Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:19, 31 May 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yoga High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spirituality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

False association with the Nath

Given this fundamental change of pov , I'm starting this discussion by recommending that if anyone objects it would be extremely helpful to detail why some sources are preferred over others, and that we are giving proper weight to the sources given their academic quality. --Ronz (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

In another article, Mallinson gives a more balanced view, which should be preferred because it's probably more compatible with the predominant scientific view:

"Within the texts of the haṭha yoga corpus, we can identify two yogic paradigms. One, the older, is the tradition of the yogis described in our earliest sources and is linked to the physical practices of tapas— asceticism. (...) In classical formulations of haṭhayoga—such as that found in the most influential text on the subject, the fifteenth-century Haṭhapradīpikā—a second paradigm, that of Tantric yoga, is superimposed onto this older ascetic method (...) But although the two yogi traditions clearly interacted, sharing both theory and practice, their lineages remained distinct.17 They were represented, in the case of the ancient tradition of celibate asceticism, by groups that today constitute sections of the Daśanāmī Saṃnyāsī and Rāmānandī ascetic orders, and, in the case of the tradition of Tantric adepts such as Matsyendra and Gorakṣa,18 by groups that today constitute sections of an ascetic order now known as the Nāths.19 These orders were only starting to be formalized in the early Mughal period."

This article can be found here: http://www.asia.si.edu/research/articles/yogic-identities.asp (Later, he differentiated his view again, stating that tantric buddhist traditions influenced the "Amrtasiddhi", a classical text he associated rather with the ascetic method before). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.115.206.133 (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I’ve written now a proposal that could replace the section „False association with the Naths“. Since I’m not a native english speaker and also not familiar with editing Misplaced Pages articles, I won’t change it by myself but the text below can be used by others as a basis.

Title: Haṭha yoga, Nāths and Daśanāmī Saṃnyāsī 

Text: Haṭha yoga is seen by some scholars as originating from the Nāth Order. According to British indologist James Mallinson, one may differentiate between two yogic paradigms in Haṭha yoga, an older one that is more linked to the physical practices of asceticism and a newer one, that is more linked to tantric shaivist yoga and that is superimposed onto the ancient ascetic method. (1) Mallinson see the ancient tradition of celibate asceticism represented  by groups that today constitute sections of the Daśanāmī Saṃnyāsī and Rāmānandī ascetic orders, while the tradition of Tantric adepts such as Matsyendra and Gorakṣa is represented by the Nāth order. Although probably ocurring later, the second tradition is nevertheless often seen as the classic one as it is represented in the „Haṭhapradīpikā“, the most influential text on the subject (2). Additionally, the older Dattātreyayogaśāstra, according to Mallinson the first text that explicitly mentions Haṭha yoga, although representing the older ascetic tradition and speaking rather disparaging about the use of mantras, is nevertheless influenced by the Amṛtasiddhi, a text that was written in a tantric buddhist millieu (3). Therefore the Dattātreyayogaśāstra presents itself als non-sectarian, stating: “Whether a Brahmin, an ascetic, a Buddhist, a Jain, a Skull-Bearer or a materialist, the wise one who is endowed with faith and constantly devoted to the practice of yoga will attain complete success.” (4)

(1, 2, 4) http://www.asia.si.edu/research/articles/yogic-identities.asp

(3) http://www.academia.edu/26700528/The_Am%E1%B9%9Btasiddhi_Ha%E1%B9%ADhayogas_Tantric_Buddhist_Source_Text

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vliperdius (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

As a fan of James who has met him and emailed several times with him, I say this with the highest respect: this is a small and not well developed idea he plays around with but it's hardly important enough to be included in the article. More practical would be mentioning the more obvious facts that its origins are unknown but there are many theories, or mention that both the dasanami and nath orders are clearly too young to be the founders of hatha, and the figures of Matsyendranath (Minanath, Minapa) and Ghorakshanath may originally have been Buddhist figures. Frankly we could pitch James Mallinson, Jason Birch, Alexis Sanderson, and David Gordon White against each other to see who has the better thesis, but that will make this page even more of a mess. I've deleted the section as it added little and was given undue weight.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Mallinson wrote an entire article just on this topic. It is a well developed idea. Read the conclusion here.VictoriaGrayson 15:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Mallinson wrote one article on it, and that article does not credit the dasanamis with inventing hatha yoga; it clearly states that the dasanamis and hatha yoga come from a shared origin, but that the dasanamis didn't exist before the 1600s which makes this statement literally an absurdity and impossible. His current thesis credits the Ramanandis instead.

