Talk:Yoga/Archive 4

message: See Dharma. A nice mosaic, not a stew. Fairly complete, reasonably organized, highly respectful.--Nemonoman 16:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read many articles on Yoga in past few days and I must agree, it does play a crucial role in other Dharmic religions. Mentioning that Yoga is central to Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism is justified. But at the same time, Yoga plays a far more crucial role in Hinduism than it does in other Dharma religions. Other religions primarily focus on Meditation as a mean to know God. But Hindu texts regard Yoga as the ultimate way to attain God. Also, if Yoga's Hindu origins are not proven, then it's Vedic origins are. Hinduism is a name which was pegged by the colonial British government. The actual name of the religion is Vedika Dharma. Anyways, I have no problem if the Buddhism template is added to the article. But the Hinduism template should be not be removed and instead the article should emphasise more on Yoga's role in Vedika Dharma. The Dharma article is the perfect example --Deepak|वार्ता 16:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you elaborate on the distinction you're making here between meditation and yoga. I believe it was David Frawley who said, "Yoga and meditation, are they two?"—Nat Krause(Talk!) 15:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That quote is from David Frawley's article on Yoga and Buddhism (URL to entire article provided below in my response to another topic) to illustrate the typical Indian reaction when a Westerner mentions that he or she is supplementing yoga practice with Buddhist meditation. His thesis is that, when learning Yoga in the West, it is possible (even probable) that one could learn about postures and breathing, but never be introduced to meditation. So, this distinction between the word "yoga" and the word "meditation" stems from the erroneous Western notion that yoga is something different from meditation. That's something this article should help to debunk. For example, it should clearly state that the yogic postures were developed as aids to meditation. --Smithfarm 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible model for yoga article 

message: This is a very chaotic article, I will not edit it because I would change it completely. Firstly Hinduism is not a religion in the sense we are used to in the west, thats why its tolerable to let yoga be characterised as hindu. The truth is we are talking here about a pure philosophical system that does not consider rituals in the way religions do. Yoga is one of the 6 philosophical systems of India and should be treated solely as a philosophical term and system. Viruswitch 23:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaos 

message: :too good to throw away...
Yoga Bear was the pioneer of the modern form of Yoga. Originating in Yellowstone National Park, USA. Yoga and his little friend Boga, practiced Yoga at 7am every morning, much to the dismay of the park ranger, the evil Shogi. Shogi took revenge by stealing all of the park visitor's pic-a-nic baskets and framing Yoga and Boga and having them banished from the park forever. 
The two amigos then began a crusade and travelled across the world, practicing their mystical excercises and attracting a band of followers that increased exponentially.
Yoga Bear lived to be 99 years and 364 days old, when, while on his way to pick up his telegram from the British Queen, he was squashed by a tomato while he was crossing the road - an event he had feared for 50 years.
Meanwhile, the malevolent Shogi lives on, hoping to end yoga, once and for all.
Will he succeed? Or will Yoga Bear's legacy live on? Who knows?
..............................hi!
I do! 
I know that Yogi Bare was never never naked. It was ridiculously impractical, reserved for the hot spring dips to warm up before the 7AM routine, his secret of flexibility. Fur coats for snow were de rigeur.  I know, too, that really Boga true to his nama, enjoyed. 
Boga was really his wife. And they were not banished genetically, their little ones live on, meditating in caves during the entire Winter. 
And they are planning to overthrow the evil regimes repressing respect for Yoginis like Boga, their divinely maternal cozy mama of yore. Their long-term plan is to usurp the posseurs of Madhava's websites with diabets-causing sugariness and flapping of impossibly big eyelashes to stop being the terrorists of others not born-again-ponytails'n'shave who teach their smarter wives about books-n-things to do with God.
Bear with me, just like Ole Faithful, you will notice when it happens.:)...............'bye from Marci
:::by editor 80.195.163.53
:I'm amused you actually moved this to the talk page, Nemonoman! Good show. El_C 03:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yoga Bear

