Yoga is Hindu. Period.

[Anonymous]

So basically OP is saying no yoga unless you are Hindu?

Hmm okay. Good luck with that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So basically OP is saying no yoga unless you are Hindu?

Hmm okay. Good luck with that one.

That's not what I gathered she was saying.

More like acknowledge that the practice of Yoga is rooted in Hinduism and cannot be separated or cleansed or sanitized from that fact to suit Abrahamic and Atheistic beliefs.

Enjoy it but don't white wash it. If you can't enjoy it with Hindu acknowledgement then look deeper into yourself for the reasons why and make a decision based on serious reflection. Don't look for false explanations that white wash the truth to make it more palatable to your biases.

Yoga is the union with God, the ultimate Truth. False intentions and explanations are the polar opposite.

[Anonymous]

OP, I sure hope you're not speaking English regularly. It would be super hypocritical if you're appropriating the English language for your own purposes.

We all need to stick to the languages and cultures of our own ethnic groups. You're Hindu? No chocolate or pizza. I'm English? No yoga. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm of Indian descent. Yoga weirds me out precisely because of this.

Especially when they use Hindi or other made-up Hindi-like words/phrases/chants.

I'm most definitely an atheist, but cultural Episcopalian, and I am a runner who does "yoga" exercises to help maintain limberness. Basically, to me it's advanced stretching combined with some isometric strength and balance exercises. I hate it when my yoga classes get tarted up with spiritual chanting and phrases...I prefer the English pose names.

ISTR reading somewhere that the origins of yoga are simply exercises done as a prelude to extended meditation (which is basically deliberate extended sedentary behavior) in order to be able to sit still in one place for a long time. Of course, who knows the real story, a lot of spiritual yoga - like so very many religions - is a financial con designed to extract a lot of money from gullible Americans.

It's decent exercise if you clear out the clap-trap.

[Anonymous]

OP, you sound an awful lot like my Christian FIL who thinks Yoga is devil worship. I'm sure you two would have lots to chat about over tea. Enjoy yourselves!

I'll be off doing my stretches + quiet time (AKA "yoga" here in the US), as it's the only thing that helps my back. I don't pray, worship, or chant during yoga. I get into an uncomfortable pose, hold it, and breathe - the next day, I have less pain. For most of us non-Hindus practicing yoga, it's as simple as that.

[Anonymous]

I am Hindu and must say I am a bit baffled by the OP and the subsequent agreeing posters. I have always been taught at home that Hinduism comes in many many different flavored and that there is good reason that the practices of my family of origin have little resemblance to my husband's family of origin (our family histories are from different geographic regions of India). And yet we both claim the title of "Hindu" for our traditions. Yes, we acknowledge both the universal God and the polytheistic pantheon without seeing any contradictions. But while you can reach moksha through learning and parsing out the meaning of things in this very brahman-y way, the act of practice or devotion also leads to the divine. Totally ok for someone to practice yoga without believing/caring about Hindu philosophies. If they are rigorous in their practice, they will become more divine-like. It might look different than an Indian yogi, but is no less true. And cultural appropriation? Totally the way of the world. I don't think Hinduism is being diluted even a little bit by Christians or Muslims practicing yoga - what an odd thought.

I do agree with you about those that try to patent tumeric, neem, or yoga poses. Weird, unproductive, and ned to be shut down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There is so much wrong about your post.

OP here. There's nothing wrong with his/her post, but a great deal of assumptions in yours. I swore to myself that I would drop the subject and conserve my energy and stay out of the thread earlier, but it appears that I just can't. So. Here goes!

And I never said I can't "stomach" Hinduism. I don't think anyone on this thread has said that. You seem to have a lot of misplaced anger.

The PP's "misplaced anger", and mine, is because you have repeatedly tried to fit dharmic religion into the paradigm of Abrahamic religion, on the assumption that a religion can only be a cohesive religion if it follows a progression model similar to Abrahamic religion. This same flawed reasoning, FYI, is why so many Westerners try to insist that Buddhism is atheist - it's because they can't accept a theistic model that doesn't believe in a single creator deity and does not advocate worship.

Similarly, you are unwilling to grasp a single, theistic religious complex which is unified despite not having one single origin, one single text, one single prophet. The unity is manifested in different ways, which the other PP explained and which I'm preeeetty sure I already wasted some breath explaining earlier.

