# Talk:Yoga

Lead is full of jargon junk without covering the basics that you'd find in any definition. medical opening. A reader should not have to refer to definitions multiple times in the first paragraph just to get an understanding of what this is Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Lead section. Current setup leads our readers to find basic information in other websites. Asking for a GA review of the lead with/by people that aren't familiar with the topic might help the situation.Moxy🍁 19:01, 24 September 2024 (the jUTC)

The Medical News Today article is a non-specialist article, which seems to refer to Yoga as exercise, not to yoga as a spiritual discipline. But you seem to have noticed that yourself diff. Your comment "Spiritual crap is overwhelming" is not exactly a token of interest in the subject of this article... Regarding Lead is full of jargon junk without covering the basics that you'd find in any definition, see Feuerstein and White, among others: the YS-definitiona and the 'union-definition' are the basic-definitions. But if that's not what you're interested in, and you search for pop-yoga as a health-benefitting exercise, yes, any yoga studio sales-talk, or the MNT article, may do. But if you want to know more than this, the Wiki-article serves as a good entry. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
The lead is a mass mess..... anyone's first impression is that this is some sort of worship article.... I'm left wondering what deity I am supposed to worship.Moxy🍁 19:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Depends on the faith you're following; almost any substitute will do, I guess. But if you don't like it, yoy can also go to the pub, have a beer, and play darts. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
The lead should stand on its own without having to referred to multiple definitions and sections within the article for comprehension. This is an example of what not to do MOS:INTRO. The question is are we pushing a philosophy or an understanding of the topic?Moxy🍁 19:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Let's quote our guideline "Make the lead section accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where possible, avoid difficult-to-understand terminology,.....Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked, and briefly defined." Moxy🍁 19:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
What we are looking for something more along the lines of Yoga is a holistic practice that originated in ancient India and has been around for thousands of years. It is a practice that combines physical movements, controlled breathing, meditation, and mindfulness to promote overall well-being and inner peace. The word "yoga" itself means to yoke or unite, signifying the union of the mind, body, and spirit. Moxy🍁 20:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
If you read the article and certain related articles, you will understand that there are all sorts of definitions for yoga and meditation, including non-divine or non-worship practices, as seen in Buddhist philosophy. Indeed, there are various subcategories of yoga. However, this article focuses on the original concept of 'yoga,' which was primarily concerned with spiritual well-being, with physical and mental wellness being consequences of that. The context of its development, along with the practices and cultural goals of the society in which it emerged, cannot be neglected. Additionally, mental wellness is subjective; some might feel mentally fit sitting in the same position for hours, trying to connect with the divine, while others might engage in various physical motions that lead to fitness, which in turn can foster mental well-being. However, I suspect this exploration might be too philosophical for you, as you seem overly focused on how yoga has been marketed to you. Yes, I agree that even if you are brain dead, certain yoga positions can provide physical fitness, which will ultimately contribute to your mental happiness. But its not the actual version. DangalOh (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
More inflammatory comments wonderful. I can see accessibility and understanding for the average person isn't of concern here.... wish you all the best of luck with the spiritual guided article. yoke Moxy🍁 20:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I didn’t mean to be sarcastic towards you. "Brain dead" was not meant personally for you; it was intended in a general sense. I understand your concern about the "average reader," but we need to stay true to the subject. Perhaps the language can be improved. Joshua might have a better idea of what to do here. DangalOh (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Multiple replies and not one to address the concerns raised not even an example of what can be done except for my reply..... Just explaining how dumb the readers are. Clearly this lead needs working on as per the MOS linked above and the ongoing talk about terminologies used. Added and remove from my watch list in one-day..... no more comments from me. Moxy🍁 20:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe if you had initially engaged in more good faith and refrained from using terms like 'jargon junk' and 'spiritual shit,' the editors here would have taken you more seriously. DangalOh (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
What we need is academics at the article. Moxy🍁 20:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Relevant and specialized sources are already here. What you are actually talking about is this: Yoga as exercise, which the Medical News Today article (supposedly academia) is discussing. The changes you want here, especially in the lead, are not in line with the original meaning(s) of yoga. Don’t think readers are that dumb; they can understand what this article is about and what Yoga as exercise is about. The original connotations will always be spiritual (divine involved or not), whether any reader (or editor) likes it or not. DangalOh (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
This may be true but the lead is so abstract that it's undefiable. Moxy🍁 19:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh ho ho ho… look who decided to read the page on their watchlist! Ahhh, it was I who stopped you when you were going away, wasn’t it? Lol. I love drama. Well, I’m glad you decided to stay :). So yes, if we can agree that the context of this article is different from the typical understanding of yoga in the West—for which we already have a separate article—then we can move ahead. The scope of this article is much wider, and that might be one reason you find the lead complex. Since I am more involved in the talk page side rather than the editing part of this article, I can only suggest that you present your new improvements in a way that stays true to the original context without removing relevant and important information from the lead. Some information may be pushed further down, or I don’t know, maybe it may be redundant.
You might feel like vomiting at the thought of religion or spirituality, but do remember that this is an important part of this article, definitely not for the other one. If someone adds any spiritual or religious content there, I’ll be the first one on your side. If your changes are accepted by others, I won’t stand in your way—that’s a promise. However, for me, anyone trying to work on the lead should at least have enough knowledge of what they are talking about and at least some empathy for the subject, so proper sourcing would be a good start.
Thanks and best of luck! I don’t want to come across as the gatekeeper of the page. There was already a war commencing for a different reason when I arrived here. You might need to engage with those editors and work in harmony. My comments for you and your suggested improvements for the lead end here. Best regards, DangalOh (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

