Talk:Malasana

Sanskrit isn't malasana

I'll have to check what बद्धकोणसन means but it doesn't match the transliteration of मालासन. Dean Turbo (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact, it is a copy-and-paste error from Baddha Konasana. Dean Turbo (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Excrement

The insistence on mala referring to excrement needs at least a citation and heavy clean up. There is no reason to have a whole paragraph copied and pasted out of an online sanskrit dictionary; most of the homonyms listed don't relate to the article at all. I am inclined to believe that this pose originally meant garland. A) the translation as such isn't through western mistransliteration: that is the translation provided by Krishnamacharya, Iyengar, and Jois. B) the pose names taught in the Krishnamacharya tradition were largely adapted to be teachable to young vaishnavs in the Mysore palace, why would he teach a pose called poop pose to his students. C)there are pictures of yogis squatting in malasana with their legs bound by a circle of cloth and others squatting with a prayer garland in their hand. Unless you can give some credible evidence and citation for why you think this should be translated in opposition to the prevailing consenus, I will change the entry for the sake of comprehensiveness. As it is this is just confusing and distracting from the encyclopedic details of this pose.

Further noteable is the confusion between malasana and upavesasana. Where as Asthanga and Iyengar yoga teach a malasana with the feet together and a variation where the arms bind around the back (like a garland), modern western teachers seem to use the name malasana to describe what has often been known as upavesasana. This seems to be where the idea came from that it couldn't be garland because it doesn't look like one, but does look like a traditional method of relieving oneself.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The original sanskrit name for the pose was malaasana (excretion pose), not maalaasana (garland pose). Krishnamacharya and his disciples knew that the western world would be creeped out by this image, so they deliberately changed the translation. You listed Krishnamacharya, Iyengar and Jois as if they are three separate sources. But the latter two were disciples of the first, so they simply followed the master's lead. As to your question, "why would he teach a pose called 'poop pose'? The answer is "Because that's what it is." My source for this claim is http://www.jaisiyaram.com/yoga-poses/malasana.html . --Jonathan108 (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you're missing the fact that the pose Krishnamacharya et al taught as mālāsana has the feet together and actually does not look like the position from which people defecate (unless pooping on their feet. Also a modern uncited explanation on a yoga school's website does not constitute a reliable source. As for the Iyengar, Jois, and Krishnamacharya (and Desikachar) all calling the feet together version mālāsana, the point is that these lineages split and don't always agree on names, but all call this pose by the same name with the same spelling. Not to mention the name garland pose appears in many texts that predate Krishnamacharya like the Sritattvanidhi. And none of the names Krishnamacharya taught the children involved bodily functions, they all either described the movement, alluded to mythology, or were named after saints. The idea that he would teach the children 'poop on your feet pose' and then his three main disciples all changed the name to garland pose to respect foreign sensibilities seems a little far fetched, especially without an explicit textual reference.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Google "malasana" and then click on "images". 99% of them have the feet apart, so the feet stay clean. Secondly, if you claim that malasana was called "garland pose" long before Krishnamacharya, please cite some references (with pictures). Jonathan108 (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what comes up most on google, that is not an effective research tool for this purpose. I give references and examples in the article. The burden of proof falls on you to show us one original textual source to back up the poop pose theory. It is a very popular explanation people come up with when they study ayurveda and learn what mala means, but the fact is that the pose mālāsana as taught by every classical asana teacher is spelled with the long ā and taught with the feet together (hence the list in the references of BKS Iyengar, Ramaswami and Sjoman (the person who uncovered the sritattvanidhi in Mysore) and we could add R Iyengar, and Jois, but I don't have their books. If you want pictures, you're going to have to download Sjoman's work, buy Iyengar's book, or go to Oxford or Mysore and ask very nicely. In addition, the arms bound around the legs look like a big necklace. The version in the sritattvanidhi has the legs over the arms instead with the feet together...like a big necklace. That does not mean that the other form with the feet apart can't be considered a popular variation or modified version of mālāsana but I think upavesāsana is a handy name for it which can be found in modern Kaminoff et al. The feet apart version likely didn't need to be taught to Indians who traditionally do it all the time, certainly in Krishnamacharya's time. And especially since most westerners have difficulty performing the classical version (as with utkatasana) there really is nothing wrong with calling the feet apart version mālāsana, or teaching that it helps with defecation, but that benefit is primarily noteworthy to a western practitioner. And, as I said, the name mālāsana appears in several premodern texts on yoga and is to my knowledge never spelled with the short ā. When I mentioned the mala theory to Dr. Chris Chapple he laughed. Same with Dr. Jason Birch when I saw him at loyola. I e-mailed Dr. James Mallinson about this too, he's the one who pointed me to the sritattvanidhi and Haṭhābhyāsapaddhati. I'm willing to be swayed, but only by a real scholarly textual reference, not just a website or google image search. It's even possible the mistranslation happened from Sanskrit to a vernacular language instead, but I think it happened innocently and understandably among westerners, unfamiliar with or unable to type macrons (ā), using their still blossoming Sanskrit knowledge to link clues together.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom it seems like whole James Mallinson thing is a hoax, as per the above confirmation by Ista Devata that he got his information through personal communication, the provided citation[1] has zero mention of James Mallinson it seems like there is no such person. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti is correct, personal correspondence is not a reliably published source and cannot be used in Wikipedia for anything other than your personal beliefs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"Hoax" sounds like a misplaced term here; i've got the feeling that Ista Devata is not just talking nonsense here. I'm trying to understand the discussion; I'm going to read it again.

