Talk:Dhyana in Hinduism

spelling

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Dhyana in Hinduism → Dhyāna in Hinduism – see Dhyāna in Buddhism as example. Gryffindor (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Why does this article spell dhyāna the way it does, when Dhyāna in buddhism spells it differently? They should be standardized. I propose that this article be moved to Dhyāna in Hinduism and that the spelling "dhyāna" be used throughout the article Mualphachi (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Untitled

I respectfully challenge the statement: "he/she is then able to maintain this oneness for 144 inhalations and expirations." It seems to me that the temporal length of maintenance (of Dhyana) is variable. However, perhaps one should attempt to maintain 'oneness' for 144 in/exhalations, since setting a specific length as a goal might provide performance-enhancing motivation. Consequently, 144 wouldn't be arbitrary. -Daniel Lewis

Four branches of Yoga

" ... The Bhagavad Gītā, thought to have been written some time between 400 and 100 BC, talks of four branches of yoga ...."

I respectfully disagree with this. The Vedas and other Hindu epics and religious works are part of an Oral tradition, and were put to paper/a written medium only in more recent times, and The Bhagavad Gītā is no exception. The appropriate lines in the article need to be changed to reflect the same. To attribute a date/timeline when it was 'written' would be most incorrect and inappropriate.

Citations :
1. http://www.sanatansociety.org/yoga_and_meditation/hinduism_philosophy.htm
2. http://www.religion-spirituality.org/hinduism/brief-history.php
3. http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Hindu%20Primer/vedas.html
4. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/
5. http://www.mamandram.org/hinduism-scriptures/hindu-scriptures.html

Guha S Kashyap 07:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getkashyap (talk • contribs) 07:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Buddha

Might be worthwhile to check the history of this page; the follwong is not stated by Bronkhorst:

"Bronkhorst believes dhyana was a Buddhist invention, although Buddha was born a Hindu, and familiar with the Hindu meditative traditions like dhyana;"

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit added "born a Hindu"; and this one removed the sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"Concept" versus "term"

Using the term "concept" for the term "dhyana" in the vedas suggests an elaborate system of meaning, akin to its present usage, whereas it seems to be more apt to note that the term dhyana is being used, which may have other meanings in those texts than it has today. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed. That section with "requires expansion" needs sources and some work. I had to rush away, midway, for some RL new year eve event. Will add to it shortly. The later sections need to focus on Dhyana in Hinduism from scholarly RS too. Would welcome your edits. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Contemplation versus concentration

@Ms Sarah Welch: are you sure about the etymology section? Dhyana as contemplation, reflection? The common understanding, as far as I know, is that dhyana is concentration, focussing, shutting out (is that a correct term?) (of thought); and not contemplation, which involves thought, reflection. It seems to me that dhyana is translated here with the western term meditation, which primarily means contemplation, as in the contemplation of Biblical texts. Also, a 1907 source seems rather old. @Iṣṭa Devatā: any thoughts here? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think according to the classical yoga concentration/focusing is more of dharana; shutting out is more pratyahara which precedes dharana; and dhyana is essentially a mastery of concentration or 'fluid' dharana. As far as contemplation, it is a limb in the earlier upanishadic shadanga yoga and other systems as tarka/vitarka or vicara. But meditation in terms of contemplating texts is included in yoga as svadhyaya. I will say that I am not a fan of Monier Williams for nuanced religious information (wasn't it made by the east india company and much older than our understanding of most things Hindu?). I will look for another solid etymology. But in the mean time, look to some translators of the Yoga Sutras:

•Starting with Edwin Bryant's translation of the Yoga Sutras in the glossary he goes with "Meditation; the continuous flow of the mind on the object of meditation without being distracted by any other thought." (p.566)

