Talk:Patanjali

Similarities [to Transcendental Meditation]

• Actual lineal traditions of the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali bear no similarity to the Neohindu Transcendental Meditation "sidhi" program , which cultivates yogic siddhis, and traditionally cultivation of yogic siddhis is considered a primary impediment to Enlightenment or Cosmic Consciousness (Skt.: turiyatita) and are disallowed in the Shankaracharya tradition for this reason .

We shouldn't read books and then decide, on our own, that there is or isn't a similarity between one tradition and another. That would be original research, which is not allowed. See WP:NOR. Do these references mention TM?   Will Beback  talk  21:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree Will, we should not read books and then produce OR in articles. It is not something I have decided. These traditions consist of ancient sets of practices and lineal holders of these practices. The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali are not about manasika (mental) mantra meditation (TM). They're about mastering concentrative meditation and breath control, in a certain sequence. The YS themselves tell us siddhis are not to be cultivated. The dozen or more commentaries to the YS all tell us that. The Shankaracharya Order's (Maharishi's supposed origin) explicit instructions on how to apply the YS on the path of enlightenment tell us this is great detail, even warning us against yogic flying as obstacles to enlightenment "in this lifetime".

We might want to "let a citation go" that states TM and/or the TM Sidhi program are connected to Patanjali's YS, but I'm afraid that is patently false from a lineal and scholarly perspective. Just because some naive authors parrot what they were told, doesn't mean we should include such poor and misleading information.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Another thing I should mention is why on earth would we include a highly questionable link to Patanjali re: TM and the TMSP, but we do not include the dozen (probably hundreds) of actual yogis who are teaching these practices? It seems odd to me that it's even connected to this article. It really should not be here at all, unless we're going to include long lists of yogis who teach Patanjali-yoga.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are more important Patañjali traditions then we should add more text about those. I still don't understand what the sources say about TM. Do they mention it at all? If not then we probably shouldn't use those. Perhaps the mention of TM should be reduced to something like an entry in a sentence, such as "Yogic practices derived from Patañjali include TM, ..."   Will Beback  talk  19:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. TM is not a part of the Patanjali practice tradition period. Mantra-yoga is a completely different set of angas, or stages. Patanjali is not invoked in the TM lineage invocation all TM initiates must participate in. Mahamandaleshwari Arya explains the difference between yogic siddhis and siddhis from dhyana, meditation siddhis. He also explains in exquisite detail all the stages of Patanjali yoga and pranayama or expansion of prana. There is simply no parallel in the practice of TM or the TMSP. The jivan-mukti-viveka is the standard text on higher states of consciousness and Patanjali-yoga in the Shankaracharya tradition. It rails against cultivation of samyama for siddhis and goes so far to state it will ruin ones chances of enlightenment in their lifetime. It quotes important yogic texts to make this point.

I will likely quote another source which lists the proper angas of mantra-yoga, as that would seem appropriate.

What it's important to understand is how exaggerated and grandiose the claims TM advocates are making. It's as if the founder had no concrete knowledge of yoga whatsoever. While this may sound like a startling statement, it's the sad fact of the matter. For that reason it might be best to remove TM references altogether from the Patanjali article. Patanjali considers effort of supreme importance, TMers eschew any effort and likes to characterize TM as "effortless".--Kala Bethere (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, but (to paraphrase Will Rogers) I only know what I read in reliable sources. ;) The TM movement thinks it is derived from Patanjali, and at least one religion scholar agrees. "Derived from" isn't "the same as". By some estimates, Mormonism is derived from Christianity, but also very different. I suggest we find more sources, both on TM and on other modern traditions, and make sure the article reflects those sources. In the meantime I suggest we remove the recent addition, and trim back the TM reference.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

How about something like, "TM has a been characterized by its founder and some scholars as a descendant of Patanjali?"   Will Beback  talk  18:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If I wanted lie outright, I might feel OK about saying such a thing Will. But I know it is not factually correct. TM is a mantra-yoga and quite different from the yoga of Patanjali. I think you are confusing the fact that the TM-Sidhi program uses English translations of parts of chapter three of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. I think you would be better off keeping references to Patanjali in the TM-Sidhi entry. Perhaps it would be best to move this section to that entry?