I think it is pretty clear that the James Mallinson correspondence is a reference only for the sritattvanidhi since it is not published in it's entirety. I was hesitant to use it at all, but there really is no academic conversation about the fringe theory of poop pose and so I reached out to those yogic scholars at my disposal. James had no references so his email was all I had. Remove the reference by all means, but the information about the sritattvanidhi is still correct. The argument proposed on my earlier edits of this page is based on the multitude of other references cited, as well as the ones I don't have hard copies of such as Yoga Mala by Jois, 608 Asanas by Dharma Mittra, etc... I am only trying to keep argument balanced to represent both sides since this popular "poop pose" theory has NO TEXTUAL SOURCES but is still interesting. That is why the main explanation should still be garland pose while there is nothing wrong with making reference to the less accepted explanation of "poop pose". I worked very hard to rewrite a balanced article that first and foremost shows the consensus information while still discouraging "poop pose" advocates from coming in and rewriting the article based on POV or flimsy internet sources. Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the two terms into a separate section on etymology; I thrust this section can be used for more details, with references, for both sides of the argument. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

According to Shree Bindu Sewa Sansthan Ashram, the shit-interpretation arose because the English language does not have a different sign for the long "aa". But that's a strange explanation; in that case, "shit" is the logical translation. Who provides more sources? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

What's more, they write "मल mala", while "मालासन, mālāsana" is with two long "a"'s. And they write that "माला mālā" means "garland, necklace, rosary", while our article now states that "मालासन mālāsana" means "Excretion Pose", "Relieving Pose", "Yoga Squat". We need the dictionary! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

And here's the dictionary:

• मल mala, pronounce "ma-la" - "dirt, dust, impurity, secretion"
• मला malā, pronounce "ma-laa" - "Indian Plum (Flacourtia indica - Bot.)
• माला mālā, pronounce "maa-laa" - "garland, necklace"

So, hte following two translations are definitely incorrect:

• Sanskrit: मलासन, malāsana (pronounce "malaasana") - "Garland Pose";
• Sanskrit: मालासन, mālāsana (pronounce "maalaasana") - "Excretion Pose", "Relieving Pose", "Yoga Squat"

Shame on the one(s) who gave those translations! (So, who was it?) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

And, at last, a Google-web-count:

• malasana: 51.200
• malāsana: 36
• mālāsana: 503

So, "malāsana" seems highly unlikely. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Great work Joshua. I still think that mala as poop over mālā as garland would qualify as a fringe theory and should be listed second to the explanation of garland.

A: because the translation of garland pose is given in virtually every published book of yoga asana

B: the version as poop pose exists only in internet sources and word of mouth, but cannot as yet be substantiated as a traditional opinion.

