Talk:Modern yoga

Yoga Sutras

After adding Yoga Sutras of Patanjali to the lead sentence following 'Vedas' and before 'physical postures' this was reverted by Chiswick Chap. Please note the page descriptor and link to yoga philosophy from which this page is 'derived', an article which states, right at the start, "A systematic collection of ideas of Yoga is found in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, a key text of Yoga which has influenced all other schools of Indian philosophy." Modern Yoga is yoga, and the foundation of yoga rests in the Sutras. Revert? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same old rules apply everywhere. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so links to other pages prove nothing. The body of this article does not mention the sutra, so the lead must not do so. This is core policy, WP:V, WP:LEAD, WP:RS, WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above sentence at yoga philosophy has five sources, it is not stand-alone original research. I'm not suggesting more than accuracy. When the lead sentence here includes "encompassing in its various forms yoga philosophy derived from the Vedas, physical postures derived from Hatha yoga..." including the name Yoga Sutras of Patanjali after the word 'Vedas' seems natural, encyclopedic, and essential to complete the descriptor "derived". Asanas arise from the Sutras, and although Patanjali focuses on the comfortable seated postures, the text does belong alongside 'Vedas' when defining 'derived'. Please check, the sutras are mentioned in many of the sources on this page. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, you're missing the simple and clear point, that Wikipedia is not a Reliable Source, so I'm surprised you are even trying to argue really. The longstanding policy means that you cannot make anything in one article rely on anything in any other article. The lead, further, is just a summary of the already-cited text in the body of its own article. This does not mention the sutras. You cannot WP:OR from a rather boldly over-general statement in the Yoga Sutras article to something in the 'Modern yoga' article; that would require 'Modern yoga' to be accepted as a simple subset of classical yoga, which it is not. It has actually been described as a homophone of the word "yoga", since its meaning is so different. Instead, it is a group of new, often radically new, developments loosely-based on earlier forms, principally Hatha yoga, which itself was a considerable departure (with new and conflicting philosophies) from anything that Patanjali would have recognised. In short, it is totally wrong per policy to attempt to do what you have done, because Original Research is often wrong: and indeed, it is certainly wrong in this case. And, even if it were correct, it would still be forbidden by policy. I do hope this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that there are multitudes of sources that link the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali to Yoga philosophy (as used in the first sentence of this page), and the closely connected Asana, Hatha yoga, Meditative postures, etc. articles. Modern yoga contains the word "yoga", and all yoga leads back to Patanjali, even if he wouldn't instantly recognize the asanas used to gain control over the bodies muscular and breathing systems at the core of the modern aspect (but, being who he was and as the author of the Bhasya commentary which names 12 seated asanas, would probably understand and approve of them at the end of that instant). Mentioning the Vedas without also mentioning the Sutras, which the basic seated asanas derive from, purposely omits key encyclopedic information. If an in-text post-lead mention is needed then that will easily be added and provided, but a lead mention following 'Vedas' would be enough without having to add wording below. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are starting at the wrong end for this article, with an uncited claim, not in the article le, alluded to by wrongly extending the lead. All else is distraction from core policy, original research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that modern yoga is not yoga? I don't understand why you seem to be insisting that the timeline of yoga has to be divided into two (this isn't classic Doctor Who and Revival Doctor Who, but a philosophy which has evolved into exercise and yoga pants while keeping much of the actual history). If you mention Yoga philosophy, physical postures (linked to Asana), the Vedas, and hatha yoga in the first sentence, then not mentioning Patenjali and the origin of the beginning sitting asanas is, as mentioned, not giving a full encyclopedic background. Seriously, this seems an unusual argument for a simple WP:BLUESKY addition without needing to include an entire section about the origin of sitting asanas. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with your edit was, as I have now made very clear in both a lengthy edit comment and the above thread, is
a) it was misplaced in the lead, which is *only* a summary of the cited text below
b) it was uncited
c) it was basically wrong, as Patanjali yoga is very unlike most if not all forms of modern yoga. Is modern yoga "yoga"? Both yes, people call it that and it draws on tradition in various ways; and no, it does not share the goals of Patanjali yoga, nor indeed of medieval Hatha yoga. This is not "strange", it's well attested by the scholarship cited in our yoga articles. Forcing Patanjali into the Modern yoga article is Original Research unless you have a scholar who states in terms that modern yoga is Patanjali-based in ways x, y, and z. I am familiar with the literature and I don't recall anyone making that claim. Basically, P-yoga more or less died out in the medieval period, replaced by Hatha yoga, which nearly died out during the early modern period, and which in turn was replaced by the medicalised yoga of Kuvalayananda and Yogendra ... which was developed into the gymnastic yoga of Krishnamacharya, who taught Jois (Ashtanga vinyasa yoga) and Iyengar (Iyengar yoga). A scholar *might* be able to argue that some small bits survived here and there, or were resurrected somewhere or other in modern times, in which case you can cite them to make the connection. If not, not: OR is forbidden. Your implication that "Yoga = Patanjali" is mistaken. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A major break from tradition or a logical branch of yoga?

Per this edit summary, there seems to be a major disagreement as to the timeline of yoga. Modern yoga flows not as a new river of information but as a major (no, not minor) branch of yoga in which new information resides and has been developed. The above section on the common sense addition of the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali to the first sentence, and the tone of the edit summary, highlights this concern and possible misunderstandings. Should we talk this out here or at the talk page of the Yoga Wikiproject? Probably here but with a note on the Wikiproject talk page seems the best option. Is modern yoga divorced and separate from what has been kindly but incorrectly referred to as an antique straitjacket or is it a major branch of yoga which retains principles and goals while modernizing the term yoga to place it within the umbrella definition of "exercise"? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are not forums. Modern yoga, to reply to the title, is both: its goals are diverse, but they are hardly ever anything like Patanjali's, and he'd not have recognised the goals of fitness, lifestyle and de-stressing, to name a few. The main problem with your approachhowever is that'sit is cart before horse: you are starting with a presumption and hope to prove it (by doubtful means). The necessary approach is to begin with sources and to proceed with verifiable explanation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Modern_yoga