Also Will, historically in the TM movement, Patanjali only came up when the Maharishi added the TM-Sidhi program. The TM movement at the time was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. So one day the Maharishi appeared before a several months-long course and announced he had a dream the night before in which Patanjali appeared and asked him to teach the "siddhis". So that's the TM orgs "connection" to Patanjali.

The TM initiation puja recites the lineage of TM and does not include Patanjali. I'd recommend reading one of the translations of the TM initiation puja online to see what the (claimed) lineage of TM is.--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it a lie? We know that Chryssides says so. I haven't read much of the Maharishi's own writings, but I presume he does too. (The Golden Domes in Fairfield have "Patañjali" in their names). Remember, we're not here to establish what is "true". Our job is just to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're also not here to insert information we know to be false, miscontrued or questionable, deliberately into articles, are we?

I've read much of the movement literature, esp. the old stuff; about 30 English translations of Patanjali, all the classic commentaries, including some of the more obscure ones and I've also translated it myself from the original Sanskrit. I'd say I'm fairly familiar with this literature.

I'd never heard of this Chryssides person. If he's a person in the area of Asian studies and Sanskrit literature, he must not be a very prominent person in that field, as I still read a dozen or more new translations of various Sanskrit literature every year.

A casual perusal of George Chryssides shows that he is apparently a writer on the New Age, it appears from the perspective of Christianity.

I'm always set aback when I see someone who makes spurious claims, and excepts them as authoritative simply because 'someone told them so'. It would appear to me that George D. Chryssides has little basis from which comment on the authenticity of such claims. He seems to fit the genre of Christian stalwart writing books on those worrisome cults, hoping to sound informative and sometimes hitting the mark, sometimes missing. I would consider him a poor source on the subject matter.

The Maharishi always claimed to come from the Shankaracharya tradition, as he was a secretary and personal assistant of one of the Shankaracharyas for many years. As I said that tradition lists it's lineage in the initiation puja, which is easily available online.

To boost sagging sales and imminent collapse of his organization, the Maharishi sent out emissaries to India to try to collect new techniques that might be popular to the public. The TM-Sidhi program is the result of that effort. The Maharishi had an impeccable business eye, and in this case it paid off, saving his org and generating lots of press to help make his organization grow.

Quoting George D. Chryssides as a ref. seems like quoting a book a Fundamentalist Christian preacher might write on Islam. The TM article states "George Chryssides similarly states that the Maharishi and Guru Dev were from the Shankara tradition of advaita Vedanta." This backs my assertion that you need to look at the TM puja. It sounds like you are confusing TM with the fact that the TM-Sidhi program uses English translations of pieces of chapter three (the section on magical powers) of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras.

I'd seriously recommend you at least read a good translation of Patanjali and the TM puja.

IMO reference to Patanjali and the TM-sidhi program need to go in that entry, and not be indiscriminately inserted in the Patanjali entry, unless you're interested in trashing them. It would be the equivalent of inserting a section on Pop Kabbalah in an entry on Orthodox Judaism or inserting a section on the Bahai religion in an orthodox Islam entry.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I had decided to come here and start a thread on the concerns with the section on the TM program and Patanjali but see a thread has already been started.

In addition to the concern Wills mentions which is OR and not compliant by Wikipedia standards, the first paragraph has concerns:

I don't see anywhere in the source that Chryssides says the TM technique is based on Patanjali. Perhaps a page number with the information would clarify that point. Vimal Patel does say the TM technique is based on Patanjali. As far as I know that is not an accurate statement and I have never seen that statement made in another source so, I would wonder about including that information and source. The TM Sidhi program is based on Patanjali so a simple statement saying that could be included but then the subheading should be adjusted to reflect the change in content from TM Program to TM Sidhi Program.(olive (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

[Srimad Bhagavatam 10.87.25]