I also think if you take the time to look at all the sources that bladesmulti wiped out from my contributions you'll see the traditional version of this pose has the legs together and that the description from "Light on Yoga" by Iyengar is considerably more respectable than a hyperlink from Yoga Journal. I think it would be great to have both versions of the pose described, but as the accounts of all the foundational teachers (Iyengar, Jois, Ramaswami, Dharma Mittra) describe the asana with feet together, that should be the primary pose. (It would be my theory that the feet apart version is taught because westerners generally do not have long enough achilles tendons to comfortably enter the pose.) This is also why the other picture was removed.

If you google upavesasana you will see the pose being called mālāsana here.

• The very popular modern asana book Yoga Anatomy by Leslie Kaminoff also calls this pose upavesasana.
• If you examine the very authoratative poster of asanas by Dharma Mittra [2] [3] you will see poses 618-620 named as mālāsana with the feet together and the arms bound around the back.
• Just as it is in Light on Yoga [4] and every other significant book on yoga asana.
• Just as it is in the practice of Ashtanga Vinyasa.

Even if you don't think the traditional version should be listed first, both versions need to appear on this page with both descriptions and both pictures, or upavesasana should receive it's own page which would be more practical.

Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You should have mentioned the position of the arms; much more relevant. Anyway; I've made some adjustments. How are your drawing-talents? Or yoga-skills? Can you create puctures on the two Iyengar-versions, with the hands at the back and the hands around the enckles? Here are two pictures from Iyengar's book, but they are copy-righted, so we can't use them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

My achilles tendons may be too short, but I can take a picture of my boss doing both versions for sure.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

James Mallinson

James Mallinson exists:

• The Gheranda Samhita: The Original Sanskrit and an English Translation
• The Khecarividya of Adinatha: A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation
• Haṃsadūta

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the point of citing him at all was to give credit to him for suggesting the sritattvanidhi when I came to him for sources. The point was only to demonstrate that the name (as mālā) was already in use. Fascinating thing about the sritattvanidhi, it gives different names for many yoga asanas, demonstrating how different teachers allow names to switch around and change from generation to generation. Even Jois, Ramaswami and Iyengar trained under the same teacher (Krishnamacharya) and use different names for some identical poses. However they all teach the same thing as mālāsana.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

And now I'm sure there are also very good sources which say that the names of asanas change, and that the same name has been used for various asanas. And then, as a last step, a source which says so for the malasana - excuse me, mālāsana. How about moving the article? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Sritattvanidhi

File:Sritattvanidhi - mālāsana.jpg

Sritattvanidhi - plate no.44 - mālāsana

N. E. Sjoman, The Yoga Tradition of the Mysore Palace, at page 22, has a plate (no.44) from the Sritattvanidhi, with the "mālāsana", but it's quite different from what we know today as the "mālāsana". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice how his legs look like a necklace or...garland?Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

Note this:

"according to Iyengar, the name mālāsana derives from the arms hanging from the neck like a garland." (Iyengar 1979, p.267)

Does anybody sees "arms hanging from the neck" in Iyengar's mālāsana? I bet he means the bhujapidasana! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added the solution to the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Nicely Rewritten

Well done. Much more comprehensive: It now includes all the different poses with this name and every variation of the name all represented in total accuracy. Much thanks to all the editors involved.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Pronounciation and spelling

Note:

• Sanskrit: मलसन, malasana (pronounce "ma-la-sa-na"[needs IPA]) - "Excretion Pose", "Relieving Pose", "Yoga Squat"[8]
• Sanskrit: मलासन, malāsana (pronounce "ma-laa-sa-na"[needs IPA]), which would mean "Indian plum garland"[web 2]

