Template talk:Yoga

Major Changes required

There are basically three levels of respectable hierarchies of Yoga
MAJOR Yoga founded out by ancient Indian seers, whose credit doesn’t goes to a single person or group. Eg. Bhakti Yoga, Hatha Yoga, Kundalini Yoga
MEDIUM Yoga founded by alive (or recently expired) gurus and the practices are very much well established throughout the world. Eg. Art of Living, Siddha Yoga
MINOR Yoga founded by single persons and used as a marketing phenomenon. Eg. Bikram Yoga, Dream Yoga, Sivananda Yoga. We cannot possible keep Agni yoga (invented by a couple) besides Siddha Yoga (introduced by a spiritual leader). A proper representation of the facts shall be reflected. So people are requested to split off the Other Yogas category into something more accurate.

I just watched the trailer of Enlighten Up. In that documentary, one Yoga teacher of America mentioned that the number of variants of Yoga in US, as there are different flavors of Baskin Robbins Icecream. This holds true, since I have been seeing a lot of different and minor yoga styles in Wikipedia and the web. Since all cannot be accomodated in the template, the minor yoga list has been removed. Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 06:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This template is somewhat skewed: It lists some of the major overarching themes of yoga at the start of each of its sections, and then digresses quite a bit. As for styles, there are certain styles that are nationally recognized in the U.S. by Yoga Alliance, an organization that certifies yoga teachers, and also by Yoga Journal, a publication/organization that provides insurance to teachers. The authority of these organizations is sufficient to warrant which styles are listed on the template and which are not. Morganfitzp (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To date, these yoga schools/styles include: Amrit, Anusara, Ashtanga, Bikram, Forrest, Hatha, Hot Yoga, Iyengar, Jivamukti, Kripalu, Kundalini, Power Yoga, Satya, Viniyoga and Vinyasa. Morganfitzp (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding Name of Template

"Topics in Yoga" to "Yoga" as templates generally named "X" and not "Topics in/related to X".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the change very useful. Topics was more informative and provided a direct link to a category page, containing a directory of related references. The Yoga article is not that useful as a gateway to miscellaneous related subjects (as the Category is). I suggest the title should be changed back or otherwise improved. NazarK (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a second thought, it can actually be named "Yoga", but refer to the category, rather than the Yoga article. I'm changing it that way. Hope you like it. NazarK (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title YOGA is much more appropriate. Thank you Redtigerxyz & NazarK bhuto 08:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep (talk • contribs) [reply]

Added modern styles and schools that appear on Wikipedia and are recognized by Yoga Alliance

This template can have a lot more in it to facilitate access and understanding of both classical and modern yoga. I've added this section containing some styles and schools of yoga that are well-known throughout the world, and yes, there are many more. They may not have been around as long as Patanjali's Sutras, but they are part of yoga as we know it and part of yoga on Wikipedia.

Some questions arise given the overlap of certain terms currently on the template: Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga is a contemporary school established in the 20th century in Mysore, though its name makes reference to Patanjali's "Ashtanga" (eight limbs), it is different. Kundalini,likewise, as a concept is quite old, yet Kundalini Yoga as practiced today, is also something that dates back less than 100 years. They all exist in the world and on Wikipedia, and all belong on this template. Let's work together as a community of Wikipedians (and yogis) to make this template a useful resource to all who seek knowledge on this subject. Morganfitzp (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Das

