Is Yoga Hinduism?

Spirituality Religion
#101

Internet forums discussions can sometimes get heated, but they are usually the type of friendly discussion you could have with someone over a cup of coffee. These discussions with Surya Deva are more in the nature of a partisan political debate, in which one side is trying to advance an agenda that promotes their own self interest. In this type of debate, the participants generally do not recognize valid points made by the other side, and observers are left to judge who has prevailed. So in deciding not to continue, there is no feeling of losing the debate, only recognizing the futility of continuing. I said what I wanted to say, and made my points, so there is no sense in incessant arguing. What point is there to arguing with someone who is willing to deny something that they wrote only a few posts earlier?

This brings us to the question of character. In judging a debate of this sort, one must consider the character of the participants. What kind of a person blatantly and deliberately offends an entire group of people, repeatedly? This type of speech is strictly forbidden in any kind of real debate. What kind of person refuses to find common ground, because division and hatred serve his purpose better?

And what is his purpose? Surya Deva sees himself as a leader of some kind of Hindu extremist political group. He has taken his cues from the Muslim extremists, and wants to return to India and restore it to Hindu law. He is using the most despicable tactics to try to achieve his goals. He has no qualms about using violent speech, and in my opinion it is only a matter of time before he graduates to real violence. This is someone who must be stopped.

#102

Namaste Asuri,

. These discussions with Surya Deva are more in the nature of a partisan political debate, in which one side is trying to advance an agenda that promotes their own self interest.

Surprise Surprise. Really in a debate one side actually has a position they are arguing. Who would have thought it :wink:

In this type of debate, the participants generally do not recognize valid points made by the other side, and observers are left to judge who has prevailed.

Any objective reader can clearly see none of your points have been left unanswered. Including the points you made in this post. On the contrary, you have called for censorship on points I am making. I still have not had any responses from you of my rebuttals of many of your points. I will ask again: Under what circumstances is infanticide, genocide, murder and rape justified?

This brings us to the question of character. In judging a debate of this sort, one must consider the character of the participants. What kind of a person blatantly and deliberately offends an entire group of people, repeatedly? This type of speech is strictly forbidden in any kind of real debate. What kind of person refuses to find common ground, because division and hatred serve his purpose better?

This is known as an adhominem fallacy(to the man) Rather than engaging my points, you are more interested in assassinating my character. No formal debates consider this tactic valid. Never, until the rise of political correctness in postmodern times, has not offending people been a requirement. This is very fortunate otherwise we would never have had free thinkers in society such as Socrates, Neitzche, Hume. You want to end freedom of speech and thought. You want people who think freely to be censored, villified, maybe even arrested. This is obvious from your implicit request to have me banned to David.

I have no doubt that you would go to some lengths to have my character assassinated and have me silenced from your speech against me on this forum. I have already said to you if you are so disturbed by what I say, you are free to put me on your ignore list. I am never going to forefit my right to free expression. Ironically, didn’t your very own Jesus go around offending the people of his time? Hyprocrisy indeed.

And what is his purpose? Surya Deva sees himself as a leader of some kind of Hindu extremist political group. He has taken his cues from the Muslim extremists, and wants to return to India and restore it to Hindu law. He is using the most despicable tactics to try to achieve his goals. He has no qualms about using violent speech, and in my opinion it is only a matter of time before he graduates to real violence. This is someone who must be stopped.

A leader of some Hindu political extremist group? You might as well say I am the antichrist himself and have come to destroy Christianity. Such views are inane and they are not worthy of serious consideration. I see myself as a Hindu, and I hold the views that a majority of Hindus hold. It is interesting that you say that I am using violent speech and will graduate to real violence at some point, yet you are the one justifying infanticide, genocide, murder and rape in the bible. Ironically, I am the one condemning it.

Any objective reader can see that I have maintained from the very start that I do not condone any kind of violence. I find the few Hindu nationalists that go around killing innocent Muslims and Christians to be very misguided. I even intimated I am genuinely concerned for the plight of innocent Muslims and Christians in India, because I can see a holocaust like situation developing before my very eyes. I am calling for responsible Muslims and Christians to take action on their side to stop the missionary activity and fundamentalism by Muslims and Christians in India, by contacting their official bodies in order to stop these horrors from transpiring. I am the kind of person who cried when watching Passion of the Christ and because of how badly they treated Jesus, I cried during the holocaust films because of the inhumanity against the Jews and I cried in Avatar(It reminded me of what they did to the Native Americans and Aborigines) I cry because the suffering of innocent human beings moves me to tears. They well up in my eyes uncontrollably. How could somebody as soft at heart as me hurt anybody? I cannot even hurt a fly. In my religion killing innocent people is absolutely abmoninable.

