Talk:Patanjali

message: "Srimad Bhagavatam 10.87.25
janim asatah sato mrtim utatmani ye ca bhidam
vipanam rtam smaranty upadisanti ta arupitaih
tri-guna-mayah puman iti bhida yad abodha-krta
tvayi na tatah paratra sa bhaved avabodha-rase
SYNONYMS
janim -- creation; asatah -- of the manifest world (from atoms); satah -- of that which is eternal; mrtim -- destruction; uta -- also; atmani -- in the soul; ye -- who; ca -- and; bhidam -- duality; vipanam -- mundane business; rtam -- real; smaranti -- declare authoritatively; upadisanti -- teach; te -- they; arupitaih -- in terms of illusions imposed on reality; tri -- three; guna -- of the material modes; mayah -- composed; puman -- the living entity; iti -- thus; bhida -- dualistic conception; yat -- which; abodha -- by ignorance; krta -- created; tvayi -- in You; na -- not; tatah -- to such; paratra -- transcendental; sah -- that (ignorance); bhavet -- can exist; avabodha -- total consciousness; rase -- whose composition.
TRANSLATION
Supposed authorities who declare that matter is the origin of existence, that the permanent qualities of the soul can be destroyed, that the self is compounded of separate aspects of spirit and matter, or that material transactions constitute reality -- all such authorities base their teachings on mistaken ideas that hide the truth. The dualistic conception that the living entity is produced from the three modes of nature is simply a product of ignorance. Such a conception has no real basis in You, for You are transcendental to all illusion and always enjoy perfect, total awareness.
PURPORT
The true position of the Supreme Personality is a sublime mystery, as is also the dependent position of the jiva soul. Most thinkers are mistaken in one way or another about these truths, since there are countless varieties of false designation that can cover the soul and create illusion. Foolish conditioned souls submit to obvious delusions, but the illusory power of Maya can easily subvert the intelligence of even the most sophisticated philosophers and mystics. Thus there are always divergent schools of thought propounding conflicting theories concerning basic principles of truth.
In traditional Indian philosophy, the followers of Vaisesika, Nyaya, Sankhya, Yoga and Mimamsa philosophies all have their own erroneous ideas, which the personified Vedas point out in this prayer. The Vaisesikas say that the visible universe is created from an original stock of atoms (janim asatah). As Kanada Rsi's Vaisesika-sutras (7.1.20) state, nityam parimandalam: "That which is of the smallest size, the atom, is eternal. " Kanada and his followers also postulate eternality for other, nonatomic entities, including the souls who become embodied, and even a Supreme Soul. But in Vaisesika cosmology the souls and the Supersoul play only token roles in the atomic production of the universe. Srila Krsna-dvaipayana Vedavyasa criticizes this position in his Vedanta-sutras (2.2.12): ubhayathapi na karmatas tad-abhavah. According to this sutra, one cannot claim that, at the time of creation, atoms first combine together because they are impelled by some karmic impulse adhering in the atoms themselves, since atoms by themselves, in their primeval state before combining into complex objects, have no ethical responsibility that might lead them to acquire pious and sinful reactions. Nor can the initial combination of atoms be explained as a result of the residual karma of the living entities who lie dormant prior to creation, since these reactions are each jiva's own and cannot be transferred from them even to other jivas, what to speak of inert atoms.
Alternatively, the phrase janim asatah can be taken to allude to the Yoga philosophy of Patanjali Rsi, inasmuch as his Yoga-sutras teach one how to achieve the transcendental status of Brahmanhood by a mechanical process of exercise and meditation. Patanjali's yoga method is here called asat because it ignores the essential aspect of devotion -- surrender to the will of the Supreme Person. As Lord Krsna states in Bhagavad-gita (17.28),
asraddhaya hutam dattam
tapas taptam krtam ca yat
asad ity ucyate partha
na ca tat pretya no iha
"Anything done as sacrifice, charity or penance without faith in the Supreme, O son of Prtha, is impermanent. It is called asat and is useless both in this life and in the next.""  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.128.162 (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [Srimad Bhagavatam 10.87.25]