I'd added Ram Das, and his book Be Here Now as a subsection, to the Modern pioneers section. It was reverted. Ram Das seems to be the main individual to introduce yoga to the 1960s and 1970s generations in the West (and into the '80s and far beyond). His influence on the spiritual direction of thinking of that era, and his explanations of yoga and what it meant to the individual and to society, were unequaled. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we are tangled here in the [classical] yoga vs "modern yoga" question. I removed him from the Modern [postural] yoga section because I haven't seen any evidence that he helped to pioneer or innovate asana yoga - happy to be proven wrong, as always. He is a well-known figure in spiritual yoga, but for that we'd need a different section of the template, a perfectly possible move. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You just put 'with asanas' into the section head for 'Modern yoga', which you have created as an equivalent to Hatha yoga, which already has a complete section. You've also redefined Asana as being both Hatha and Modern yoga along the lines of Mark Singleton (yoga teacher), a teacher who've you've centered around in the section and linked to as 'yoga body'. There seems to be an effort to redefine hatha yoga on the template into 'Modern yoga'. I've removed 'asanas' from the section head (asanas already listed on the template) as the open-ended term "modern yoga" should cover everything about yoga and not just one form. You've made lots of quick and mostly good changes throughout the topic on Wikipedia, which is redefining the Wikipedia topics, but now you define your changes as defining the template. Yoga is not just asana or Hatha yoga, although many people think it is. "Modern" should mean the spread of yoga into the West, and that would include Ram Das and his large influence. There is probably a way to solve this and keep all your good work on yoga topics, including what you call "spiritual" yoga, which is far from just 'spiritiual' in nature and practice (conscious control of physical emotions, thoughts, memory, removal of imbedded trauma-induced decision patterns, etc.) and muscle-system control as defined by hatha yoga is just a part of this. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for explaining your point of view, and for your polite approval of my work, which has of course taken hundreds of hours and a lot of books: it's very nice to be appreciated occasionally. Yoga as understood in south Asia and by scholars is one thing, a huge subject and in the West a very misunderstood one. However, modern yoga is overwhelmingly about asanas, and is overwhelmingly seen that way by the public, the media, and by scholars; further, modern-asana-yoga is overwhelmingly seen by the public and others as virtually synonymous with "yoga", i.e. there is a major gap between how things were seen in earlier centuries and to some extent are still seen in south Asia, and how things are seen in the Western world; there is plentiful evidence for these claims. I suggest we go with the flow on that matter; and I added "with asanas" just to be clear what was meant, since it appeared to be causing an issue: I might add an invisible note to that effect to assist editors, which was (I realise) my main intention.
(By the way, all the qualified terms like "modern yoga" and "modern postural yoga" have an unhelpfully academic ring; the term used by the public and the media is simply "yoga", ignoring all the non-asana-focused kinds, and incidentally ignoring medieval-style hatha yoga, which never consisted mainly of asanas. The situation isn't helped by the use of the term "hatha yoga" (with no diacritics, the "th" pronounced as in 'thin') for non-branded asana yoga; it hasn't much to do with the medieval kind either.)
I suggest further that yoga-not-specially-focused-on-asanas be treated somewhere else, such as in the 'Other' section. How many sections and subsections we have is to some extent a function of how many items of each kind we need to cover. I am afraid there is also quite a large disconnect between the expectations created in the readership by our placing the word "Yoga" at the top of an article or template, and what we then talk about: people arrive, in a word, expecting coverage of asana-yoga (and possibly its history), and get something entirely different. We need to manage that disconnect as gracefully as we can. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with much of what you said, that the history of yoga has been lost to the western topic: "hatha yoga equals yoga" (you've also added 'Modern yoga' to the 'Asana' page as a redefining of 'Hatha yoga'). But a Wikipedia template must cover the entire subject in a clear manner, and this map of the topic includes all yoga and not just hatha yoga (which you and others seems to redefine as 'yoga'). Ernest Wood seems prominent in your edits, and should be on the template somewhere (I've included the template on his page). Modern pioneers (maybe a name for a new section?) should cover all aspects of yoga and not just hatha. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good, we're evidently converging somewhere. I've never equated 'modern yoga' and 'hatha yoga', however, see the modern yoga article for a list of the differences. It's fine to have pioneers-subsection-of-modern-asana-yoga and pioneers-of-other-stuff, we can have more sections. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still not buying the 'Modern yoga' thing, it is just Hatha yoga modified to sell. To devote so much of the template to it seems excessive, and if there is no room on the template for Ram Das and his book then something needs correcting. Not to negate your good work on this, just doesn't seem done yet and some tweaks needed. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for speaking your mind; I wonder if you've seen the table of differences in Modern yoga.
On the "Hatha yoga modified to sell", the case is rather different: it's Hatha yoga minus all its goals (raising kundalini, samadhi, moksha), minus most of its instruments (shatkarmas, bandhas, mudras, most of pranayama), minus all its tradition of guru-shishya and secrecy, plus an unprecedented emphasis on asanas, plus a wholly new aerobic approach with vinyasas and Surya Namaskar and new standing asanas; plus modern life, yoga mats, classes, holidays, yoga brands, commerce and the rest. In short, it's totally transformed inside and out. It's also what "Yoga" means to the great majority of the world's population, who wouldn't know a mudra from a mantelpiece.
Ram Das does not fit into that specific context in any way, which is not to say he may not fit into some other yoga context, but asanas and yoga pants definitely weren't his thing.