Now what is interesting that while I share these sentiments, the Christian members on this forum have rather than condemned the fundamentalist activity being perpetrated by their religion in India, have downplayed them, if not denied them. As long as you have such apologists there is no hope for peace on this planet. Such people never allow society to progress. You are part of the problem, not me.

#103

Yoga really associated with Hinduism from the early beginning.

#104

surya,

You mean if the Hindus named my karma, then it belongs to them? (I knew it.) Does prana also belong to those who named it? We know prana is life and life is prana, do you also think that if a person who has never known it by name has none? Does it belong to someone else?

Yes, credit is due to those who name stuff, and yet as I have said and to which you have not responded, name, theory or technique and the thing itself are not the same: they are not the union that yoga is and you would know it if it were happening for you. In other words, I can name the Atlantic Ocean and we know the name is not the ocean itself. Right? We know that having given a name to the ocean, that the ocean is not mine. Can you acknowledge that?

We don’t need a “pure mind” to see what is elementary.

siva

#105

Siva,

Hinduism is the true dharma which deals with prana, karma, atman, brahman. It does not matter what name we give to it. On this planet and in this period it just happens to be known as Hinduism.

The problem is people not recognising that all this stuff they talk about prana, karma, atman, brahman is Hinduism. In their heads they have associated Hinduism with something which is not Hinduism, such as rituals, gods and goddesses. What they do not realise is that Hinduism is the religion of Yoga, meditation, Vedanta, Ayurveda, prana, karma, mantras, atman and brahman. They are practicing the formal practices of our religion and yet they claim they are not Hindu lol

#106

Surya,

Now you’re getting somewhere.

So, you acknowledge there’s a difference between a dharma which deals with prana, and prana itself: between a name and what a name stands for? If it doesn’t matter what name we give it, why is Hinduism important to it. Is it not the same as saying it could exist independently of Hinduism? Independently of names?

siva

#107

The name is important because it identifies what our religion is about. The religion of the Hindus is about dharma, prana, karma etc. This is what we believe. If others are also going to believe in the same they are adopting Hindu beliefs.

The truth is many people who practice Yoga today are gradually accepting its practice and its philosophy to be true. They are accepting Hinduism to be true. However this creates a conflict within themselves, because most of these people are Christian or Muslim, so rather than jumping ship and becoming Hindu, they try to read Yoga theory and practice into the Christian and Muslims scriptures. They reinterpret “Resurrection” and “reincarnation” and Jesus’s teachings as teaching union with the source so they can comfort themselves.

We Hindus have always had the true religion on this planet. Now the whole world is realising this as well. It is our religion that is going to become the religion of this planet in the future. It may not be called Hinduism, it maybe called spirituality or whatever, but it is just another name for the Vedic religion.

#108

Not adopting Hindu beliefs, but Hindu “NAMES!”

To see the symbol as what it symbolizes is called fundamentalism.

What could be wrong with this?

You avoided my question again: Why does it NOT matter what name we give it?

siva

#109

They are adopting Hindu names which refer to Hindu beliefs.

What could be wrong with this?
You avoided my question again: Why does it NOT matter what name we give it?

It is wrong because it is false. The Abrahmic religions do not talk about reincarnation or the Self.

As Hinduism is the true religion it is being practiced everywhere in the universe where that civilisation has reached a certain level of scientific development. They obviously do not call it Hinduism.

#110

OK, I’m going to ask a very odd question here but one I don’t have the answer to.

Was yoga ‘mentioned’ in the Vedas or did it say in the Vedas that they discovered it?

If it was mentioned in the Vedas, could yoga have been formulated by some other culture and then adopted by the authors of the Vedas?

