This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It is excellent to find this ancient text in wikipedia. Though, yhis should be in wikisource, which is for original texts without copyright and not in wikipedia - encyclopedia. -- Arjuna 21:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I just merged the Yoga Sutras article into this one. I made the merged article a redirect. I'm removing this item from the Duplicate Articles list. The text that I didn't use in the merge follows. -- Smithfarm 19:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I added the link to the site where the Patanjali sutra's named the The Thread of the Science of Uniting One's Consciousness was offered, because that is the only place where the book is read out aloud. There is no other way of offering this knowledge in this form but by this personal website. And, by the way, which of the already mentioned sites are not personal?
-- rpba 16:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Buddhist tradition asserts the opposite to the claim in this article: the Buddha studied under the two leading Yogi teachers of his day, and deliberately modelled his noble 8-fold path as a caricature of the Patanjali 8-fold path. i.e. Patanjali came first. The claim that the Yoga Sutras are modelled on Buddhism is at best contentious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LMackinnon ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
TRANSLATION ISSUES
I really don't like the current discussion of "citta vritti nirodha":
"Yogas citta vritti nirodha" ("Yoga is control of thoughts and feelings").
citta is literally consciousness or thoughts and feelings, fine. but vritti is a swirling or a whirling. and nirodha is extinction or elimination. definitely not control. this is a really substandard interpretation. if you want a reference, I would cite any of the excellent textbooks by Feuerstein. They all support this view. This needs to be changed. Lesotho 20:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The current links by being so selective are implicitly biased and not nuetral. In this case, given the wide divergence of translations Wikipedia can only honestly present the competition. And since those nuances of difference may not even be suspected by researchers, the list should be comprehensive. Further, this page as stands is an outright advertisement for "Ashtanga Yoga". It needs to be totally revamped both in the light of current spiritual thought (or organisational strategy) and the light of modern academic research. Patanjali is not an userpable trademark for a single group. While the swamij.com interlinear is an admirable work it is not definitive. The inclusion of the BonGiovanni translation is problematic, one that seems almost to have been made to play up the qualities of the other more thourough work. Though I'm not much in favor of the his treatment of the third book, let me quote BonGiovanni (and Patanjali) from the second:
2.23 The association of the seer with Creation is for the distinct recognition of the objective world, as well as for the recognition of the distinct nature of the seer.
2.24 The cause of the association is ignorance.
We shouldn't force associations on this pure work.
Here are most of the other sources: Yoga Sutras in English [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]] [9]
But I believe quoting sales figures may be as relevant as, and easier than quoting an academic as to relevance here. What are the Historical usages of this text? In Universities, in Ashrams, on the street? AS TO A SINGLE line. Well the number of sutras is contested isn't it? So
Alongside the Bhagavad Gita and Hatha Yoga Pradipika, the Sutras are a milestone in the history of Yoga. The book is a set of 195 aphorisms (sutras)
Is the Bhagavad Gita considered a milestone of Yoga? Better to mention the Upanishads. 194-196 is the count. In the 3rd book are a couple sometimes omitted: the 3.19 & 3.22. 3.19 {impossible to know the structure of others} was brutal for yogis who sold yoga as magic, and I reckon someone of them dropped it and added the fluff of 3.22{also disappears hearing,etc} to compensate for what was perhaps the original 195 total. But we can't know today. When did the texts diverge? Klasovsky 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that there be a topic added to this page: Yoga Sutras and the Web, in which the availability, and contemporary syntaxes (for want of a better word) of current Yoga Sutras' usages are ennumerated; i.e. its availability copywrite free for sites dealing with any aspect of spirituality, usage as a dogmatic tool by yoga groups, as evidence of an ecumenical nature by other groups, on personal pages of other translators, etc. And also to look at the discrepancies, or rather, at the range of differences as may appear in these. This proliferation of translations is a real phenomena, one that begs documentation; and it would serve the largely web centric readers of this 'pedia as a tool for critical differentiation . Perhaps this could be a seperate page, but it'd have to be linked here. Klasovsky 12:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Buddhipriya, I don't think anyone can argue with your contention that it would be optimal to read and process the sutras in Sanskrit, rather than relying on the interpretations others. The Kalama Sutra should tell us that much at least. However, it is my impression that this English version of Wikipedia is intended to provide access to and a summarized version of the knowledge available on various topics to native English speakers. I feel it impoverishes Wikipedia to eliminate all topics that have no origin in English or cannot be properly understood without combing through source texts.
