Talk:Yoga Sutras of Patanjali

WP:SYN removed from Dating section

I am largely ignorant of scholarly debates regarding the dating of the Yoga Sutras. However, I edited the Dating section to remove the remarks about how Bryant and Desmarais don't address Maas's arguments. I realize that WP:SYN is not a rigid rule and that the editorializing that I removed probably provided valuable context for Bryant's and Desmarais's claims, especially in a field as specialized as this. Nonetheless, inserting an unsourced claim about what arguments a scholar does nor does not engage with is so blatant a WP:SYN violation that I just don't think it can stand. Or else it's just a blatant WP:OR violation, depending on how you look at it. Our job is to report what reliable sources say, not discuss our own conclusions about which sources engage sufficiently with other sources (in articles, that is—such discussions are, of course, necessary on talk pages, when deciding whether to cite a given source at all). Find a reliable source that notes Bryant's and Desmarais's shortcomings. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

1st section, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentance

Please define (and make blue) "Vedanta"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19C:4C80:5290:B536:2447:43D2:DD12 (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Typo -- Author and dating

The text says: "that is firmly debatable to the second century BC" I think it should say "datable" (not debate)

Also, 'author and dating' sounds like the author of the article wants to share his profile and new status. Funny. This problem can be solved by fixing the grammar: "authorship".

Seriously?

I just fixed a lot of mistakes from the opening of the page. Could you just not revert it?Dimasgomez (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't have the energy or patience to fix it, magically as you wave the "revert" wand. I put twenty years of research (let alone my professors) in that few paragraphs. Most of it is almost impossible to explain because you need sanskrit to even understand it. And I put Monier-Williams roots, etc. The first word of that old version is wrong. Yogasutras is not a collection. Have you ever read it? I have. For twenty years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimasgomez (talk • contribs) 00:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Great. Now spend some time on learning how to write at Wikipedia: the WP:LEAD summarizes the lead; your addition doesn't. It's writing-style is hard to follow, with grammatical errors ("have being composed"), and the dating is too early. And the main source is in Spanish; you're the author?

Let's analyze your additions diff:

• You replaced

The Yoga Sutras of Patañjali is a collection of Sanskrit sutras (aphorisms) on the theory and practice of yoga - 195 sutras (according to Vyāsa and Krishnamacharya) and 196 sutras (according to other scholars including BKS Iyengar).

with

The Yoga Sutras of Patañjali is arguably the most fundamental treatise on Yoga. Its main merit "was to stablish a practicing ruling code, based both on ethical principles and a sistematic delimitation of the envolved theoretical concepts." Opening with "quotation marks" — atha- (YS-1:1) and -iti (4:34), Patanjali does not claim authorship over the Sutras, just its compilation. The book itself opens with this claim, as the definitive doctrine on Yoga: "atha yoga anuśāsana" [YS 1:1] (from √anu, last, and √shas, "to whip", treatise.
From the magnitude of the work, it is very brief, with only 196 sūtras (or 195, depending on the manuscript), organized in four padas ("limbs", or chapters). It describes, orderly, in a easy-memorizing fashion, from the most fundamental concept of Yoga, the mind activities recoil (nirodha, YS 1:2) to its last practicing consequence (the kaivalyam state).
Each sūtra is "sewn" to the next (from √siv, to sew), requiring to be read only in that way. In other words, one is not supposed to take a sūtra out of its context. Written in classical sanskrit, its nominal style makes it hard to interpret without knowing the right (or natural, sambandhana) relathionship between the words, let alone translate. This has caused a wide variety of problematic translations and controversies, requiring researchers to first study its upanishadic sources before beginning to understand the text itself.

References

• Removing the definition is a no-go;
• The Yoga Sutras of Patañjali is arguably the most fundamental treatise on Yoga. - nope; see the lead and the article;
• Its main merit... - unverifiable source from a non-notable author;
• Authorship - this belongs in the body of the article, at best;
• It describes... - unclear;
• Each sūtra is "sewn" to the next... - again, not in the lead.

• You replaced

The Yoga Sutras was compiled in the early centuries CE, by the sage Patanjali in India who synthesized and organized knowledge about yoga from much older traditions.

with

The Yoga Sutras are believed to have being compiled by the sage Patanjali in India between 150 BCE to 200 CE, synthesizing and organizing its system from much older literary sources and public debates, but its content clearly indicates a few centuries earlier context of discussion, contemporary to Siddharta Gautama e Vardamana Mahavira, to the extent that its fourth (and last) chapter was accused of being a later addition, supposedly influenced by buddhism; also, Badarayana, in his Vedanta Sutra, a few centuries earlier text, talks about Yoga as a stablished doctrine, what puts it between 500 to 300 BCE.

References

• 150 BCE to 200 CE - "early centuries CE" is more accurate;
• its content clearly indicates... - unsourced WP:OR.