#111

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;36608]
Hinduism is the true dharma which deals with prana, karma, atman, brahman. It does not matter what name we give to it. On this planet and in this period it just happens to be known as Hinduism.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you would like another chance. Tell us why “it does not matter what name we give to it.” Please.

siva

#112

The Vedas date back 10,000 years and prior and there is no other culture on this planet in this period. The first mention of the word Yoga is found in the Rig Veda, and description of Yogic concepts are also found therein. The first systematic description of Yoga is found in the Upanishads. The first one to codify it into a proper scientific form was Patanjali in the Yogasutras.

Yoga is not to be found anywhere else except Hindu scriptures.

#113

[QUOTE=siva;36649]Maybe you would like another chance. Tell us why “it does not matter what name we give to it.” Please.

siva[/QUOTE]

Namaste, I would like to clarify my expression there. It does in fact matter what name we go it this system of knowledge. The name is Sanatana Dharma which is known today as Hinduism.

However, my point is that because this is an eternal religion, not all cultures in the universe will call it by the same name. Just as not everybody would call a steam engine a steam engine.

It is important that people recognise Yoga is Hinduism. As Hinduism is the entire system within which Yoga must be understood and practiced. If you de contexualise it, Yoga loses its meaning. Yoga must be understood and appreciated in relation to Samkhya-Yoga-Vedanta philosophy, its history in India and the Vedic religion.

Yoga is not just some physical exercise :smiley:

#114

Thank you Surya, but I do know that what you have explained. What I’m asking is there mention in the Rig Veda that they (authors?) discovered yoga? Or was it just written about in the the text? How is it that they mentioned yoga?

Thank you

#115

It is described in the Veda how the Risis had come to know the ultimate reality in their deep meditation and learn of the divine principles. However, they must have known about Yoga prior to this, because otherwise they would not have been meditating. This is why they say the Vedic tradition is timeless. It has been there since the beginning of creation.

The scientist in me interprets this as every civilisation which reaches a certain level of scientific development will discover its own Vedas. We are close to that time now with quantum physics. I have heard it said, that even if the Vedas and every Hindu were to disappear of this planet, the Vedas would once again reappear. All advanced planets in this universe would have a Vedic religion. If tommorrow advanced beings were to come to this planet they would have a Vedic like religion.

Hence my contention that we can only progress if the whole planet embraces the Vedic religion. Its education system, its health care systems, its economic and political systems and its metaphysics. If we did this the age of truth will dawn on this planet again. This will happen anyway, but it can happen by choice, or it can happen by wars and destruction and the planet is heading towards this now.

#116

Greetings Surya.

Thank you for explaining. A question though. If you follow logic, and as you said they must have known yoga prior to this, how can you with certainty know that yoga was theirs? Could it have been given to them via word of mouth by another civilization? One that has not yet been discovered? I think the possibility exists.

I just returned from teaching my yoga class and I’m starving. I’ll check back tomorrow.

Thanks again.

#117

It is being said here that the vedas (Rig, Yajur, Atharva and Sama) are very consistently developed texts and that they have elaborately dwelled upon the theme of Yoga.
Also that Upanishads (the later texts) are in consonance with the four Vedas.

I request that original quotations be brought forth to prove these points.

In all this it is also being said that all these are very scientific. Prana and koshas are still articles of beliefs, NOT science.

And again, pray, bring forth quotations from original texts. Lets scrutinize and find out.

Secondly the word Yoga is used in a very ambiguous terms here.
It has been said that:
‘description of Yogic concepts are also found therein (in vedas)’

Explain with original quotations.

Here I quote verbatim from an online page about certain differences between upanishad and vedas:
(the following text has been taken in good faith from http://www.easwaran.org/page/39

Fascinatingly, although the Upanishads are attached to the Vedas, they seem to come from an altogether different world. Though harmonious enough in their Vedic setting, they have no need of it and make surprisingly little reference to it; they stand on their own authority. Rituals, the basis of Vedic religion, are all but ignored. And although the Vedic gods appear throughout, they are not so much numinous beings as aspects of a single underlying power called Brahman, which pervades creation yet transcends it completely. This idea of a supreme Godhead is the very essence of the Upanishads; yet, remarkably, the word brahman in this sense does not appear in the hymn portion of the Rig Veda at all.

These are signs of a crucial difference in perspective. The rest of the Vedas, like other great scriptures, look outward in reverence and awe of the phenomenal world. The Upanishads look inward, finding the powers of nature only an expression of the more awe-inspiring powers of human consciousness.