•Swami Vivekananda: "Pratyahara, or restraint of the senses from their objects; Dharana, or fixing the mind on a spot; Dhyana, or meditation; and Samadhi, or superconsciousness." Raja-Yoga & Patanjali Yoga-Sutra by Swami Vivekananda (Kindle Locations 303-304) and :"When the mind has been trained to remain fixed on a certain internal or external location, there comes to it the power of flowing in an unbroken current, as it were, towards that point. This state is called Dhyana." (Kindle Locations 988-990)

•And Satchidananda: "Tatra pratyayaikatānatā dhyānam. Tatra = therein; pratyaya = cognition; eka = one, single; tānatā = continued flow; dhyānam = meditation. Dhyāna is the continuous flow of cognition toward that object. The Hindu scriptures give a beautiful example of this “continuous flow.” They say it is like pouring oil from one pot into another. It is a continuous string; it doesn’t break. The mind is fixed. Communication between meditator and object of meditation is steady. That’s what is called dhyāna. Normally, what we are doing when we say we are meditating is dhāraṇā. After long practice of dhāraṇā, gradually the “flow of cognition” gets a little longer and it becomes dhyāna." The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: Commentary on the Raja Yoga Sutras by Sri Swami Satchidananda (Kindle Locations 2910-2916). Integral Yoga Publications.

•And by tantric yoga's heyday: "In Hatha-Yoga and Tantrism in general, dhyâna is characteristically understood as visualization. The Gheranda-Samhitâ (6.1) speaks of three types of dhyâna: (1) visualization having a “coarse” (sthula) object, such as a carefully visualized deity; (2) visualization having a “subtle” (sûkshma) object, namely the Absolute in the form of the transcendental point-origin (bindu) of the universe, as explained in connection with Tantrism; and (3) contemplation of the Absolute as light (jyotis)." Feuerstein, Georg (2013-09-11). The Yoga Tradition: It's History, Literature, Philosophy and Practice (Kindle Locations 13182-13186). Hohm Press. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! 'Fixating,' "continuous flow": there is also cognitive activity in it; "contemplation" is not totally disregarded here. NB: "concentration" sounds too limited, too simplistic to me, as if one's shutting out everything. But I'm influenced by Krishnamurti here, and by the Buddhist tradition(s). "Continuous attention" may also be a nice synonym. And compare the Buddhist jhanas: in the third and fourth jhana, there is awareness/consciousness; a heightened, alert awareness, so to speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs)

@JJ: There are different forms of Dhyana. Shutting down completely towards null is one, but Hindu traditions have discussed it a bit different. Indeed, all this needs discussion in this article, and I plan to add a summary soon. Colloquially the best description and translation, in Hindu texts, is 'focused meditation, contemplation'. See Lochtefeld's page 196, Bronkhorst's pages 71-72, Mahony's pages 170-172, etc. (all these sources are now in the article). Give me a few days to add all this in, with sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Dhi-root: good addition! I learned something new; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The language is so technical I feel even practitioners will have to reread that intro. Especially that last crazy run-on sentence with all the citations. Does someone want to alter this to be more approachable for laymen? If not, I may take a crack at it. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: There are several ways to simplify and clarify that lead sentence. I am curious how you would. Give it a try. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately, I found the sentence in question too troubling. The idea that dhyana leads to experiencing the 'disjointed' world as self is too sweeping a statement for the intro with the diversity of opinions. Any ontological conclusions don't really belong here. In Samkhya, the foundation of yoga, the world is seen as not the self (ie: prakriti and not purusha). In many advaitic schools, all is self, but others interpret that our experience of the world is only maya (which may originate in the self/mind). Ultimately, that description would be better suited for a section on dhyana in vedanta. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ista Devata: This is an article on Dhyana in Hinduism, not on Samkhya. You make good points, and the lead wording should broadly and comprehensively state the view of various schools, which may also address your concern. I have reworded it. Meditate on it a bit, and please suggest ways to improve it further? The lead will be better if we summarize it, per WP:LEAD. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