On the size of the template, there is certainly sufficient material for a separate Modern yoga template, in which case we can drop back to a slim section in this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed partial reorganisation

I suggest the following changes with the aim of broadening the bird's eye view of the topic area without adding too much bulk. This proposal should not occupy any more lines than the current state of the template. If no-one has any objections I intend to implement these changes. Scyrme (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Most recent draft proposal, last updated 28th July:

Scyrme (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

  • Set aside the 'eight limbs' to emphasise them among the concepts. I used numbered bulleting here, but if others think it looks too inconsistent or just plain ugly I don't mind switching back to unnumbered bulleting.
  • Seems WP:Undue. Scholars note that in the West, Patanjali's sutras get major attention, but the text is one among many in hatha yoga, which in turn is one among many in yoga. If revision there is needed it's in the opposite direction, to cut down. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussing the 'eight limbs' as though they're only part of one text neglects their influence on later texts, not just on Hatha yoga but across Hindu yoga. My understanding is that Patanjali's 'eight limbs' are very influential in Hindu yoga in India, being widely accepted (variously with and without modification) by many later authors and practitioners even if they aren't universal. It seems to me the influence of 'eight limbs' on other texts & schools justifies giving additional weight to the 'eight limbs' amongst the concepts. However, maybe I've been mislead. If after considering this influence you still think it's undue I'm open to assimilating the limbs back into the concepts list. Scyrme (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trimmed 'Hatha yoga' just a bit - by two texts; the articles on them are presently very short, and they would remain linked in the main Hatha yoga navbox even if cut from here.
  • With a shortened list, Theos Bernard's book is definitely out of place in the list, far too prominent. Actually I think we should remove him at once from the existing template. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection from me. Scyrme (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The layout of Mahayana/Vajrayana is an attempt to reflect the fact that the latter is part of the former; it's an imperfect solution but I think it implies mutual exclusivity less than the current arrangement does.
  • This would need very careful thought and wide consensus, probably involving people from Religion & Philosophy; a difficult area. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the limitations of the navbox format make a better solution unworkable. It's preferable to the current layout which implies the relationship between Mahayana and Vajrayana is like that between Mahayana and Theravada. I'm not sure if there's any alternative. Scyrme (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Countries were removed; the articles themselves identify the relevant countries and do so more accurately. Additionally, it seemed off to identify country-of-origin for Mahayana only.
  • Not sure that's helpful. The Mahayana approaches are distinctly different by country, and that's both how people think of them and how they're generally characterized. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way it is now is inaccurate and misleading to readers though. For instance, with the exception of Sahajayana (which afaik never really left India/Bangladesh), the links listed for India are also part of the Tibetan tradition which is why they're often referred to as the "Indo-Tibetan" tradition rather than identified only with either India or Tibet. The Tangmi & Shingon textual canon is translated from the Indo-Tibetan tradition and their practices reflect that, so to exclude them from the Indo-Tibetan tradition is also misleading. The articles themselves cover this all, which is why I think it would better to just leave cultural/regional identification to the articles and leave it out of the navbox. Scyrme (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the layout for Mantra/Tantra is meant reflect that the two are deeply entangled.
    • Some links from this section were moved over to 'Further concepts' because they have broader relevance.
  • Is that balanced? Mantras are far more widely used than just in Tantra. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. I was myopic here. I'll change this when I update the draft. Scyrme (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jain tradition of yoga is now represented.
  • Over-represented? Basically it's a branch of Hindu yoga, and there's no sense in having a single subgroup "Jain yoga" just to fill a gap: an orphaned subgroup like that is redundant by definition. Is Jain meditation "yoga"? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is just acknowledging that it exists over-representing it? It has undeniably been influenced by Hindu and Buddhist traditions, but Hindu and Buddhist traditions also influenced one another without either becoming a branch of the other. Jainism is an independent religious tradition and has developed the practices it has borrowed in a distinctly Jain direction which is irreducible to Hindu yoga. Jain meditation includes both yoga and non-yoga practices, much like Buddhist meditation. The article for Jain meditation does discuss Jain yoga, providing some information which is absent elsewhere and also contextualises it within Jain meditation. Scyrme (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: the orphaned subgroup, the navbox looks hideous without it. It's not like it causes readers or editors any problems having it, even if it is technically redundant. Scyrme (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's purely cosmetic, but I added a colour just so it's not the default; it's a placeholder - I don't mind changing it if someone suggests a more appropriate colour or if, for whatever reason, others here are opposed to adding a non-default colour.
  • I'd oppose any such colour change, it's distracting and quite unnecessary; the project doesn't use it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distracting? You can't be serious. It's no more distracting than the default colour, it's just a slightly different hue. Other navboxes use far stronger colours. The project could pick a colour like many other projects have. It wouldn't take long to pick one. Regardless of your reasons, since you objected I'll leave it out when I implement the changes we decide on, unless others here want to try change your mind. Scyrme (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existing organisation of "Modern yoga" with a forced split of "Modern meditational yoga" from "Yoga as exercise" is thought by many scholars to be untenable. For instance, a bit of meditation, mantra, and sometimes chanting are all found in modern "yoga" classes, and some schools of energetic "exercise" yoga do all of those (e.g. Core Strength Vinyasa Yoga, but there are plenty of others; and even British Wheel of Yoga unbranded "hatha yoga" teachers use "Om shanti"... ). I'd call that unworkable. Paradoxically it's about the only bit of the template you've left unchanged, and it's the bit that most urgently needs revision. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I added the meditational list the template seemed to equate all modern yoga with yoga as exercise, which is far worse because it completely erases schools/styles that place little if any emphasis on postural/bodily exercise. I acknowledge that meditation is part of schools/styles that do emphasise physical exercise, but that doesn't invalidate the distinction. Per the article on Modern yoga, the distinction is meant to reflect a difference of emphasis, not necessarily mutual exclusivity. If that's untenable here then it's untenable in the article, which will need some extensive editing/rewriting. If you still feel strongly that this is a problem, the only alternative solution I can think of (that doesn't cause any of the problem you or I have so-far identified) is to eliminate "modern meditational yoga" and "yoga as exercise" as subgroups entirely, and relist the contents of both lists under a completely different scheme of subgroups or no subgroups at all, simply lumping them all under an un-organised "modern yoga" group. The no sub-groups route would be messy for readers, and I haven't yet thought of an alternative way to organise the modern yoga links, though maybe you can suggest one. Scyrme (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: Do you think this would work? Scyrme (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Basically, not as it stands, no; much more consideration is needed, and my first analysis (as above) suggests the balance of change is wrong, I'd focus on the worst bit, the "modern" section. But this page is no good as a discussion forum without wider publicity, as nobody will be looking here (including me, it seems, and you can't ping everybody). Either cut-and-paste it to Talk:Yoga or put a neutrally-worded notice over there that there is a discussion in progress, and put similar notices in other places where Tantra/Buddhist/Hindu people will see it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: Sorry to ping, but it's been a while and I'd appreciate a reply so this can move forward. Scyrme (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see at least two sides to all of this, and you have plausible reasons for many of these suggestions. I remain concerned that this is both disturbing a long-established consensus without establishing a new one - a recipe for instability, and against the principle of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Even if I were to agree whole-heartedly, which I don't, that would still be just two of us, and this is the top-level template of a large and complex project. Further, it incorporates two radically different things - millennia of yoga philosophy, principally from India, and a century of exercise-centred concepts, starting from Krishnamacharya and other Indian sources but now largely rooted in the West. This is such a wide field that probably nobody can pretend to be an expert in all of it; I'm familiar with the literature on the second of these, less so with the first. The appropriate response in such a situation must be to seek wider consensus, and if that is not forthcoming, then to proceed very cautiously, however frustrating that may feel.