"Srimad Bhagavatam 10.87.25

janim asatah sato mrtim utatmani ye ca bhidam vipanam rtam smaranty upadisanti ta arupitaih tri-guna-mayah puman iti bhida yad abodha-krta tvayi na tatah paratra sa bhaved avabodha-rase SYNONYMS

janim -- creation; asatah -- of the manifest world (from atoms); satah -- of that which is eternal; mrtim -- destruction; uta -- also; atmani -- in the soul; ye -- who; ca -- and; bhidam -- duality; vipanam -- mundane business; rtam -- real; smaranti -- declare authoritatively; upadisanti -- teach; te -- they; arupitaih -- in terms of illusions imposed on reality; tri -- three; guna -- of the material modes; mayah -- composed; puman -- the living entity; iti -- thus; bhida -- dualistic conception; yat -- which; abodha -- by ignorance; krta -- created; tvayi -- in You; na -- not; tatah -- to such; paratra -- transcendental; sah -- that (ignorance); bhavet -- can exist; avabodha -- total consciousness; rase -- whose composition. TRANSLATION

Supposed authorities who declare that matter is the origin of existence, that the permanent qualities of the soul can be destroyed, that the self is compounded of separate aspects of spirit and matter, or that material transactions constitute reality -- all such authorities base their teachings on mistaken ideas that hide the truth. The dualistic conception that the living entity is produced from the three modes of nature is simply a product of ignorance. Such a conception has no real basis in You, for You are transcendental to all illusion and always enjoy perfect, total awareness. PURPORT

The true position of the Supreme Personality is a sublime mystery, as is also the dependent position of the jiva soul. Most thinkers are mistaken in one way or another about these truths, since there are countless varieties of false designation that can cover the soul and create illusion. Foolish conditioned souls submit to obvious delusions, but the illusory power of Maya can easily subvert the intelligence of even the most sophisticated philosophers and mystics. Thus there are always divergent schools of thought propounding conflicting theories concerning basic principles of truth. In traditional Indian philosophy, the followers of Vaisesika, Nyaya, Sankhya, Yoga and Mimamsa philosophies all have their own erroneous ideas, which the personified Vedas point out in this prayer. The Vaisesikas say that the visible universe is created from an original stock of atoms (janim asatah). As Kanada Rsi's Vaisesika-sutras (7.1.20) state, nityam parimandalam: "That which is of the smallest size, the atom, is eternal. " Kanada and his followers also postulate eternality for other, nonatomic entities, including the souls who become embodied, and even a Supreme Soul. But in Vaisesika cosmology the souls and the Supersoul play only token roles in the atomic production of the universe. Srila Krsna-dvaipayana Vedavyasa criticizes this position in his Vedanta-sutras (2.2.12): ubhayathapi na karmatas tad-abhavah. According to this sutra, one cannot claim that, at the time of creation, atoms first combine together because they are impelled by some karmic impulse adhering in the atoms themselves, since atoms by themselves, in their primeval state before combining into complex objects, have no ethical responsibility that might lead them to acquire pious and sinful reactions. Nor can the initial combination of atoms be explained as a result of the residual karma of the living entities who lie dormant prior to creation, since these reactions are each jiva's own and cannot be transferred from them even to other jivas, what to speak of inert atoms. Alternatively, the phrase janim asatah can be taken to allude to the Yoga philosophy of Patanjali Rsi, inasmuch as his Yoga-sutras teach one how to achieve the transcendental status of Brahmanhood by a mechanical process of exercise and meditation. Patanjali's yoga method is here called asat because it ignores the essential aspect of devotion -- surrender to the will of the Supreme Person. As Lord Krsna states in Bhagavad-gita (17.28), asraddhaya hutam dattam tapas taptam krtam ca yat asad ity ucyate partha na ca tat pretya no iha "Anything done as sacrifice, charity or penance without faith in the Supreme, O son of Prtha, is impermanent. It is called asat and is useless both in this life and in the next."" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.128.162 (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Patañjali → Patanjali – Often Anglicized to Patanjali without diacritics/ WP:COMMONNAME [1][2] --Relisted Cúchullain ^t/c 13:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment WP:COMMONNAME isn't necessarily that relevant here. Isn't there a WP:Naming conventions (Indic)? per Category:Ancient Sanskrit grammarians? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no convention. The current spelling is in IAST. However, it is used without diacritics in Indian English. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems like the others in category are also at IAST. Why should they be left at IAST and this one moved? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, there is inconsistency. Pingala, Vararuchi, Virahanka, Shaunaka are in Indian English, others in IAST. IMO, over time others should be moved too for consistency. However, Patanjali without diacritics is more popular due to his yoga connection. No Indian newspapers or common Indian English literature uses the diacritics. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz Are you 100% certain that Pingala, Vararuchi, Virahanka, Shaunaka are in Indian English, not in IAST? What would the IAST forms be if they were in IAST? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per reasons given by nominator. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose several books use the diacritics; for example the book on yoga sutras: [3] --KarlB (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Britannica does not use diacritics [4]. These books are written entirely in IAST. Many scholarly books on Hindu deities use IAST, however articles on Hindu deities do not use diacritics as when written in common English in newspapers/general encyclopaedias/common Indian literature/names of Yoga institutions use non-diacritic form. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wait - can we please hold on close till Redtigerxyz confirms what Pingala, Vararuchi, Virahanka, Shaunaka would be in IAST. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Piṅgala, Vararuci, Virahāṇka, Śaunaka respectively. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Support - okay, it seems that IAST is used in very specialized texts such as Hinduism and Law: An Introduction Page 36 Timothy Lubin, Donald R. Davis, Jayanth K. Krishnan - 2010 "Not only does this show that Patañjali was familiar with the genre of literature calleddharmasūtra that had authors, it also shows that in his mind the authors of dharmasūtras paralleled īśvara. Now, it is unclear what or whom Patañjali ..." but otherwise it seems in general that the primary transliteration for Sanskrit has not been established per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic):

