Talk:Jnana yoga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Hinduism / Philosophy (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Hindu philosophy (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Yoga (Rated Stub-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

Is knowledge of science in any way related to jnana yoga as well?Zachorious 09:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really, Jnana yoga considers knowledge of the world frivilous, while science seeks out an understanding of how the world works. Sethie 17:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Scriptural sources as references[edit]

I am moving the following material to the talk page because it is an interpretation of a scriptural passage that is not in fact sourced by s WP:RS other than a scriptural passage.

Another philosophical view, subscribed to by the bhakti school, holds that the atman, the individual soul, although one in quality with the Supreme (brahman), is but a spark of the Supreme. They are identical in quality, as both the ocean and a drop are wet and salty, but different in quantity, as the ocean is vast, the drop tiny: the Supreme is infinite, the individual atman eternally infinitesimal. According to this point of view, liberation consists of becoming free from false identification with the material body and realizing one's eternal relationship with the Supreme.[1]

The statement may or may not be true, but it is effectively unsourced, and scriptural passages are often subject to varying interpretation. Quotation of the exact passage might be helpful. Buddhipriya 04:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I intend to move the statement back, for the following reasons:
You are right, Buddhipriya, that scriptural passages are often subject to varying interpretations. The point here is that one major Hindu philosophical school, that of bhakti, interprets jnana in the manner described in the deleted paragraph--a personalistic fashion. I assume you know this to be true.
As I also assume you know, the assertion that the bhakti school adheres to a personalistic view of what constitutes "jnana" can be documented profusely.
Next reason: I believe that the "principle of similar cases" should apply. That principle says, in essence, "Similar cases should receive similar treatment." Or, in barnyard terms, "What's good for the goose. . ."
As applied, that principle would dictate that if we're going to delete the bhakti paragraph for being "an interpretation of a scriptural passage" and being unsourced (even though a textual source is cited), we should still more quickly delete the two paragraphs above it for being some unknown person's idea of what's what in jnana and citing no source whatsoever.
"One philosophical view of jnana yoga emphasizes. . . " X, and "Another philosophical view. . . holds" Y. And it's fine to delete view Y but keep view X? No.
Delete both or keep both.
Best wishes.
Cordially,
O Govinda 04:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
PS: If you think that quotation of the exact passage might be helpful, of course I can add it.
There is still a serious problem with the addition. It does not indicate any relation whatsoever to the subject of the article. So why is it needed? Shouldn't it instead be added to some other article, like Atman maybe? or bhakti. What makes it significant to Jnana yoga? The article is, after all, about jnana yoga, a process, and not about liberation or atman or bhakti. IPSOS (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend deleting any of the interpretive essay statements that that are not well-sourced, and that would include many of the statements that are in the article now. I think that most of what is in the article now would not survive strong sourcing. Buddhipriya 06:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Another editor tagged the following material with a fact tag, and it is a good example of the sort of material that is debatable. If it cannot be strongly sourced, I support cutting any such material. Here is the item in case anyone wants to work on this issue:

One philosophical view of jnana yoga emphasizes nondualism, in which the individual soul atman is taken to be entirely identical with brahman, or the transcendent, all-pervasive ultimate reality. This view is expressed in the Hindu philosophical school of Advaita Vedanta. According to this point of view, the desire for liberation mentioned above might be described as "wanting to be one with the universe."[citation needed]

Buddhipriya 06:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You've chosen the "delete both" option. I think that's reasonable. I agree with you that most of the article would not survive strong sourcing.
Best wishes.
Cordially, O Govinda 14:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

name should be changed[edit]

It is wrong name it is ज्ञान योग therefore it must be tileled as gyaan yoga see hi:ज्ञान योग

No, it shouldn't. The title used should be the most common representation in English, which is jnana yoga. The article is titled correctly for the English Wikipedia. IPSOS (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Updating the Jnana yoga page[edit]

A small group, including myself, have picked this Jnana yoga stub to expand for our Composition class project. None of us have ever edited on Wikipedia before and it may take us a couple of tries to get it right. Also, as we are a group, we may be adding incomplete information in hopes that another group member will add to it later that day, or will be adding it ourselves at a slightly later time. Our project will be due Oct. 30, so if until that time you can note that the page is in use. We would appreciate comments on how to make it better, or any other help you could give us, we just ask that you only make minor changes until after Oct. 30, 2007. Thank you.


If you wish to experiment in Wikipedia it might be an idea to log-in and create a WP:Sandbox. The information in it's current state will have to be removed because it reads too much like a personal essay. The article is live, so it's not good practice to experiment on the main page. Please feel free to ask myself or any of the other editors here should you want any help. Best regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know more about its PRACTICE[edit]

Hello - could someone who is knowledgeable about these four types of classic yoga write on these articles about how each is PRACTICED? I think that the practice of a philosophy is at least as important as the ideas behind it! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellajiya (talkcontribs) 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


The Holy Science[edit]

I would like to suggest that the name and work of Swami Sri Yukteswar be included in the main page, since he is known by many in India as a Jnanavatar, or incarnation of wisdom, and he's considered, along with Ramana Marahrshi, one of the greatest masters of Jnana Yoga. Also, reference to his book entitled Kaivalia Darsanam, or the Holy Science would be of great interest for those reading the main article, since it is one of the finest works on the subject, and it can answer the question of the statment above, concerning the practice of it.

"Vaishnavism"[edit]

Minor edit to the top - both Ramanuja and Shankara were Vaishnavists (i.e. believed in Vishnu as the supreme god). Their difference was in the non-dualism vs. non-dualism with attributes (Advaita and Vishishtadvaita).

The original article said "the Vaishnavist Ramanuja," which makes an erroneous differentiation.

71.141.234.34 (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Examples should be in own section[edit]

The lead should not serve to post examples of individual teachers, beyond Shankara or few other classical figures. Please move mention Sri Ganapatrao Maharaj Kannur to an appropriate section and keep this mention in balance with other notable proponents of this yoga. Hoverfish Talk 15:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).