I see that you have been making changes without any of these kinds of consensus, which is certainly a risky approach, given what I've just written. For what it's worth, I think the Hinduism and Buddhism sections, as they now are, are pretty much ok (and i don't object to a *small* Jainism section), but I remain uncomfortable with the "Modern yoga" section - the very concept of "Modern yoga" is not well accepted by scholars (I'm not sure if even its author, de Michelis, would now stand up for it, as it's taken quite the battering), and the 2-way Meditational/Exercise split doesn't actually even follow de Michelis's scheme either, so it's basically WP:OR. Apart from that (as if that wasn't enough), many forms of "Yoga as exercise" actually incorporate, and this isn't a complete list, a bit of Mantra, a bit of Yoga Nidra, a bit of Meditation, a bit of Chanting (Japa, etc), a bit of Pranayama, emphasis on Yamas & Niyamas, and especially in the case of Indian schools of yoga (such as Sivananda yoga) also of the Shatkarmas and use of Bandhas. In short, the Exercise/Meditational split isn't correct; take a look at Mindful yoga for a clear example of where that breaks down, but it's far from the only one. I wonder on reflection if uou may perhaps be being led astray by reliance on the existing titles of Wikipedia articles and their content; whatever organisation that might suggest is not a safe guide ("Wikipedia is not a reliable source"). I'd frankly choose a better name for "Yoga as exercise" if I could find one. None of the other possible names (such as "Modern postural yoga") will do either, as they all imply the E/M split which demonstrably doesn't work. What we have is a wide range of practices which vary in intensity and content, from more-or-less religious cults to more-or-less pure lycra-clad gymnastics, with a large middle ground of fairly-holistic-with-a-bit-of-exercise to mainly-exercise-with-OM-and-relaxation, and no defensible distinctions (academically or Wikipedically). What to do, hm. I suggest we avoid listing any "modern" yoga schools - after all, we're not listing Iyengar Yoga, Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga, Power Yoga, Bikram Yoga, etc etc (and nor should we, here), so what are we doing listing one or two like Integral Yoga and Siddha Yoga? It makes no sense really; they should all be in List of yoga schools, if not they should be added to that list, and cited there. So, I suggest we have as main sections Subtle body, Hinduism, Buddhism (as now), Jainism, Yoga as exercise (faute de mieux), and "Other" (or similar to your taste), this last to include Yoga Nidra (if we're keeping it at all, it's not that major). I suggest we remove "Post-lineage yoga" as a minor aspect. "Modern yoga" should be removed altogether as misleading, it certainly isn't a major category; if you like you can put it in "Other" but at this level I wouldn't even do that. On changing the colour of the template, please don't, the yoga project templates (all of them) work just fine in the default colours; if I was trying to be facetious I'd actually suggest you paint it purple and add academic categories like "Modern yoga" to it all, it's the worst thing I can think of in the context. But there's plenty more that we can agree on. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea how this discussion could be "a recipe for instability". Our disagreement demonstrates that there already is no consensus. Similarly, "if it ain't broke" doesn't really apply when clearly I don't agree that "it ain't broke". I'm not really sure what your point here is except to dissuade me from even suggesting changes, but I'm going to assume that it coming across that way was unintentional.
This may just be the two of us so far, but that's a start. You had already made it clear that you wanted more input than ours. I already put out links on several talk pages inviting others to participate the last time you made that point. It's just no-one has yet cared to participate. Therefore, I was going to suggest we try invite some editors directly after we agreed on a mutually satisfactory draft. It's easier to ask for opinions on a single draft rather than a long discussion between two people that don't agree. That is why I wanted to focus on resolving our disagreements for the moment in order move things along.