Personally, I do not see the harm in pointing externally to Patanjali resources (in the form of textbooks, online bhasya, etc.). I disagree strongly with the position that there is no value (or indeed harm) in an interested learner or aspirant to consume all available knowledge on the subject. If the prerequisite for absorbing any of the lessons of the Yoga Sutras or Hinduism more broadly is years of formal training in Sanskrit, then I think that discourages all who are interested in furthering their own knowledge. Lesotho 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The Studio 34 Yoga is being used as a reference, where I can find no information on Patanjali yoga sutra and also this site does not meet WP:RS criteria, I will be removing it. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 06:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to add this link:
http://www.shaivam.org/sanskrit/ssyogasuutra.pdf
It leads to a PDF of the Yoga Sutras in Sanskrit. LanceMurdock999 ( talk) 09:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
My dear User CO2NorthEast, I must respectfully request you once again to desist from removing well-sourced material from academics and other respectable sources. If you have problems with specific sources not saying what I claim they said, point that out to me, I will be glad to rephrase my writings or even remove the offending part completely. However, the version of the article you want to bring forward is clearly not an accurate look at the subject matter. The Sutras are the core text of the Astika Hindu Darshana of Yoga, and their grounding is in Samkhya. There is definitely incorporation of elements from Buddhism and Jainism, which needs to be written about in the article. However, considering that the Sutras strongly criticize certain Buddhist schools, it isn't logical to put Buddhist and Jain influence on the Sutras as the first thing in the article. If Buddhism was indeed the pre-eminent force behind the formation of Yoga, one wonders why Yoga is limited to the Indian subcontinent (and Tibet, where Vajrayana traveled later after incorporating Yogic elements). Yoga is not found in the Theravada or Mahayana countries in farther parts of Asia, though Buddhist meditation, Dhyana and Vipassana are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.253.145 ( talk) 17:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not lead material. Unsourced. Why the quotation marks—is it a quote?
Accusativen hos Olsson ( talk) 13:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC) he: היוגה סוטרות של פטנג'לי — Preceding unsigned comment added by RavitA ( talk • contribs) 07:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This kriya into karma back into kriya editing is confusing and taking the article off point. I would like to restore the edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali&oldid=649336297 under the 'Compilations' heading. I'd rather it agree with Feuerstein than with a string of half edits that came after. Thoughts? Iṣṭa Devata ( talk) 20:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move. Cúchullain t/ c 13:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali → Yoga Sutras of Patanjali –
The Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali#Indian_traditions (sub-) section -- (at least, in this version of the article) -- ends with:
[...] and Buddhist' yoga stems from pre-Patanjali sources.[57]
Should the word after "and" be changed, perhaps? Maybe what was intended, was
[...] and Buddhists' yoga stems from pre-Patanjali sources.[57]
perhaps?
[That is, ((Buddhists')) instead of ((Buddhist')) [yoga] ]. IMHO, it should be changed somehow -- either by adding an "s" (the above idea), or else by removing the apostrophe [(('))] after ((Buddhist)).
Just a suggestion... from: -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
First paragraph says "Together with his commentary they form the Pātañjalayogaśāstra." referring presumably to Patañjali's commentary which I believe does not exist or at least is not extant. Is it possible this should read as Vyasa's commentary? I could be mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iṣṭa Devata ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello everybody! It's me, Dominik Wujastyk (note spelling :-). I do exist :-) Here is my view of the current state of research on Patañjali and related issues. First, King Bhoja (fl. ca. 1000-1050), in an introductory verse to his commentary on the Y. sutras was the first to put on record the idea that there was one single Patanjali who wrote on grammar, medicine and yoga. He did this in his introductory mangala verse, yogena cittasya ..., that has become well-known. Bhoja's commentary is well worth reading, but this particular assertion is historically wrong. I have read the grammatical Mahābhāṣya and the Yogasūtras with the Yogasūtra-bhāṣya (=Pātañjalayogaśāstra) and they are very different works, with no overlap of subject matter or language. It's rather like reading Shakespeare and then Bunyan - you can palpably feel that these are different historical stages of the language. As for the idea of a major medical work by Patanjali, in a word, there isn't one. Check Meulenbeld's History of Indian Medical Literature for the full detail on this issue. There's good evidence that the Patanjali who wrote the grammatical work Mahābhāṣya lived in about 120 BCE. There's good evidence that the Patañjali who wrote on yoga lived in the period 325--425 CE, i.e., half a millennium later. For the grammarian, see Hartmut Scharfe Grammatical Literature (1977). For the date of Patañjali who wrote on yoga, see Woods The Yoga System of Patanjali (1914, freely available at archive.org). (Woods thought Patanjali and Vyasa were two different people; I don't - see the following.) Okay, so far: two different Patanjalis - the old grammarian and the more recent yoga author. Next issue: did Patañjali write just the sutras, and someone else called "the editor" (vyāsa) the oldest commentary, the Bhāṣya, or are both sutras and bhāṣya by one person, namely Patanjali himself? This is controversial, and this is where new discoveries in the last few years have dramatically changed the picture. That's why it's confusing, and why different books