message: Some sikhs practice yoga. In the USA the 3HO led by late Yogi bhajan has spread so called "kundalini yoga" as a means to aid in ones journey towards mukti. 3HO
: Yes, but religions like Sikhism, Budhism, Jainism etc. were once part of Hinduism and they follow many traditions of hinduism. Sikhism was particularly important as that developed as protectors of hinduism from the barbaric hands of middle age muslims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sobuj (talk • contribs) 17:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sikhism and Yoga

message: Since correcting the entry from 'Sadhus' to 'Shaiva Nagas', which is the group which lives naked, there needs to be a correction to the number of followers which has been left at 20 million, but which is actually considerably smaller, considering the 'Nagas' are just a part of the Sadhu ensemble. Shane 09:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section in question here has been removed until I can figure out how it relates to anything (I never wrote it and I don't understand it at this point). Dandelion1 19:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Shaiva Nagas 

message: I suggest opening a request for comments on this page and naked yoga.  My own suggestion is to have naked yoga be a separate page and describe it in summary style, similar to how the featured article Hinduism treats many subtopics: within the main article text with a paragraph and an italicized link.  Regards, Durova 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still confused. The Clothes free movement performs many activities in the nude. These include cycling, swimming etc. Why is their performing Hatha Yoga singled out as a variant of Hatha Yoga, while the rest are not. I don't think every thing should get a new name just because it is performed in this state - again, it is simply a choice of dress. --Pranathi 20:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I googled Nude Yoga and read a couple of related articles and none of them said Nude Yoga is a variant of Yoga. As you said, there is little difference between Yoga and "Nude Yoga" except the fact that the latter is done without clothes. I think one sentence is more than enough to describe so-called Nude Yoga. --Incman|वार्ता 16:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am a yoga teacher well versed in the literature and practice and I've never heard of yoga being practiced publicly in the nude. Yoga is like anything else we do in public life. Do we go shopping in the nude? Do we take a walk in the park or along the riverfront in the nude? When we go downtown on a Saturday afternoon, how many nude people do we see? In other words, whether one is clothed or not, or what percentage of the body is covered, has no bearing on yoga, just as it has no bearing on shopping or on taking a walk. Clothing or lack thereof is a matter of social customs and climate. As has been mentioned above, the so-called "naked yoga" is a non-entity: it has no tradition, no gurus, no heritage. In short, it is not notable and does not belong in an encyclopedia article on yoga, period. --Smithfarm 11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responding to Village Pump query 

message: Something has to be done with the contemporary yogi section, or it will quickly grow HUGE, with everyone adding  their favourite baba, babu and sadhu of choice. I propose it either be removed, or mograted to a new page...
Sfacets 10:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A new article wouldn't be a bad idea. The sub-heading doesn't belong at all. There's enough contemporary-ness in the preceding section already. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 10:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. A new article called 'Contemporary Yogis' would allow room for the infinite growth of the latest new yoga teacher(s). It seems this article should be more about 'Yoga' than about 'Yogis'. Even the 'Notable Yogis' could get too big if people put in their fave yogi. ॐ Priyanath 23:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree too, I doubt people looking for general info on yoga need to know all about the masters up front. Dandelion1 00:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree too too--E-Bod 01:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporary Yogi issues

message: I removed the section on Yogendra and the yoga institute, all of which which is copied and pasted from http://www.yogainstitute.org/about.html , including the image.
While there is no copyright notice on the site, legally express permission must be granted by the association for it to be copied as is to wikipedia see Public_domain.
Sfacets 10:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed copvio content