These two should be spelled the same as compound words because it is āsana not asana so even poop pose would be spelled "ma-laa-sa-na". Not to mention mala + any word that starts with a would still turn into malā. Silly sandhi rules.
Will correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iṣṭa Devata (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You may have a point here, but this dictionary does use the term mala, not malā, also for Sanskrit, so I've reverted. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: what's your opinion here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added above note to the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I think either I don't understand your point or you're missing mine. malā + āsana = malāsana, but mala + āsana also = malāsana, not malasana. It's just how the words combine. No āsana name has a short a at the beginning of the word āsana. There are literally no circumstances under which malasana with all short as is an āsana name. Please undo your revert.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this: "मलसन, malasana (pronounce "ma-la-sa-na")" is definitely incorrect. It would be spelled मलासन and pronounced "ma-laa-sa-na" regardless of whether the word is mala or malā. Feel free to double check that one with Wujastyk or any other sanskrit editors, but I am positive on this.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected it. Better this way? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Malasana, not Malāsana nor Mālāsana, is more common in published sources: 1 (page 259), 2 (page 80), 3 (page 69). Keep Joshua Jonathan's suggestions. @Ista Devata: same issue in Asana article; for balance, in this article and others, include IAST and Sanskrit script for the sophisticated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, this misses the issue. All āsana names when properly rendered in IAST will be spelled -āsana. Sources that do not include the macron, like the ones you've listed, simply do not use IAST at all. Not to mention, being more common doesn't mean correct; it means most publishers (and english language authors) don't know how to render IAST. No combination of words would cause the ā to become an a. That's why every pose on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asanas that is rendered in IAST has a macron over the first a in āsana. In fact, the word non-word you've written would be a combination of mala and sana, not āsana or even asana. I'm finding it hard to believe you guys aren't following this very simple logic. Please consult any level one sanskrit student and they will tell you the same thing. User:Wujastyk could settle this in seconds.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devata: your point is clear; it's also clear that the western (non-)understanding of Sanskrit leads to misunderstandings. but these misunderstandings are explained, aren't they? What would you like to change? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ista Devata, It is, of course, आसन (posture, stopping, halting). It is not असन (throwing, sending, shooting). But consider two things. One, wikipedia's verifiability policy. Second, the phonemic orthography of English is not same as in Sanskrit. You are assuming "a" has one pronunciation, not many. Not true. In some cases, "a" is pronounced as "ā" etc. For example, try pronouncing "bath, father, harm" and "bat, cat, mat". In some words, the same "a" is pronounced differently, for example: maladroit (maləˈdroit). Then there is the complication of accents (Irish, Australian, etc). Therefore, use spellings that are verifiable and common, but include IAST and Sanskrit script for the sophisticated reader with some knowledge of Sanskrit and Prakrit (Prākrit, प्राकृत) languages. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that this presents two conflicting ideas: Malasana, which would refer to Sanskrit: मलसन - Firstly: if you're presenting the word as the way it is spelled in english that is fine, but it would still be pronounced ma-laa-sa-na or at least ma-lá-sa-na, because the emphasis still has to land somewhere. And the sanskrit would still be मलासन, because it's not based on english misspellings, the english misspellings are based on not knowing how to write ाा in english. If instead, you are presenting a possible (and I think fringe) theory that malasana means poop pose, then poop pose (mala+āsana) would still be spelled in sanskrit the same why as plum blossom pose (malā+āsana), and would have the same pronunciation. This spelling malasana would have to be an english vernacular spelling (which we do not include for any other asana page) but not the way you would spell poop pose. The way it is now implies that if you added the words mala + āsana it would make malasana which is not true. It also implies that everyone who spells it without a macron thinks it is poop pose, which is untrue. I suppose it's fine if you want to add an english vernacular version of the name to the list, but that should be seperate from describing poop pose. In other words, how it is misrendered in english is totally unrelated to the etymology of poop pose. Look at the edit I made https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M%C4%81l%C4%81sana&diff=660792406&oldid=660782290 This has no errors, but the miscommunication is that you are preserving an incorrect transliteration of the combination of mala + āsana and presenting it as something else. It's just haphazard.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