and articles say different things. Because the paradigm is shifting, right now, and not everyone is keeping up. Basically, the new research has been done by Philipp Maas in his 2006 PhD at the University of Bonn. Philipp (currently a colleague of mine at the University of Vienna) collected manuscripts of the Yogasutras and first commentary (aka bhāṣya) from all over Europe and India, and made a critical edition of the first pāda of the sutras and commentary. This meant examining all the manuscripts in great detail, including all the scribal comments at the end of each manuscript (colophons) and also what other Sanskrit authors had said about the yogasutras in the medieval period. It's a fine piece of scholarship. I can't present the detail here, but some main points are 1) until about 1000 CE, all Sanskrit authors in India assumed that the sūtras and the bhāṣya commentary together formed a single work by a single author, and that this was called The Yoga Teaching of Patañjali that Presents Sāṅkhya (Pātañjala-yoga-śāstra-sāṅkhya-pravacana). Nearly every manuscript of Patañjali's work says this at the end. After about 950 CE, some authors, starting with Vācaspati Miśra, began splitting the sūtras from the bhāṣya, and a new author was invented for the bhāṣya, namely a "Vyāsa" (means just "editor, arranger"). 2) The single author of The Yoga Teaching of Patañjali was, er, Patañjali. 3) The date, already mentioned, 325--425 CE. Philipp's PhD is in German, which has probably slowed the dissemination of his discoveries in the USA and England (it has a short English summary, but that doesn't lay out all the detail and arguments). Philipp has now written a more general essay on the history of the study of yoga, and the different interpretations, A Concise Historiography of Classical Yoga Philosophy, where he lays out his views and those of many other scholars before, and how the whole argument unfolded. As you see, many of my own ideas about the history of yoga are derived from Philipp's research as well as my own study of the grammatical and yoga traditions. Philipp and I work closely together (our offices are on the same corridor). We both also know well and work with David White, Jim Mallinson, Jason Birch, Mark Singleton and others. There's a lot of exciting work going on in the academic field of the history and interpretation yoga right now, and not all of it has yet got into the textbooks. The terrain is changing, so it can be confusing. A slightly different point that I've personally been working on in the last few years is Yoga's debt to Buddhism. Reading and re-reading the Pātañjalayogaśāstra, and the early writings of Buddhists like Vasubandhu, I have become more and more convinced that what Patañjali was doing was re-packaging Buddhist meditation techniques and philosophy for a non-Buddhist Śramaṇa and Brāhmaṇa audience. But that's another story for another day :-) I'd like to thank everyone here in "talk" for engaging with these issues, which are so interesting! DomLaguna ( talk) 09:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I see the translation evolving here a bit. If I remember correctly, Edwin Bryant's translation of the sutras gives a direct translation at one point of pra-before, in front of nidhana-lie down, making isvarapranidhana roughly to lie prone before one's lord (implying surrender). I'll try to find the page number and get that reference up here on the talk page. The current translation though clear and well cited seems less literal. Any thoughts? Iṣṭa Devata ( talk) 03:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Edwin Bryant does not comment on Maas, but on earlier research. To quote him in this way, after Maas, is WP:SYNTH and violates WP:NPOV. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@ VictoriaGrayson: I agree that James Woods text is dated, and needs to be complemented with a more modern source. But, lets not discard James Woods, because his translation of Yogasutra and medieval era commentaries on Yogasutra are reliable. See, for example, David G White's The "Yoga Sutra of Patanjali": A Biography, Princeton University Press (2014), ISBN 978-0691143774, at page xii-xiii; David White writes, "James Woods - Harvard professor of Indian philosophy and author of what is considered to be the most accurate and authoritative translation of Yogasutra and commentaries of Bhoja and Vachaspati Mishra". Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 18:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@ VictoriaGrayson: Where do you see support for "classical Hindu texts emphasize" phrasing in David White on pages xvi-xvii and 20-23? Perhaps you can embed a quote from White, inside the cite? If it is from a different source, I am curious which "classical Hindu text(s) emphasizes". Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 22:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@VG: How about a collage of traditional asanas? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Go a little bit more and make it 2015? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.37.233 ( talk) 06:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Effulgence108: No edit wars. I have reverted your unexplained deletion and edits, per WP:BRD you need to discuss and gain consensus. The image grid makes more sense as it is MOS:IMAGES and WP:NPOV. Why is the image you added better than the grid? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 17:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@VG: I have reworded a summary of the paragraph on page 31 starting with, "While all the major Indian philosophical systems....", to the sentence on page 32, which reads, "Finally, according to the Buddha's teachings, both the individual self and the...". I am trying to avoid copyvio, and I invite your suggestions to improve that summary. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 12:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"A significant minority opinion, however, maintains that Vyasa lived several centuries later, and that his “Hindu-izing” commentary, rather than elucidating Patanjali’s text, actually subverted its original “Buddhist” teachings. I will return to this provocative hypothesis in the final chapter of this book."
