Talk:Rāja yoga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Raja Yoga)
Jump to: navigation, search


  • Structure and organization of the article is fixed by adding sections and by dividing the article based on those.
  • The tone of article is majorly instructional than informational. Need to be fixed
  • Few typos still remain.
  • Heavily laden with Sanskrit words. Explanation should be given wherever necessary. Any feedback from Non-indian/Sanskrit/Hindu is appreciated in this regard

--Vyzasatya 15:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have some background and interest from a non-Indian/Sanskrit/Hindu perspective. I'll help.  :-) RDF talk 17:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!! that helps --Vyzasatya 18:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Merging articles[edit]

  • I Realise that Ashtanga Yoga has the same information as this article albeit more precisely. Hence I propose merging Ashtanga Yoga with this article. --Vyzasatya 18:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I support merging the articles, with a redirect of course. Is either term more commonly used today than the other? I was more familiar with using "Ashtanga Yoga." Did Patanjali have a preference in usage? RDF talk 18:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

For that matter, in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali#The Eight Limbs of Raja Yoga article section, the information is more extensive than either of these two articles. Would an extraction from that section be warranted here? Also, I'll support redirecting the Ashtanga Yoga article into this one. RDF talk 19:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Though I am not an expert in Yoga, growing up in India, I heard the word Raja Yoga more commonly floating around in general public than Ashtanga Yoga. Making either one of them a redirect page is fine with me. Before doing so I would like hear some more opinions from various members --Vyzasatya 11:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Namaste, I don't know if I'm an expert (maybe you could call me a "master"). I'm from the Netherlands and was trained at the Raja Yoga institute [1] . I'm a Raja Yoga teacher for this institute, and we tell people Raja Yoga = Ashtanga Yoga.
I think it's helpfull to read the information on this page "Can Yoga do anything for you?" [2]

As you can see, we start with the Yamas and Niyamas (step 1,2) and Step 3 Asanas (= Hatha yoga). So what is stated in the article is not correct: "A Raja Yogi starts his Sadhana with the mind. He starts meditation and tries to control the mind."

We start with steps 1,2 and 3 and at the end of our Basic training course - after 9 month (parttime course 120 h, over 40 lessons)we are beginning with step 6 (Dharana)! Step 7 Meditation (Dhyana) in R-Y is very difficult. Raja Yoga meditation is meditating at "emptiness", and people starting with R-Y are unable to do that, even after the Basic course, for some students that takes 2-3 years, so during their teachers trainig course (parttime 3 years, 360 hrs, 120 lessons) they reach steps 7 and 8!

Practice of Hatha Yoga is not needed to start Raja Yoga, step 3 Asana = Hatha Yoga

So this is in general not correct: "Where Hatha Yoga ends, there Raja Yoga begins". Hatha Yoga is intergrated in Raja Yoga! hansB 22:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, HansB, you're not a master. A master is someone who has reached enlightenment. And someone who has reached enlightenment wouldn't go around trying to advertise his or her achievements and title to people. --LordSuryaofShropshire (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Merging articles (Ashtanga Yoga-Raja Yoga reference to Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga[edit]

The Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga article Talk page currently makes reference to Sri K. Pattabhi Jois referring to the style of yoga he has promulgated only being officially called Ashtanga Yoga. My suggestion would be to move the material from Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga to Ashtanga Yoga providing disambiguation info at the top. Paul foord 09:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga article claims, "Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga or short Ashtanga Yoga is a style of Hatha Yoga taught by Sri K. Pattabhi Jois of Mysore, India." This is not consistent with the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. I oppose the proposed move. RDF talk 13:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? How do you see the proposed merger of Ashtanga Yoga-Raja Yoga? Common usage - most people think they know what Ashtanga is. Ashtanga Yoga as a redirect cannot work. Possibly a disambiguation page. Paul foord 13:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a disambiguation page would work better. My basic objection is that Ashtanga Yoga is not "a style of Hata Yoga." There are at least four articles of the "eight limbs." Some consolidation would be helpful. RDF talk 15:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's difficult to dileneate diambiguation into fields such as these where tidy categories are not a reality.
    1. As I understand the teachings, it is not entirely correct to neatly file Ashtanga Yoga (as taught by Sri K. Pattabhi Jois) into the "Hatha Yoga" bin; although Hatha Yoga has influenced the teachings, Sri K. Pattabhi Jois teaches Patanjali's Ashtanga Yoga.
    2. It might make more sense to organize articles like Astanga Yoga and Raja Yoga into histories of the terms, when they first appeared, and then who then refashioned or reintegrated the term into their own unique view, and then discuss each of those views/definitions. From what I understand, Swami Svatmarama (first?) used the term Raja yoga in the Hatha Yoga Padipika, Krishnamacharya referred to Raja in a different way than did Vivekananda and his successors. So these terms and concepts, while they are specific and tightly knit within individual lineages, they can hold several simultaneous, and often conflicting definitions. And these threads then intersect from time to time, making it all exponentially more confusing. Souljerky 17:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