message: Usher the RnB singer as a notable yogi shows just what can happen to this article unless scrict(er)criteria are put in place.
Does this section deserve a seperate article? 
Sfacets 07:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes, yes! I had suggested a while ago that only Yogis whose popularity stood the test of time be represented here. Perhaps with criteria such as - should not be living and - have significant following. Maybe that criteria can be used for the new article and stricter criteria for this section in Yoga such as only those born before the 20th century. I know thats vague but without any criteria this section can go out of control. --Pranathi 23:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now "World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)'s Trish Stratus" is a notable yogi, or was until I removed her. How does one go about making a separate page for 'Notable Yogis', and how do you make criteria that people can agree upon? There are now three pages with growing lists of yogis: Contemporary Yogis, Yogi, and the Yoga pages's 'notable yogis'. What's the best way to organize this? All three have many of the same yogis listed. I suggest merging all three into one page, called something like Notable Yogis. Alternatively, there could be two pages: Notable Yogis (deceased), and Notable Yogis (living). ॐ Priyanath 02:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: See my previous suggestion here--Nemonoman 03:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea. Do you think 'Notable Yogis' should stay on the Yoga page, along with 'Modern Yogis'? Or a new page? And separate pages in that case, or one combined page? I think that a separate page is best, since the Yoga page is already too long. Then there's the question of the list of yogis at Contemporary Yogis and Yogi, which are redundant. All three should be combined/merged somewhere, and I'm happy to do it. But I would like a consensus on how to do it, even if it's a consensus of two. I especially like your idea of Notable Yogis being in chronological order, and mostly dead yogis - and Modern Yogis being in Alphabetical order. I also think there should be criteria of who should be listed there. For example, Modern Yogis should be Notable Yoga Teachers or authors, not every rapper or WWE wrestler babe who practices yoga.  ॐ Priyanath 03:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Yogis

message: I'm surprised no one has ever started such a project....--Dangerous-Boy 04:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Yoga]] 

message: In the interests of grammar, I reverted a couple of the recent changes by Sfacets of "god" to "God."  "God" isn't always a proper noun, and a couple of the recent changes were incorrect.  To be perfectly honest, I think leaving the remaining instances may be confusing.  I associate the term "God" with the Judeo-Christian one, which I expect is common among English-speakers. I don't think that's the god under discussion when the subject is Hinduism or Buddhism.  Still, Hinduism capitalizes the word when discussing Brahman, and I'd rather leave it as is than offend.--Pastafarian Nights 23:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits seem good. In general I think the word should be capitalised when there is no article (a/the) as it is being used as a name. So ... worships God, but ... worships a god. Ashmoo 06:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "God" or "god"? 

message: I have heard of an ancient tibetan martial art derived from Yoga, confirmation of this would be greatly appriciated
: Not sure, but it could be Kalarippayattu that you heard of. (?) --Pranathi 16:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Yogi Fighting Style? 

message: Is there any verification available for the claim that "Panini, Patanjali and Kātyāyana are regarded are the highest authority not only in Sanskrit but also in the whole of Linguistics"?  It's a pretty strong statement and would require pretty solid evidence
to substantiate it.  Off the top of my head, I would imagine that Noam Chompsky is currently considered a 'higher' authority in linguistics than either of the three mentioned above.
:Well, you have to take into account the rift of ignorance between East and West. Sometimes people in the West ignore well-established historical facts, claiming for example that Galileo was the first human to propose a heliocentric universe, etc., when such things were well-known to Vedic civilization hundreds, if not thousands, of years before. At the same time, sometimes people from the East go overboard in highlighting the accomplishments of "their" historical figures. In reality, nobody can "own" the history of human civilization. Things like this are good because they highlight the absurd ignorance that comes from considering oneself to "belong" to any particular nation or geographical region. Perhaps the sentence could be altered to read: "Panini, Patanjali and Kātyāyana are regarded are the highest authorities in Sanskrit as well as major historical contributors to the science of Linguistics." Of course, it would be nice to add an appropriate reference. --Smithfarm 17:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authority of Patanjali 

message: The actual yog [unfortunately in english people calls "Yoga"] is a philosophy of sanatam dharma [ again unfortunatly known as Hinduism] to understand the super natural powers of this planet and beyond the planetial environment. The acts for this approach is comprehensively known as yog. The Sanatam Dharam philosophy is divided into eight branches mainly #Chravak#Nyay#vaishesik#mimansa#jain# yog etc. Except charvak, all philosophical approaches accept the existence of the super power, say God. All philosophical approaches ends upto the conclusion of the meeting of the super power. The way of meeting with the super power may have  differences. These differences can be seen worldwide in creeds of different nations. So is with the Yog. The real yog have eight fold directive to follow , if any body wish to meet, experience and understand the super power. These eight fold directives have to follow in strict way.Yam,Niyam,Aaasan,Pranayam,Pratyahar,dhyan, dharana, samdhi are eight subjects, which have to follow very strictly. Now today, yog is considered to be a type of exercise, which consist only Posture and breathing exercises. This is not actually yog and is misunderstood. One should understand that Yog literal mean is unity, mixture,conjunction, combination. Regarding other yog say prem yog, karma yog etc are not related to the Yog. One should understand that Yog is sanatam dharma philosophy and should known as "Yog Darshan" or "Yog Philosophy". Yog Philosophy have no any far relation to the other yog, whatever they have described.
User:Dbbajpai1945@sify.com 11:10 IST, 22 June 2006
:There is a good reason for calling it "Yoga" in English - simply that it assures correct pronounciation! If we spelled it "Yog", English-speakers would pronounce it to rhyme with "nog" (as in egg-nog). As for your argument, it seems self-contradictory. You say there are different approaches for meeting with the super power, but then you say there is only one "real Yog", which for you is the eight-limbed Yoga expounded by Patanjali. But you then go on to say that Yog is really Hindu philosophy. These statements seem to contradict eachother. Patanjali's Yoga is not philosophical at all - it is pure practice of mind control (of one's own mind, not of other minds!), devoid of philosophy. Please help me understand. --Smithfarm 16:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After giving the matter some more thought, I realized I was mistaken to say that Patanjali's Yoga Sutras are "devoid of philosophy". Obviously this classic work has profound philosophical underpinnings. However, those underpinnings, I believe, are more rooted in the Vedas (including, in particular, the Upanishads) and should not be attributed to Patanjali himself. --Smithfarm 20:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific evaluation of Yoga 

message: Hi, I'd like to help improve the references in this page... however, it sounds like the pointers to the Upanishads, Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Hatha Yoga Pradipika in the header were considered insufficient.  If anyone has thoughts, I'd welcome them.  I was thinking of citing mostly books like Iyengar's Light on Yoga and other deeper, historical texts as well. -- Joebeone (Talk) 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be a start. The article is badly in need of references. This govt. site can also be used as a reference for some of the claims. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK06:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations? 

message: If somebody has an expertise on the subject, please add something about Higher Yoga too. I saw a programme on discovery channel that demonstrated Higher yoga. the person drank about 100ml desi ghee and about a litre of milk but still managed to deflate his stomach so as to literally touch his back. He said that if normal person drinks so much ghee and milk, he will become clumsy, but since he did higher yoga, he grew thinner.nids 21:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Higher Yoga 

message: This nebulous subject isn't notable by itself and should be part of the Yoga article. Plus all the google hits seem to redirect here or to WP's copies. Lincher 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Yogic Outer Spiritualism]] merger 

message: Should yoga be categorized as a fad?  Most fads can be traced back to a particular year or decade, after which they go out of style, however yoga doesn't appear to meet this requirement.  —Viriditas | Talk 10:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fad categories

message: Do American Yogis deserve a section all to themselves? This is definitely Systematic bias. 
I propose to merge these teachers into the main "Notable Yogis" section Sfacets 06:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "American Yogis" Section