And for what it's worth, Gandhi studied Christianity pretty seriously. He was genuinely interested in other faiths and still committed to Hinduism. The interesting thing is that he was murdered by a Hindu nationalist. Extremism in any religious tradition is, IMHO, a bad thing.

Oh Lord.

1) Extremism is not what is going on here. Religious appropriation is what is going on here. Violation of boundaries is what is going on here. A lot of cultural privilege is what is going on here. I've said repeatedly that I've studied and admired other religious traditions such as the Jewish Kabbalah, which you conveniently ignored, though I said it like...3/4 times. If anyone is "genuinely interested in other faiths and still committed to Hinduism", it's me.

It's a bit of a straw man argument when a religious group that is being marginalized in its own tradition speaks up, and you equate that to Hindu nationalism. Just wow.

I also didn't say that "Hinduism is not Hinduism." I said that Hinduism has drawn from and has been influenced by other traditions. Different sects of Hindus place different emphasis on different texts and different practices/deities.

And yet even in the Vedic age, you didn't see Vaishnavas warring with Shaivas, or Shaktas murdering Sauras. Because Vishnu was never seen out of harmony with Shiva, and Devi was never seen as opposed to Surya, and every different sect and different text within the Hindu religious complex came out of the Vedas and adhered in one way or another to the overarching concept of a Divine Source emanating in different forms...and it is this, most of all, that differentiates different Hindu sects from Jain theology and Buddhist theology, and what unifies those Hindu sects.

And I said that it is mostly used as an umbrella term. I also believe the term itself originated from outsiders and then stuck.

Yes, both of these sentences are correct. I've also said both of these things myself. I've also said that these statements do not contradict the idea that Hinduism is a religion.

You sound a bit unhinged and angry. And I'm not sure exactly why.

I can tell you why. Because you demonstrated an incomplete understanding of Hinduism, tried to define dharmic religions based on an Abrahamic model (and thus revealed your own unconscious biases as to what constitutes "religion"), defended religious appropriation, and accuse people trying to stop the appropriation of "extremism."

No one is "stealing" Hinduism from you. To imply that Hinduism exists in a vacuum is absurd.

Nobody implied that any religion exists in a vacuum. However, on a practical, physical level (as opposed to a transpersonal, transcendent level), yes it is entirely possible for Hindu practices to be appropriated and for that to have social and cultural repercussions for the marginalized religious group.

Yoga appropriation may be more benign than swastika appropriation, but that doesn't mean the insensitivity doesn't exist. There have been a lot of "benign" appropriations throughout history. Like the PP said, everyone can enjoy yoga, but to disassociate it from Hinduism...that is the problem.

No, Hinduism is not a missionary religion. There is no mandate to convert people. But there is also no organized body that serves as the final authority on what is or is not Hinduism.Rather, there are different schools, different temples, et cetera. You act as if all Hindus are unified in their concept of what Hinduism means. And I have heard Hindus -- yes, Hindus, and not, as you claim, people who don't care -- debate these issues.

Once again....you're judging Hinduism's validity as a religion based on your experiences of Abrahamic religions. Hindus don't need to be incapable of internal debate in order to be considered Hindus, FYI. In that case we could start rounding up all the Christian denominations and tell them they aren't Christian.


I think you have reading comprehension issues. NO ONE has "[judged] Hinduism's validity as a religion." I NEVER said that Hinduism wasn't a "valid" religion. I also never said Hindus weren't Hindu. I said that there are different notions of what Hinduism means. And, yes, there are different notions of what Christianity means. The big difference is that Hinduism ALLOWS for difference within, which is what I believe I stated is part of what makes it dynamic. It ALLOWS for different paths -- some of which are more focused on deities; others that are more cerebral/philosophical.

I also never said Hinduism wasn't a religion. I said it was different from the monotheistic religions in that there is no central authoritative source.

Why is all of this relevant? Because you keep saying you can't separate yoga from Hinduism, but what I'm saying is that Hinduism has many paths. It's possible for someone to be an atheist and a yogi because there are paths in Hinduism that are not deity-focused. Advaita Vedanta is a good example of that.

I still think you and the other PP are unhinged, have misplaced anger, and are looking for outrage. You aren't interested in a conversation, because you read things into what people post.

Guess what? You don't own yoga. You also don't own Hinduism.

[Anonymous]

I think you have reading comprehension issues. NO ONE has "[judged] Hinduism's validity as a religion." I NEVER said that Hinduism wasn't a "valid" religion. I also never said Hindus weren't Hindu. I said that there are different notions of what Hinduism means. And, yes, there are different notions of what Christianity means. The big difference is that Hinduism ALLOWS for difference within, which is what I believe I stated is part of what makes it dynamic. It ALLOWS for different paths -- some of which are more focused on deities; others that are more cerebral/philosophical.

I also never said Hinduism wasn't a religion. I said it was different from the monotheistic religions in that there is no central authoritative source.

Why is all of this relevant? Because you keep saying you can't separate yoga from Hinduism, but what I'm saying is that Hinduism has many paths. It's possible for someone to be an atheist and a yogi because there are paths in Hinduism that are not deity-focused. Advaita Vedanta is a good example of that.

I still think you and the other PP are unhinged, have misplaced anger, and are looking for outrage. You aren't interested in a conversation, because you read things into what people post.

Guess what? You don't own yoga. You also don't own Hinduism.

OP here. At first this crazy response baffled me because you pretty much just tried to backtrack, twist, and stubbornly misinterpret everything you previously said, and I was going to write another essay. But you know what? Enjoy having the last word. At this point it's like I'm talking to walls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am Hindu and must say I am a bit baffled by the OP and the subsequent agreeing posters. I have always been taught at home that Hinduism comes in many many different flavored and that there is good reason that the practices of my family of origin have little resemblance to my husband's family of origin (our family histories are from different geographic regions of India). And yet we both claim the title of "Hindu" for our traditions. Yes, we acknowledge both the universal God and the polytheistic pantheon without seeing any contradictions. But while you can reach moksha through learning and parsing out the meaning of things in this very brahman-y way, the act of practice or devotion also leads to the divine. Totally ok for someone to practice yoga without believing/caring about Hindu philosophies. If they are rigorous in their practice, they will become more divine-like. It might look different than an Indian yogi, but is no less true. And cultural appropriation? Totally the way of the world. I don't think Hinduism is being diluted even a little bit by Christians or Muslims practicing yoga - what an odd thought.

I do agree with you about those that try to patent tumeric, neem, or yoga poses. Weird, unproductive, and ned to be shut down.

OP here. I've highlighted the most important sentences in your post. The point is you associate yoga with the Divine in whatever form, and you consciously self-identify as a Hindu, again through whatever form.

[Anonymous]

These arguments are exactly why we no longer belong to a mainstream religious organization (We attend a Unity church). Seriously? You are arguing about which version of "God" is acceptable? First, if your God's ego is so fragile that he insists on worship, that's a problem. Second, all the words we use to describe"God" are just words. The loving, creative Source of all that is, is a little beyond language don't you think?

Many fingers point to the same moon. All paths towards spirituality are equally valid. Yoga practice is highly personal. No one owns yoga except the person on the mat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These arguments are exactly why we no longer belong to a mainstream religious organization (We attend a Unity church). Seriously? You are arguing about which version of "God" is acceptable? First, if your God's ego is so fragile that he insists on worship, that's a problem. Second, all the words we use to describe"God" are just words. The loving, creative Source of all that is, is a little beyond language don't you think?

Many fingers point to the same moon. All paths towards spirituality are equally valid. Yoga practice is highly personal. No one owns yoga except the person on the mat.

....

Okay, at this point I'm completely convinced that you haven't read my posts (I'm the OP), so at this point I'm just wondering why I spent so much time explaining my position in the first place. You want to believe this is a "my God versus your God" issue? Okay honey, you do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Hindu and must say I am a bit baffled by the OP and the subsequent agreeing posters. I have always been taught at home that Hinduism comes in many many different flavored and that there is good reason that the practices of my family of origin have little resemblance to my husband's family of origin (our family histories are from different geographic regions of India). And yet we both claim the title of "Hindu" for our traditions. Yes, we acknowledge both the universal God and the polytheistic pantheon without seeing any contradictions. But while you can reach moksha through learning and parsing out the meaning of things in this very brahman-y way, the act of practice or devotion also leads to the divine. Totally ok for someone to practice yoga without believing/caring about Hindu philosophies. If they are rigorous in their practice, they will become more divine-like. It might look different than an Indian yogi, but is no less true. And cultural appropriation? Totally the way of the world. I don't think Hinduism is being diluted even a little bit by Christians or Muslims practicing yoga - what an odd thought.

I do agree with you about those that try to patent tumeric, neem, or yoga poses. Weird, unproductive, and ned to be shut down.

OP here. I've highlighted the most important sentences in your post. The point is you associate yoga with the Divine in whatever form, and you consciously self-identify as a Hindu, again through whatever form.

OP, I understand your view, I'm also familiar with the Take Back Yoga movement. I disagree with it, which is fine, we do not all have to agree with each other.

Your posting and arguing style is very aggressive. PP posted her view, that yoga is not intrinsically Hindu, and you took her words and twisted them to suit your viewpoint. Quite off-putting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These arguments are exactly why we no longer belong to a mainstream religious organization (We attend a Unity church). Seriously? You are arguing about which version of "God" is acceptable? First, if your God's ego is so fragile that he insists on worship, that's a problem. Second, all the words we use to describe"God" are just words. The loving, creative Source of all that is, is a little beyond language don't you think?

Many fingers point to the same moon. All paths towards spirituality are equally valid. Yoga practice is highly personal. No one owns yoga except the person on the mat.

Serious comprehension issues here.

OPs first post is self explanatory. Acknowledge/ accept yoga for what it is, including its origins, the tattva behind asanas and the spiritual aspect of it. Don't varnish it with theories just to make it likable/acceptable to you. And don't call yourself a "yogi" without understanding what being a yogi means. Hindus have never objected to the practice and use of their culture , systems and traditions as long as you don't misrepresent it or use it for personal greed/ exploitation. Our prayers start with "lokah samastah sukhino bhavantu" which says a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
OP, I understand your view, I'm also familiar with the Take Back Yoga movement. I disagree with it, which is fine, we do not all have to agree with each other.

Your posting and arguing style is very aggressive.

I know, I probably do come off as really really aggressive. My first post especially. I think it's because I've been on DCUM on-and-off for a while now, and I almost expect a fight, especially on a topic like this.

PP posted her view, that yoga is not intrinsically Hindu, and you took her words and twisted them to suit your viewpoint. Quite off-putting.

I am not sure which PP you mean here. If it's the one who basically tried to argue that Hinduism isn't a religion and therefore yoga can't be attributed to Hinduism, then I disagree with you. I know what that PP was saying quite clearly and my response pointed out holes in his/her/hir/zie argument. I'm not really bothered if you or anyone else think it was off-putting, because I understand that people's dislike of my stance is going to color their attitude towards whatever I say. If I try too hard to be sweet, people will steamroll me. If I clearly stand up for myself, I'm a bitch. It's cool, I didn't start this thread for applause, but to state my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Hindu and must say I am a bit baffled by the OP and the subsequent agreeing posters. I have always been taught at home that Hinduism comes in many many different flavored and that there is good reason that the practices of my family of origin have little resemblance to my husband's family of origin (our family histories are from different geographic regions of India). And yet we both claim the title of "Hindu" for our traditions. Yes, we acknowledge both the universal God and the polytheistic pantheon without seeing any contradictions. But while you can reach moksha through learning and parsing out the meaning of things in this very brahman-y way, the act of practice or devotion also leads to the divine. Totally ok for someone to practice yoga without believing/caring about Hindu philosophies. If they are rigorous in their practice, they will become more divine-like. It might look different than an Indian yogi, but is no less true. And cultural appropriation? Totally the way of the world. I don't think Hinduism is being diluted even a little bit by Christians or Muslims practicing yoga - what an odd thought.

I do agree with you about those that try to patent tumeric, neem, or yoga poses. Weird, unproductive, and ned to be shut down.

OP here. I've highlighted the most important sentences in your post. The point is you associate yoga with the Divine in whatever form, and you consciously self-identify as a Hindu, again through whatever form.

I do self identify as Hindu but primarily for cultural reasons. I am not at all sure about the nature of the Divine and many days I lean toward atheism. Meditation is very powerful and can bring you to clarity but that can be a religious/spiritual experience or a new-Agey clearing of the mind. But one thing I do know - you don't get approval authority on my statement "I am a Hindu"