My initial problem with the sentence is that it has about five clauses and reads poorly. I initially started cleaning up the language before realizing how stilted the view it expresses is. I would at the very least change "In Hinduism" to "in Advaita" or "in nondualist schools". Adding Brahman into the equation just makes it more advaitic. Granted, the article is not on samkhya, but the Yoga Sutras are a samkhya based yoga. Multiple darshanas and even multiple schools of vedanta would definitively disagree with the description there. This statement makes it appear that the universal goal of yoga is a state of absolute union with a non-different world. The sutras, and many schools define the goal as 'kaivalya' or aloneness. One seperates from the universe to overcome it (a universe that is not disjointed in samkhya or classical yoga, but naturally leads to liberation through the tattvas). The metaphysical conclusions of classical yoga are not realizing the world is really the self, but instead overcoming the world to realize the self. This is why some pandits argue whether yoga means union or not. Some devotional dualist vedantic schools (dvaita, vishishtadvaita, acintya bheda abheda) define it as union with godhead (and hence dhyana as unbroken deity visualization) who is typically not the same as the self. In conclusion, it is poor placement for this statement and poor readability. But if presented as a view within hinduism instead of the view of hinduism, I would have no problem with it. I will see if I can find an Eliade quote on kaivalya as the goal of yoga to present the dualist argument. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

"It is in the enstasis of total emptiness, without sensory content or intellectual structure, an unconditioned state that is no longer 'experience' (for there is no further relation between consciousness and the world) but 'revelation'." (Eliade, Mircea. Yoga and Immortality, p.93) I would say no relation between consciousness and the world conflicts with realizing the world as the self. He also says the yogis goal is to return the universe (prakriti) into a state of repose, essentially destroying and dissolving the world and realizing it as not the self. Especially those parts of the world we mistake for the self out of avidya (ahamkara, buddhi, etc). Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: Yes, we need to add enstatic and ecstatic dhyana discussion, but first into main, then perhaps a terse summary in lead (and you are welcome to take the plunge into doing both). On rest, Brahman is a concept in every school, and it is in the manuscripts of Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita, etc texts. Note Brahman defined as Bhagavan, theistic, non-theistic, etc is already in the article. Let us avoid WP:FORUM. Once you find an RS, which states something different, please add it to the main and lead. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: Keep reading past page 93, through 100, and you will see Eliade is stating the same while discussing Samkhya and other schools. On page 95, for example, "The self-revelation of the Purusha is equivalent to a taking possession of being in all its completeness. In asamprajnata samadhi, the yogin is actually all Being". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll go source hunting, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a description of samkhya or classical yoga that says the world (prakriti) is realized at any point to be the self (purusha). Eliade talks about reabsorbing the universe, but that is not to say that one realizes the universe to be the self. If they are the same, one cannot overcome the other and it becomes mayavada philosophy where you need to realize you're already free. The very common definition of these dualist systems is building discernment (viveka) enough to tell the self apart from the material world. Granted, it gets confusing when prakriti is considered the first evolute of purusha in the Samkhya Karika (forming buddhi to attempt to understand itself), but Eliade describes a final stage of yoga as disconnecting the self from the first tattva of prakriti (buddhi/mahat). Or as Bryant writes: "the conjuntion, saṁyoga, between puruṣa and buddhi, the cause of suffering, is removed..." (p.234) he goes on to say that kaivalya usually is translated as aloneness but can also be understood as wholeness. This wholeness is after prakriti collapses on itself without the support of purusha. No source I know of claims that they are realized to be the same, because instead, material reality is destroyed, not revealed. The material universe being distinct from the self is the defining feature of the yoga and samkhya darshanas, hence them being called dualist. "The essential point for understanding yoga is that all forms or activities of the mind are products of prakriti, matter, and completely distinct from the soul or true self, puruṣa, pure awareness or consciousness." (Bryant, p.liii) Giving Bryant a quick look for another good quote here... Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