“I'd frankly choose a better name for "Yoga as exercise" if I could find one. None of the other possible names (such as "Modern postural yoga") will do either, as they all imply the E/M split which demonstrably doesn't work.”

Re: "Modern yoga" and "Yoga as exercise", I can't say I know what the dominant scholarly opinion is, however, I think it is self-evident that the former doesn't imply an exercise-meditation dichotomy so if any term is to be used "for lack of a better term", I think it should be the former not the latter. I feel that for the average Wikipedia reader "Yoga as exercise" heavily implies "pure lycra-clad gymnastics", which seems to me to be far, far more misleading than leaving in "Modern yoga".

“It makes no sense really; they should all be in List of yoga schools, if not they should be added to that list, and cited there.”

The idea was to provide some examples that demonstrate that it's more than asanas and therapeutic exercises, which is the misleading impression some people might otherwise get. I don't necessarily object to removing all the 'modern yoga' schools and only linking the list, provided some other solution to this problem is utilised (such as the one demonstrated in the most recent draft above).
Btw, there's a problem with that list article: it fails to distinguish schools (teaching institutions) and styles (traditions of theory and practice). I don't particular like the term "style" for traditions of yoga but it's what the Wikipedia categories use, at least for now (Category:Yoga schools, Category:Yoga styles). There's currently no separate list article for styles of yoga, though there probably should be or at least the current article needs to clearly distinguish the two, which it presently doesn't do.
Regarding 'post-lineage yoga'; leaving it in doesn't cost anything in terms of the number of lines taken up by the template, so I'm not sure what would be gained by removing it specifically.
I have updated the draft; summary of major changes: *moved mantra content to "further concepts" to reflect wider relevance without implying restriction to a particular tradition, *reorganised the "modern yoga" group (which I have retained for the reasons above) in a way that shouldn't imply an exercise-meditation dichotomy but rather presents both as aspects common across "modern yoga". Scyrme (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, we don't give "examples" in templates, it just doesn't work that way. Readers are inevitably literal - they take what they see as the navigational possibilities, and (worse) they take the set of items as definitional, so we have quite the responsibility. I was sufficiently uncomfortable with the use of a link to the "Modern yoga" article as a heading that I've completely reworked the article. You'll see that it's now a tour of what scholars think that subject is, and they certainly don't agree, but at least they're not all stuck on the De Michelis view of what it might be; indeed, it's clear that her view did not find wide acceptance (to put it mildly). So, it's now fine as a group heading, where the De Michelis type names are not: one problem solved, I hope.
I do not think "styles" can be reliably separated from "schools", as each school basically evolves its own style; the exception that proves the rule is "Hatha yoga" (that's "th" as in "thin", i.e. an English word, not to be confused with the medieval Sanskrit term) which is the vanilla-flavoured, middle-of-the-road not-a-school blend, and it's barely a style, rather the absence of any particular style or the influence of any particular school. So I think it'd be chasing the rainbow trying to define "styles" in an article, which is probably why we don't have one (at least one good decision made somewhere). "Styles/Schools" is however unacceptable as a heading.
I'm afraid that constructs like "Asanas/Vinyasas" doesn't work either; the thing smacks of WP:SYNTH, sounds far too technical (even without the diacritic), and as far as a template heading is concerned, breaks the fundamental rule that each heading is a single thing, which is expanded in its list of items to the right; if you've put it there instead of "Yoga as exercise" it's a non-starter. "Yoga as exercise" will do (even if Anya Foxen, or her publisher, thinks it's a synonym of "modern yoga").
"Yoga barre" is utterly misplaced, indeed misprised - it's a yoga/ballet hybrid, not a prop, and certainly nowhere near worth listing in this top-level template.
No real objection to "post-lineage yoga", after all I wrote it; it's hard to say how widespread it is, though I guess I'm one of at least hundreds of thousands of people (millions?) who quietly get on with it at home.
Are you noticing a pattern here? If you introduce a gigantic change to a complex subject, you get stuck, with an enormous long discussion consisting of one tricky technical problem that you'd never heard of after another. Actually I'm very used to solving such things, but one at a time. All at once is just bad juju. Rather than push your draft reworking of everything, it'd be far more sensible to propose one small change at a time, and we could have a small, focused discussion of that, as and when. Like this, there's a danger of going round in circles as one large thing tangles up with another and back again. I'm not keen on following a thread that constantly branches in all directions as I've no idea of its status. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: Apologies for the delayed reply; been busy lately.
Re:styles vs schools; since this topic is broad and there's potentially much to say, I've started a discussion at Talk:List of yoga schools#Distinguishing "schools" and "styles" and would appreciate if you would reply there.
Re:"Asanas/Vinyasas"; I don't see how this constitutes original research of any kind let alone a synthesis of multiple sources. I'm only using a slash because takes up less space than "_and_" or "_&_" (also I've noticed Wikipedia seems to avoid "&" in general). Listing the postures and the transitions between them as a list group seems sensible to me, and "Asanas/Vinyasas" is a concise name for said group. To be clear, I'm not suggesting it as a synonym or replacement for "yoga-as-exercise". It's just a different way to group the links relevant to the "Modern yoga" group; one that circumvents issues raised earlier without simply cramming all the links into one big list group. Doing it this way eliminates any issue of implying a yoga-as-exercise vs yoga-as-meditation dichotomy. Using the former for the same list group would bring that problem back while also presenting a very reductive view of yoga-as-exercise, so it definitely won't do.
Re:gigantic changes; I thought it would be quicker & less bothersome to propose all changes at once rather than making successive proposal after proposal over several weeks. I was mistaken, but there's nothing I can really do about that now except move forward with things as they are.
I've trimmed the props in the draft. Scyrme (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basically I oppose the great majority of your proposals. The "modern yoga" proposals as I've said repeatedly are almost wholly muddled and misguided; I don't have a much better feeling about your traditional yoga proposals either: the existing template is better on both fronts in multiple ways, and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Novel phrases like "Asanas/Vinyasas" are simply unacceptable. There is no need to make any large change, especially for the worse. Your specific suggestion of a list of styles is basically fine, except that I think you will have great difficulty populating it; you note elsewhere that styles, although in theory distinguishable from that-which-each-school-practices, are in practice very difficult to separate from schools-and-their-practices.
I suggest that if we are going to make progress, you suggest ONE SMALL THING to change, with a brief but clear reason. Then if we can agree that, we can do another. The massive bulk method isn't going to work as it's full of problems in all directions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Jainism and trimming of Hatha

