This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hinduism: Philosophy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism 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.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as High-importance). 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 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.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Eastern Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Eastern philosophy

Is knowledge of science in any way related to jnana yoga as well?Zachorious 09:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, Jnana yoga considers knowledge of the world frivilous, while science seeks out an understanding of how the world works. Sethie 17:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving the following material to the talk page because it is an interpretation of a scriptural passage that is not in fact sourced by s WP:RS other than a scriptural passage.

Another philosophical view, subscribed to by the bhakti school, holds that the atman, the individual soul, although one in quality with the Supreme (brahman), is but a spark of the Supreme. They are identical in quality, as both the ocean and a drop are wet and salty, but different in quantity, as the ocean is vast, the drop tiny: the Supreme is infinite, the individual atman eternally infinitesimal. According to this point of view, liberation consists of becoming free from false identification with the material body and realizing one's eternal relationship with the Supreme. Bhagavata Purana 2.10.6

The statement may or may not be true, but it is effectively unsourced, and scriptural passages are often subject to varying interpretation. Quotation of the exact passage might be helpful. Buddhipriya 04:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to move the statement back, for the following reasons:

You are right, Buddhipriya, that scriptural passages are often subject to varying interpretations. The point here is that one major Hindu philosophical school, that of bhakti, interprets jnana in the manner described in the deleted paragraph--a personalistic fashion. I assume you know this to be true.

As I also assume you know, the assertion that the bhakti school adheres to a personalistic view of what constitutes "jnana" can be documented profusely.

Next reason: I believe that the "principle of similar cases" should apply. That principle says, in essence, "Similar cases should receive similar treatment." Or, in barnyard terms, "What's good for the goose. . ."

As applied, that principle would dictate that if we're going to delete the bhakti paragraph for being "an interpretation of a scriptural passage" and being unsourced (even though a textual source is cited), we should still more quickly delete the two paragraphs above it for being some unknown person's idea of what's what in jnana and citing no source whatsoever.

"One philosophical view of jnana yoga emphasizes. . . " X, and "Another philosophical view. . . holds" Y. And it's fine to delete view Y but keep view X? No.

Delete both or keep both.

Best wishes.

Cordially,

O Govinda 04:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you think that quotation of the exact passage might be helpful, of course I can add it.

There is still a serious problem with the addition. It does not indicate any relation whatsoever to the subject of the article. So why is it needed? Shouldn't it instead be added to some other article, like Atman maybe? or bhakti. What makes it significant to Jnana yoga? The article is, after all, about jnana yoga, a process, and not about liberation or atman or bhakti. IPSOS (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend deleting any of the interpretive essay statements that that are not well-sourced, and that would include many of the statements that are in the article now. I think that most of what is in the article now would not survive strong sourcing. Buddhipriya 06:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor tagged the following material with a fact tag, and it is a good example of the sort of material that is debatable. If it cannot be strongly sourced, I support cutting any such material. Here is the item in case anyone wants to work on this issue:

One philosophical view of jnana yoga emphasizes nondualism, in which the individual soul atman is taken to be entirely identical with brahman, or the transcendent, all-pervasive ultimate reality. This view is expressed in the Hindu philosophical school of Advaita Vedanta. According to this point of view, the desire for liberation mentioned above might be described as "wanting to be one with the universe."‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]}

Buddhipriya 06:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've chosen the "delete both" option. I think that's reasonable. I agree with you that most of the article would not survive strong sourcing.

Best wishes.

Cordially, O Govinda 14:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong name it is ज्ञान योग therefore it must be tileled as gyaan yoga see hi:ज्ञान योग

No, it shouldn't. The title used should be the most common representation in English, which is jnana yoga. The article is titled correctly for the English Wikipedia. IPSOS (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small group, including myself, have picked this Jnana yoga stub to expand for our Composition class project. None of us have ever edited on Wikipedia before and it may take us a couple of tries to get it right. Also, as we are a group, we may be adding incomplete information in hopes that another group member will add to it later that day, or will be adding it ourselves at a slightly later time. Our project will be due Oct. 30, so if until that time you can note that the page is in use. We would appreciate comments on how to make it better, or any other help you could give us, we just ask that you only make minor changes until after Oct. 30, 2007. Thank you.