And Brahman is only used in Yoga and Samkhya Darshana commentaries, not original writings. When commentators use the terminology of Brahman over Iśvara, their superimposing vedantic influences in their analysis. The term is not used by Kapila, Isvara Krsna or Patanjali. And Iśvara is a distinct purusha, separate from one's own duality of matter and consciousness, and in no way understood to be the same as nature or the world. Samkhya posits infinite purushas (which cannot interact), one Iśvara and no Brahman, except as a stand in term for Iśvara. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: Kapila uses the term Brahman in several places, such as Book 3 sutra 47, Book 5 sutra 16 etc; he uses the term, state Ballantyne and others, in the same context that Vedantin discuss it (Atman, soul). Let us avoid WP:FORUM. I will read Bryant and see if we can add something on the goal of Dhyana from Samyoga perspective. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

(ps): "...comes to be experienced as Self, and its relationship with Brahman realized" does not mean "Prakriti = Purusha", and just means "one experiences Self, and whatever the relationship be between Self and Brahman, dualistic or non-dualistic or naturalistic or neither, is realized. The next sentence clarifies this further with, "...conceptualize the relationship between Self (Atman) and Brahman differently". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"process by which a world that by default is experienced as disjointed, comes to be experienced as Self." Do we really feel that all schools experience the world as self? In Samkhya the world is prakriti and the self is purusha. This sentence, would be read as prakriti is experienced as the self. So to a samkhyan, this is the opposite of liberation. All the statements in this sentence are sect specific and not pan-hindu. Adding vedantic terminology doesn't address the underlying issue.

To traditional yoga, dhyana is a process by which the (intricately ordered, not disjointed) world is experienced as not the self. Essentially the exact opposite of the sentence in question. So much so that this whole sentence becomes untenable without being presented as dhyana in advaita vedanta, not all of Hinduism. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: Our challenge is to avoid OR, and faithfully summarize what the various sources are stating. The sources include "nature, self and brahman" as part of the "world". Samkhya too. Bryant acknowledges that Yogasutras mention pranava (= Om = Brahman) and the Samkhya-Karikas do so too. I have never seen anyone claiming that Samkhya-Yoga schools of Hinduism rejected the Vedas. But, I do see your point, and appreciate that you pointed out the Bryant's quote. I have reworded those two sentences a bit. I will meditate on this some more, how to improve it further, without worsening it from Nyaya/Vedanta/etc perspectives and without introducing OR. If you have specific suggestion that is adequately supported by the sources, please share. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm 'foruming'. I'm ready to rewrite, just hoping to strike a consensus here first. But I can't say that I don't enjoy and learn from a little good spirited debate. I'm not really sure I understand what you find so important about the sentence in question that couldn't find expression in just completely rewriting that part of the lead.

I guess Kapila Sutras do mention Brahman (though I don't have a good copy of the Kapila Sutras, so I'm going by your word), but not as a distinct principle of the samkhya ontology. The upanishads use brahman but by the time classical samkhya was established, samkhya was atheistic (or agnostic) and atma-brahman became subsumed into purusha as evidenced in Larson who I'll quote in a moment. To consider Brahman and atma(n) as two principles capable of interaction is not a part of either classical samkhya or yoga. This is not Samkhya rejecting the vedas, but rather disagreeing with specific upanishads and using different terminology that is not readily interchangeable with vedantic terminology. Brahman is not a universal hindu concept nor significant in samkhya. Bryant saying om is equivalent to Brahman seems like your OR. His interpretation is that Patanjali does not ever refer to brahman (bryant doesn't even bother to put brahman in the index). Bryant says patanjali's association is om with Iśvara and adds "Om has been understood as a sonal incarnation of Brahman." (p.105) and quotes the Upanishads. Bryant does not attribute that understanding to any samkhyan. No one claims patanjali wrote about Brahman because Brahman is not an aspect of samkhya. Iśvara is not associated with Brahman (and hence the goal of yoga/samkhya is not union with Iśvara). Instead Brahman is associated with Purusha (citations abound for this) and absorbed into a singular principle.