message: An editor with a suspected COI regarding Sahaja Yoga advocacy throughout Wikipedia simply reverts the inclusion of Sahaja Yoga in the Unorthodox and Contemporary Category. My easily demonstrated point, as stated. was simply that "Shri Mataji's controversial Sahaja Yoga is a NRM founded in 1970, hardly orthodox or mainstream yoga, definition of self realization as cool breeze or second baptism not mainstream". This editor replies: "RVT - Sahaja Yoga originates from a long lineage of Nath traditions, where Cool breeze is described (as well as in other litterary sources))". Really?
This revert without discussion simply restates that NRM's controversial claims as gospel, and part of a contribution pattern of a pattern of deletion of any thing deemed crticical, even if the claim is only the easily demonstrated fact that Sahaja Yoga is Modern, Unorthodox Yoga, and not Orthodax. This is another example why Wikipedia clearly states that the materials of religious groups are to be treated with caution, that editors with COI need to be cautious in their editing, and that the burden of proof for extraordinary claims lies on those making the claim. 
That Sahaja Yoga is a modern movement founded in 1970, and widely considered an NRM, can be demonstrated simply by refering to the Sahaja Yoga article and talk page. And even if the claim that Sahaja Yoga originates from a long lineage of Nath traditions were true, the Nath article not only does not support this claim, but does acknowledge that Nath is a heterodox tradition, refuting the editor's contention that Sahaja Yoga is orthodox, even if the suspect Nath claim were valid. In fact, Sahaja Yoga is a modern movement, the founder has no formally recognition from the claimed lineage, and instead, there are pictures of the founder meditating with the late Rajneesh just prior to founding the NRM, see , along with comments about her by Rajneesh himself. Reviewing Sahaja Yoga material shows that the NRM clearly claims to be original in many of its doctrines and interpretations, even down to the functions of the classic seven chakras, and its leader makes extraordinary, unique Avataric claims: "I am the Adi Shakti. I am the One who has come on this Earth for the first time in this form to do this tremendous task. The more you understand this the better it would be. You will change tremendously. I knew I’ll have to say that openly one day and we have said it. But now it is you people who have to prove it that I am that!" (Shri Adi-Shakti Devi, Sydney, Australia, March 21, 1983). Hardly Orthodox!
Regarding the claim that experiencing a cool breeze above the head and at the palms is a sign of self-realization, that is hardly orthodox, certainly not confirmed in the Upanishads or Pantajili, and not even among kundalini yoga based sects. This editor restates the claim Sahaja Yoga makes: ("One can actually feel the all pervading divine power as a cool breeze, as described in all religions and spiritual traditions of the world"), but fails to provide the evidence in context to support this extraordinary claim that it is so described in all religions and spiritual traditions. And with Sahaja as with a lot of other NRMs that consistently redefine traditional terms, one does not look at just the words, but at whether what Sahaja Yoga defines as self-realization is similar or completly distinct from orthodox definitions. While it is true that many sects consider enlightenment to occur when the kundalini has risen up to and stablized in the sahasrara, which is considered the seat of Self and enlightenment in some Upanishads, that does not imply support for the "cool breeze" as meaning this has rise has occured nor for the "self realization and second baptism" claim, and the editor has provided no documentation other than restate the claims of the NRM to support this claim.
In fact, when you examine the Sahaja Yoga "self-realization" claim, Sahaja defines it merely as "A connection with the Self", where as more mainstream Upanishadic and Vendantic based traditions define Self-Realization as the permanent Union or Identification of the jiva with Self/Atman/Brahman/Parabrahman, or God Realization, not just some energetic baptism or "connection" with the Self. Also, note that there is a sigificant, also ancient Unpanishadic tradition that the seat of the Self and self-realization is found not in the sahasrara, but beyond that, in the Cave of the Heart, see for example Ramana Maharshi.
In summary, without making definitive judgements on the claims of that NRM, which is not the function of Wikipedia, Sahaja Yoga is properly where I put it, along with other, contemporary modern and unorthodox Yogas, and the burden of proof for the extraordinary religious based claims based on dogma and materials from that NRM is not on me, but on that editor suspected of COI regarding Sahaja Yoga to show why I am incorrect. --Dseer 04:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you document this "long lineage"? As Dseer points out, our own article indicates that it was created in 1970. -Will Beback · † · 19:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "long lineage" claim, when there is no recognition of it by those with whom the lineage is asserted, and there are actual pictures and published accounts of the founder meditating with Rajneesh, and meeting with Muktananda, just prior to founding the group, is a controversial and minority religious claim requiring exceptional evidence, not just claims by the NRM and those favorably associated with it. --Dseer 04:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting that you call it a "tirade", when it is simply a sound refutation of your claims, and thus your insult more evidence of improper ownership and a COI investment here. I recognize that your faith in your NRM blinds you to the COI which others see clearly, nothing personal, but it still must be addressed so that an NPOV can be restored. Let me remind you first that contributions are a matter of record, and your pattern in dealing with what you consider the slightest criticism of Sahaja Yoga is clear, and has been noted by editors other than Will B. and myself, and this is just another straw, so to speak. I assure you that this pattern in your contributions relative to Sahaja Yoga will be addressed as needed to produce NPOV articles. In this latest response, where you accuse me of deleting reference to Sahaja Yoga, this is more COI evidence in your flippant, reversion response. Either you are not telling the truth hoping others will buy it, which seems unlikely, or you did not even take time to read the change. Had you done so, you would have seen that I did not delete it, I simply moved Sahaja Yoga to the Unorthodox and Contemporary Section just exactly as I said, and thus your false claim I deleted it is just another case where your position can be proven wrong by simply looking at the edit history. You yourself now acknowledge, when your NRM based statements are confronted with evidence, that it is fine where I put it. And you have not yet produced one shred of evidence yet to demonstrate this claimed "lineage", while I assure you I am well versed in such matters and I can produce much more evidence to the contrary and will not be deterred by the well worn approach of questioning the critic instead of answering the question. Let me remind you that this is one of many controversial and exceptional religious claims you have made, which are to be taken with appropriate caution. Thus, the "long lineage" claim, when there is no recognition of it by those with whom the lineage is asserted, and there are actual pictures and published accounts of the founder meditating with Rajneesh, and meeting with Muktananda, just prior to founding the group, is a controversial and minority religious claim requiring caution and exceptional evidence, not just claims by the NRM and those favorably associated with it. You've been gently warned over and over, but evidence shows you simply don't want to accept that, despite many discussions where you were informed about the necessity for NPOV. Thus it is unfortunately necessary to go to the next level, and I now support the mediation request regarding Sahaja Yoga and any where Sahajists have inserted mention, and if needed, arbitration regarding the edits that I will pursue myself, until NPOV prevails. Again, nothing personal, it just has to be done. --Dseer 04:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sahaja Yoga as Unorthodox and Contemporary, not Orthodox