Each Indic article should be named according to its primary transliteration, if this can be clearly established. If a primary transliteration cannot be clearly established, then the article should be labelled with a simplified transliteration.

In ictu oculi (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per Britannica, Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, and Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. Kauffner (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

I read with astonishment the closing comments of the discussion above. An editor claims "but otherwise it seems in general that the primary transliteration for Sanskrit has not been established per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic):" - whereas (which WP:?): "Each Indic article should be named according to its primary transliteration, if this can be clearly established. If a primary transliteration cannot be clearly established, then the article should be labelled with a simplified transliteration." ... so, is Sanskrit not an Indic language or what is the issue? I don't understand the motives involved.

There are more criteria than only the appearance in modern-day encyclopedia's; we can choose to, or we can choose not to create our own dictatorship. How it's written where it originated and was discussed for centuries, in Sanskrit in this case, is more important. Usability is a second: how can you ever pronounce a word (meditate and churn through its meaning) correctly if you'll never know how it's written? Unambiguousness is a third good reason. I'm sure more people will find more WP: reasons to support moving this to Patañjali. I don't see a single advantage, in terms of real practice, of using the "English" spelling. Wakari07 (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is the primary policy on which the move was based. In Indian English, diacritics are not used. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been shown the Patanjali Samadhi which is in the main temple at Rameshwaram just behind the shrine to Patanjali and his Guru Viagrapadar. I was taken there by Srilasri Sivananda Pulipani Swamigal head of the Boganathar Pulipani SIddha Parampei in 2006. Swamigal along with an astrolger confirmed that Vygrapadar was the north indian name of his ancestor who was the Guru of Patanjali. Vyagrapadar is according to Swamigal and the astroleger the north Indian name of Pulipani. Puli means tiger in Tamil and Pulipani was renowned for riding a tiger. According to Swamigal Patanjali did his sadhana at Palani Siva Giri and in the Pulipani ashram - the 3rd Pulipani in the dynastic tradition was Guru to Patanjali. 122.110.31.23 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC) JOHN WEDDEPOHL.