VictoriaGrayson Talk 14:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It appears huge effort is spent trying to prove Buddhist writings as the origin of Yoga sutra though, it is clearly other way around... Vyasa later than patanjali? (even though this is a minority opinion now - how long before it would be accepted / convoluted to be the "truth" - I think if you say a lie many times, that will become truth over time I suppose - The "scholars" would all agree)... No way things can be this subjective... Buddha attained Nirvana and helped liberate people is the only thing that is truth from a Buddhist purpose - How could they be exponent of yoga suddenly or for that matter other things like Advaita taking cues from Buddhism, and so on? - During the time of Buddha, the whole Hindu world (the pepole, culture, art, architecture, etc was at its peak - As in the main body of work of Vedas, upanishads, Yoga Sutras, Gita, Epics, etc, etc... were already complete by a few 100 or 1000 years ago - People were following that - Who can disptute that? - Even Buddha was a "Hindu" obviously - Whether he agreed with Hinduism or not is a different question). To assume they were written (may be after the discovery of script) could be true, but their existence prior to Buddhism, cannot be questioned (it would be anachronistic) - Obviously, for a philosophical tradition like Buddhism, Jainism, etc, owning the vast, rich Hindu "things" as "theirs" would be quite valuable (sellable to the followers - but, this is not theoretical physics, one cannot simply make a theory and try to prove it later (like Vyasa after Patanjali and so on)- Think of how corporates go after patents, that is what I could relate this to). The only logical explanation of why "Yoga" or Vyasa later than Patanjali theories come about, is the "vested" effort to own Hindu things as Buddhist (and I believe establishment less Hinduism is losing in this front - As nobody is there to set things right)... [Nothing further to add - Wanted to record this "Vested" interest to own "Hindu" things as "Buddhist" or so in the talk page... ]
FROM CATEGORY TO ONTOLOGY: THE CHANGING ROLE OF "DHARMA" IN SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA Author(s): COLLETT COX Source: Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 32, No. 5/6 (December 2004), pp. 543-597 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23497152: "See Bronkhorst (1987, 1996, 1999a, 1999b); Houben (1995); Frauwallner ([1956] 1973: pt.2, 79ff.); Matilal (1985: 269ff„ 378ff.)." That's who you want to look at for this subject. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 03:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Isn't this idea disputed by David Gordon White when he says "This reinvention of the Yoga Sutra as the foundational scripture of “classical yoga” runs counter to the pre twentieth century history of India’s yoga tradition..." VictoriaGrayson Talk 23:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
David Gordon White's opinion is just one of many; "This reinvention of the Yoga Sutra as the foundational scripture of “classical yoga” runs counter..." - is a theoretical assumption rather than proven fact, one can dispute his statement in any number of ways, for example, if there was no continuity of Yoga Sutras of Patanjali in yoga tradition then there would be no reason for Vivekananda and others to use the Yoga Sutras as the foundation of Raja Yoga, or Ashtanga Yoga, when they brought yoga into attention of Westerners.Pradeepwb 19:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 07:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
In the article, "sutras" in the Yogasutra are referred to as "verses". In reality, a sutra is quite different from a verse and so the usage of the word verse will mislead a reader. Therefore, I propose we replace the words "verse" when describing sutras of Yogasutras to "sutra", and linking the first occurrence it to this article Thank you. - Sudarshanhs ( talk) 06:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
It is excellent to find this ancient text in wikipedia. Though, yhis should be in wikisource, which is for original texts without copyright and not in wikipedia - encyclopedia. -- Arjuna 21:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I just merged the Yoga Sutras article into this one. I made the merged article a redirect. I'm removing this item from the Duplicate Articles list. The text that I didn't use in the merge follows. -- Smithfarm 19:51, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I added the link to the site where the Patanjali sutra's named the The Thread of the Science of Uniting One's Consciousness was offered, because that is the only place where the book is read out aloud. There is no other way of offering this knowledge in this form but by this personal website. And, by the way, which of the already mentioned sites are not personal?