In vedas there is worship of nature gods such as Indra and others. In upanishads the concept of Brahman has been brought forth. There is an undeniable difference. Some contentious issues like why are the gods of rig veda like Indra were not worshiped in later Hinduism are also there.

The opinion that Upanishads were later developments and even independent from vedic thoughts also deserve consideration.

Bhakti Yoga is actually considered within Hinduism to be an inferior vehicle and it was created in the Kaliyuga as a method for common people. Prior to that there was no pantheon of Hindu gods and goddesses that were worshipped and no temples.

Really? Then pray, who were Agni, Varuna and Indra?

Even in the majority sects of Hinduism it is acknowledged that Sadguna Brahman is nothing more than a human invention and ultimately we need to let go. The great bhakti Yogi Ramakrishna played about with his Sadguna Brahman a lot, first using Kali, then Allah, then Jesus. Had he lived today he may have used the flying Sphattegi monster. Ultimately even Ramakrishna had to give up Sadguna Brahman.

Wrong! Some branches of hinduism may think bhakti yoga as inferior but some consider it to be the only way.

And Sri Ramakrishna did NOT give up sadguna bhakti. In Katha Amrit by Sri Mahedranath (the daily diaries of Sri Mahendranath, close disciple of Sri Ramakrishna) it clearly evident that even AFTER realising Nirguna Brahman under the guidance of Totapuri, Sri Ramakrishan continued worshipping Kali till the end of his life.

#118

Yoga is not exclusive to Hindu fold on the Indian subcontinent. The term was used for different people, of different spiritual stages in different ages. It is not correct to portray the term Yoga as immutable and completely well-defined object of Hinduism.

Both Buddhist and Jain religions have used this term. It may be pointed out here that Buddhist and Jains are completely separate from Hinduism.

The Tibetans have used the term yogis for their many Buddhist masters like Milarepa.
In fact I have read somewhere (forgot where) that they also remember Guru Nanak, who visited Tibet during his travels, fondly as a Maha Yogi.

I inform my western friends on this forum that please be not mistaken by all that is being said here about Hinduism that Yoga is exclusive to Hinduism.

Certain yogic practices like raising of Agni in one’s belly has been separately practiced in Tibetan Buddhism too aka Tummo Yoga

#119

Namaste Losontheway,

It is a well known fact that Hinduism predates Buddhism and Jainism. The religion of Hinduism has been traced to the Indus valley civilisation. There is, however a misconception due to early European scholarship of speaking of a “Vedic period” based on a controversial Aryan invasion theory that stipulated that nomadic Aryans invaded from Europe into the Indian subcontinent around 1500BCE and introduced the Vedic religion which then mixed with indigenous Dravidian tradition. In order to back this theory up the Vedas were translated into English based on the assumption of Aryan invasion theory of them being nomadic tribes from Europe. So rather than using the traditional Sanskrit method known as vyakarana to translate the Vedas which used Sanskrit grammar and dictionaries, they invented their own method to translate it known as comparative linguistics. As a result of which the English translations they rendered were at odds with the traditional translations(This was pointed out by many Sanskrit scholars at the time, including some European scholars).
Now it is known for a fact that the Vedas are older than the Indus valley civilisation and indigenous to India by modern archeaologists. Thus there is no such thing as a “Vedic period” rather the Indian subcontinent has been Vedic from the start. The traditional geneologies of the history of India as recorded in the Puranas go back 10,000 years. This fact was also recorded by the Greek historians at the time of Alexandra. The notion of the Vedic people being separate from India is an entirely modern European construction. It was used for a lot political milage by European scholars because it gave them the myth of the Aryan race of people, which was expolited by German intellectuals.

Now what does this to do with Vedic vis-a-vis Upanishads? If you read the European English translations(such as Mueller, Griffith etc) of the Vedas, then yes you will find barely any correspodence with the Upanishads. However, if you read the English translations rendered by Indian Sanskrit scholars using the traditional method, then there is a lot of correspondence and much to be gained by reading the Vedas.

The problem that needs to be approached is the notion of “gods” I have covered this in an earlier thread that the “gods” are not “gods” in the Vedas. The word used is devas which means “luminous or shining ones” from the root div from come words like day and diya. They are cognate with the word “sense” Thus the devas are like principles or controllers. Each hymn in the Vedas is classified by its deva(the subject/principle being expounded on) the rishi(author) and its metre. The early Western translators ignorant of this had a tendency to turn every deva into a separate god. It becomes clear, however that this is not the case as the Vedas very clearly portray the same Upanishadic picture of all the devas being numinous beings that are part of one underlying power that the Vedas simply called the ONE.