In line with what I proposed, create a Scholarly definitions-section and summarize that in the lead, I have shortened the definition in the lead to "aimed at controlling body and mind and attaining a soteriological goal as specified by a specific tradition." Maybe frustrating that no exact goal is given, and maybe "soteriological" is a complex word for some, but the authors in the Scholarly definitions-section are quite clear: the goals are varied, and depend on the tradition; 'union with the Divine' is just one goal.
And, personally speaking, a meaningless goal when you don't believe in a God. But if you take this as a transcripted description of a naturalistic event, then it's quite clear what it means: yoga (meditation) calms the mind, and looses the attachment to fleeting phenomena ('dukkha'; this may seem odd, but 'dukkha' does not refer to suffering in general, but to this quality of fleeting phenomena: they are dukkha, and the mind should avoid contact with them. See Bhagavad Gita as quoted in the article: "Know that which is called yoga to be separation from contact with suffering"). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections. Yes, Belief in the divine is not a prerequisite. Both divine and divineless spirituality can indeed be summarized in this one line: 'Know that which is called yoga to be separation from contact with suffering.' This is also in line with the Buddhist concept of dukkha and indicates a state of mental bliss, which can be interpreted by some as divineless spiritual bliss or, by others, as divine-like spiritual bliss. This connection may relate more to their ishta, be it Krishna or Buddha. DangalOh (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Here, 'suffering' can be interpreted as the quality of fleeting phenomena. One good interpretation is to go thoughtless to experience bliss. Some may see it as unity with the divine. So many possibilities. Phew! DangalOh (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Pedantic comment: personally, I would avoid "bliss"; it reminds of Bliss point (food). For westerners, it would immediately activate an intense longing, an everlasting heroin-shot without the negative health-consewuences. It translates "sukkha," doesn't it? That is, sustained 'well-being', in contrast to transient pleasure. The well-being of a healthy diet, regular exercise, good sleep and realistic expectations, which all take effort, versus sugar-kicks and coffee-highs, which is instantaneous . Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Haha! Yes, bliss might be interpreted as sukha, but not the ordinary sukha associated with a sugar rush. Let’s delve a bit deeper. According to mainstream Dharmic philosophy, there is no true sukha in this world; rather, everything is dukha. The constant change we experience is dukha, and existence itself is essentially suffering. Therefore, actual sukha would mean being free from this dukha—liberated from samsara.
In traditional beliefs, maya plays a significant role. Those who indulge in maya will experience a temporary afterlife and rebirth according to their karma. In contrast, those who transcend maya—often by becoming ascetics (though there are other paths)—will attain moksha. However, truly escaping maya is not an easy task.
Real sukha is achieved through the merging of atman into paramatman or by reaching a state where you are free from your dukha, which is synonymous with attaining Buddhahood. This represents the ultimate culmination of the Four Noble Truths as well. But let’s not get too philosophical on the talk page, or the philosophy control police might come after us! Lol! It’s been a good conversation, and I understand your frustration regarding how Western audiences approach these topics.  :D DangalOh (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
One thing I really wanted to add is that, in the case of deity involvement (the aatma-parmatma concept), rather than seeing it as symbiosis, one can view it as a drop of water merging back into the ocean. Regards. DangalOh (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Rig Veda uses the term Antigriha (अन्तिगृह) in hymn 10.95.4, as still a part of the extended family, where older people lived in ancient India, with an outwardly role. I guess it would not be entirely accurate to term the rishis, munis, and similar figures from the Rigvedic period as completely non-Vedic. Instead, describing them as 'outside or on the fringes of Brahmanical traditions' would be more appropriate. Many of them might very well have been former Vedic practitioners.  Do let me know what you think. DangalOh (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think there was any group of non-Vedic Indo-Aryans waiting for the arrival of Vedic Indo-Aryans. There is a high probability that the "non-Vedic Indo-Aryans" were, or their forefathers were, former Vedic people. I believe we are overestimating the number of ascetics; no society can be built purely by wanderers and ascetics. One thing is clear: during Rigvedic times, those who left their homes for new adventures were fringe elements. I agree there’s no need to directly relate ascetic or sannyasi movements to the roots of any Brahmanical tradition; they might very well represent completely new ideas. The term itself isn’t entirely reflective. Whatever you deem fit, I will not argue. I just wanted to add a little nuance. Thank you. DangalOh (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
--- End of copied part ---
This edit? It changed