What matters is that there are millions of people in India who associate with the very well cited legends of Matsyendra. There is one major obscure text on Dattatreya's Yoga that is not from the dasanami (because it is hundreds of years too old). The Hathapradipika which is undeniably a central text of hatha credits the Naths by name. We know it is a legend and it was presented in the article as such, just the same way Iyengar and Feuerstein present it. Removing it because one article proposes a theory that the naths didn't invent hatha is not only undue weight for a single author, but it is clearly a selective presentation of the legend. A search for Matsyendra will show he is more prevalant than Dattatreya. If you want to add more to the Dattatreya explanation, stop misrepresenting the ONE article that you are using to argue against the incredibly ubiquitous and well cited story that you have removed multiple times with a different explanation every time. Stop edit warring and read what other people are writing and stop throwing around baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks to justify your sloppy editing.

And there is something incredibly offensive about claiming my edits are religiously inspired because I am not religious. I am not Hindu, I am a scholar of yoga history, working on a masters thesis in yoga at Loyola Marymount University where I have personally met with James Mallinson, Jason Birch, Christopher Chapple and countless other leading scholars in the field. My only goal is to fix the articles people keep slanting with their opinions.

I am going to revert back to restore my countless highly valuable edits that you have given no credible defense for deleting. Please discuss before reverting and starting one of your beloved edit wars. Bring in a second opinion like Joshua Jonathan and stop attempting to disparage the character of your fellow editors.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what millions of Indian people believe. We don't go by myths anywhere on Misplaced Pages. We don't say Krishna lived 5,000 B.C. Also I don't think millions of Indians even believe that in the first place.VictoriaGrayson 18:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Dattatreya and Matsyendra are both legends, they both matter. We don't choose one over the other and we don't delete other contributions with credible sources. There is no rationale to delete Matsyendra's legend and replace it with a terse sentence about Dattatreya. They both belong in the article.

And of course we say that Krishna worshippers say Krishna lived in 5,000 B.C. because that is the legend. We don't have the real date, we have the myth. That's why the heading of the section was legend! We don't know who started hatha, we know that the most prevalent and cited myth is that of the Naths. Mallinson's paper only exists to address the fact that most people believe it was the Naths. And if you want to throw bias accusations around, Mallinson is Mahant of the Ramanandi order in India.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Dattatreya is mentioned briefly for textual reasons. This is not equivalent to you stuffing the article with mythological stories.VictoriaGrayson 05:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Iṣṭa Devatā asked me to take a neutral look at this article. I know close to nothing about Hatha Yoga, but if I understand correctly the recent edits and reverts, the discussion is about two traditions of yoga, namely an older tapas-oriented tradition, and a younder tantra-oriented tradition. Both (traditions of Hatha yoga) have their (legendary?) founders. Have I understood correctly here? And if there are various (legendary?) origin-accounts, doesn't it make sense to emntion them both?
Sorry if I don't quite get it yet; I'm just out of bed, I didn't have coffee yet, and I'm plumping right into this debate, so if my questions are too stupid, I'll reread later, with more attention. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The association with Dashanami Sampradaya is historical. The association with Nath is mythological. It is not the same.VictoriaGrayson 05:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Shouldn't that section be expanded a little bit, so that niwitz like me can understand it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that section was 'stuffed'. Honestly the mythical origins of hatha are a central part of it and mentioned in most books on the history of hatha. It is so prevalent that Mallinson's paper is addressing it as the mainstream assumption. And because of his one theory we don't erase the nath legend, we just add the description that it is a legend and mention Dattatreya's connection. My reverted edits actually included both, but literally five hours of work to multiple sections with thorough citations were all deleted simultaneously, including a section on Dattatreya in the intro. It was balanced but now half of the story is being excluded based on a single author.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe I have expanded this section neutrally multiple times, as Joshua Jonathan also noted is needed, and it has been reverted every time immediately without discussion or any attempt at building concensus. This is just aggressive. What is even slightly reproachable about the last version? The one Vic keeps restoring is a next to meaningless statement that takes a balanced edit and censors half of it? Bring in any support before you assume bad faith and revert.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

And sidenote: if you agree about the Sierra Leone thing (as per your edit summary) than you should have noticed it was one of my edits you reverted. When you revert everything at once it shows just what your motivation is.