re merge proposal of 6 October 2005[edit]

Why merge the Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga and not Bikram Yoga, etc.

Please explain how the articles referenced at the List of yoga schools will be dealt with - do we end up with a massive unwieldy article or will you have a summary with links to more specific articles.
Paul foord 12:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Alternative to merge[edit]

I have expanded the Ashtanga Yoga article with the material from here and left a summary here. If you still want to merge then this is not inconsistent. Saves on creating disambiguation page. But question remains how to reference of 8 limbs items elsewhere? Paul foord 13:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we can refer to that paticular section if we want to. The current setup looks lot more redundant. --Vyzasatya 16:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

talk page of Ashtanga Yoga[edit]

Merge Ashtanga[edit]

I propose merging the Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga page with this one since there really is no system called "Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga" and the distinction between the entities, while seperate, are quite related. Ashtanga Yoga as taught by Sri K. Pattabhi Jois is a particular approach to teaching the Ashtanga Yoga of Patanjali. Again, the distinction should be clear, but they should be on the same page. Additionally, the first todo item on the Yoga discussion page is to merge the content that currently exists here over to the Yoga page, although it should also remain in some form here. Any thoughts? --Souljerky 21:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if this mereger proposal is still relevant after the merger of Raja Yoga and Ashtanga yoga. --Vyzasatya 16:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The argument is circular the Jois system is known as Ashtanga Yoga generally (but now could be moved to the Ashtanga Yoga page), there are some websites calling it Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga, most students would know it as Ashtanga Yoga. It is an entity in its own right. Either leave it alone with cross referencing and disambiguation or move it - information has been lost regarding the disambiguation of the two entities Ashtanga Yoga. Paul foord 23:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The entire point of this article is that Raja Yoga = Ashtanga Yoga. As Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga (is/is not) special case of it, I would would say It would be appropriate for it to be further discussed at talk:Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga. For now I would prefer to leave it alone with cross referencing and disambiguation like you suggested until it is resolved in Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga page --Vyzasatya 04:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed merge template - at a late stage can be further considered Paul foord 10:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism template[edit]

"Raja Yoga or Ashtanga Yoga is one of the four major Yogic paths of Hinduism."

How does this opening statement relate to Template:Hinduism? RDF talk 16:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The hinduism template has links to Yoga, Yogasutra and Hatha yoga pradIpika. If we feel that it is taking too much of a page. we can do away with it. I am OK with it --Vyzasatya 17:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind the template being on the page. My confusion is about "the four major Yogic paths of Hinduism." What are the other three, where is Raja Yoga, and where are "the four major paths" located on the template? :-) RDF talk 17:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I found this webpage citing four yogic paths. --Vyzasatya 04:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I made a new basic template for yoga related articles. give me your input for further improvements --Vyzasatya 04:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea of a Template:Yoga! :-) That certainly puts this article into a nice perspective. In terms of the list headings, would the one for here more appropriately be called "Four yogic paths of Hinduism"? How about for the next one, "Eight limbs of Raja Yoga"? (Do the wiki section-style capitalization rules apply here?) For the "Yogas" list, would that be expanded to include all the "This-and-That Yogas"? This template also got me thinking. Do you think there would be much interest in developing a Wikipedia:Wikiportal for "Yoga"? RDF talk 17:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I think we can Include the rest of "This-and-that Yogas" too if we are thinkig in terms of a portal beacuse that will garner more support. Portal is a very nice idea depending on how number of people who are interested in Yoga. We need to gather support for the idea. Kudos RDF --Vyzasatya 19:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Brahman-Atman Yoga (article deleted) & Kriya Yoga[edit]

The plot thickens...