• • • maybe the requested move should be towards a clearer, more logical language?

what do you understand from" This corroborates Tirumular's Tirumandhiram, which describes him as hailing from Then Kailasam (Koneswaram temple, Trincomalee), and he famously visited the Thillai Nataraja Temple, Chidambaram, where he wrote the Charana Shrungarahita Stotram on Nataraja. In recent decades,[when?] the Yoga Sutra has become quite popular worldwide for the precepts regarding practice of Raja Yoga and its philosophical basis. "Yoga" in traditional Hinduism involves inner contemplation, a system of meditation practice and ethics."?? what are the logical connections between sentences? I was in need for some enlightenment, as I was reading about Siva's game of dice, and got just more confusion...89.43.195.27 (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

cancer treatment

Dear Sir

my brother has cancer which is best treatmentand medicen

of your Pantijali yogpeet

Certain anomalies in description of भगवत पतञ्जलि

Whenever you place him chronologically, or geographically, please read महाभाष्य at least once properly. There he is actually trying to elaborate or elucidate भगवत पाणिनी कृत अष्टाध्यायी for easier understanding by a larger public with lesser take-off levels in grammar. He has tried to elaborate/elucidate the latter’s work by citing examples from day-to-day’s life and facts or things that were common knowledge then (i.e. during his time). While describing the usage of words and describing, why it is foolhardy to say a word and then say that the said word does not exist, he says and I quote: “अस्त्यप्रयुक्तः” “सन्ति‚वै‚शब्दा‚अप्रयुक्ता …” … followed by “सर्वे‚देशान्तरे” And आह्निक thereof… “सर्वे देशान्तरे सर्वे खल्वप्येते शब्दा देशान्तरेषु प्रयुज्यन्ते । न चैवोपलभ्यन्ते । उपलब्धौ यत्नः क्रियताम् । महाञ्शब्दस्य प्रयोगविषयः । सप्तद्वीपा वसुमती‚ त्रयो लोकाः‚ चत्वारो वेदाः साङ्गाः सरहस्या …” Which basically means – (Sorry for a bit of transliteration) “Exists unused.” “These words exist, but are not used …” “All (unused words that we have been talking about) in other countries. These (unused words) are used in other countries, they are not available to us, we can only make attempts at it. The field of word usage is huge, as there are seven continents on earth (vasumati), three lokas (realms), four vedas with various secrets …” Now lets see how you have downgraded भगवत पतञ्जलि on this very page. About a couple of years back I was trying to introduce some people to the works of भगवत पतञ्जलि, so I send them the link to your page on him because I found your site to be fairly reasonable in describing him. Then, your site had placed him around 300 BC although actual references to his works by other authors who can be dated to about 500 BC (based on the samvat and mimansak dates of those works) exist. Now your site places him on the crossover of BC/AD, please correct your references. Another fact worth mentioning on your page on भगवत पतञ्जलि would be the fact inferred from the above quoted piece from महाभाष्य, that existence of seven continents on this planet was a well-known fact or common knowledge for people of his time. Compare this to the western perspective of flatland and unknown Americas till Columbus discovered it (or may I say re-discovered it) in late 14th century AD. Don’t you think you are overtly trying to sell the western perspective on the matter and make everyone believe in what west thinks? I had expected a more fairer and truthful description rather than the flavored one that you have put-up, from an highly respectable knowledge portal such as yours. Something similar can also be seen in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari page. What your historians have conveniently omitted is something as trivial as, that even अष्टाध्यायी uses or describes लाकृति, which basically means ॡ समान आकृति. Now the term लाकृति was prevalent even before भगवत पाणिनी, in older works describing श्रीकृष्ण. He is called so because of his iconic pose with a flute, which make him look like the written ॡ. This kind of put your dating schemes way off than what it actually is. Another thing that hurts is the representation of my ancestors as aliens, whereas they were simply great people with excellent scientific acumen with highly advanced mathematics and astronomy, and both had helped development of the other. It is just sad that, what once was common knowledge and a scientific fact, became just a matter of religious faith with unrelenting invasions on such a peaceful and advanced civilization over thousands of years. Hope that you’ll correct the discrepancies and bring the truth out and live up to your reputation. Regards Anonymously Yours — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.12.251 (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yoga Sūtra [under Ascribed Works]

