply noting the facts, as they describe themselves in their user pages. I don't distinguish them because of their Hinduism; it is their age which explains some of their unconsidered actions, in my opinion. When you are my age, you may begin to see that youthful enthusiasm will sometimes trump reflective action.

3) How can you proove that you are not spreading Christian/Western agenda here?

I can prove it first by saying that I at least am raising the issue for discussion and not simply driving the article in a particular way.

(For example, you have clearly noted that some your colleague editors of the Yoga article have voiced concerns about its Hindu-centrism. Yet you have added the Hinduism Portal template without any explanation or any discussion. What kind of agenda is that?

I see that in December, without any discussion, you moved the Shiva article to Lord Shiva, and Krishna to Lord Krishna. You called these changes "minor". They were reverted a few hours later. Did it occur to you that these actions were more than minor? That they would raise questions in the eyes of others??)

I can prove it second by saying that my suggesting that Yoga predates Hinduism, and that it is part of many spiritual tradtions outside of Hinduism is neither Western or Christian in character.

Additionally I can state, but not prove, that I am not Christian, at least not in a formal sense, and therefore not compelled to an agenda which is essentially meaningless to me.

Lastly I may say that my only conscious agenda is the pursuit of accuracy. It that is a Western agenda, then our world is sorry place. I would hope that non-Westerners also embrace that agenda. In the articles I have edited, however, political agendae and emotion run so high that accuracy and neutrality is regarded as "unpleasant" and not "tolerant" .So maybe the world is a sorry place.

Your approach here is truely reflecting your unpleasant personality as you have mentioned in your user page. It's good to know that you have ALMOST started tolerating YOGA these days.... !...Self explanation...!

--Holy Ganga 21:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations. --Nemonoman 00:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If there are people (young or old) who are proud of their Hindu identity and want to claim Yoga as part of it, that's fine. They are welcome under the tent. (One might even say it's their tent.) I hope they will also welcome Westerners who have a sincere interest in Yoga, as well as Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs.

The Indus Valley Civilization discovered and nurtured Yoga, and I think it's fair to say that Yoga is more important to Hinduism than to any other religion.

Yoga is something vast and universal. It's hard for any one group to claim it and say "This belongs to us and only us." Nevertheless, I understand the desire to do so, especially since some Western scholars have treated Hinduism unkindly, and some Westerners have turned Yoga into a commercial product.

I view the Hinduism templates sprinkled throughout the Yoga article as reminders that Yoga grew up with Hindu roots, and that Hindus care very much about Yoga. I hope they will continue to allow Yoga to be discussed as not just a Hindu phenomenon, but a practice that has strongly influenced other religions. Please don't take it that others are "stealing" something that rightfully belongs to Hindus. Take it that Hindus were the first to discover something so valuable and universal that the rest of the world has embraced this great Indian discovery.

It may help to distinguish between Yoga practice and philosophy. Certain core practices simply *work*. A Hindu will explain why they work in terms of Hindu religious philosophy, a Buddhist will explain it in terms of Buddhist philosophy, etc. There are some people who are very serious about doing core Yoga practices, but they do not worship the Indian gods and goddesses, and they do not celebrate the Indian holy days.

Wikipedia is both a community and an informal reference source. An article like Yoga is built by the community. The article is a mixed bag because the Yoga community is itself fragmented by geography, politics, and various styles, schools and lineages.

Maybe an editor could write an article that is clearer and more unified than the present article, one that would gain broad acceptance. I hope that comes to pass. If we can have more love and oneness as a worldwide Yoga community, that will help set the stage for a better article. Let's not squabble among ourselves, but let's bring forward our shared love of Yoga, and interpret each other's words in a spirit of inner generosity.

I do not like to impose my views, because I think it's easy for people to resent that or rebel against it. It's not clear to me that the goal of creating a good Yoga article justifies offending the community. This differs from the view that says: "Tote that barge, lift that bale; write a good article or you lands in jail." :-)

The present article is far from perfect, but is not horribly misinformative. It does expose the reader to diverse views of Yoga. I hope we can improve it, whether through gradual changes or a "back to the drawing board" approach. The present article sometimes sounds like the author is walking on eggshells, because over time there have been so many compromises which are reflected in the language. Those compromises were made out of respect for the community, but at the expense of clarity and unity.