"In time, however, the ancient thinkers grew concerned about what was not the self- i.e., the world or nature...The results of these speculations begin to appear in the Katka Upaniṣad, and one finds there some of the first technical terms of the Saṃkhya. One finds the avyakta (the unmanifest), the Puruṣa (or self). and many of the principles of the Saṃkhya- e.g., in III. 9-11, indriya, manas, buddhi, etc. One also finds in the Katha some striking differences from the later classical Saṃkhya. For example, ahamkara is missing; buddhi and mahan atma are distinguished; and, most of all, Puruṣa is understood in terms of Brahman." (Larson, Classical Samkhya p.27)

In other words: what the upanishads called Brahman, samkhya calls purusha (self) and not nature/the world (prakriti). Prakriti is insentient after all and Brahman is pure consciousness. We get into trouble when we start using the term Brahman to talk about schools that don't use the term. Oldenberg is quoted by Larson as saying classical samkhya evolved out of inquiry about the upanishadic atma-brahman relationship. Atma and Brahman are both included in Samkhya as the singular entity (tattva) of purusha. No unification or realization of sameness occurs. Instead the self (purusha, atma, brahman, jiva) is realized by identifying and separating from nature (including ego, senses, manas, etc), a kind of neti neti.

If you feel like converting the sentence into a summary specifically of vedanta then I am happy to add a summary of classical samkhya and yoga and we can see if we and we can flesh out the content to make sure it's all in the article. Thoughts? Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, your last rewrite looks pretty good. Launched it right into the middle of neutralityville and made it readable. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Buddhist dhyana

Okay, Buddhism did not introduce dhyana in general; their "unique" contribution were the four dhyanas. Sorry, my partial misunderstanding. Bronkhorst has interesting things to say on the Buddhist influence on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras; see paragraph 6.3 (p.71-75 1993; 67-70 first edition). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

p.122-123 (1993): "There seems to be little reason to doubt that Buddhist meditation was introduced by the founder of of Buddhism, i.e., the historical Buddha." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: I am now looking at the second edition of Bronkhorst, but don't see support for the claimed pre-Buddhist "suppression of all mental activities" in Origins section. Do you have a specific page number or quote? I do see suppression discussion in Yogasutras section, on pages 71-73, but that is for Yogasutras, which is not pre-Buddhist. I also see it on page x, but that is only a passing conflicting remark attributed to Buddha on "supression of all sense activities", which can't be transmuted to "suppression of all mental activities" nor a generic conclusion about what Jaina/Hindu dhyana was in the Vedic era. The suppression discussion after page 75, is not about Vedic era, but texts such as Mukti Upanishad written in the 2nd millennium of the common era. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: I see the discussion on asceticism practices in the Jaina tradition, but not in generic universalizing pre-Buddha Jainism/Hinduism sense. I will wordsmith and re-arrange text in the Origins section. Please check and revise if and with any specific page numbers where you see stronger support. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"Suppression of all mental activities" is my phrasing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Curious if we could clarify a little here: "Bronkhorst states that Buddhist influences are noticeable in the first chapter of the Yogasutras, and confirmed by sutra 1.20 because it mentions asamprajnata samadhi is preceded by "trust (sraddha), energy (virya), mindfulness (smriti), concentration (samadhi), and insight (prajna)". How do sraddha, virya, smriti, samadhi and prajna suggest buddhist influences? All of these concepts seem to be part of the prebuddhist ascetic milieu. Does Bronkhorst spell out the connection between that observation and the conclusion of buddhist influence? Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ista Devata: Indeed. Yet that is what Bronkhorst states. His translation of "Smriti (Hinduism) = Mindfulness (Buddhism)", "concentration = samadhi", etc is odd but creative and interesting? We need to avoid OR, nor cherrypick Bronkhorst arguments, and just summarize Bronkhorst for this article. You may want to read Wynne. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course. I definitely appreciate including Bronkhorst's opinions and don't intend to synthesize or OR around his conclusions. I just feel like the conclusion is hard to follow without more context here. Bronkhorst says this is evidence of Buddhist influence, but how or why does A (ys 1.20) suggest B (buddhist influence)? Could you maybe add more explanation since you've looked at the source?