This is a minor matter - just a suggestion. The second paragraph says "In contrast to the focus on the mind in the Yoga sutras, later traditions of Yoga such as the Hatha yoga focus on more complex asanas or body postures." I think this may be a little ambiguous. If the intended meaning is that one deals primarily with the mind, the other the body, then the word "more" should be removed. If the intended meaning is that later traditions emphasize asanas that are more complex, then writing "the more complex" instead of "more complex" would make that clearer. I'm of the opinion that the former meaning is the correct statement, but would not disagree with anyone who could say with certainty that the latter is true. Also, should not the "s" in "Yoga sutras" be capitalized? It's part of the name of a book. Wcomm (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Clean-up needed

Lots of words look weird in the current state of the article. Some are Sanskrit transliterations with capital letters throw into the middle that I thought were approximations of diacritical marks, but then I saw some English words that looked like this too. Morganfitzp (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The use of double a's

I read the words Paatanjali and Mahaavira. But since Mahavira is written with a single "a" I wanted to ask if the same happened as well for the name of Patanjali written with double "a". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viperalus (talk • contribs) 15:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Legacy in modern forms of yoga as exercise

Patanjali is invoked in both Iyengar Yoga (and indeed in Light on Yoga too) and Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga, as is cited in the article and readily verified; the full invocations are on the relevant articles linked here. I've therefore restored the claim. The fact that these forms of yoga look very different does not alter the fact that these forms of yoga claim allegiance to Patanjali, rightly or wrongly. Editors' personal opinions about whether Iyengar and Jois were genuine Patanjali yogis must not intervene, that would be WP:OR. The edit comment " The term "yoga as exercise" is misleading when talking about The Yoga Sutras. When Iyengar and Jois invoke Patanjali it is not in this sense." makes no sense in this article, which is about Patanjali, not the Yoga Sutras. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

My objection isn't related to my personal opinion, so it has nothing to do with WP:OR: as it happens, I think that Iyengar was indeed a genuine 'Patanjali yogi'. Whether or not I am right about that, there is no doubt that Patanjali was an important part of his teaching, as your link to the invocation confirms. As such, if he invokes Patanjali he is not doing it as an exponent of "yoga as exercise", he is doing it as an exponent of yoga as yoga in Patanjali's sense, which had nothing to do with "yoga as exercise" (at least in so far as most readers would understand that term). To the extent that Iyengar honours, invokes, cites, discusses the Great Sage Patanjali in his teaching, "yoga as exercise" is a partial and inadequate description of what he teaches. "Exercise", in the sense that most readers will understand that term, has nothing to do with Patanjali's yoga.

The idea that The Yoga Sutras are not relevant because it is an article about Patanjali seems a bit odd, to say the least. Harold the Sheep (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I wonder. If your discomfort is the name of the linked article "yoga as exercise", then I can easily join you; all the possible titles for it are problematic (several are listed in the article, and the alternatives are all basically worse, being long, clunky, and unfamiliar, as well as academic), and the vague and incorrect implication that no school of Modern Transnational Postural Yoga (or whatever it's called) is in any way spiritual, or meditational, or involves pranayama, is plainly unhelpful; I certainly don't go along with that.

To return to the very modest and well-supported claim in this article: all that is being said is that multiple forms of MTPY-or-whatever-it's-called (most of the world calls it "Yoga") invoke Patanjali. As it happens, those forms are discussed in the linked article. If it helps you I can change the piped text in the MTPY-or-whatever-it's-called slot, as I'm in no way attached to it. I'll have a go at that now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