The community - with all of its inconsistencies - is valuable. Facts and scholarship are also valuable. Maybe I'm not a true scholar, since I don't always value facts and scholarship above the feelings and beliefs of people in the community, even if those feelings and beliefs are not always logical. Fencingchamp 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Some of the Yogis look "naked" without their honorifics. I can understand if Nemonoman frowns on double Sri's and triple Sri's, but surely each Yogi is entitled to one Sri or Swami before his name. Is it possible that someone removed all the honorifics in a fit of pique? :-) Fencingchamp 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sri

I removed the 'Sri' from names because I really didn't know how best to handle this term which has no clear definition.

You can address anybody as Sri. While westerners are probably most familiar with the word in the context of religious figures, whose followers make a Big Deal about adding "Sri" or "Sri Sri" or "Sri Sri Sri 1008 Sri" to the basic names of their chosen gurus, it is NOT a spiritual honorific. Anybody can be a Sri. Sri Fencingchamp. Sri Nemo. Etc. In India many of my friends like to call me Sri Nemo, but sort of as a joke. You might introduce the President of the Pune Rotary as Sri Lakshman Workingboxwallah.

You have to sort of earn your Sri by consensus of your community. I don't know an equivalent in western culture. "San" in Japan is sort of similar, but it's an insult NOT be be called 'nemo-san'.

Anyway: Sri doesn't have a nice clear definition. You're not a "lord" or a "Baron" or a "Doctor" or a "Reverend". "Swami" by contrast, is defined...there are specific steps required to be Swami, and there should be no question about calling a Swami a Swami. Even so, in India, most well-known swamis would typically be addressed Sri: Sri Swami Vivekenanada, etc.

If you allow one Sri out of respect, must you allow multi-sris? Is every called out person to be a Sri.

I ask this question in all stylistic sincerity. It is not a stupid or piquey question. It is similar to the PBUH question in Muslim articles. Must every reference to the Prophet Muhuammad be followed by (Peace be Unto Him), or PBUH? The editors have as a group decided no and defined this in Wiki styles. It is similar to the BC or BCE question. Must BCE be used rather than the more typical BC? The editors have as a group decided no and defined this in Wiki styles. But you'll find BCE in many Hinduism articles.

Lacking a style for Sri, I proposed one. When nobody commented, I implemented it. If it's a bad style, please propose a better. I'll be delighted to go along. I just personally can't think of a better. --Nemonoman 17:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sri is not like PBUH ,etc. In Hindi and other Indian languages, Sri means the same as Mr. in English. Srimati means Mrs. It is used to show respect/formality, and has no religious connotations in colloquial usage. Of course, literally, Sri denotes lakshmi, so in a way it is related to religion, but that hardly comes to anyone's mind when this word is used (how many of us think of 'pebble' or 'gravel' on hearing sugar?). deeptrivia (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mister, sort of, except nobody ever gets called "Mister Mister", or "Mister Mister Mister 1008 Mister". And if it does mean Mister, all the more reason not to use it, as no other context in Wikipedia is "Mister" stylistically acceptable.

Sri is rarely seen in western writing except when referring to a religious figure. For example, "Sri" does NOT appear as an honorific in any of the names in the articles on India's current or former PMs.

As to Sri as a name for the Goddess...It runs in my mind that the "i"s in those words are sometimes shown with (different) diacriticals. I don't think anybody is suggesting that Sri Nemo and the Goddess Sri share a common word origin. --Nemonoman 20:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In many cases it will be fine to use the name supplied by the original contributor. If you suspect puffery - if the honorifics are piled up like a fender-bender on Route 97 - you can do further research. Many notable Yogis have founded ashrams, written books, or had books or articles written about them. These may give the name that a reference source should use. Failing that, just add MHGERH* after each Yogi's name, to be on the safe side. (*May his giblets ever remain holy.)

For a reference source, it may be permissible to reduce multiple iterations of an honorific like Sri to a single Sri, and to reduce an overly ornate title to something more plain, leaving just one honorific such as "Swami," "Guru," "Sri," "Paramahansa," or "Yogi." Neither puffed up nor stripped down should be the ideal. Examples of good usage: Swami Vivekananda, Guru Nanak, Sri Aurobindo, Paramahansa Yogananda, Yogi Bear. The named persons do not need to pass a test devised by Wikipedia editors. It is enough that they are commonly known by these titles. Examples of poor usage: Aurobindo (too stripped down); His Divine Grace the Most Supremely Excellent Sri Sri Sri Fred (too puffed up).Fencingchamp 22:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've rv'd some sris. --Nemonoman 22:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Nemo-san. :-) Fencingchamp 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Np--The honorable SRI SRI SRI Nemonoman-san 23:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)