"Brahman-Atman Yoga is also the same Kriya Yoga discussed by Patanjali in his Yoga Sutras. Brahman-Atman Yoga is the proper name, Kriya Yoga is the common name, and Raja Yoga is the popular name."

Are there more "merge" and/or "cross-reference" issues here? RDF talk 19:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The above claim made in Brahman-Atman Yoga article need to be verified. As Kriya Yoga article does not mention anything of being same as Raja Yoga or Brahman-Atman Yoga. Raja Yoga or Ashtanga Yoga does not claim anything about Kriya Yoga or Brahman-Atman Yoga. --Vyzasatya 20:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
So maybe just "clarifying" that statement will take care of it. ;-) RDF talk 21:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Kriya Yoga and Raja Yoga is not the same thing. Raja Yoga means "Royal Yoga", and refers to the method of concentration (to achieve enlightenment/samadhi). Kriya Yoga more of a sub-genre of Raja Yoga, the method taught by the disciples of Lahiri Mahasaya (and their respective disciples, and so on).

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organisation[edit]

The second line of the article currently refers to the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organisation.

  • Should this be shifted or removed?
    • It doesn't really seem to do what it says, that is For alternate meanings see ...
    • The article has a cleanup notice dated 15 November 2005

Paul foord 12:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should replace it or replace it with some reference in the actual article. In it does not in itself warrant a disambiguation note but the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organisation are teaching their own form that they have called Raja Yoga as well. Obviously, it bears no relation to the classical form. They have a fairly high profile internationally and vigorous self-publicity. Individuals coming to the Wikipedia for information about publicised Raja Yoga will be misled unless there is reference to this and them.

Appropriate Balanced article[edit]

Now this is a neutral and balanced article and containing sufficient essential informations reagrding Raja yoga.user:Debbe03 November 2006, 23:35 IST

BKWSU Raja Yoga versus Classical/Patanjali Raja Yoga[edit]


I have a problem here delineating what is classically known as Raja Yoga, e.g. Patanjali, Vivekananda etc and the spiritist practises used by the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University which involves meditating on the channelled entity or spirit they call Shiva after the Hindu God, the channelling of so-called "Shiva" through BK adherents, and the use of channelled messages spoken through their founder and current medium as the new "Gita".

Now, it is perfectly clear that what the BKs are teaching is entirely novel and the use of identical terminology is entirely confusing. But how to qualify this on the wiki? Unfortunately the Western academics demanded by other editors - whether sociological or Christian theologists - are entirely unqualified to comment on the differences.

  • Does anyone know if any experienced Hindu academics or yoga specialists have analysed the BKs and their practise?

Thank you. 15:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Dhyana and Swami Sivananda[edit]

The section on dhyana is clearly taken directly from Swami Sivananda's works. It should be attributed to him with the proper reference. --Raga 07:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

First Reference of Rāja-Yoga[edit]

Gīta-4.2 speaks of a very ancient "The Yoga of Rājarṣi", but it seems to be a secret discipline, not properly explained anywhere. Rājarṣi may mean a king who was like a ṛṣi. The present article defines Rāja Yoga as the "king of yogas" , but Gīta seems to have a concept "Yoga of kings".--Vinay Jha 07:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

evam parampara-praptam imam rajarshayo viduh sa kaleneha mahata yogo nashtah parantapa

Your contention is far from obvious and unworthy of inclusion. Maybe Chap 6 is the closest to Yoga Sutras, albeit with increased theocentricity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon D M (talkcontribs) 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. Would love to see this included so others can expand if they find something related to the keyword. We live interesting times. Wakari07 (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Tried to integrate it in a compact way. Feel free to improve contents and cosmetics. Wakari07 (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The term Raja Yoga in hyp does not refer to Patanjalis yoga but to Techniques described in the HYP, The first perosn to associate Raja Yoga with Patanjali is Vivekananda in an attempt to denigrate hatha Yoga as mereley physical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


While I applaud the writers at their efforts to explain this immense subject, generally, I find the tone of this wiki to be too personal and "instructional" - in other words, just the facts, please. For example, the "definition" of Niyama is briefly stated, then includes the following instruction -

"He who practises meditation without ethical perfection, without the practice of Yama-Niyama cannot obtain the fruits of meditation. Purify your mind first through the practice of Yama-Niyama. Then practice regular meditation. Then you will attain illumination."