-- rpba 16:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Buddhist tradition asserts the opposite to the claim in this article: the Buddha studied under the two leading Yogi teachers of his day, and deliberately modelled his noble 8-fold path as a caricature of the Patanjali 8-fold path. i.e. Patanjali came first. The claim that the Yoga Sutras are modelled on Buddhism is at best contentious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LMackinnon ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
TRANSLATION ISSUES
I really don't like the current discussion of "citta vritti nirodha":
"Yogas citta vritti nirodha" ("Yoga is control of thoughts and feelings").
citta is literally consciousness or thoughts and feelings, fine. but vritti is a swirling or a whirling. and nirodha is extinction or elimination. definitely not control. this is a really substandard interpretation. if you want a reference, I would cite any of the excellent textbooks by Feuerstein. They all support this view. This needs to be changed. Lesotho 20:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The current links by being so selective are implicitly biased and not nuetral. In this case, given the wide divergence of translations Wikipedia can only honestly present the competition. And since those nuances of difference may not even be suspected by researchers, the list should be comprehensive. Further, this page as stands is an outright advertisement for "Ashtanga Yoga". It needs to be totally revamped both in the light of current spiritual thought (or organisational strategy) and the light of modern academic research. Patanjali is not an userpable trademark for a single group. While the swamij.com interlinear is an admirable work it is not definitive. The inclusion of the BonGiovanni translation is problematic, one that seems almost to have been made to play up the qualities of the other more thourough work. Though I'm not much in favor of the his treatment of the third book, let me quote BonGiovanni (and Patanjali) from the second:
2.23 The association of the seer with Creation is for the distinct recognition of the objective world, as well as for the recognition of the distinct nature of the seer.
2.24 The cause of the association is ignorance.
We shouldn't force associations on this pure work.
Here are most of the other sources: Yoga Sutras in English [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]] [9]
But I believe quoting sales figures may be as relevant as, and easier than quoting an academic as to relevance here. What are the Historical usages of this text? In Universities, in Ashrams, on the street? AS TO A SINGLE line. Well the number of sutras is contested isn't it? So
Alongside the Bhagavad Gita and Hatha Yoga Pradipika, the Sutras are a milestone in the history of Yoga. The book is a set of 195 aphorisms (sutras)
Is the Bhagavad Gita considered a milestone of Yoga? Better to mention the Upanishads. 194-196 is the count. In the 3rd book are a couple sometimes omitted: the 3.19 & 3.22. 3.19 {impossible to know the structure of others} was brutal for yogis who sold yoga as magic, and I reckon someone of them dropped it and added the fluff of 3.22{also disappears hearing,etc} to compensate for what was perhaps the original 195 total. But we can't know today. When did the texts diverge? Klasovsky 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that there be a topic added to this page: Yoga Sutras and the Web, in which the availability, and contemporary syntaxes (for want of a better word) of current Yoga Sutras' usages are ennumerated; i.e. its availability copywrite free for sites dealing with any aspect of spirituality, usage as a dogmatic tool by yoga groups, as evidence of an ecumenical nature by other groups, on personal pages of other translators, etc. And also to look at the discrepancies, or rather, at the range of differences as may appear in these. This proliferation of translations is a real phenomena, one that begs documentation; and it would serve the largely web centric readers of this 'pedia as a tool for critical differentiation . Perhaps this could be a seperate page, but it'd have to be linked here. Klasovsky 12:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Buddhipriya, I don't think anyone can argue with your contention that it would be optimal to read and process the sutras in Sanskrit, rather than relying on the interpretations others. The Kalama Sutra should tell us that much at least. However, it is my impression that this English version of Wikipedia is intended to provide access to and a summarized version of the knowledge available on various topics to native English speakers. I feel it impoverishes Wikipedia to eliminate all topics that have no origin in English or cannot be properly understood without combing through source texts.