message: I read with astonishment the closing comments of the discussion above. An editor claims "but otherwise it seems in general that the primary transliteration for Sanskrit has not been established per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic):" - whereas (which WP:?): "Each Indic article should be named according to its primary transliteration, if this can be clearly established. If a primary transliteration cannot be clearly established, then the article should be labelled with a simplified transliteration." ... so, is Sanskrit not an Indic language or what is the issue? I don't understand the motives involved. </br>
There are more criteria than only the appearance in modern-day encyclopedia's; we can choose to, or we can choose not to create our own dictatorship. How it's written where it originated and was discussed for centuries, in Sanskrit in this case, is more important. Usability is a second: how can you ever pronounce a word (meditate and churn through its meaning) correctly if you'll never know how it's written? Unambiguousness is a third good reason. I'm sure more people will find more WP: reasons to support moving this to Patañjali. I don't see a single advantage, in terms of real practice, of using the "English" spelling. Wakari07 (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:COMMONNAME is the primary policy on which the move was based. In Indian English, diacritics are not used. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  15:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Whenever you place him chronologically, or geographically, please read महाभाष्य at least once properly. There he is actually trying to elaborate or elucidate भगवत पाणिनी कृत अष्टाध्यायी for easier understanding by a larger public with lesser take-off levels in grammar. He has tried to elaborate/elucidate the latter’s work by citing examples from day-to-day’s life and facts or things that were common knowledge then (i.e. during his time). While describing the usage of words and describing, why it is foolhardy to say a word and then say that the said word does not exist, he says and I quote:
“अस्त्यप्रयुक्तः”
“सन्ति‚वै‚शब्दा‚अप्रयुक्ता …”
… followed by “सर्वे‚देशान्तरे”
And आह्निक thereof…
“सर्वे देशान्तरे
सर्वे खल्वप्येते शब्दा देशान्तरेषु प्रयुज्यन्ते । न चैवोपलभ्यन्ते । उपलब्धौ यत्नः क्रियताम् । महाञ्शब्दस्य प्रयोगविषयः । सप्तद्वीपा वसुमती‚ त्रयो लोकाः‚ चत्वारो वेदाः साङ्गाः सरहस्या …”
Which basically means – (Sorry for a bit of transliteration)
“Exists unused.”
“These words exist, but are not used …”
“All (unused words that we have been talking about) in other countries.
These (unused words) are used in other countries, they are not available to us, we can only make attempts at it. The field of word usage is huge, as there are seven continents on earth (vasumati), three lokas (realms), four vedas with various secrets …”
Now lets see how you have downgraded भगवत पतञ्जलि on this very page. About a couple of years back I was trying to introduce some people to the works of भगवत पतञ्जलि, so I send them the link to your page on him because I found your site to be fairly reasonable in describing him. Then, your site had placed him around 300 BC although actual references to his works by other authors who can be dated to about 500 BC (based on the samvat and mimansak dates of those works) exist.
Now your site places him on the crossover of BC/AD, please correct your references.
Another fact worth mentioning on your page on भगवत पतञ्जलि would be the fact inferred from the above quoted piece from महाभाष्य, that existence of seven continents on this planet was a well-known fact or common knowledge for people of his time. Compare this to the western perspective of flatland and unknown Americas till Columbus discovered it (or may I say re-discovered it) in late 14th century AD. Don’t you think you are overtly trying to sell the western perspective on the matter and make everyone believe in what west thinks? I had expected a more fairer and truthful description rather than the flavored one that you have put-up, from an highly respectable knowledge portal such as yours.
Something similar can also be seen in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari page.
What your historians have conveniently omitted is something as trivial as, that even अष्टाध्यायी uses or describes लाकृति, which basically means ॡ समान आकृति. Now the term लाकृति was prevalent even before भगवत पाणिनी, in older works describing श्रीकृष्ण. He is called so because of his iconic pose with a flute, which make him look like the written ॡ. This kind of put your dating schemes way off than what it actually is.
Another thing that hurts is the representation of my ancestors as aliens, whereas they were simply great people with excellent scientific acumen with highly advanced mathematics and astronomy, and both had helped development of the other. It is just sad that, what once was common knowledge and a scientific fact, became just a matter of religious faith with unrelenting invasions on such a peaceful and advanced civilization over thousands of years.
Hope that you’ll correct the discrepancies and bring the truth out and live up to your reputation.
Regards
Anonymously Yours  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.12.251 (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certain anomalies in description of भगवत पतञ्जलि 

message: This is a minor matter - just a suggestion. 
The second paragraph says "In contrast to the focus on the mind in the Yoga sutras, later traditions of Yoga such as the Hatha yoga focus on more complex asanas or body postures." I think this may be a little ambiguous.  If the intended meaning is that one deals primarily with the mind, the other the body, then the word "more" should be removed.  If the intended meaning is that later traditions emphasize asanas that are more complex, then writing "the more complex" instead of "more complex" would make that clearer.  I'm of the opinion that the former meaning is the correct statement, but would not disagree with anyone who could say with certainty that the latter is true.
Also, should not the "s" in "Yoga sutras" be capitalized?  It's part of the name of a book. Wcomm (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yoga Sūtra [under Ascribed Works] 

message: Lots of words look weird in the current state of the article. Some are Sanskrit transliterations with capital letters throw into the middle that I thought were approximations of diacritical marks, but then I saw some English words that looked like this too.  Morganfitzp (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up needed 

message: I read the words Paatanjali and Mahaavira. But since Mahavira is written with a single "a" I wanted to ask if the same happened as well for the name of Patanjali written with double "a".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viperalus (talk • contribs) 15:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of double a's 

message: The only biography of Patanjali entitled "Patanjali Charitram" was written in Indian by Ramabhadra Dikshita in the 17th century. It is available as "The Patanjali-charitra (English)".pdf on yousigma.com as well as a printed book. Why do you not include this important source text containing all available information about the sage in your article?
Yoga instructor Milosz Wozniak from Poland Sahajyogachary (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patanjali article 

message: There is a fatal flaw in assuming that he was from second century BC. This is so because original Sutra in with Patanjali‘s yoga sutra was written earlier than Vyas. this is so because Vyas has written commentaries on every sutra of Patanjali’s yoga Sutra.
so if we consider that Vyas was 5000 BC  or more, then, Patanjali should be earlier than that.
Subsequent commentaries made by Raja Bhoj / Bhojdev, and Mandan Mishra  and others are commentaries on the original commentary by Vyasa. Amalanshu (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RNPOV. tgeorgescu (talk)  12:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time period of Patanjali