On this second point, there is a simple reply: the invocation in Iyengar Yoga cites Patanjali's yoga, grammar, and medicine, so it is the whole man who is invoked, not only the yoga sutras: it's not odd at all. But frankly this barely concerns the mentioned fact, that Iyengar and Jois both invoke Patanjali in their schools of yoga. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, if it is "the whole man who is invoked, not only the yoga sutras" then you are implying that the yoga sutras are a part of that. Since we are talking about Patanjali and yoga, it is obviously an important part. It seemed odd to me that you would find the yoga sutras irrelevant to Patanjali, and "yoga as exercise" relevant enough to link in the lead and in its own new section. But I see that you have piped that link now (at least in your 'Legacy' section, not the lead). My opinion is that there is no need to link to this article at all and that the previously linked Modern Yoga is a better option in the context of an article about Patanjali. Harold the Sheep (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You are the one seeking relevance or otherwise. My statement is plain and simple, that Patanjali is invoked. The reason for linking the article is also simple, which is that it's the place where the various postural yogas are discussed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The argument is that Patanjali is not, and never could be, invoked in the sense of "yoga as exercise". When Iyengar invokes Patanjali, he is venerating Patanjali as a Yogi in Patanjali's sense of the word, not because he teaches what you choose to call "yoga as exercise" in your article. Iyengar would not have regarded this as an adequate description of what he teaches, particularly to the extent that he invokes Patanjali. If your reason for linking the article is that it is the place where the various postural yogas are discussed, then we could just as well stick with the original link, which discusses the various postural and other forms of yoga that are influenced by Patanjali. It has the advantage of simply pointing to Patanjali's enduring connection to yoga in the modern world, without bringing in the dubious concept—so out of place in the context of an article about Patanjali—of "yoga as exercise". Harold the Sheep (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, you are speculating here; and you are expressing your personal feelings, indeed apparently distaste, when talking about "the dubious concept—so out of place...", as if there were some kind of purity to be maintained in the Patanjali article. It should be sufficient to observe that a "Legacy" section is by definition meant to describe what followed a subject's life, and over that they had of course no control: influence and admiration can be shown in diverse ways, many of which would undoubtedly have been viewed with mixed feelings by the subject, had he lived to observe them.

To return to the statement, it reads "Patanjali is honoured with invocations and shrines in some schools of modern international yoga, including Iyengar Yoga[20] and Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga.[21]" This is supported by the cited sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The link is still to "yoga as exercise", and the lead still reads "honoured with invocations and shrines in yoga as exercise, such as Iyengar yoga". The assertion that Patanjali is invoked in "yoga as exercise" is not supported by the cited sources. It is not speculation to say that Iyengar does not invoke him in this sense. How could Iyengar, of all people, not know that Patanjali never spoke of yoga in this sense? It's about respect for the subject and accuracy for the reader, not the "purity" of the article. There was already a sensible link indicating Patanjali's connection to the variations of yoga in the modern world, including postural yoga. That link was adequate to what you say above about 'legacy'. Harold the Sheep (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You are continuing to argue about what Iyengar "of all people" must have known about, and the "sense" in which he invoked Patanjali. Both of these are your own opinion. It would really be appreciated if you stopped this strand of original research. Another claim that I wholly reject is that this is "about respect": it is nothing of the kind, and no inaccuracy is being introduced. All that is being said is that both Iyengar Yoga and Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga, which are in fact the archetypal forms of "Modern Postural Yoga" as defined by De Michelis, yoga consisting mainly of postures called asanas, yoga as exercise, have invocations to Patanjali. They do. No "sense of" is being asserted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Since however this is only going to be resolved by sources, I've removed the first wikilink in the paragraph, and used White 2014, already cited in the article, with quotations that show that this scholar of yoga is fully aware that Patanjali has a "curious" legacy in "yoga as it is taught and practiced today", a yoga of "postures, stretching, and breathing". Those are his words, not mine, and they are cited and attributed in the article. I would like to think this would be an end of the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Patanjali article

The only biography of Patanjali entitled "Patanjali Charitram" was written in Indian by Ramabhadra Dikshita in the 17th century. It is available as "The Patanjali-charitra (English)".pdf on yousigma.com as well as a printed book. Why do you not include this important source text containing all available information about the sage in your article?

Yoga instructor Milosz Wozniak from Poland Sahajyogachary (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Time period of Patanjali

There is a fatal flaw in assuming that he was from second century BC. This is so because original Sutra in with Patanjali‘s yoga sutra was written earlier than Vyas. this is so because Vyas has written commentaries on every sutra of Patanjali’s yoga Sutra. so if we consider that Vyas was 5000 BC or more, then, Patanjali should be earlier than that.

Subsequent commentaries made by Raja Bhoj / Bhojdev, and Mandan Mishra and others are commentaries on the original commentary by Vyasa. Amalanshu (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:RNPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)