Are these intrepretations from Patanjalis sutras, and if so, which translation? Or, is the writer just giving us his/her own interpretation of the Niyamas, etc. and instructing us on practice? Does this even belong here? The source for this quote - and all similar quotes - would be helpful and would improve the quality of this wiki.

There are also inconsistencies in structure - why the briefest of statements for most of the eight limbs, followed by three paragraphs full of (somewhat) unneccesary details for the dhyana section? Omit needless words.Ekadesha (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your first comment seems to refer to sloppily included translation. Your 2nd comment reflects Patanjali's own emphasis. --Simon D M (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Really Hard to Figure out[edit]

I had a cursory curiosity about Yoga so I started reading Wikipedia. I found this article to be incredibly hard to follow, especially the latter part. It need to be reworked by someone who knows the topic to be more descriptive and to use a LOT more English words or translations. As it reads now, it's not very useful. Kevin Rector (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In particular, the head of this article needs major help. Looking at it, I have no idea what Raja Yoga is!!!! It says a "succession of steps," which tells the reader absolutely nothing aside from the fact that there's more than one part to the practice. Flies 1 (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Great! Flies 1 (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Project Yoga[edit]

WikiProject Yoga
80px 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.

--Yoga Mat (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

safekeeping quote[edit]

this quote seems nice, but was too broad for Meditation#Hinduism so I'm putting it here for potential future use. makeswell (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Pantajali recommended "meditation with the Lord as the object" as a part of the spiritual practices (sadhana) that leads to samadhi, or blissful inner peace.[1]


  1. ^ Klostermaier, Klaus (1989). A survey of Hinduism. SUNY Press. pp. 402–403. ISBN 9780887068072. 

removed text[edit]

I removed the following block of text ("<nowiki>" added here for clarity):

There are many types of yoga, such as hatha-yoga, astanga-yoga, raja-yoga, dhyana-yoga, and bhakti-yoga. Rudimentary hatha-yoga has become very popular as a form of exercise and relaxation, but real yoga -- as taught by Patanjali in his Yoga-sutra or by Krsna in the Sixth Chapter of Bhagavad-gita -- is an eightfold system of meditation for attaining samadhi, or complete absorption of the mind in the Supreme. The eightfold yoga process is very difficult to perform, and even Arjuna decided it was too difficult for him. And those few who can practice it often become captivated by the siddhis, or perfections, that one can gain through this yoga, such as the ability to walk on water, become extremely small, and control other people's minds. So the mystic yoga process, being very difficult and full of many possible distractions, is not recommended in this age.<ref>Pure devotional service, on the other hand, is far superior to fruitive work, philosophical speculation, and mystic meditation. ... Similarly, Krsna tells Arjuna at the end of the Sixth Chapter of the Gita that absorption in Krsna consciousness is the ultimate yoga: yoginam api sarvesam mad-gatenantar atmana sraddhavan bhajate yo mam sa me yuktatamo matah / "And of all yogis, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks of Me within himself, and renders transcendental loving service to Me -- he is the most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the highest of all. That is My opinion" (Bg. 6.47). [ Narada Bhakti Sutra 25]</ref>