Personally, I do not see the harm in pointing externally to Patanjali resources (in the form of textbooks, online bhasya, etc.). I disagree strongly with the position that there is no value (or indeed harm) in an interested learner or aspirant to consume all available knowledge on the subject. If the prerequisite for absorbing any of the lessons of the Yoga Sutras or Hinduism more broadly is years of formal training in Sanskrit, then I think that discourages all who are interested in furthering their own knowledge. Lesotho 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The Studio 34 Yoga is being used as a reference, where I can find no information on Patanjali yoga sutra and also this site does not meet WP:RS criteria, I will be removing it. -- Nvineeth ( talk) 06:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to add this link:
http://www.shaivam.org/sanskrit/ssyogasuutra.pdf
It leads to a PDF of the Yoga Sutras in Sanskrit. LanceMurdock999 ( talk) 09:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
My dear User CO2NorthEast, I must respectfully request you once again to desist from removing well-sourced material from academics and other respectable sources. If you have problems with specific sources not saying what I claim they said, point that out to me, I will be glad to rephrase my writings or even remove the offending part completely. However, the version of the article you want to bring forward is clearly not an accurate look at the subject matter. The Sutras are the core text of the Astika Hindu Darshana of Yoga, and their grounding is in Samkhya. There is definitely incorporation of elements from Buddhism and Jainism, which needs to be written about in the article. However, considering that the Sutras strongly criticize certain Buddhist schools, it isn't logical to put Buddhist and Jain influence on the Sutras as the first thing in the article. If Buddhism was indeed the pre-eminent force behind the formation of Yoga, one wonders why Yoga is limited to the Indian subcontinent (and Tibet, where Vajrayana traveled later after incorporating Yogic elements). Yoga is not found in the Theravada or Mahayana countries in farther parts of Asia, though Buddhist meditation, Dhyana and Vipassana are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.253.145 ( talk) 17:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not lead material. Unsourced. Why the quotation marks—is it a quote?
Accusativen hos Olsson ( talk) 13:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC) he: היוגה סוטרות של פטנג'לי — Preceding unsigned comment added by RavitA ( talk • contribs) 07:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This kriya into karma back into kriya editing is confusing and taking the article off point. I would like to restore the edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali&oldid=649336297 under the 'Compilations' heading. I'd rather it agree with Feuerstein than with a string of half edits that came after. Thoughts? Iṣṭa Devata ( talk) 20:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move. Cúchullain t/ c 13:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali → Yoga Sutras of Patanjali –
The Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali#Indian_traditions (sub-) section -- (at least, in this version of the article) -- ends with:
[...] and Buddhist' yoga stems from pre-Patanjali sources.[57]
Should the word after "and" be changed, perhaps? Maybe what was intended, was
[...] and Buddhists' yoga stems from pre-Patanjali sources.[57]
perhaps?
[That is, ((Buddhists')) instead of ((Buddhist')) [yoga] ]. IMHO, it should be changed somehow -- either by adding an "s" (the above idea), or else by removing the apostrophe [(('))] after ((Buddhist)).
Just a suggestion... from: -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
First paragraph says "Together with his commentary they form the Pātañjalayogaśāstra." referring presumably to Patañjali's commentary which I believe does not exist or at least is not extant. Is it possible this should read as Vyasa's commentary? I could be mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iṣṭa Devata ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello everybody! It's me, Dominik Wujastyk (note spelling :-). I do exist :-) Here is my view of the current state of research on Patañjali and related issues. First, King Bhoja (fl. ca. 1000-1050), in an introductory verse to his commentary on the Y. sutras was the first to put on record the idea that there was one single Patanjali who wrote on grammar, medicine and yoga. He did this in his introductory mangala verse, yogena cittasya ..., that has become well-known. Bhoja's commentary is well worth reading, but this particular assertion is historically wrong. I have read the grammatical Mahābhāṣya and the Yogasūtras with the Yogasūtra-bhāṣya (=Pātañjalayogaśāstra) and they are very different works, with no overlap of subject matter or language. It's rather like reading Shakespeare and then Bunyan - you can palpably feel that these are different historical stages of the language. As for the idea of a major medical work by Patanjali, in a word, there isn't one. Check Meulenbeld's History of Indian Medical Literature for the full detail on this issue. There's good evidence that the Patanjali who wrote the grammatical work Mahābhāṣya lived in about 120 BCE. There's good evidence that the Patañjali who wrote on yoga lived in the period 325--425 CE, i.e., half a millennium later. For the grammarian, see Hartmut Scharfe Grammatical Literature (1977). For the date of Patañjali who wrote on yoga, see Woods The Yoga System of Patanjali (1914, freely available at archive.org). (Woods thought Patanjali and Vyasa were two different people; I don't - see the following.) Okay, so far: two different Patanjalis - the old grammarian and the more recent yoga author. Next issue: did Patañjali write just the sutras, and someone else called "the editor" (vyāsa) the oldest commentary, the Bhāṣya, or are both sutras and bhāṣya by one person, namely Patanjali himself? This is controversial, and this is where new discoveries in the last few years have dramatically changed the picture. That's why it's confusing, and why different books and articles say