The earliest yoga-practices may have developed in the Jain tradition at ca. 900 BCE.Yoga-like practices were first mentioned in the ancient Hindu text known as Rigveda.
into

The earliest yoga-practices may have developed in the Jain tradition at ca. 900 BCE.Yoga-like practices, from non-Vedic people, were first mentioned in the youngest book of the Rigveda, composed ca. 1000 BCE

kwerneryrv289 is wener. The article says

According to Flood, "The Samhitas [the mantras of the Vedas] contain some references ... to ascetics, namely the Munis or Keśins and the Vratyas." Werner wrote in 1977 that the Rigveda does not describe yoga, and there is little evidence of practices. The earliest description of "an outsider who does not belong to the Brahminic establishment" is found in the Keśin hymn 10.136, the Rigveda's youngest book, which was codified around 1000 BCE. Werner wrote that there were
... individuals who were active outside the trend of Vedic mythological creativity and the Brahminic religious orthodoxy and therefore little evidence of their existence, practices and achievements has survived. And such evidence as is available in the Vedas themselves is scanty and indirect. Nevertheless the indirect evidence is strong enough not to allow any doubt about the existence of spiritually highly advanced wanderers.
"outside or on the fringes of Brahmanical traditions" is indeed better. regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

As per WP:LEAD and WP:READABILITY, we must avoid using very difficult English words in the lead. An example is
"Soteriological" goals which most Wikipedia readers may not understand. Wiki readers are not PhD's.
Therefore, I humbly request very respected senior editor Joshua Jonathan to please look for simpler alternatives in such cases. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think for "Soteriological goals", a reasonable and more understandable alternative can be "salvaltion goals". We are not writing academic journal article, we are writing a Wiki article for average reader. We use the difficult and scholarly more accurate words such as "Soteriological goals" in the BODY. RogerYg (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Chiswick Chap, thank you for the detailed explanation in your edit summary regarding the archaeological evidence being uncertain. Is there a source I can refer to, to read further about that? Swirlymarigold (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

See Yoga#Indus Valley Civilisation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the evidence is really flaky and we've covered it in detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to the specific section! Swirlymarigold (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
very Clean and Clear Explanation. Feeling Good To Use Wikipedia now 😇 103.70.159.254 (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Change YOGA to yog..the word YOGA is historically incorrect and its cultural appropriation 2405:201:682A:384A:2DB7:3FB0:65BC:6974 (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jolielover♥talk 05:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Nonsense anyway, there is an implicit "a" after Sanskrit consonants. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)