Here is proof from the Vedas supporting what I am saying:

He who knows truth knows
This as God as one
Neither second nor third
Nor fourth is he called
Neither fifth nor sixth
Nor seventh is he called
Neither eigth nor ninth
Nor tenth is he called.
He possesses the power Supreme
He is the One
The One alone
In him all divine powers
Become the One alone
(Atharva 13.5.14-21)

May it be called Agni, Aditya, Vayu or
Chandrma.
All are names of the supreme spirit
He is Brahma and Prajapati, the supreme
Lord of them all
He is the ultimate power, protector of all beings
(Yajur 32.1)

That one supreme reality has been called by various
names by the learned seers. They call him Indra, Mitra,
Varuna, Agni, Garutman, Yama, Matarishvan
(Rig 1.164.46)

The non-existent was not then,
Nor was the existent
The Earth was not, nor the firament
Nor that which is beyond.
(When there was nothing then), what could
cover what, and where and in whose care did
the waters and bottomless deep then exist?

There was no death nor immortality then;
There was no sign of night, nor of day.
That One breathed without external breath
with his own nature
One than him there was nothing beyond.

In the beginning there was darkness, intensified
darkness, indistinguishable darkness. All this visible
world was reduced to its primordial nature. This
primordial world was enveloped by the One.

Though the force of his intense activity and spiritual fervour
in the beginning the divine will arose.
This was the first seed of the mind of the Creator
Those can see beyond by putting their mind and heart
together found the binding link of the existent in the non
existent, the non existent existing in the existent
(Rig 10.129-1-4)

The whole of this universe
is stationed in the omnipresent
And the omnipotent One.
We see him in various forms.
He brings to light
All these worlds.
Him they call the Kala, infinite,
Pervading the infinite space
(Atharva 19.53.3)

He who knows the first vital thread,
binding all the things formed in shape,
colour and words, knows only the
physical form of the universe, and knows
very little.

But he who goes deeper and perceives the
string inside the string, the thin web binding
separate life-forces with cords of unity, knows
the real entity.

Only he who knows truly the mighty, omnipotent
and omnipresent God, who is within and beyond
all formulated entities of this vast universe. Penetrate
deeper to know the ultimate truth
(Atharva 10.8.38)

It should be there clear now that is no rift between the Upanishads and the Vedas. The Upanishads merely illustrate the knowledge found in the Vedas. There are several allusions to meditative knowledge also to be found in the Vedas. For example in the preceeding mantra one is told to know “the string within the string” by deep perception. In the creation mantra it speaks of the practice of the “the wise who join their minds and hearts” in order to perceive ultimate reality. In other places it is very categorically said that the devas(Indra, Agni, Varuna etc) are just numinous beings, aspects of the One.

It is clear reading the Vedas that it they were composed in the Indian subcontinent, because it describes the geography of India, including now extinct rivers. It describes a people who are artisans, literate, numerate and maritime just as we find with the Indus people. The linguistic sophistication and stability of the mantras could only be achieived by a people who have a civilisation, not by nomadic people. The strongest argument that crushes the theory of the Vedic people being from Europe is, why do we find not find any Vedas there or any civilisation that matches what the Vedas describes. It is thus plainly obvious from the summary of the evidence that the Vedic people are Indians and been in India for a very very long time.

#120

Greetings Surya.

Thank you for explaining. A question though. If you follow logic, and as you said they must have known yoga prior to this, how can you with certainty know that yoga was theirs? Could it have been given to them via word of mouth by another civilization? One that has not yet been discovered? I think the possibility exists.

I just returned from teaching my yoga class and I’m starving. I’ll check back tomorrow.

Thanks again.

I’m back. Curious to see your answer in light of lostontheway’s posts.

Where is yoga explicitly stated in the Rig Veda? Does it say yoga and describe it? Did they design this? Is it stated that it is theirs? Does it state anywhere, in any text that you will become Hindu if you practice yoga? Does yoga just appear in the Vedas?

Please show exact quotes, if you don’t mind.

Many thanks!