message: I'm new to reviewing.  Any comments concerning the article are appreciated.  Thanks!Kmarinas86 04:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems rather weakly sourced.  Some sections have no citations at all.  It looks like it could use another round of peer review, as the one on file did not seem to get much input.  One difficulty in approaching this topic is that there are a wide range of different cultural perspectives on the term yoga and what it may or may not cover.  There may be some overgeneralization about things based on the beliefs of particular practioners.  The editors who have worked on this should be commended for making an attempt to synthesize such a broad range of material. Here are some specific suggestions for possible improvements:
*Examination of the sources used as references shows variation in level of credibility per WP:RS. For example, the lead includes the sentence "The first known written reference to yoga is in the Rig Veda, estimated by the western scholars to be at least 3,500 years old." which is supported by a reference to a person who is considered not credible by most academic Indologists. There is no citation to a specific Rig Vedic passage, just a general statement by someone not uniformly regarded as a reliable source.  Perhaps it is true, but is there a better reference that can be verified? 
*The Etymology section is unsourced and does not bring out the general uses of the term yoga in Hindu texts, which are quite varied.  For example, the following section on the Bhagavad Gita refers to four yogas, perhaps influenced by models popularized in the West by the Vendanta Society, but traditional Hindu commentaries on the Gita, and most Hindu editions of the work, refer to 18 yogas, one for each chapter.  The current set of four therefore emphasizes one particular Western model while not mentioning Hindu tradion related to the Gita.
*The section on Yoga Philosophy has no citations and may be unreliable.  If used in the strict sense, the term is referring to one of the six orthodox schools of Hindu Philosophy.  See: Nastika.
*The See also section is a "link farm" as discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_layout#See_also_and_repetition_of_links_in_article.  This use of the See also section seems to be an attempt to handle a navigation goal that would be better handled via a Yoga portal or Yoga navigation template.
Buddhipriya 04:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very insightful, most of the article is sourced but lacks in-line citations, which can be provided as good reference is always at hand for a mainstream subject like this. I have prior commintment towards another article but I'll try to edit and introduce some improvements as soon as I can. The Yoga template also seems bland and overcrowded, but that too, is easily correctible.Phillip Rosenthal 11:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Testing for good article status

message: I have read the article.  While I won't fail it, I won't pass it, either.  There is one rather ambiguous sentence at the end of the History of Yoga section.  It claims that "Yoga is not a religion in itself", even though no one has asserted that it ever was.  A great article, other than that; I'd be happy to give it status if someone fixed that.  There was one misused comma towards the end of the article, but I don't want to complain.--Dark Green 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yoga Review 

