Talk:Yoga

Hinduism Unassessed

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Possible model for yoga article

See Dharma. A nice mosaic, not a stew. Fairly complete, reasonably organized, highly respectful.--Nemonoman 16:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Chaos

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)[reply]

Yoga Bear

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?

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)[reply]

Sikhism and Yoga

There is something very disagreeable between the two ideas functioning; the Sikh Gurus had condemned any display of worship or attempt at enlightenment other than prayer and productive community work, as futile. Is there any proof insisting that the two ideas were compatible as religious practices or are they mutually exclusive?

Merging with Naked Yoga

Implenting request of merge with Naked yoga per User:Arundhati bakshi. Dandelion1 01:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with naked yoga

Naked yoga takes up disproportional space in this page. If it merits so much detail I think it should be a separate article. Also several sentences seem out of place. If and when Shaiva nagas practice yoga naked do they also term it as 'naked yoga'? When renunciates wander naked it is part of their renouncing of the materialism of this world - it is not a yoga by itself. There is a difference between practicing a particular type of yoga and following a lifestyle as part of a principle. Also Kumbh mela is not a convention for naked yoga! Also the term is offensive as it speaks to an external element vs any ideas purporting to support it - all other yogas speak to ideas (for instance bhakti yoga is not called chanting yoga). Again, that brings me back to my previous argument - can anyone start a 'new' yoga and can we give it space in this page? The section connects it with the concept of 'free love', again a western 'misinterpretation' or wilful manipulation of Hinduism or yoga concepts to give expression to twisted theories. --Pranathi 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Naked yoga does belong here

(1) Naked yoga is a popular variant of yoga, even if the Hindu approach does not deem it appropriate. People have different versions of yoga that can't simply be revised out of existence. If you think it is a twisted theory, then include it in the section and please cite your source.

(2) Naked yoga does NOT merit its own separate article. That is why it belongs here. Its a choice of dress, and a very intuitive choice for enough people to warrant its inclusion here.

But some of the elements don't quite sound right to me. For instance,

(1) I think we can clearly remove discussion of the film Naked Yoga to its own separate page, which would also require setting up a disambiguition page.

(2) If info about Shaiva nagas has a non factual link to naked yoga it should be removed. Dandelion1 22:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isn't this so-called Naked Yoga a type of yoga. If we can have a separate article on Anahata Yoga, then why not Naked Yoga. Besides, I don't know how people from other religion view it, but most Hindus (including me) find nudism offensive and since Yoga forms an integral part of Hinduism, having an entire section on this practice is unjustified. Besides, that image is too pornographic --Deepak 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think an image of a person without clothes is pornographic then that is your reality. Its too bad some people insist on sexualizing everything having to do with nudity. I personally find that approach disturbing. Wikipedia is not a tightly-controlled Hindu portal to view the world through. If you want to have a criticism of naked yoga, please put it in the article. Dandelion1 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think mentioning a few lines on Naked Yoga and a wiki link is good enough. There is no need to have an entire section on this on the main Yoga page. Please use interwikis and see the guideline on how to write an article. Yoga is a diverse practice. If we start describing every aspect of Yoga on page, forget 35 Kb, the Yoga page will exceed 2000 Kb. --Deepak gupta|सदस्य वार्ता 00:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I have offended and been quick to judge by calling it a twisted theory. I am wary of some new-age thinking that links 'free sex' to Hinduism.

Who is claiming free sex links to Hinduism. This is a page on yoga.

I understand that the Naked Wiki movement (if that is what it is) organizes several activities in that state. The most popular of these seems to be beach activities and cycling. I do not see Naked beach or Naked cycling as part the main articles though. As you mentioned, it's just a choice of dress and not a variant of Yoga as such. (I would be interested in stats on it's popularity also if you still think it merits mention in this page. )--Pranathi 00:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say naked yoga is 'not a variant of Yoga as such'.

Deepak, I am not agreeable to a compromise of even a few lines on Naked Yoga. I would be interested in stats on it's popularity if Dandelions thinks it merits mention in this page. If the stats (without dragging Shaiva nagas in) are significant then we could maybe mention that Naked Wiki movement practices Hatha Yoga in that state. But I would like to see it in cycling and beaches articles first.

Dandelion, You said that it's a choice of dress, which I don't see as a 'variant' of Yoga, its paths or its techniques. --Pranathi 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dandelion: Okay, I apologise for my outburst. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. As you said, Naked Yoga is a variant of Yoga. Yoga consists of several other variants. If we start describing every variant of Yoga, this article will exceed the adivisory 35-40 Kb limit. Besides, I am not removing Naked Yoga entirely. There is a link to the Naked Yoga article in the See also list. So if someone wants to find some info regarding Naked Yoga, s/he can easily find it on the See also list.

Where is the criticism about Yoga from the Christian perspective? Has that been deleted too? Is this how we resolve things by delete other peoples' contributions?