Copyvio in direct quotations from Mallinson article

I have added the copyvio tag to this article. So there are some massive sections where Mallinson is quoted verbatim and others where is paraphrased or his quotes are merged midsentence, all credited sloppily with a single citation without listing page numbers. Despite being good information, this all needs to be removed or reworded.

The article:

example from wiki page: "In its section on Hatha Yoga, after teaching a traditional eightfold yoga that it attributes to Yajnavalkya and others, the Dattātreyayogaśāstra describes ten Hatha Yoga practices that it says were undertaken by the rishi Kapila and other ṛishis in addition to those of Yājñavalkya (DYŚa. 52–61). These practices, which will be examined in more detail below, are of the variety that came to be known collectively as mudras (lit. seals) in later Hatha Yoga."

And from Mallinson article: "In its section on Hatha Yoga, after teaching a traditional eightfold yoga that it attributes to Yājñavalkya and others, the Dattātreyayogaśāstra describes ten Haṭha Yoga practices that it says were undertaken by the →ṛṣi Kapila and other ṛṣis in addition to those of Yājñavalkya (DYŚa. 52–61). These practices, which will be examined in more detail below, are of the variety that came to be known collectively as mudrās (lit. seals, a variety of physical techniques for controlling vital energies, including kuṇḍalinī, breath, and bindu) in later Hatha Yoga texts and that..."

Not acceptible. This article could be paired down considerably and parts rewritten, starting with removing all the copyright violations from this article. It has more detail than it needs and does not need a survey of all its texts.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

This has been corrected.VictoriaGrayson 15:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

In what if any sense has it been corrected? Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I readded page numbers that went missing. I varied wording more through entire article.VictoriaGrayson 18:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That's good. Still, I think a more fundamental rewrite needs to happen because this article lifts the tone and arrangement of most of the Mallinson Encyclopedia entry. Please try to make separate edits for reverts and your rewrites so that your work and mine can both be preserved in future compromise edits. You are making it hard to restore my disputed work without deleting yours, which I suspect may be an intentional ploy to avoid the three revert rule.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

...which I suspect may be... If you can't put such suspicions aside, then it will be extremely difficult to take any of your other comments as not being based upon similar assumptions. --Ronz (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I understand Ronz. I saw a large amount of my work reverted with a reason that doesn't make sense embedded with other changes to make it not look like a revert. You can check for yourself how frequently my every edit invites an edit war from only this one user. I've seen this user get a little revert happy and this does not seem like a legitimate practice to obscure a revert. If you disagree I'm happy to hear it, but really I just want to resolve the issue of why five hours of vigorously well cited work was reverted with accusations of religious bias. I thought editing was collaborative not competitive.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Mudras

Apart from the discussion on the origins of Hatha Yoga, I was wondering why this was removed:

"The most central of these physical techniques is the mūdra of which, according to the Hatha Yoga Pradipika, there are said to be ten. According to James Mallinson, these mudras may have either evolved from internal physical embodiments of older external tantric rituals or may be derived from involuntary movements associated with possession such as rolling the eyes, swallowing the tongue, and assuming certain bodily postures."

References

1. Svatmarama, Haṭhapradīpika. "...the ten mudras which together destroy old age and death (III.7)"
2. Mallinson, James. Khecarīvidyā, p.28

It's three (or four) pieces of info: most central, ten, evolved from tantric rituals or involuntary movements. Is this information incorrect, undue, or what? I find the last piece of information, on involuntary movements, fascinating. It's in line with research by Ann Taves on Fits, Trances, and Visions, and also links to older "research" by William James and some of his contemporaries (Freud!), who were interested in socalled "automatisms." James ended-up with a highly influential psychology of mysticism; Freud ended-up as a highly influential "philosopher" of the unconsciousness. Therefore, Mallinson's observation makes sense, I think. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Haṭhapradīpika is a primary source. Page 28 of Khecarīvidyā of Adinatha is solely talking about Khecarī mudrā. Also there seems to be a mixing of things talked elsewhere in the book such as possession.VictoriaGrayson 06:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It's in Mallinson's intro to the translation of the Khecarividya. It's a solid citation that I added and was removed likely because I added it. And Mallinson defines mudras as the central feature of early hatha in almost everything he writes, the primary source citation is just good color, not an inadequate source. It just could use a second citation. Of course it's easier to expand on an edit if it stands more than a day.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your cited page 28 only talks about Kechari mudra:

The hathayogic khecarīmudrā is also a corporealisation of the tantric ritual practices of eating meat and drinking wine....