different things. Because the paradigm is shifting, right now, and not everyone is keeping up. Basically, the new research has been done by Philipp Maas in his 2006 PhD at the University of Bonn. Philipp (currently a colleague of mine at the University of Vienna) collected manuscripts of the Yogasutras and first commentary (aka bhāṣya) from all over Europe and India, and made a critical edition of the first pāda of the sutras and commentary. This meant examining all the manuscripts in great detail, including all the scribal comments at the end of each manuscript (colophons) and also what other Sanskrit authors had said about the yogasutras in the medieval period. It's a fine piece of scholarship. I can't present the detail here, but some main points are 1) until about 1000 CE, all Sanskrit authors in India assumed that the sūtras and the bhāṣya commentary together formed a single work by a single author, and that this was called The Yoga Teaching of Patañjali that Presents Sāṅkhya (Pātañjala-yoga-śāstra-sāṅkhya-pravacana). Nearly every manuscript of Patañjali's work says this at the end. After about 950 CE, some authors, starting with Vācaspati Miśra, began splitting the sūtras from the bhāṣya, and a new author was invented for the bhāṣya, namely a "Vyāsa" (means just "editor, arranger"). 2) The single author of The Yoga Teaching of Patañjali was, er, Patañjali. 3) The date, already mentioned, 325--425 CE. Philipp's PhD is in German, which has probably slowed the dissemination of his discoveries in the USA and England (it has a short English summary, but that doesn't lay out all the detail and arguments). Philipp has now written a more general essay on the history of the study of yoga, and the different interpretations, A Concise Historiography of Classical Yoga Philosophy, where he lays out his views and those of many other scholars before, and how the whole argument unfolded. As you see, many of my own ideas about the history of yoga are derived from Philipp's research as well as my own study of the grammatical and yoga traditions. Philipp and I work closely together (our offices are on the same corridor). We both also know well and work with David White, Jim Mallinson, Jason Birch, Mark Singleton and others. There's a lot of exciting work going on in the academic field of the history and interpretation yoga right now, and not all of it has yet got into the textbooks. The terrain is changing, so it can be confusing. A slightly different point that I've personally been working on in the last few years is Yoga's debt to Buddhism. Reading and re-reading the Pātañjalayogaśāstra, and the early writings of Buddhists like Vasubandhu, I have become more and more convinced that what Patañjali was doing was re-packaging Buddhist meditation techniques and philosophy for a non-Buddhist Śramaṇa and Brāhmaṇa audience. But that's another story for another day :-) I'd like to thank everyone here in "talk" for engaging with these issues, which are so interesting! DomLaguna ( talk) 09:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I see the translation evolving here a bit. If I remember correctly, Edwin Bryant's translation of the sutras gives a direct translation at one point of pra-before, in front of nidhana-lie down, making isvarapranidhana roughly to lie prone before one's lord (implying surrender). I'll try to find the page number and get that reference up here on the talk page. The current translation though clear and well cited seems less literal. Any thoughts? Iṣṭa Devata ( talk) 03:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Edwin Bryant does not comment on Maas, but on earlier research. To quote him in this way, after Maas, is WP:SYNTH and violates WP:NPOV. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@ VictoriaGrayson: I agree that James Woods text is dated, and needs to be complemented with a more modern source. But, lets not discard James Woods, because his translation of Yogasutra and medieval era commentaries on Yogasutra are reliable. See, for example, David G White's The "Yoga Sutra of Patanjali": A Biography, Princeton University Press (2014), ISBN 978-0691143774, at page xii-xiii; David White writes, "James Woods - Harvard professor of Indian philosophy and author of what is considered to be the most accurate and authoritative translation of Yogasutra and commentaries of Bhoja and Vachaspati Mishra". Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 18:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@ VictoriaGrayson: Where do you see support for "classical Hindu texts emphasize" phrasing in David White on pages xvi-xvii and 20-23? Perhaps you can embed a quote from White, inside the cite? If it is from a different source, I am curious which "classical Hindu text(s) emphasizes". Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 22:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@VG: How about a collage of traditional asanas? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Go a little bit more and make it 2015? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.37.233 ( talk) 06:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Effulgence108: No edit wars. I have reverted your unexplained deletion and edits, per WP:BRD you need to discuss and gain consensus. The image grid makes more sense as it is MOS:IMAGES and WP:NPOV. Why is the image you added better than the grid? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 17:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@VG: I have reworded a summary of the paragraph on page 31 starting with, "While all the major Indian philosophical systems....", to the sentence on page 32, which reads, "Finally, according to the Buddha's teachings, both the individual self and the...". I am trying to avoid copyvio, and I invite your suggestions to improve that summary. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 12:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"A significant minority opinion, however, maintains that Vyasa lived several centuries later, and that his “Hindu-izing” commentary, rather than elucidating Patanjali’s text, actually subverted its original “Buddhist” teachings. I will return to this provocative hypothesis in the final chapter of this book."