And when I made my edit it said : Mālāsana can be found in three slightly different Sanskrit spellings. It didn't say anything about english spelling. Since that time the etymology section has grown more convoluted. Largely to cater to this fringe theory of poop pose. I'll remind you that no published Indian yoga teacher has ever said malasana is poop pose. Just some english language websites. But all three etymologies should be presented with consistent IAST. And etymology aside, it would not alter the pronunciation or devanagari rendering the way you have it. And all three should be presented consistently in IAST.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Iṣṭa Devata, mālāsana and "garland pose" may be WP:COMMONNAME when we restrict ourselves to Sanskrit and India, but the problem (or the point) is that Yoga is no longer confined to Sanskrit and India, and has acquired a broad popularity across the world. It's also clear that some (many?) confuse various asanas and terms, with the result that the garland pose is being called malasana, and that this term is also translated as poop pose - which fits with the upavesasana, to which the term malasana is also applied. So, the term does have all these meanings, unfortunately. The best we can do is to explain the differences and misunderstandings. And I'm sorry if those misunderstandings are painfull for the Indian tardition; I can't help it either... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, That is not my point. But you've edited this section in circles around my original argument. My original edit was correct, but the way you've taken the tranliteration out of this bullet point:

Malasana, a compound of mala and āsana, meaning "Excretion Pose", "Relieving Pose", "Yoga Squat",[9] which in fact is the Upavesasana. This is the most common name to be used in English, but incorrectly transliterated.
Works better than how it was before. And seperating the transliterations into two sections helps. But none of this is about defending the Indian tradition or not, I was mostly defending my initial edit that you reverted. But now there is no longer the bogus pronunciation ma-la-sa-na or the bogus devanagari मलसन which were the target of that initial edit. But at this point I still think the above bullet point implies that when you see malasana the author is refering to poop pose, when usually they just didn't know how to write it correctly or create a macron. In fact, when this Indian ashram writes excrement pose, they would spell it malāsana मलासन as a compound of mala and āsana. The only reason they don't on their website is they don't seem to use macrons at all. Anywhere. I'm going to just transpose part of the first bullet to the second and you'll see how it should read.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC) There are still a lot of definite articles floating around that section that could go.Iṣṭa Devata (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

(Yoga) asana

@Algircal: I somehow see your point of removing "yoga" from this article diff diff. Nevertheless, why th eremoval of the term "yoga"? Especially the Sritattvanidhi: how is that not Yoga? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess I can see how using yoga in front of every instance of the word asana could be unnecessary. I don't know that it warrants removal or protection, so long as yoga is still mentioned in the entry and not negated.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Its the same reason people say "yoga pose" and "yoga position": these terms need to be avoided especially when it is used inconsistently in articles because it can be confused with many different positions in anatomy, such as anatomical position, supine position, half-fowlers. People can still do asanas in these positions, so using the specific term and only "asana" when we are talking about them is the proper way to write articles. As @Iṣṭa Devatā: said, we need to be consistent.Algircal (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

??? I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here. The addition "yoga" makes clear that this is not about "anatomical positions," right? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

So then "yoga -" is redundant.Algircal (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually: redundant or not, I liked it better with the word yoga. Now the intro doesn't mention yoga explicitly. Even in india they say yogasana as one word. It may be technically redundant, but certainly doesn't read as redundant. It seems like an unnecessary edit, at least here. If anything, the extra context saves a click to the asana page (although you have to wonder how anyone would wind up on this page who didn't know what an asana was). Maybe render it as one link yoga asana?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There needs to citations as to who refers to asanas as yogasanas. Keep in mind asanas are used also as a form of exercise. Medical positions such as prone position is not. That's why terming asanas as such without a prefix is important. The affix creates more confusion. It is clear, at least in the world, that an asana, especially in yoga excerise schools, is to pose your body to exercise.Algircal (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove alternative etymologies

I wonder if it isn't time to remove the unacademic opining about 'poop pose'. The whole reason this was included was a compromise with a now banned editor bladesmulti. The fact of the matter is there is not a single academic source that has ever been offered to defend 'poop pose'. EVERY classic of asana instruction that describe this pose translate it as garland pose. This one web reference does not adequately defend what is clearly an extrapolation. The reference claims it is just a spelling error, which would assume everyone who translated the pose into English used the same misspelled source, and not that Iyengar Jois Ramaswami etc were translating straight from Hindi/Tamil/Kannada into English which would make that error impossible. Krishnamacharya was a Sanskrit pandit, if he taught his students the pose was called garland then he clearly was right.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)