VictoriaGrayson 19:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned it is hard to expand the citations when you delete it all right away. Read more of the same piece and you will see he talks about a larger concept of the corporealization of tantric ritual, citing other people and referring to Abhinavagupta.

But I changed a lot of different unrelated material over a five hour editing stint. It just seems odd to me that you disagreed with every single one of them and are slowly trying to find reasons to discredit each one. Honestly you're the only person who seems to disagree with anything I've written here. You're original edit accused me of religious bias which really seems non-sequitur, so it just feels more like you're harassing me than defending a page from vandalism (but I would love to find I'm wrong). Honestly it is just harmful to[REDACTED] to chase away those few career experts in a field who are willing to put in the time. I'm sorry we are not able to work collaboratively instead of constantly at odds. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I've quoted the page. Your "citation" makes no sense.VictoriaGrayson 20:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

False association with the Nath, again

@Iṣṭa Devatā: This is what Mallinson says (calls Nath "Yogis"):

• "But these Yogis were in fact the willing and complicit beneficiaries of the semantic confusion which has caught out White and many other scholars.
• "Meanwhile ascetic orders which did practise the physical techniques of hathayoga but were quite separate from the Yogis were flourishing from at least the early medieval period."
• "To this day the Nath Yogis association with yoga is little more than in name...."

Of course there is much more, but they are too long passages to quote here.VictoriaGrayson 21:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Granted, the Naths are not likely the factual founders of yoga. Nor does my edit say the Naths are the founders, but addresses the prevalent mythos which is central to the living tradition (there are in fact asanas named for Matsyendra and Goraksha). What my edit says about the Naths is what Mallinson says: that the very popular and important historical text the Hatha Yoga Pradipika says the Naths founded Hatha yoga. He also says that the older and more obscure source (Dattatreya Yoga Sastra) credits Yajnavalkya and Kapila with two streams of hatha: the bindu preservation vedic version (Yajnavalkya) and the tantric version (Kapila). What the Naths may also have usurped is the early Buddhist cakra system and yogini cult and credited it to Kaula Saivism, but this is where you get into the disagreements between Alexis Sanderson, Mallinson, and David Gordon White about where the cakras come from. Mallinson would not have written this paper in the first place if he were not arguing against the prevailing (and probably false) association with the Naths, so it would be strange to dismiss the myth without mentioning the myth first. However, Mallinson's writings are already the predominant content of this page, largely drawn from a single encyclopedia entry, so I think we might be drifting into balance issues. The mythology and the theoretical history are two separate entities that both belong in the article, but we could definitely be more superficial. Right now this looks like its just the philology of hatha yoga.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

An austrian ip editor already provided the quote for most of this above:

"Within the texts of the haṭha yoga corpus, we can identify two yogic paradigms. One, the older, is the tradition of the yogis described in our earliest sources and is linked to the physical practices of tapas— asceticism. (...) In classical formulations of haṭhayoga—such as that found in the most influential text on the subject, the fifteenth-century Haṭhapradīpikā—a second paradigm, that of Tantric yoga, is superimposed onto this older ascetic method (...) But although the two yogi traditions clearly interacted, sharing both theory and practice, their lineages remained distinct.17 They were represented, in the case of the ancient tradition of celibate asceticism, by groups that today constitute sections of the Daśanāmī Saṃnyāsī and Rāmānandī ascetic orders, and, in the case of the tradition of Tantric adepts such as Matsyendra and Gorakṣa,18 by groups that today constitute sections of an ascetic order now known as the Nāths.19 These orders were only starting to be formalized in the early Mughal period." found here: Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The "quote" is combining 2 parts of the article that are not combined in the original, resulting in your confusion.VictoriaGrayson 22:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

