Yoga is Hindu. Period.

[Anonymous]

OP,

Yes, you are correct about Yoga. But, I am amazed how naive you are about the intelligence of the DCUM crowd - this is not the audience for your discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They're not Hindi chants. It's Sanskrit, not Hindi.

As for OP, there are schools of Hinduism that are pretty close to being atheistic. They don't have a notion of a personal god, which is what most American atheists reject. So it's possible to be an atheist and a yogi at the same time. Union with the divine doesn't necessarily mean union with a specific personal god. "Divine" is a pretty open-ended concept. And a lot of yogic texts are very vague on the notion of what "divine" actually means.

As for the whole debate about cultural appropriation, pretty much all of my Hindu friends celebrate Christmas and participate in Christmas, and they don't care if Americans meditate and say Sanskrit chants. The thing they mind is when Americans (or Indians for that matter) try to copyright poses and phrases that have been around for hundreds of years in order to profit from them.

Most of the yoga teachers I know don't make a lot of money from their classes. The money maker is the studios and their teacher training programs. I take issue with them only because I don't know that they're really adequately regulated so that people who know anatomy and philosophy are running it.

I don't know why people are so touchy about it all. The thing about Hinduism is that it has drawn from so many other traditions. My theology professors said that part of what has made it so dynamic is its ability to absorb other philosophical movements.

One of the most physical forms of yoga, by the way, is Ashtanga. It's not just in the West that there are different styles of yoga, some more physical than others.

Do you recall which ones? I wonder why this is not taught in Indian schools...

Jainism, Buddhism. Early Hindus ate meat. The vegetarianism comes from Jainist influence. Advaita Vedanta is believed to be a response to Buddhist schools of thought, a way to sort of incorporate some of those concepts into Hinduism.

Hinduism doesn't have a set, codified set of beliefs. It's more of an umbrella term for a lot of different sects, a lot of various movements -- some more theological and others more pure philosophy. Unlike the three main monotheistic religious traditions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- Hinduism does not have one text. Rather, there are a bunch of different texts from different time periods. And even then, there are also many strands of "Hinduism" that are more like tribal religions in certain regions of India (worship of the mother goddess in some areas is a good example of this).

There was even a point in time and some strands of Hinduism that practice animal sacrifice to deities. That stands in sharp contrast to the vegetarianism many people associate with Hinduism today.

I would also caution people about making declarative statements about Buddhism, as Buddhism has many schools as well. Some forms of Buddhism have gods; others not so much.

The point is that I don't think you can talk about Hinduism in the same way you talk about Judaism or Christianity. Even though there are different schools of thought in Judaism and Christianity, they still hold one book as kind of the primary source. So their differences lie in their interpretation of that book. In Hinduism, there isn't one book. There are lots of sources. And even outside of that, there are traditions that aren't written in any source. Some scholars even take issue in the term "Hinduism." They find the term itself something that came from outsiders to describe a religion they didn't really respect or understand.

So even if we all agree that "Yoga is Hindu," there isn't agreement on what it means to be "Hindu." Like "yoga," the term is an umbrella term.

So all of the offense and outrage is kind of misplaced. These are dynamic systems. It's all a conversation. Hinduism isn't a closed system. Neither is yoga.

And besides, no one owns a term. No one owns a religion. No one owns a practice. I don't care if people call themselves yogis, Hindus or whatever. So long as they don't try to copyright terms and practices that existed before they were born, then they can do whatever they want. So long as they don't try to sue someone else who practices and teaches something that has been around for a long time, then I'm cool with them doing what they want.

I think, on the whole, yoga -- even Americanized, gym yoga -- does a lot of good for a lot of people. To expect the general masses of people to be highly spiritual or study ancient texts is kind of a foolish expectation. Even most religious practitioners -- Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists -- only know sort of a certain base level of knowledge. I went to school with a guy who was born and raised Buddhist (he was from a South Asian country), and he used to laugh when people assumed he was some sort of expert on Buddhism. He was like most of the rest of us. He knew some traditions, some basic tenets about his faith. But it's not like he studied in a Buddhist monastery. He was a regular guy. But he certainly didn't take offense if Americans were interested in Buddhist meditation or reading Buddhist texts in translation.

[Anonymous]

Maybe Americans should just call it Yogacize.

[Anonymous]

So even if we all agree that "Yoga is Hindu," there isn't agreement on what it means to be "Hindu." Like "yoga," the term is an umbrella term.

Except everything in this post has actually been addressed in the thread already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound like hard work, OP. Be grateful you have a friend.

+1

She's the type that makes people roll their eyes when she walks in the room.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So even if we all agree that "Yoga is Hindu," there isn't agreement on what it means to be "Hindu." Like "yoga," the term is an umbrella term.

Except everything in this post has actually been addressed in the thread already.

I don't think a lack of agreement about "Hindu" can be resolved in one thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound like hard work, OP. Be grateful you have a friend.

+1

She's the type that makes people roll their eyes when she walks in the room.

+100

I agree and maybe this isn't the post for it, but I believe the cultural misappropration thing has jumped the shark. I'm Italian, can I have my chicken parm back? Can you people please stop watching The Godfather?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound like hard work, OP. Be grateful you have a friend.

+1

She's the type that makes people roll their eyes when she walks in the room.

+100

I agree and maybe this isn't the post for it, but I believe the cultural misappropration thing has jumped the shark. I'm Italian, can I have my chicken parm back? Can you people please stop watching The Godfather?

Because frivolous things like food and entertainment are the same as...religion?

[Anonymous]

Equating food appropriation to religious appropriation is just...what.

[Anonymous]

I lived in India and never saw anyone practicing what would be known as western yoga.

That said I don't get your argument at all OP. Don't practice yoga unless you are willing to worship as a Hindu? Does that mean I can't attend a Catholic wedding or other religions without worshiping? Worship is an active, mind-centered activity. Someone doing yoga to relax isn't worshiping. That is a very different kind of practice. But, who cares? Why are you so defensive on this point? Is it just to be a know-it-all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I lived in India and never saw anyone practicing what would be known as western yoga.

That said I don't get your argument at all OP. Don't practice yoga unless you are willing to worship as a Hindu? Does that mean I can't attend a Catholic wedding or other religions without worshiping? Worship is an active, mind-centered activity. Someone doing yoga to relax isn't worshiping. That is a very different kind of practice. But, who cares? Why are you so defensive on this point? Is it just to be a know-it-all?

I have Jewish friends who argue that they can not attend Catholic weddings for this reason since the marriage ceremony takes place within the Mass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They're not Hindi chants. It's Sanskrit, not Hindi.

As for OP, there are schools of Hinduism that are pretty close to being atheistic. They don't have a notion of a personal god, which is what most American atheists reject. So it's possible to be an atheist and a yogi at the same time. Union with the divine doesn't necessarily mean union with a specific personal god. "Divine" is a pretty open-ended concept. And a lot of yogic texts are very vague on the notion of what "divine" actually means.

As for the whole debate about cultural appropriation, pretty much all of my Hindu friends celebrate Christmas and participate in Christmas, and they don't care if Americans meditate and say Sanskrit chants. The thing they mind is when Americans (or Indians for that matter) try to copyright poses and phrases that have been around for hundreds of years in order to profit from them.

Most of the yoga teachers I know don't make a lot of money from their classes. The money maker is the studios and their teacher training programs. I take issue with them only because I don't know that they're really adequately regulated so that people who know anatomy and philosophy are running it.

I don't know why people are so touchy about it all. The thing about Hinduism is that it has drawn from so many other traditions. My theology professors said that part of what has made it so dynamic is its ability to absorb other philosophical movements.

One of the most physical forms of yoga, by the way, is Ashtanga. It's not just in the West that there are different styles of yoga, some more physical than others.

Do you recall which ones? I wonder why this is not taught in Indian schools...

Jainism, Buddhism. Early Hindus ate meat. The vegetarianism comes from Jainist influence. Advaita Vedanta is believed to be a response to Buddhist schools of thought, a way to sort of incorporate some of those concepts into Hinduism.

Hinduism doesn't have a set, codified set of beliefs. It's more of an umbrella term for a lot of different sects, a lot of various movements -- some more theological and others more pure philosophy. Unlike the three main monotheistic religious traditions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- Hinduism does not have one text. Rather, there are a bunch of different texts from different time periods. And even then, there are also many strands of "Hinduism" that are more like tribal religions in certain regions of India (worship of the mother goddess in some areas is a good example of this).

There was even a point in time and some strands of Hinduism that practice animal sacrifice to deities. That stands in sharp contrast to the vegetarianism many people associate with Hinduism today.

I would also caution people about making declarative statements about Buddhism, as Buddhism has many schools as well. Some forms of Buddhism have gods; others not so much.

The point is that I don't think you can talk about Hinduism in the same way you talk about Judaism or Christianity. Even though there are different schools of thought in Judaism and Christianity, they still hold one book as kind of the primary source. So their differences lie in their interpretation of that book. In Hinduism, there isn't one book. There are lots of sources. And even outside of that, there are traditions that aren't written in any source. Some scholars even take issue in the term "Hinduism." They find the term itself something that came from outsiders to describe a religion they didn't really respect or understand.

So even if we all agree that "Yoga is Hindu," there isn't agreement on what it means to be "Hindu." Like "yoga," the term is an umbrella term.

So all of the offense and outrage is kind of misplaced. These are dynamic systems. It's all a conversation. Hinduism isn't a closed system. Neither is yoga.

And besides, no one owns a term. No one owns a religion. No one owns a practice. I don't care if people call themselves yogis, Hindus or whatever. So long as they don't try to copyright terms and practices that existed before they were born, then they can do whatever they want. So long as they don't try to sue someone else who practices and teaches something that has been around for a long time, then I'm cool with them doing what they want.

I think, on the whole, yoga -- even Americanized, gym yoga -- does a lot of good for a lot of people. To expect the general masses of people to be highly spiritual or study ancient texts is kind of a foolish expectation. Even most religious practitioners -- Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists -- only know sort of a certain base level of knowledge. I went to school with a guy who was born and raised Buddhist (he was from a South Asian country), and he used to laugh when people assumed he was some sort of expert on Buddhism. He was like most of the rest of us. He knew some traditions, some basic tenets about his faith. But it's not like he studied in a Buddhist monastery. He was a regular guy. But he certainly didn't take offense if Americans were interested in Buddhist meditation or reading Buddhist texts in translation.

There are SO many things wrong in this post. I picked up on it from your first post stating that Hinduism draws from other practices, I remember hearing that in my South Asian studies classes.

This is the exact type of thing I addressed previously, how Western historians white-washed and distorted Hinduism in order for it to fit more neatly into their package of it.

Interesting fact, most religious studies and even women's studies departments in universities are taught by those that either are from that religion, have a deep and connected history to that religion or have a fond reverence for that religion. EXCEPT, the study of Hinduism.

Hindus, by and large, do not feel any need to study other religions. It is mostly Westerners that feel this need for "Comparative Religious Study". And the reason being is to fit the world's history and religions into a Western/Judeo point of view.

You will certainly find countless books and university dept teachings on how Hinduism wasn't really Hinduism, it's taken from Buddism, from Jainism, even from Christianity and Islam, etc.etc.

There are scriptural authorities, they are the Vedas, the Upanshads and our Itihasas. We don't believe that the all encompassing formless God, Brahman, would simply reveal his divinity to ONE person at ONE point of time in the world's entire history which for us is BILLIONS of years and then say by the way you are the last one and make sure everyone knows it or they will suffer eternal hell. This is why Hinduism is so universal at it's core. Our most important prayers that we say before and after any event are universal prayers for the well being of all of humanity. Hindu's do not prosletyze, they will teach you their ways if you are interested but will also tell you to now go back and be steadfast in the religion you hail from and you will reach God.

Advaita did not spring from Buddha, vegetarianism did not spring from Jains, asanas were always a part of yoga not a recent thing.

When we say their may not be an agreement to what being Hindu is, it just like how not all Christians practice Christianity the same or how not all Muslims practice Islam the same. There are different denominations/sects/sampradayas. Our scriptures are still the core but we practice in different ways just like those of you in other religions. Not that there is no definition of being Hindu and not that we don't have sacred scriptures.

But I'm sure you will find PLENTY of literature to appease the need that is felt to make it this 'backward, not real Truth' religion to suit the needs of Judeo beliefs and feel better about co-opting some of the beliefs and traditions. That has been a constant since the 1800s. The difference is nowadays you will hear more people speaking out about these false histories and depictions.

And btw, the reason this whole Yoga is Hindu thing is being more and more touted is because of the numerous Westerners that have started putting multiple patents on yoga asanas and pranayama techniques. That is why there is the outrage.

Just like recently there has been a Westerner that tried to place a patent on turmeric. A spice that has grown in India and been used in cooking and Ayurvedic medicines for 1000s of years. Indians and Hindus have been very open about sharing our native knowledge, we've been happy to give. But now it's being not just taken and used appropriately for good- it's being ripped and sanitized from it's roots. Hence the reason for more vocal opposition.

I'm all for everyone enjoying yoga, it is a deep spiritual guide that will enhance your relationship with God by tuning your body towards reception (this makes you become and feel healthier) but if Hinduism is not something you can stomach than you really are just fooling yourself (not God) about your yoga practice. (I'm trying to say that kindly but "computer speak" doesn't always come off like that).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jainism, Buddhism. Early Hindus ate meat. The vegetarianism comes from Jainist influence. Advaita Vedanta is believed to be a response to Buddhist schools of thought, a way to sort of incorporate some of those concepts into Hinduism.

Hinduism doesn't have a set, codified set of beliefs. It's more of an umbrella term for a lot of different sects, a lot of various movements -- some more theological and others more pure philosophy. Unlike the three main monotheistic religious traditions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- Hinduism does not have one text. Rather, there are a bunch of different texts from different time periods. And even then, there are also many strands of "Hinduism" that are more like tribal religions in certain regions of India (worship of the mother goddess in some areas is a good example of this).

There was even a point in time and some strands of Hinduism that practice animal sacrifice to deities. That stands in sharp contrast to the vegetarianism many people associate with Hinduism today.

I would also caution people about making declarative statements about Buddhism, as Buddhism has many schools as well. Some forms of Buddhism have gods; others not so much.

The point is that I don't think you can talk about Hinduism in the same way you talk about Judaism or Christianity. Even though there are different schools of thought in Judaism and Christianity, they still hold one book as kind of the primary source. So their differences lie in their interpretation of that book. In Hinduism, there isn't one book. There are lots of sources. And even outside of that, there are traditions that aren't written in any source. Some scholars even take issue in the term "Hinduism." They find the term itself something that came from outsiders to describe a religion they didn't really respect or understand.

So even if we all agree that "Yoga is Hindu," there isn't agreement on what it means to be "Hindu." Like "yoga," the term is an umbrella term.

So all of the offense and outrage is kind of misplaced. These are dynamic systems. It's all a conversation. Hinduism isn't a closed system. Neither is yoga.

And besides, no one owns a term. No one owns a religion. No one owns a practice. I don't care if people call themselves yogis, Hindus or whatever. So long as they don't try to copyright terms and practices that existed before they were born, then they can do whatever they want. So long as they don't try to sue someone else who practices and teaches something that has been around for a long time, then I'm cool with them doing what they want.

I think, on the whole, yoga -- even Americanized, gym yoga -- does a lot of good for a lot of people. To expect the general masses of people to be highly spiritual or study ancient texts is kind of a foolish expectation. Even most religious practitioners -- Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists -- only know sort of a certain base level of knowledge. I went to school with a guy who was born and raised Buddhist (he was from a South Asian country), and he used to laugh when people assumed he was some sort of expert on Buddhism. He was like most of the rest of us. He knew some traditions, some basic tenets about his faith. But it's not like he studied in a Buddhist monastery. He was a regular guy. But he certainly didn't take offense if Americans were interested in Buddhist meditation or reading Buddhist texts in translation.

There are SO many things wrong in this post. I picked up on it from your first post stating that Hinduism draws from other practices, I remember hearing that in my South Asian studies classes.

This is the exact type of thing I addressed previously, how Western historians white-washed and distorted Hinduism in order for it to fit more neatly into their package of it.

Interesting fact, most religious studies and even women's studies departments in universities are taught by those that either are from that religion, have a deep and connected history to that religion or have a fond reverence for that religion. EXCEPT, the study of Hinduism.

Hindus, by and large, do not feel any need to study other religions. It is mostly Westerners that feel this need for "Comparative Religious Study". And the reason being is to fit the world's history and religions into a Western/Judeo point of view.

You will certainly find countless books and university dept teachings on how Hinduism wasn't really Hinduism, it's taken from Buddism, from Jainism, even from Christianity and Islam, etc.etc.

There are scriptural authorities, they are the Vedas, the Upanshads and our Itihasas. We don't believe that the all encompassing formless God, Brahman, would simply reveal his divinity to ONE person at ONE point of time in the world's entire history which for us is BILLIONS of years and then say by the way you are the last one and make sure everyone knows it or they will suffer eternal hell. This is why Hinduism is so universal at it's core. Our most important prayers that we say before and after any event are universal prayers for the well being of all of humanity. Hindu's do not prosletyze, they will teach you their ways if you are interested but will also tell you to now go back and be steadfast in the religion you hail from and you will reach God.

Advaita did not spring from Buddha, vegetarianism did not spring from Jains, asanas were always a part of yoga not a recent thing.

When we say their may not be an agreement to what being Hindu is, it just like how not all Christians practice Christianity the same or how not all Muslims practice Islam the same. There are different denominations/sects/sampradayas. Our scriptures are still the core but we practice in different ways just like those of you in other religions. Not that there is no definition of being Hindu and not that we don't have sacred scriptures.

But I'm sure you will find PLENTY of literature to appease the need that is felt to make it this 'backward, not real Truth' religion to suit the needs of Judeo beliefs and feel better about co-opting some of the beliefs and traditions. That has been a constant since the 1800s. The difference is nowadays you will hear more people speaking out about these false histories and depictions.

And btw, the reason this whole Yoga is Hindu thing is being more and more touted is because of the numerous Westerners that have started putting multiple patents on yoga asanas and pranayama techniques. That is why there is the outrage.

Just like recently there has been a Westerner that tried to place a patent on turmeric. A spice that has grown in India and been used in cooking and Ayurvedic medicines for 1000s of years. Indians and Hindus have been very open about sharing our native knowledge, we've been happy to give. But now it's being not just taken and used appropriately for good- it's being ripped and sanitized from it's roots. Hence the reason for more vocal opposition.

I'm all for everyone enjoying yoga, it is a deep spiritual guide that will enhance your relationship with God by tuning your body towards reception (this makes you become and feel healthier) but if Hinduism is not something you can stomach than you really are just fooling yourself (not God) about your yoga practice. (I'm trying to say that kindly but "computer speak" doesn't always come off like that).

OP here. Thanks so much for saying this. I no longer had any energy left to argue and I read that post and was like, "I'm just going let it go, I can't keep arguing this." I'm so grateful you said it for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They're not Hindi chants. It's Sanskrit, not Hindi.

As for OP, there are schools of Hinduism that are pretty close to being atheistic. They don't have a notion of a personal god, which is what most American atheists reject. So it's possible to be an atheist and a yogi at the same time. Union with the divine doesn't necessarily mean union with a specific personal god. "Divine" is a pretty open-ended concept. And a lot of yogic texts are very vague on the notion of what "divine" actually means.

As for the whole debate about cultural appropriation, pretty much all of my Hindu friends celebrate Christmas and participate in Christmas, and they don't care if Americans meditate and say Sanskrit chants. The thing they mind is when Americans (or Indians for that matter) try to copyright poses and phrases that have been around for hundreds of years in order to profit from them.

Most of the yoga teachers I know don't make a lot of money from their classes. The money maker is the studios and their teacher training programs. I take issue with them only because I don't know that they're really adequately regulated so that people who know anatomy and philosophy are running it.

I don't know why people are so touchy about it all. The thing about Hinduism is that it has drawn from so many other traditions. My theology professors said that part of what has made it so dynamic is its ability to absorb other philosophical movements.

One of the most physical forms of yoga, by the way, is Ashtanga. It's not just in the West that there are different styles of yoga, some more physical than others.

Do you recall which ones? I wonder why this is not taught in Indian schools...

Jainism, Buddhism. Early Hindus ate meat. The vegetarianism comes from Jainist influence. Advaita Vedanta is believed to be a response to Buddhist schools of thought, a way to sort of incorporate some of those concepts into Hinduism.

Hinduism doesn't have a set, codified set of beliefs. It's more of an umbrella term for a lot of different sects, a lot of various movements -- some more theological and others more pure philosophy. Unlike the three main monotheistic religious traditions -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- Hinduism does not have one text. Rather, there are a bunch of different texts from different time periods. And even then, there are also many strands of "Hinduism" that are more like tribal religions in certain regions of India (worship of the mother goddess in some areas is a good example of this).

There was even a point in time and some strands of Hinduism that practice animal sacrifice to deities. That stands in sharp contrast to the vegetarianism many people associate with Hinduism today.

I would also caution people about making declarative statements about Buddhism, as Buddhism has many schools as well. Some forms of Buddhism have gods; others not so much.

The point is that I don't think you can talk about Hinduism in the same way you talk about Judaism or Christianity. Even though there are different schools of thought in Judaism and Christianity, they still hold one book as kind of the primary source. So their differences lie in their interpretation of that book. In Hinduism, there isn't one book. There are lots of sources. And even outside of that, there are traditions that aren't written in any source. Some scholars even take issue in the term "Hinduism." They find the term itself something that came from outsiders to describe a religion they didn't really respect or understand.

So even if we all agree that "Yoga is Hindu," there isn't agreement on what it means to be "Hindu." Like "yoga," the term is an umbrella term.

So all of the offense and outrage is kind of misplaced. These are dynamic systems. It's all a conversation. Hinduism isn't a closed system. Neither is yoga.

And besides, no one owns a term. No one owns a religion. No one owns a practice. I don't care if people call themselves yogis, Hindus or whatever. So long as they don't try to copyright terms and practices that existed before they were born, then they can do whatever they want. So long as they don't try to sue someone else who practices and teaches something that has been around for a long time, then I'm cool with them doing what they want.

I think, on the whole, yoga -- even Americanized, gym yoga -- does a lot of good for a lot of people. To expect the general masses of people to be highly spiritual or study ancient texts is kind of a foolish expectation. Even most religious practitioners -- Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists -- only know sort of a certain base level of knowledge. I went to school with a guy who was born and raised Buddhist (he was from a South Asian country), and he used to laugh when people assumed he was some sort of expert on Buddhism. He was like most of the rest of us. He knew some traditions, some basic tenets about his faith. But it's not like he studied in a Buddhist monastery. He was a regular guy. But he certainly didn't take offense if Americans were interested in Buddhist meditation or reading Buddhist texts in translation.

There are SO many things wrong in this post. I picked up on it from your first post stating that Hinduism draws from other practices, I remember hearing that in my South Asian studies classes.

This is the exact type of thing I addressed previously, how Western historians white-washed and distorted Hinduism in order for it to fit more neatly into their package of it.

Interesting fact, most religious studies and even women's studies departments in universities are taught by those that either are from that religion, have a deep and connected history to that religion or have a fond reverence for that religion. EXCEPT, the study of Hinduism.

Hindus, by and large, do not feel any need to study other religions. It is mostly Westerners that feel this need for "Comparative Religious Study". And the reason being is to fit the world's history and religions into a Western/Judeo point of view.

You will certainly find countless books and university dept teachings on how Hinduism wasn't really Hinduism, it's taken from Buddism, from Jainism, even from Christianity and Islam, etc.etc.

There are scriptural authorities, they are the Vedas, the Upanshads and our Itihasas. We don't believe that the all encompassing formless God, Brahman, would simply reveal his divinity to ONE person at ONE point of time in the world's entire history which for us is BILLIONS of years and then say by the way you are the last one and make sure everyone knows it or they will suffer eternal hell. This is why Hinduism is so universal at it's core. Our most important prayers that we say before and after any event are universal prayers for the well being of all of humanity. Hindu's do not prosletyze, they will teach you their ways if you are interested but will also tell you to now go back and be steadfast in the religion you hail from and you will reach God.

Advaita did not spring from Buddha, vegetarianism did not spring from Jains, asanas were always a part of yoga not a recent thing.

When we say their may not be an agreement to what being Hindu is, it just like how not all Christians practice Christianity the same or how not all Muslims practice Islam the same. There are different denominations/sects/sampradayas. Our scriptures are still the core but we practice in different ways just like those of you in other religions. Not that there is no definition of being Hindu and not that we don't have sacred scriptures.

But I'm sure you will find PLENTY of literature to appease the need that is felt to make it this 'backward, not real Truth' religion to suit the needs of Judeo beliefs and feel better about co-opting some of the beliefs and traditions. That has been a constant since the 1800s. The difference is nowadays you will hear more people speaking out about these false histories and depictions.

And btw, the reason this whole Yoga is Hindu thing is being more and more touted is because of the numerous Westerners that have started putting multiple patents on yoga asanas and pranayama techniques. That is why there is the outrage.

Just like recently there has been a Westerner that tried to place a patent on turmeric. A spice that has grown in India and been used in cooking and Ayurvedic medicines for 1000s of years. Indians and Hindus have been very open about sharing our native knowledge, we've been happy to give. But now it's being not just taken and used appropriately for good- it's being ripped and sanitized from it's roots. Hence the reason for more vocal opposition.

I'm all for everyone enjoying yoga, it is a deep spiritual guide that will enhance your relationship with God by tuning your body towards reception (this makes you become and feel healthier) but if Hinduism is not something you can stomach than you really are just fooling yourself (not God) about your yoga practice. (I'm trying to say that kindly but "computer speak" doesn't always come off like that).

There is so much wrong about your post. There are plenty of people in religious studies departments who have a deep reverence for Hinduism. There are also plenty of Hindus who are interested in other religions.

There are also factual issues with your post.

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.

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.


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

You sound a bit unhinged and angry. And I'm not sure exactly why. No one is "stealing" Hinduism from you. To imply that Hinduism exists in a vacuum is absurd. 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.

I am by no means an expert on Hinduism. But I assure you I have always studied it with reverence, and I have studied with a variety of teachers -- in the university setting as well as in the temple setting.

[Anonymous]

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.