I don't want a discussion about naked yoga on the film's page!!! I thought I was helping to move that section out to its own article but now somebody has continuously been vandalizing by adding an article about naked yoga.Dandelion1 03:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about how Hindus think about it, its about Wikipedia's policies which we need to follow as Wikipedians. Not every person is same, forget religion. What is fine with me might be disturbing to you. Respecting the beliefs of other cultures and religion is what matters the most. Thanks --Deepak gupta|सदस्य वार्ता 00:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to turn this into a religion thing? Silencing others and erasing contributions, such as seen when the criticism from a Chrisian perspective was deleted, is not helping your case.Dandelion1 03:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to film Naked Yoga are vandalism. That page is clearly made with the second word in caps to reflect a film name, and in the discussion page it says it is for the film. Some one has also moved content to Naked yoga (not the film) whereas before it was a redirect to the Naked yoga section on the Yoga page. I will continue to seek to resolve this dispute. I will request that the page be protected. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Dandelion1 02:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that. However, I still stick to my theory. --Incman|वार्ता 02:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about theories!! This is about putting content in the correct place. (1) There needs to be a place for info on naked yoga to go. (2) There needs to be a place where criticism from the Christian perspective goes (I may not agree with it, but it contributed to helping keep Wikipedia a NPOV source of information. Even my own sister, who is a minister is concerned and it deserves to have an intelligent pro and con discussion, not just simply being deleted out of existence!!).

Paranathi: I agree entirely with your logic. But we will have to compromise in accordance with Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks --Deepak gupta|सदस्य वार्ता 00:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Totally Redoing the whole Arrangement. This is getting me Dizzy Every time I look at the article it is totally restructured. This is really annoying. Stop Editing.

How About something between the Whole article in under Yoga and the whole article by itself. What about a really minimal Section in the Yoga article with a link to the Main article. It is also ok as is with it's own article for Yoga,

==Naked yoga==
 :''Main article: [[Naked yoga]]''
 A brief Summary of Naked yoga with no/small picture

I preferred Naked yoga [1] when it was about Naked yoga in general and not about the film and had a disambiguating to Naked Yoga (film) --E-Bod 03:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use Template:Main

==Naked yoga== :''{{main|Naked yoga}}'' :A brief Summary of Naked yoga with no/small picture

Paul foord 10:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity and yoga / Naked yoga section debate (con't)

This text was put on page Wikipedia:Requests for page protection however there is a policy of not allowing discussion there:

Response to Dandelion's request to protect Yoga:

I have no problems with the section Criticism from Christain point of view if the User:Dandelion1 agrees to provide references. The section is speculative and POV and undermines the very meaning of Wikipedia. Regarding, the Naked Yoga issue, I guess administrators are best judge. Please note that Naked Yoga is just one of the several variants of Yoga and if we write one whole section on every variant of yoga, the article will easily exceed size limit. I tried my best to explain Wikipedia:Manual of Style but the user doesn't seem to be listening. --Incman|वार्ता 03:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What specific point are you trying to make regarding Wikipedia:Manual of Style as it relates to the inclusion of nudity and yoga in the article Yoga? And why is the topic of nudity in the article the first that needs to get cut before other topics? I'm very concerned that people were refering to the image used in the section as being pornographic, when it was not, and I suspect that may be one reason why the section has been removed, since it was brought up when the section was cut out. Please do not refer to me as "the user" as if I am some outsider in all this. That is rude. Dandelion1 05:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Admin decision on not protecting Naked yoga:

Well, ok. I'm storing the information here (where it used to be before) until it can go back into the Yoga article. Dandelion1 05:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being generous Naked yoga could be treated as a school or part of the variety of yoga, however it is probably more a modality of practice, but most likely a western prediliction to titillate or push boundaries. Are there historical/theoretical foundations, are there recognised gurus, and sources to cite? Whether these are Hindu, Tantric, Buddhist, whatever. Having a ref in "See also" is really as much as it justifies without this. Paul foord 10:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said "most likely a western prediliction to titillate or push boundaries". That's total bullshit unless you can back up your claims... and why would there need to be a a "special" guru to do the practice without clothes. Is there some kind of huge shift in thinking here? No! What kind of acadamic theory really does one need to change the mode of dress? Your comments are completely ridiculous and laughable at best. No, this is not coming out of the tantric tradition and it isn't an attempt to sexualize yoga as you seem to be implying without supporting your claims. Can't you even bother yourself with reading the references at the bottom? Dandelion1 17:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks. Just passing by. I agree it's more a modality of practice. Though, it's not a Western prediliction; I have a few yoga texts that note being naked as part of the practice. One is an old Tibetan Trulkhor text: NEVA: Start in sitting position, legs extended, naked.

I can't find any reference though for it being necessary that this kind of practice is titled Naked yoga. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 13:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Naked Yoga merits it's own page: It doesn't fit on this page because: 1) it doesn't appear to be spiritualy linked 2) What kind of Yoga is it? Since it isn't specifically spiritual, is it a form of modern excercise?

The fact is, it doesn't appear to be very well defined as a concept, and the name 'Naked Yoga' gives no insights to what it's all about. Justifying it's existence by citing the 'Shaiva Nagas' habit of nakedness is rediculous, since Naked Yoga doesn't share any aspects of the Naga belief system except for the naked part. The fact that they were originaly loosely refered to as 'Sadhus' in the article shows just how distinct 'Naked Yoga' is from any spiritual group, and just how ill-defined and baseless it is as notion.

Sfacets 17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Shaiva Nagas

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)[reply]