And on the view that tantric rituals became bodily practices in hatha: "hathayogic khecarīmudrā is also a corporealisation of the tantric ritual practices of eating meat and drinking wine: the tongue is meat and amrta is wine. It is is explicitly stated in the Hathapradīpikā:124 “the yogin should constantly eat the meat of the cow and drink the liquor of the gods. I reckon him to be a Kaula; the others are destroyers of the kula. By the word ‘cow’ the tongue is meant, because the insertion of at the palate is the eating of the meat of the cow, which destroys great sins. The essence that flows from the moon, brought about by the fire generated by the tongue’s insertion, is the liquor of the gods.”... (Mallinson, "Khecarīvidyā", p.28) in other words describing the tantric 5m ritual becoming a less antinomian bodily practice in hatha.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

and for possession rites "As I have said above, these five passages describing techniques for the conquest of death are all from scriptures of possession-based Yoginī cults or their Kaula derivatives. They contain the first references to practices in which the tongue enters the hollow above the palate, so it seems likely that the technique has its roots in rites of possession. The tongue’s entry into the cavity above the palate has been reported to occur spontaneously as a result of altered mental states... Thus these techniques may be attempts to recreate a state of possession." (Khecarividya, Mallinson, p.23,24)Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

and to show it's not just khecari: "An example of corporealisation from elsewhere in the hathayogic corpus is the mudrā called mahāvedha, “the great piercing”, described at Hathapradīpikā. The yogin is to sit cross-legged with his left heel under his perineum. Putting his hands flat on the ground, he should raise his body and then gently drop it, thus making his heel tap against the perineum, forcing the breath or Kundalinī into the central channel. This is a corporealisation of the tantric vedhadīksā, “piercing initiation”. TĀ describes several different types of vedhadīksā. Using mantras and visualisations, the guru causes śakti to rise up the pupil’s middle path and pierce the cakras and ādhāras stationed along it." (Khecarividya, p.27) He also compares amaroli to tantric rasayana rituals on the same page.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You simply need to find a source that explicitly says what you want to say. Combining different passages like that is WP:OR.VictoriaGrayson 22:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

My source does say what I say without any synthesis: these are two examples he provides, but this whole section is his theories on where mudras come from and what I have done is summarize not synthesize. And he cites other people who say it to in the referenced pages. The quotes are just the examples. Read the source. We can add citations (Csaba Kiss, Carl Jung, William James, etc) on to it only if it can stand long enough to be worked on. Assume good faith. And let things stand for a little while.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Carl Jung? You gotta be kidding me.VictoriaGrayson 04:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm referring to JJ's comment about Jung. But if you simply read the source and stop trying to nitpick my quotes, you will see that Mallinson is presenting these ideas about mudras, that he provides citations for, as a piece of background to the work he translated and not as a central thesis, so there is not a flawless quote in this source. But it is a common idea in indology that mudras might evolve from involuntary actions in trance and that other hatha mudras might be interiorizations (Mallinson also uses the word corporealizations) of external tantric rituals.

With the slightest attempt to build on and refine my edits (as per ) instead of deleting them, I'm sure you could find excellent sources to support both of these points. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Mallinson does say interiorisation and corporealisation of tantra on pages 26-7. But wouldn't that only be applicable to late Hatha yoga when tantra becomes overlaid onto earlier hatha yoga? I think Mallinson's later works are more clear on the subject.VictoriaGrayson 19:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The confusion there is that tantra is actually older than hatha and hatha is often considered a cleaning up of the antinomian practices of tantra. Hence the Khecarī Vidyā takes the rituals of eating meat and drinking wine and replaces them with khecarī and drinking amṛta, and other texts take the ritual coupling of fluids from the tantric 5m ritual and turns it into the combining of inner masculine and feminine energies (and fluids), just like Vajrayana schools internalized the ritual sexual intercourse they received from older tantra. There are other activities called mudras that he thinks come from possession cults referencing the different facial expressions Abhinavagupta writes about and the involuntary movements of trance states which might cover hand eye and tongue mudras. Mallinson's arguments get confusing after a point because there are so many predecessors and influences on the mudras (one of Sanskrit's infuriatingly polyvalent words). But essentially the idea as I understand it is that hatha yoga took tantric rituals related to the Kaula and Mahasiddha tradition (but possibly originally Buddhist) as well as celibacy techniques and combined them, as we see in the two paths of Hatha yoga in the Dattatreya Yoga Śastra, eventually leading to mudras being the way to awaken kuṇḍalinī in later texts, especially in more sex positive works like the Śiva Samhita. He points out that the syncretism between the two makes it often impossible to determine which texts are tantric and which are hathic (i.e. Śiva Samhita and Khecarī Vidyā mix the goals of both schools). That is why we see some mudras as interiorizations of outer tantric rituals (khecari mudra, mahavedha, the combining of bindu and nada, the combining of prana and apana, etc) and others as continuations of older celibacy practices (which are common across Eurasian religious history). Essentially those parts related to the yoginis, kuṇḍalinī, and cakras comes through the forerunners to Kaula which is credited as Mina or Matsyendra and supposedly 'cleaned up' by Goraksha, while those parts concerning the preservation of bindu come from the forerunners to the ascetic orders like the Ramanandis and Dasanamis who connect it to the mythical three headed Dattatreya. Worth noting that DYS (in the section on Laya), like the Kaula texts (HYP, Matsyendra Samhita, Goraksasataka, etc) still credits Shiva as the founder of yoga, just honor different transmissions: Dattatreya or the Kaula.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's a little excerpt from James Mallinson's newest book:

"Mudrās in Tantric Ritual - Prior to the Amṛtasiddhi and Dattātreyayogaśāstra, from at least the sixth century CE onwards, mudrās of an altogether different sort were taught extensively in tantric texts. With a small number of important exceptions, tantric mudrās are not methods of manipulating vital energies; they are physical attitudes and gestures adopted in ritual in order to bring about certain supernatural effects or, in fewer cases, possession by the deities with which they are associated. The deities’ mudrās are also said to manifest spontaneously in the practitioner when possession occurs through other means."

Mallinson, James; Singleton, Mark (2017-01-26). Roots of Yoga (Penguin Classics) (p. 229). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

and from KV's intro:

Many of the practices of haṭhayoga can be understood as tantric ritual within the realm of the yogin’s own body. The haṭhayogin can accomplish the ends of tantric practice without external ritual or a consort with whom to engage in sexual rites.

(Mallinson, "Khecarīvidyā", p.26)

The idea seems to be that a pro-sex and possession school of mudra (possibly buddhist or hindu tantric) and pro-celibacy tradition of mudra (that Mallinson prefers to call early hatha, despite the term coming from a buddhist tantra) coexisted and when they were combined in texts like the Dattatreya Yoga Śastra we get some of the very interesting combinations of mudras taught in the hatha corpus with their mixed goals of preserving seed, drinking nectar, and awakening kuṇḍalinī.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Further evidence for the interiorization argument for mudras from Mallinson:

"Much of hathayoga's development can be seen as a reaction against the exclusivity and complexity of Tantric cults and practices. The esoteric physiology of Tantra is taken as the template for the human body, but the means of accessing and controlling the energies and substances within has become purely physical. The only external aid necessary is a guru qualified to teach hathayoga's practices. There is no need for Tantra's elaborate initiations, nor the secret mandalas and mantras as passed down within occult Tantric lineages, nor elaborate ritual paraphenalia, including the in­famous pañcamakāra or "five Ms": madya ("wine"), mamsa :"meat"), matsya ("fish"), mudra ("hand gestures"), and maithuna ("sex"). As is made clear in the last verse of the Gorakṣaśataka, alternatives for these can be found within the body of the yogi."

Mallinson, James. "The Original Gorakṣaśataka" Yoga in Practice (edited David Gordon White), p.257

Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

In defense of restoring the sections on naths and matsyendra

Mallinson's views on this subject are being given undue weight on this subject (especially since they reflect a disagreement between him and David Gordon White where White's view is not expressed). The discussion of the naths is necessary to understand the history and mythology behind hatha yoga (hence their inclusion in every book on its premodern history). Also favoring one sect (vaisnav) over another (saiva) risks picking sides in an ongoing debate:

"Closely related to these new Tantra traditions, at least in their Saiva and Sakti-Saiva formulations, is a new kind of Yoga, namely, Hatha Yoga (literally 'Exertion-Yoga'), attributed by and large to the work of two mahasiddhas, who worked somewhere between the ninth and twelfth centuries either in the northwestern or northeastern margins of South Asia: Matsyendranatha and his near-disciple Goraksanatha, said to be the founder of the Natha Yoga order. Some have maintained that both Matsyendranatha and Goraksanatha are only legendary or mythical figures, but there seems to be a growing consensus that they were historical figures even though, of course, much hyperbole has come to surround their exploits."