<End removed text.>

The first part seemed out out of place, and "but real yoga" is very POV. The rest sounded like it was supposed to be a quote but was written as text to the article, which changes its significance. --Doug.(talk contribs) 21:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose that Yoga Sutras of Patanjali be merged into Ashtanga Yoga/Raja Yoga. The current sizes of the articles are 22,813 bytes and 17,664 bytes respectively. The largest section on the "eight limbs" (present in both articles) has a significant overlap (12,288 bytes in the former article and 8,192 bytes in the latter). And this is inevitable since Ashtanga Yoga/Raja Yoga is based on Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. A merger will allow us to gain the 'critical mass' necessary to develop the combined article to good article level initially and FA level someday. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose Yoga Sutras of Patanjali is a book, which should have sections like organization of the book, chapters, dating, impact. Raja Yoga is a yoga system, which interpreted by many experts [3], though its foundations lie in the Yoga Sutras. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, that's good feedback and something I overlooked, having always thought of the Sutras as sutras and not as a book in the modern/Western sense of the word (remember, the sutras were not written down as a book until much later). But by that logic the merge does not make sense. It may be possible to include Yoga Sutras of Patanjali in a section in Raja Yoga as a text. The text itself is really terse and the article has not grown for a while. If the combined article grows beyond 90-100 KB then we can split. Or you still think it's not a good idea to merge? Zuggernaut (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
"Yoga Sutras" brings up 23,000 citations in Google Book Search (HERE). The fact that the article hasn't grown in a while doesn't mean it couldn't grow. In my opinion it's silly to consider a merger. Not quite as silly as merging the page for the Bible into Christianity, but still silly. Health Researcher (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Redtigerrxyz; also, there is additional material on the influence of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras that would probably not be appropriate for an article on Raja Yoga (e.g., see Singleton, 2010, Yoga Postures, ISBN 9780195395341). -- Health Researcher (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Emphatic Oppose. There is no clear definition of Raja Yoga, and the Yoga Sutras are notable in the extreme. There is no doubt that this basic and seminal text deserves a separate article. Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. These are quite different topics, of course. (May I suggest that transliterations across both articles be checked for accuracy and consistency?) NoeticaTea? 23:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - Why combine two different things into one topic - are we running out of room on the internet already? ridiculous.<cB> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisberlin brooklyn (talkcontribs) 13:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE! Zuggernaut: you obviously know nothing about Hatha and Raja Yoga. Your suggestion is tantamount to suggesting that the article on the New Testament be merged with the article on Christianity! And yes, Health Researcher, it is JUST as silly as merging the Bible with Christianity. Give us a reasoned response on why the two are different, though you'll certainly come up short. Merging articles, one on a key text, with another one a spiritual tradition, is just dumb. --LordSuryaofShropshire (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be overwhelming consensus opposed to the merger. I don't think there's any need for further discussion. I have requested an administrator to close the discussion and remove the templates. --Presearch (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Rāja Yoga or Raja Yoga[edit]

  • is there a *good* reason to not have Rāja Yoga as article title? Wakari07 (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Or would that reason be Rāja yoga? - personally my favourite - i set it meanwhile :) Wakari07 (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
needs citation[edit]

The phrase "the mind is traditionally the king of the body" is poorly supported and arguably a complete misinterpretation of the phrase raja yoga. Raja yoga is referred to as such partly because this path is being differentiated from other yogas as the "king" of all yogas.

Yoga literature supports an idea that the mind is not king nor subject. The treatise on raja yoga, patanjalis yoga sutra describes a much subtler relationship between mind and body.

Thus I'll go ahead and remove this unsupported and in my opinion very deceptive and unhelpful statement. The tradition where the mind rules the body is not from the yogic perspective at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The Term Rāja Yoga Beyond Vivekananda[edit]

The term rāja yoga is a very ancient Sanskrit word. It was used in Upanishads and Puranas.

It is wrong to say "The term rāja yoga is a retronym, introduced in the 19th-century by Swami Vivekananda."

Vivekananda just translated the famous Yoga Sutras of Patanjali naming it as Rāja Yoga. He was just a translator and interpreter of the book.

The more original and authentic works are in Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads.The term rāja yoga is used in Bhagavad Gita. The ninth chapter of Bhagavad Gita is known as "Raja-Vidya_Raja_Guhy_Yoga". See Bhagavad-Gita By Sir Edwin Arnold. I think, Vivekananda took the name from Bhagavad Gita.

Some more ancient references for the name Rāja Yoga are as follows:

Jaimini Sutras,19.SU-26-27

Yogasara Upanishad

Yoga Tattva Upanishad,129-131(a)

AndrewNewYork (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, and you may be correct, but you'll need WP:RS. I've tried to find them for this topic, but I failed, unfortunately. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Split article[edit]

I've split the article into Rāja yoga and Yoga (philosophy). Yoga is more than Patanjali's and Ashtanga. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yoga -school or practice?[edit]

@Ms Sarah Welch: "In all historical texts, Rāja yoga in the modern sense of its meaning, is known simply as Yoga, where it means one of six major orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy" - is this this correct? Doesn't it refer to the practice of yoga, instead of the school of philosophy? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Raja yoga refers to samadhi. It is not a practice.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@JJ/@VG: Indeed, that sentence needs surgery, and Raja yoga means different things depending on the context. This article needs some clean up. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"The term in some texts is one of many types of yoga"[edit]

What does this sentence mean?VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


@VictoriaGrayson: I'm curious why White is "probably not reliable" here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

See this.VictoriaGraysonTalk 05:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll read it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)