As an aside, there are definitely other sources that theorize about the buddhist influence on the sutras, specifically I know I've heard the argument that the sutras are a response to (or rejection of) buddhist schools (specifically madhyamaka school I think). More a rejection than a retooling. As the advaita-buddhism debate on the Shankara page suggests, telling who introduced which concept is pretty hard. I'm going to see if there is something about the Madhyamaka school in Philip Maas. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: I didn't see the how and why answered, but I will take another look since I have the book on my desk. I looked at Maas' Das erste Kapitel des Pātañjalayogaśāstra too, but nothing additional there. If you see something, please add. I am still meditating on how best to summarize the "enstatic and ecstatic dhyana theories in Hinduism"; there is a lot there, and I want to distill it down to a few sentences for this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I guess it was the Vijñānavāda school: "Moreover, the author of the grammatical Mahābhāṣya, who lived ca. 150 BCE, cannot be identical with the author of the PYŚ, since the latter Patañjali argues against the Buddhist Vijñānavāda theory that simply did not yet exist at that time." (A CONCISE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF CLASSICAL YOGA by Philip Maas. p.67)

And others "The work reflects debates between the proponents of Sāṅkhya-Yoga on the one hand and the Sautrāntika and Sarvāstivāda schools of Śrāvakayāna Buddhism on the other. Moreover, the work contains polemics against the early Yogācāra school of Mahāyāna Buddhism, which are elaborated in the Vivaraṇa. Moreover, since the PYŚ was influenced in its own philosophical positions by Buddhist philosophies, a systematic evaluation of these influences would “finally contribute, of course, to a better understanding of the complex interrelation between Hinduism and Buddhism in India.”" (p.80)

Some interesting leads he mentions about the difference between buddhist and hindu yoga: "A remarkable exception from the doxographical approach to Yoga philosophy appears in the two works of Émil Senart (1900) and Louis de la Vallée Poussin (1937), who instigated an ongoing discussion about the historical relationship of Yoga and Buddhism in general and on the structure of their respective meditations.

In this connection also the work of Lindquist on the miraculous powers of yoga (Lindquist 1935), which also compares the PYŚ with Pāli Buddhist sources, deserves to be mentioned.31 The topic of Yoga powers received just recently fresh attention in a volume of collected papers edited by Jacobsen (2012).

Systematic in-depth studies of the relationship between classical Yoga and Buddhism on the one hand, as well as on the relationship between Yoga and Jainism on the other, remain, however, desiderata." (p.71) I hope that isn't too much quotation to add to a talk page. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your quotes seem within fair use principle. Thanks, I will review the sources you mention. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The talkpage is even more interesting than the article itself, with all the details the two of you are providing. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I always tell people: the best part of wikipedia is on the talk pages! Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The state of dhyana predates any tradition or religious system. What's with these over complicated attempts at academia about a state that comes about by stopping thought? Aghoradas (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Athmopadesha shathakamwork by Narayana Guru, Verse 10.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Dhyāna which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

source for "Dhyana in Hinduism developed along with these pre-Hinduistic religions"

Hi @Joshua Jonathan - sorry, I noticed you made a change from "These developed along with dhyana in Hinduism, partly independently, partly influencing each other" to "Dhyana in Hinduism developed along with these pre-Hinduistic religions". And cited source is Jones & Ryan 2006, pp. 283-284. But, I am having hard time finding either in the cited source. Do we need another source? Asteramellus (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Good point. I can't access p.284 on my phone, but p.283 doesn't mention Buddhism in that way. The original sentence was partisan, though, suggesting the existence of a full-blown Hinduism in the 5th century BCE, when the Hindu-synthesis just started to develop. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Archive.org, though, has it. I've copied and edited a line from the body of the article diff; I hope this works better. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)