  • Just as the Hindu and Buddhist traditions have influenced one another while remaining distinct, the Jainism has developed a distinct tradition of yoga of its own. In recognition of this tradition, I think its fair to add a small list group corresponding to Jain yoga to the template. Since this would add a line to an already fairly large template, I suggest trimming the Hatha list group. The texts which would be omitted would still be present in the separate Hatha navbox, so I don't think omitting them here would be problematic. (#Draft illustrates both of these changes along with others, but those others will be discussed separately after these are settled; for now ignore them.) Scyrme (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks, that is an improvement to the method of discussion over TL;DR; but it's still quite a large and complex mouthful, and you're right to leave the Hatha yoga discussion out for the moment. Firstly, Jain yoga should certainly be in the template, but it's a redlink at the moment. I can see that you want to include Jainism (which as a heading is 99% off-topic for the template), and that you can't do that without having Jain yoga in there, and so you're scratching about for some Jain yoga contents. Secondly, Jain meditation is basically off-topic (if that's included then we'll be including all aspects of all Indian religions). Thirdly, since redlinks aren't allowed in navigation templates, the right thing to do will be to draft Jain yoga as an article. It will then be a bit clearer what subtopics that section needs, if any - rather than grabbing anything that looks vaguely related, it will be much better to base the section on study of the sources, which is what writing the article would consist of. (Actually much the same issue seems relevant to your proposed changes to the Hatha yoga section - it's quite unclear to me what your selection criteria might be - in particular, omitting the Vimanarcanakalpa, an important early text, seems an odd choice.) I do not think a basic Jain yoga article need be long to describe its main features and the outlines of its history and origins. At the moment I don't think such a section - a body without a head - makes any sense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a new article needs to be made for Jain yoga before these changes can be made. As far as I know, it's not obligatory for every heading to have a corresponding link. I never suggested giving it a redlink; I simply left it unlinked. Your suggested approach is not taken for Buddhism; there is no "Buddhist yoga" article, it is simply Buddhism which is linked. Likewise, the main article for Hinduism is linked in its list group heading. I already explained the inclusion of Jain meditation in the earlier discussion:

Jain meditation includes both yoga and non-yoga practices, much like Buddhist meditation. The article for Jain meditation does discuss Jain yoga, providing some information which is absent elsewhere and also contextualises it within Jain meditation.

It is not included simply because "it looks vaguely related". It's there to allow navigation to where the subject is presently discussed on Wikipedia, which is the purpose of a navbox. If you want to add more material to Wikipedia regarding this area by creating a Jain yoga article, I won't obstruct you; but for now I'm only suggesting the already existing material be made navigable. Scyrme (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 vs 4 yoga: heading is not in synch

The subsection "Three yogas" actually has 4 entries. First three were mentioned in Bhagavad Gita.If all 4 are mentioned in Bagvat Gita then change the heading to "Four yogas in Bahgvad Gita" and wikilink the heading to "Bhagvad Gita". If only first three are mentioned in Bhagvad Gita, then list them as sub-bullet under Bhagvad Gita and 4th (Raja Yoga) as a sub-bullet under its source. Also list the source of 4th (Raja Yoga).