Larson, Gerald James Differntiating the Concepts of "yoga" and "tantra" in Sanskrit Literary History p.492

I will continue to drop relevant quotes and sources as I come across them. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Mallinson in describing the Natha text Gorakṣaśataka: "The Gorakṣaśataka or "Hundred Verses of Gorakṣa" contains some of the earliest teachings on haṭhayoga to be found in Sanskrit texts. It is the first text to describe complex methods of prāṇāyāma, breath control, and the first to teach the esoteric sarasvati cālana, "the stimulation of Sarasvati," a technique for arousing kuṇḍalini, the coiled serpent goddess who lies dormant at the base of the spine of the unenlightened." Mallinson, James. Yoga in Practice (edited David Gordon White), p.257 Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Rearranged with the hatha yoga pradipika article

I noticed that this article had some information on the hatha yoga pradipika that really should have belonged in the hatha yoga pradipika article. I moved that information (located under "classic texts") and replaced it with a brief section of an overview of the hatha yoga pradipika. Laurasimmons (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Repetition

@Ms Sarah Welch: The info you added is already present Here. Also Kundalini is a late addition.VictoriaGrayson 15:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The early texts section lacks balance. It overstates the Pali Canon case, unlike what is in the source (see the first two columns of Mallison's page 770). The later section of this article gives more details, but it is poorly writtten. Which Pali text uses the term "Hatha Yoga" or equivalent? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Page 770 says that in later formulations of Hatha Yoga, Kundalini is added. It is not early.VictoriaGrayson 16:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

So? Mallison is explicitly discussing Hatha Yoga in Sanskrit texts of Hinduism on page 770, and that we must include too. Which Pali text is it? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You are saying the exact opposite of Mallinson. Mallinson says Kundalini is a later addition to Hatha Yoga. You are saying its early. VictoriaGrayson 17:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

You may be misreading Mallinson. FWIW, the so-called "Bindu" Upanishads are pretty old, by most estimates on their dating. See Nadabindu Upanishad, related *bindu texts, and Gavin Flood therein on the dating. There is a lot of literature on this. These were precursors to Hatha Yoga, per Mikel Burley. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see the word Kundalini in the Nadabindu Upanishad article.
• Mallinson says on page 770 "In later formulations of Hatha Yoga....." He goes into detail on page 774.VictoriaGrayson 18:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hatha Yoga article has been and is a lot more than Kundalini. It includes bindu, breathing exercises, mudras, etc. This article is in poor shape. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This section already lists the specific mudras and bandhas for every text.VictoriaGrayson 13:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

So the issue that has been getting in the way here is that some of Mallinson's unique opinions are being held up as absolute truths. The kuṇḍalinī of the Kubjika cult is as old as any formulations of haṭha yoga that actually call themselves haṭha yoga. Haṭha yoga is mentioned in Buddhist texts first, but not described. That does not mean all the early forms of haṭha used kuṇḍalinī, but it is inaccurate to call it a 'late' addition. Mallinson presents the idea that haṭha refers to the bindu preservation techniques of the Vaiṣṇavs originally and that the tantric yogini cults appropriated it. This is unprovable, and there are serious problems with trying to go by the assumed dates of the few extant texts when thousands of manuscripts are known to be lost and the oldest mentions of the term lack descriptions. Mallinson never really defends his opinion, but uses it as his basis to attack David Gordon White's book Sinister Yogis in his essay The Yogi's Latest Trick. This Mallinson-original argument is a place where he disagrees with equally credible experts like David Gordon White and Alexis Sanderson who both credit Buddhist and Śaiva tantric cults like the forerunners of the Naṭhs with founding haṭha yoga. White even seems to think the cakras might come from Daoism. That also matches with the fact that the Buddhist and Śaiva tantrics who utilize kuṇḍalinī and caṇḍalī are still the main practitioners of haṭha in India and Nepal, all the mythology attributes it to them and most of the texts have the Nāṭha name in them. The only reason Mallinson insists the yogini cults were the later addition and the Vaiṣṇavs were first is probably because he has been a member of the Ramanandis since his undergrad days. If any non-Mallinson source describes kuṇḍalinī as a late addition to haṭha yoga I will be surprised.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: Mallinson's comments on White are notable. Which Sanderson source on Hatha yoga are you referring to? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Chart