message: Someone could go through the References section to be sure that only works that are cited in Footnotes are included there.  Works that are not cited might be appropriate for "Further reading" but they are not usually included as References per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout.  A cleanup step would be to invite on of the layout specialist editors to clean up the structure for the referencing. Buddhipriya 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of References and Notes sections 

message: I notice that there is a dispute over the inclusion of tantric yoga in the list of traditional yogas. .  Tantric yoga is not part of the system of six traditional Hindu philosophies that are also mentioned in the lead, and tantra is classified as an unorthodox (nastika) Hindu system.  I request that the material on tantric yoga be broken out as a separate topic so that the claims made for it can be examined as a distinct issue. Buddhipriya 21:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no dispute.  Tantra is included in a half dozen traditional and modern sources as a major branch, and not nastika.  That would be why it was included in the listing of the six branches, with references, in the original edit.  Empacher 22:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tantric yoga 

message: I am wondering what qualifies something as a "modern school" of Yoga.  Although some, like Bikram and Kripalu, make sense, others, like Gitananda and Rishi Culture seem self-appointed, rather than recognized.  Could someone clarify? DashaKat 19:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your question is excellent, but I have no answer for it.  The article contains many assertions that do not clearly separate out original ideas on the subject from later interpretations.  If there are statements in the article that are not sourced, they may be deleted at any time according to WP:VERIFIABILITY. Buddhipriya 07:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be too onerous to come up with some protocol that the editors agree upon, and then apply it to these listings?  Or maybe parse the lists out, or something?  DashaKat 12:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern schools versus methods 

message: Please see the article, and join discussion on the Aerial yoga talk page. Thanks.--Nemonoman 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerial yoga -- an AFD candidate? 

message: The OHM Omroep Hindoestaanse Media, this is the Hindu Media Organisation of the Netherlands has some streaming video's on Radja, Karma, Jhana en Bhakti yoga.
*Bhakti Yoga
*Jhana Yoga
*Karma Yoga
*Radja Yoga
The introduction of the video is Dutch, but the rest is English with Dutch subtitles, maybe a valuable addition to the article? Teardrop onthefire 12:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These all look like linkspam to me, and I do not think they should be added to the article as they cite no WP:RS.  We need to raise the bar on sources. Buddhipriya 02:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The site ohmnet is not just a website about hinduism, it is the site of the official government funded hindu tv/radio/website for the hindu community of the Netherlands. I am still looking for sources on Swami Ved Bharti. Teardrop onthefire 08:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  explaining video's 

message: The "See also" section is a link farm.  We have a yoga navigation template at the bottom of the page.  Do we need both?  The link farm seems to be a magnet for every self-proclaimed guru who thinks of a new type of yoga.  If I start a new school for Wikipedia Yoga, based on ageless Vedic teachings, would it be a good candidate to add to the link farm?  I think not.  So we need some basis to weed out what is non-notable. Buddhipriya 04:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has replied to this question about formatting, which has just come up in relation to another article at: Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_layout#See_also_section:_.22it_should_ideally_not_repeat_links_already_present_in_the_article..22.  I think that the redundant link farm in See also should be cut, and that any links that are in the Yoga template certainly should be cut individually even if the section is kept. Buddhipriya 20:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has commented on either of the above two comments, so it may be that removal of the See also link farm is not controversial.  I have removed all of the redundant links that appear both in See also and in the Yoga template.  So the topics that are left in See also could be examined, and if any of them are really important, they could be added to the Yoga template.  Is there anyone who is experienced in working with the Yoga template who can do this? The See also section is now adjacent to the Yoga template making it easy to compare the two.  For an example of an article that currently uses only a navigation table in the See also section see: Ganesha. Buddhipriya 18:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Buddhipriya - I removed a few links a while ago and am in agreement with your train of thought. It was previously a bit excessive in terms of See also links. Gouranga(UK) 15:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has objected, the train has pulled out of the station. :)  I cut the residual See also section.  People who feel that specific links need to be added back in are welcome to make their cases for individual topics, which may be best handled by upgrading the Yoga navigational template. Buddhipriya 00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also link farm