Alternatively, if there are only 3 types of Yogas and Raja Yoga is just a higher "state" which a yogi can attain through any of 3 yogas, then please make it clear in the template that first three are the types of yoga and the 4th is the higher or highest state of yoga and it is not a type, in that sace have a separate subsection on "states or levels" of yoga one can attain with "Raja Yoga" being the highest. Please clarify this confusion from a layman's perspective, template must be self descriptive and useful to lay people.

Another question: Why has Hatha Yopga has been listed separately, while Raja Yoga article mentions it as one of the types of yoga? Also Raja Yoga article mentions few other types of Yogas which are not in the template, please include those.

Please see the last sentence in the first para of lede in Jnana yoga, please rephrase it to be "clearer". And do ensure all articles wikilinked inside the template are consistent ion their definition of concepts, themes etc without contradicting each other so as to not confuse readers and to enhance the overall consistency/integrity of the wikilinked content.

Thanks in advance.

58.182.176.169 (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts. If the world had just one view of yoga then the task would be simple, but the concepts are fluid and the terms are used variously with differing meanings. I've clarified the 3 vs 4 issue, one of the many concept/term mismatches out there in the world. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

separation of concepts and technics

Some of the entries in [Yoga |Hinduism |Concepts] are Hatha yoga technics and aspirants for [Yoga |Hinduism |Hatha Yoga]. Do we move them, or why should they stay?

Frank Samyamananda (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are fundamental concepts of Hatha yoga, which has been a major strand in yoga practice for 1000 years. It's not easy to see any good reason why they should be removed.
Is not not important here as stand-alone-concept, but as subconcept for YS Ashtanga yoga and/or for YS Kriya yoga. Do we update here or why should this stay?
Frank Samyamananda (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Tapas (austerities) not important? Again, it has been seen as a central component of yoga for many centuries, both in Patanjali's yoga and in Hatha yoga. If you mean that Tapas is exclusively Patanjali/Yoga Sutras, that is definitively incorrect: austerities continue to be practised in India today by Hatha yogins, so your proposed classification is misleading. I'm not sure the definition of Kriya as exclusively Patanjali is wise either, though at least I understand the choice being made there. This template must be general and non-denominational, as indeed the Yoga article and its family of articles must be. I think the same goes for the other terms here, though some are clearly Yoga Sutras terms; you may not think that as central as has traditionally been imagined in the West, but they are important concepts nonetheless. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering about some lack of consistency here. The Subtle body is descibed independently and above Hinduism and Buddhism and with [Tapas] we could do the same instad of showing it as Hinduism Concepts.
For the Eight limbs we show each limb/element listed in brackets as subsegment, although these are vedic concepts and would require treatment similar to Tapas.
Before I asked about Tapas, I also asked about the consistency of some Hatha yoga techniques. Are these really to be shown as [Hinduism][concepts]? Frank Samyamananda (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sense (1) Hatha yoga is a branch of yoga, created in India around 1100 AD. There is a homonym (sense 2) "hatha [yoga]" which is used to mean "yoga as exercise without a brand name", i.e. that which is not Iyengar, Ashtanga, Bikram, etc. Sense 1 Hatha yoga is definitely a religious practice from India, so it's as much "Hinduism" as anything else - the label is a poor one as it's western and barely recognised in India. The Subtle body is used within Hatha yoga and could be regrouped there, but it has a much wider extension so its placement makes some sense. The current layout is not bad -- nothing will be perfect -- and constantly rearranging it would be worse. My instinct is to leave it alone, and at least not to make hasty and badly-planned, badly-executed, verbose, and confusing changes. If you mean to make any substantial changes to this major template, then this talk page is the wrong forum - often, comments on Template Talk pages get no replies for months. Talk:Yoga might be better, with a link to the discussion at WikiProject Yoga's talk page and similarly at other likely sites such as WikiProject Religion's talk page. Then involved editors can discuss the matter properly and reach a considered conclusion.
By the way you are creating broken links which disrupt page formatting by using single brackets, i.e. <nowiki>[this is wrongly formatted]/nowiki>; I've fixed these but the style doesn't work on talk pages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

template update suggestions - pls review - thx

Frank Samyamananda (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yoga
I did some template update suggestions. Maybe some of these could be helfpful for the Yoga project - pls review - thx Frank Samyamananda (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, we need wide consensus for this sort of thing. The proposals won't be seen by editors unless you notify them on their WikiProjects' Talk pages. These projects are listed at the top of this page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Yoga&oldid=1109699959"