Talk:Patanjali/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early comments

I found following sentences unfit to the article. therefore I deleted them. Please remember it does not I diagree with the original writer. Point here is please do not argue within a article. If you think the article is wrong, just delete and correct it. If you want to argue about it, please argue it here. OK? (Travis88000 4/2/2007)

>>> One cannot draw direct correspondence between Ashtanga, Raja, Kundalini, and Tantra - they not only differ in tradition but can be entirely different concepts - so, to equate them here is in err. Ashtanga, to Patanjali, simply referred to the 8 limbs of yoga - that is, the entire philosophical system of yoga. In this context, Ashtanga and Raja can be qute similar. There is also a later flavor of Hatha Yoga called Ashtanga (developed by Sri K. Pattabhi Jois in Mysore, India) that has developed since then (rooted in only some of the original 8 limbs - particularly "asana"). Kundalini is another concept that draws from the balancing of chakras and the resultant variants of enlightenment that can be attained or revealed from that meditation and practice. Tantra can be thought of as entirely different concept that reflects the equally ancient "As above, so below" and "microcosm:macrocosm" concepts of the universe. It is important ot note that the term Tantra has been used erroneously in Western pop culture to simply localize Tantric Sexuality or Sacred Sexuality, whereas, such things are merely applicatiosn of Tantric philosophy. <<<\

---

Is "Yoga Sutras" the name of a work or a series of works, or is it a type term? (I.e., is it like Encyclopaedia Britannica or is it like "encyclopedia article"?)

If the former, "Yoga Sutras" should be italicized: Yoga Sutras. And the link should then point to Yoga Sutras as the author had it.

If the latter, "Yoga Sutras" should be lower case: "yoga sutra" or "Yoga sutra" (whichever is correct). Also, the link should be to yoga sutra or Yoga sutra. --LMS

A. The Yoga Sutras is the name of a work and I have italicised it. I am not however sure how to make the link as you suggest it.

--Ian

If i'm understanding this discussion correctly, the way to make a link is to enclose a word or term in double square brackets: [[ ]]. The word or term will then appear with a question mark after it. Click on it and you'll be able to create the text of the new entry, and your original word or term will be a functional link (also all other instances of that word or term on Wikipedia, if they're in double brackets.)(Apologies if I'm stating something obvious here.  :-) )

---

Yes, you've got it. The only thing to keep in mind is that some punctuation marks (all except the period and dash, essentially) will prevent the double square brackets from working. Drop those from the name of the thing to which you are linking, and all will be well. -- Paul Drye

Apostraphes and commas work now in links. Koyaanis Qatsi

Birth place of Patanjali is unknown and is shrouded in mystrey like most everything from that period in Indian history. Many places across india have been claiming to be his birthplace, one thing is for certain though from historical evidence, that he lived not very far from the Himalayas... Dharma yogi

Vandalism or Well-Intentioned Errata

A Tamil-cum-Tantra-centric reading of Patanjali's work has been supererogated on the original (and quite satisfactory) article. I am not qualified to revert, since I'm not familiar with the finer mechanics of Wikipedia. Would someone care to revert, or at the very least revert and add the Tamil-cum-Tantra-centric revision into an alternative viewpoint section? This 'new reading' is not substantiated by either lay or scholarly readings! --128.59.26.54 19:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me, I reverted it. Buddhipriya 06:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been done again... looks like an edit-war is brewing.--69.203.80.158 18:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

DATES!

There are, as far as I can see, no dates, no chronological information whatsoever. For all we know, he could've lived 35000 years ago or he might be still alive. (Fortunately, we do know better. ;))

Vandalism from IP 71.108.114.133

I have just performed undo on a vandalized version of this article. The culprit is IP 71.108.114.133 Visarga 14:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Facts are not consistent

See Talk:Arundhati_(mythology)#Facts_are_not_consistent (SaRaV 13:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC))