Sets, ven diagrams, semantics? I understand that simplifying something is not good, but to overcomplicate things is even worse. Why are you overcomplicating something which is obvious and historical fact?
If you look into Venn diagrams you will see how it is a very good way of analysing things that are (as you previously admitted) very complex.
Venn diagrams help us to ring fence many different entities and simplify - without oversimplification.
Semantics are also crucial to an intelligent discussion about words, since it is the study of the meaning of words and how words can change their meaning over time.
If you want to look at these aspects than that is of course, your choice - but I am afraid that you are unlikely to be able to “spell out” anything of value unless you are prepared to analyse the facts with rigour and not just assign your own meanings to them and ignore how other people use these words to convey a variety of different perspectives.
I am not here to change your belief, only to suggest that your belief has a social context which, again, you may not agree with me about. No matter.
So, if you are not prepared to study the WORDS you are using: “Hinduism” and “yoga” and prefer to argue the meaning you want to attribute to them then you are really arguing with yourself and this is not a very good debating tactic.
As you agree:
Hinduism was not called Hinduism during its time.
and so if we want to discuss whethjer or not Hinduism and yoga are words that can be used interchangably - as you want to do - then we also have to have a broad agreement as to how either might be defined for the purposes of having an infomed debate.
Otherwise we are engaging in a circular argument which I suspect neither of us has any time for.
I also prefer to use the word “dharma”, and - as you say Hinduism is closely aligned with a specific tradition, but I would also say - it may not be helpful to suggest Hinduism is equivalent to dharma - as there are many other perspectives on dharma which are refered to in the various traditions you mention - you are encouraged of course to make these words meaningful to yourself, and argue your point of view however you want but it is unlikely you will be able to convince me of your views without improving your logic.
If you read my responses you will see that I state that yoga is unequivocally hindu, but where we disagree is that I go onto to make a few provisos as to how we must the words in a narrower scope to do that, wheras you want to ignore these aspects - which is your perogative.
You can shout that the world is flat as much as you like - it doesn’t make it so.
Hindus do not claim that the practices of moral living, breathing exercises, physical postures, contemplation or even meditation are exclusive to Hindus, but the way that they are done and the philosophy underpinning them certainly is.
Here, you have directly contradicted yourself. To say something is not exclusive but then you say that it is.
It seems you are saying trying to say something meaningful but here you are saying: “moral living, breathing exercises, physical postures, contemplation or even meditation is not necessarily yoga”; “yoga is Hinduism”; “Hinduism is yoga”; “yoga is the same as Hinduism” - so it begs the question:-
When is moral living, breathing exercises, physical postures, contemplation or even meditation NOT yoga?
If you can answer that question then we might be on to something - otherwise it is just your opinion vs. the world which must be very trying.
Eating bread and wine is not exclusive to Christianity, but the way it is done and the philosophy underpinning it certainly is.
Again here, you seem to want to say something philosophical but in fact you are not really saying anything.
For example, it is possible to drink wine and eat bread without any reference to the philosophy underpinning it - and still be a Christian!!
You are either deliberately, or unknowingly conflating methodological and ideological perspectives and that is not at all helpful.
ALso, you come across as an angry person, which although does not affect my discusions with you may well turn people away from your message which I think has a great deal of validity, if only you could express it more convincingly.
)