• You changed

The Yoga Sutras are best known for its reference to ashtanga, eight elements of practice culminating in samadhi, concentration of the mind on an object of meditation, namely yama (abstinences), niyama (observances), asana (yoga postures), pranayama (breath control), pratyahara (withdrawal of the senses), dharana (concentration of the mind), dhyana (meditation) and samadhi (absorption). However, its main aim is kaivalya, discernment of purusha, the witness-conscious, as separate from prakriti, the cognitive apparatus, and disentanglement of purusha from prakriti's muddled defilements.

into

The Yoga Sutras are best known for ashtanga, the eight non-sequential yoga "limbs", a system described in the Sadhana Pada (YS-2, The Method Chapter) that organizes yoga from the most external to the most internal practices. Namely, yama (social behaviour), niyama (self-ethics), asana (mind practices), pranayama (prana control), pratyahara (withdrawal), dharana (focus), dhyana (meditation) and samadhi. However, its main aim is kaivalya, discernment of purusha, the witness-conscious, as separate from prakriti, the cognitive apparatus, and disentanglement of purusha from prakriti's muddled defilements.

• non-sequential ... organizes yoga from the most external to the most internal practices - contradiction.

• You changed

The Yoga Sutras built on Samkhya-notions of purusha and prakriti, and are often seen as complementary to it. It is closely related to Buddhism, incorporating some of its terminology. Yet, Samkhya, Yoga, Vedanta, as well as Jainism and Buddhism can be seen as representing different manifestations of a broad stream of ascetic traditions in ancient India, in contrast to the Bhakti traditions and Vedic ritualism which were prevalent at the time.

into

The Yoga Sutras built on Samkhya-notions of purusha and prakriti, and are often seen as complementary to it. It is closely related to Buddhism, which incorporated its sanskrit terminology. Arguably, Samkhya, Yoga, Vedanta and Jainism can be seen as representing different manifestations of a broad stream of ascetic mystic traditions —altogether with Taoism in China and Shinto in Japan — that, inside ancient India, internalized Vedic ritualism, prevalent at the time.

• you rerersed the relation between Patanjali's Yoga Sutas and Buddhism; unwarranted pov-pushing;
• Taoism and Shinto - unsourced, unrelated, WP:OR;
• internalized - unsourced WP:OR.

• You added

Since Buddhism soon rised to the religion of the state, in the Maurya Dinasty onwords, from almost one thousand years, yoga as a system became a subject of a few scholars and was incorporated into buddhism in its own fashion (see Zen).

• unsourced WP:OR.

• You changed

The levels of samādhi taught in the text resemble the Buddhist jhanas.

into

The Buddhist jhanas, in comparison, remind levels of samādhi taught in the text.

• Again, a reversal of the facts.

Your additions are a long list of problematic, unsourced and incorrect WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Edwin Bryant & Buddhism

@Stormbird: you added a direct quote from Edwin Bryant to the lead, disregarding the treatment of this topic in the section on tge influnce of the YS. Apart from being a copy-vio, it's also a violation of WP:LEAD: the lead summarizes the article; we don't use it to give WP:UNDUE to one particular point of view. We also don't WP:CENSOR the article, which you did when you "corrected" the info on the close relation with Buddhism by removing it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Question

"All such arguments [for a late date] are problematic"

How exactly? I would be happy to read at least a short list of the alleged incongruences, which I'm sure are cogent in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.32.50.116 (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a quote from the cited book. Reading the book might help clarify your question(s)? Asteramellus (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't see the logic in your reply. This is a Wikipedia article, it has to be consistent and (sufficiently) clear in itself. Moreover I'm sure Bryant has his point but since someone bothered to quote some lines from his work, it's a bit odd that he/she failed to state on wht ground those datings may be problematic - even in a few words, of course. 151.32.50.116 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry for not being clear. I meant to say it's a quote from the source in response to your question "How exactly" and not some editor's point. Whole paragraph talks about alternate dating mentioned by Bryant to what is mentioned in the paragraph before.

Edwin Brayant, on the other hand, surveyed the major commentators ...Bryant concluded that "... All such arguments [for a late date] are problematic."

But, I agree more clarity would help why Bryant thinks it is problematic and maybe it's in his book and it could be added here. Asteramellus (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate reference to J.R. Ballantyne's translation

The title noted below (apart from the sentence structure) is incorrect OR there is no way to verify. The reason is that I cannot find any reference to the original translation by J.R. Ballantyne in the late 1800s. The only publication I see was in 1952, obviously a reprint, and it was titled 'Yoga-sutra of Patanjali', not 'The Yoga Philosophy'. Any pointer to the original would be much appreciated so that the article can be improved.

• 1882, 1885:The whole complete book was published in 1882 and final revised edition published in 1885. The Yoga Philosophy with comments of Bhojaraja, J.R Ballantyne, Govind Shastri Deva, edited by Tookaram Tatya, Bombay Theosophical publication fund.

Sravasti Nair (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)