@Vic: please identify the page numbers you drew the chart from? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Reliance on Mallinson

It seems like a blatant error on Mallinson's part to claim that hatha originally was the semen preservation techniques of Vaishnav renunciants when he also claims hatha was a movement to bring yoga to householders...clearly householder hatha yoga could not coexist with the absolute sexual continence taught in the early texts (such as the mudra version of hatha in the Dattatreya Yoga Śastra). This is why some consider Śiva Samhita the first householder hatha yoga text: it encourages sexual union as opposed to using an internal feminine drop or obtaining uterine blood "by cunning"– instead one can release and then reabsorb mixed sexual essences through the vajroli mudra.

But it is also obvious that the retention model was a reaction to proto-tantric sexual rituals that go back at least to the Vratyas, Skull-bearers and other antinomian groups that have been using sexual magic since the time of the Vedas and were foundational to tantra. These same practices were central to the Tantric Buddhist sources that include our oldest descriptions of hatha, and according to Tibetan tradition, was reformed and internalized in Tibet.

It seems like an arbitrary choice on Mallinson's part to say that hatha refers to this Vaishnav practice first, regardless of how Mughal artists painted yogis or how many Vaiśnav texts are extant in sanskrit. Remember how the majority of early Indian Buddhist texts are lost to history and that Vaiśnavism has been dominant over Śaivism for royal patronage for most of the period in question...of course Vaiśnavs have more surviving texts. Mallinson himself says that scribes were prone to add new lineages at the beginning of old texts, and Dominick Wujastyk wrote a great article on how quickly the old texts deteriorate and disappear if not actively preserved and copied.

Any scholar of Tamil or Tibetan will also tell you that Mallinson is ignoring all the non-sanskrit sources on hatha yoga because he is a Sanskrit philologist. Mallinson also ignores all the aspects of Kundalini within hatha yoga that notably entered through the western stream of tantra (see Dory Heilijgers Seelen and Mark Dyczkowski for more about that)...the Kubjika cult is still the oldest source for most of what we consider hatha, including the image of the coiled snake and the classical cakra system used in most of these sanskrit hatha manuals. Even the Pañcaratra's Bhāgavatam Purāṇa seems to imitate these cakras and concepts in its 'virat rupa' section (although exact sections of Purāṇas are difficult to date because they are compendiums). The oldest usages of the word hatha (according to Mallinson and Jason Birch) come from tantric Buddhist sources...sources that overlapped considerably with Kaulism (a term used in both Buddhist and Hindu traditions).

So the word hatha does not seem to come from Vaisnav texts, but Buddhist texts. The concept of mudras seems to come from śaiva tantra. The concept of sexual union as ritual also predates Mallinson's sources. So by what makeshift definition of hatha can he really assign it to Vaiśnavism? Really the logic by which Mallinson claims Vaiśnavs started hatha yoga is mostly the opinions you would expect of a Vaiśnav scholar who only looks at Sanskrit texts. The Hathayogapradipika cites a lineage of Nathas (who are saints to both Śaiva and Buddhist siddha traditions, not Vaiśnavism) in its opening lines. The Śiva Samhita is also part of the Śri Vidya tradition (the southern stream of Śaiva tantra, related to Kaulism). I think we need a broader basis in this article and less emphasis on what we can mostly call the thoughts of a singlular modern scholar that have not yet stood the test of time or scholastic critique. Right now this article is almost a love letter to Jim...even the sections that were not just borrowed from his encyclopedia entry.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Iṣṭa Devatā: Allow me to skip your personal views. Summary from peer reviewed scholarly articles by Mallison will stay in this article, because they are RS and meet content guidelines. If you find additional views and reliable source(s), that have not been covered and summarized, we can expand, improve and clarify the article further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Yoga articles
• High-importance Yoga articles
• WikiProject Yoga articles
• C-Class Hinduism articles
• High-importance Hinduism articles
• C-Class Spirituality articles
• Low-importance Spirituality articles
• C-Class Alternative medicine articles