VictoriaGrayson Talk 14:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It appears huge effort is spent trying to prove Buddhist writings as the origin of Yoga sutra though, it is clearly other way around... Vyasa later than patanjali? (even though this is a minority opinion now - how long before it would be accepted / convoluted to be the "truth" - I think if you say a lie many times, that will become truth over time I suppose - The "scholars" would all agree)... No way things can be this subjective... Buddha attained Nirvana and helped liberate people is the only thing that is truth from a Buddhist purpose - How could they be exponent of yoga suddenly or for that matter other things like Advaita taking cues from Buddhism, and so on? - During the time of Buddha, the whole Hindu world (the pepole, culture, art, architecture, etc was at its peak - As in the main body of work of Vedas, upanishads, Yoga Sutras, Gita, Epics, etc, etc... were already complete by a few 100 or 1000 years ago - People were following that - Who can disptute that? - Even Buddha was a "Hindu" obviously - Whether he agreed with Hinduism or not is a different question). To assume they were written (may be after the discovery of script) could be true, but their existence prior to Buddhism, cannot be questioned (it would be anachronistic) - Obviously, for a philosophical tradition like Buddhism, Jainism, etc, owning the vast, rich Hindu "things" as "theirs" would be quite valuable (sellable to the followers - but, this is not theoretical physics, one cannot simply make a theory and try to prove it later (like Vyasa after Patanjali and so on)- Think of how corporates go after patents, that is what I could relate this to). The only logical explanation of why "Yoga" or Vyasa later than Patanjali theories come about, is the "vested" effort to own Hindu things as Buddhist (and I believe establishment less Hinduism is losing in this front - As nobody is there to set things right)... [Nothing further to add - Wanted to record this "Vested" interest to own "Hindu" things as "Buddhist" or so in the talk page... ]
FROM CATEGORY TO ONTOLOGY: THE CHANGING ROLE OF "DHARMA" IN SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA Author(s): COLLETT COX Source: Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 32, No. 5/6 (December 2004), pp. 543-597 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23497152: "See Bronkhorst (1987, 1996, 1999a, 1999b); Houben (1995); Frauwallner ([1956] 1973: pt.2, 79ff.); Matilal (1985: 269ff„ 378ff.)." That's who you want to look at for this subject. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 03:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Isn't this idea disputed by David Gordon White when he says "This reinvention of the Yoga Sutra as the foundational scripture of “classical yoga” runs counter to the pre twentieth century history of India’s yoga tradition..." VictoriaGrayson Talk 23:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
David Gordon White's opinion is just one of many; "This reinvention of the Yoga Sutra as the foundational scripture of “classical yoga” runs counter..." - is a theoretical assumption rather than proven fact, one can dispute his statement in any number of ways, for example, if there was no continuity of Yoga Sutras of Patanjali in yoga tradition then there would be no reason for Vivekananda and others to use the Yoga Sutras as the foundation of Raja Yoga, or Ashtanga Yoga, when they brought yoga into attention of Westerners.Pradeepwb 19:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 07:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
In the article, "sutras" in the Yogasutra are referred to as "verses". In reality, a sutra is quite different from a verse and so the usage of the word verse will mislead a reader. Therefore, I propose we replace the words "verse" when describing sutras of Yogasutras to "sutra", and linking the first occurrence it to this article Thank you. - Sudarshanhs ( talk) 06:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)