If you wish to experiment in Wikipedia it might be an idea to log-in and create a WP:Sandbox. The information in it's current state will have to be removed because it reads too much like a personal essay. The article is live, so it's not good practice to experiment on the main page. Please feel free to ask myself or any of the other editors here should you want any help. Best regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - could someone who is knowledgeable about these four types of classic yoga write on these articles about how each is PRACTICED? I think that the practice of a philosophy is at least as important as the ideas behind it! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellajiya (talk • contribs) 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest that the name and work of Swami Sri Yukteswar be included in the main page, since he is known by many in India as a Jnanavatar, or incarnation of wisdom, and he's considered, along with Ramana Marahrshi, one of the greatest masters of Jnana Yoga. Also, reference to his book entitled Kaivalia Darsanam, or the Holy Science would be of great interest for those reading the main article, since it is one of the finest works on the subject, and it can answer the question of the statment above, concerning the practice of it.

I doubt that Sri Yukteswar ever was a jnana yogi. He was a master of Kriya Yoga, which is a form of kundalini yoga, not jnana...—Orlando F (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit to the top - both Ramanuja and Shankara were Vaishnavists (i.e. believed in Vishnu as the supreme god). Their difference was in the non-dualism vs. non-dualism with attributes (Advaita and Vishishtadvaita).

The original article said "the Vaishnavist Ramanuja," which makes an erroneous differentiation.

71.141.234.34 (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should not serve to post examples of individual teachers, beyond Shankara or few other classical figures. Please move mention Sri Ganapatrao Maharaj Kannur to an appropriate section and keep this mention in balance with other notable proponents of this yoga. Hoverfish Talk 15:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How long has "dhyana" been given as the third step in understanding Brahman, instead of nididhyāsana? Painfull mistake... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More than two years; my mistake. Shame shame shame JJ... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check source (Puligandla): "The aspirant therefore now undertakes dhyana (Yogic meditation) on the central Advaitic truth ; That thou art'." (p.254) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it pronounced? I think that it's safe to say that "jnana" or "jñāna" is an unusual spelling in English. 2602:306:CD0E:D410:A508:B67E:6C85:F1FC (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jnana yoga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620101348/http://vedabase.net:80/bg/13/3/en1 to http://vedabase.net/bg/13/3/en1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: Have you looked into Puligandla? His publications are rarely cited, and the few peer reviews of his publication are not very favorable (at least the ones I know of). He is overly pro-Advaita, at times his creative interpretations and writing comes across as trying too hard to make Sunyata/Mahayana a part of Hinduism, and such. Suggest we use his publication(s) with caution, with a second independent source as additional support. If you have studied him and the peer reception of his publications more closely, let me know. I am fine if you decide differently. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: I'll have a look at it later today; woke up too early and going to have some more sleep. Best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a copy of his Fundamentals of Indian Philosophy. I've never delved into his academic credentials; for me, it was a usefull introduction. That one review is critical indeed... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section implies that jnana yoga is difficult and slow but my understanding is that it is the most difficult but fastest spiritual path. ThomasMCarter (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this article and was surprised it said there are three classical yogas, rather than four, which is what I've always read about. Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, and Raja Yoga.

"The most famous is the Bhagavad Gita (dating back to 6th-3rd Century BCE), in which Krishna speaks of four types of yoga – bhakti, or devotion; jnana, or knowledge; karma, or action; and dhyana, or concentration (often referred to as raja yoga, though not all sources agree on the term) – as paths to achieve moksha."

https://www.hinduamerican.org/projects/hindu-roots-of-yoga Ellis408 (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the HAF, following Vivekananda. The HAF is not WP:RS (I put it mildly). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]