Go back to your swamis and ask them if it is correct to assert that “yoga is hinduism” and see what they say.
They will say “yes it is”. Hurray for you - you were right alll along !! yippee !
But wait - ask them:-
WHAT IS YOGA?
I am not a gambling man but I would wager they will NOT say straight: “It is Hinduism”
And when you ask them: WHAT IS HINDUISM?
Again - they will not answer; “It is Yoga”.
Rather, they will give you a COMPLEX solution similar to the one I gave you - in that each can be best described notionally in terms of translated meanings and with reference to a controversial historical narrative and we all call these Hinduism (H) and Yoga (Y) - TWO concepts - perhaps like “vehicle” and “coach”.
So, we have two different words to describe TWO different concepts - Hinduism(H) and Yoga(Y) and I have complained that their relationship is not a STRICT EQUIVALENCE in the way that you want to assert but rather what we might charitably refer to as a COTERMINOUS RELATIONSHIP - in that they circumscribe a very similar and yet a hazy horizon.
Other people will want to lift yoga from its roots and not refer to Hinduism at all, and this is perhaps where we can both agree - this would be a mistake.
To use the sentence: “we went to the beach in a vehicle” is VALID.
We can also say: “we went to the beach in a coach” and this is VALID
But - notice that in the first sentence this does not NECESSARILY mean that the vehicle is a coach - just that it might be.
If we compare the second sentence not only did we go to the beach in a coach but we can also say that we went to the beach in a vehicle - and we (in both cases) we can say a lot more besides - such as “we did not fly to the beach” etc. if we want.
This type of logic is not always easy to spot - there is ENTAILMENT and DEPENDANCE and a few other logical connectives missing from your assertion: “Yoga is Hinduism” and this is why I say it fails.
I have given you the reasons why Hinduism and Yoga have been categorised in relation to other less controversial topics - such as “plants” and “lotus”; “english” and “cricket”.
These relationships are similar because although cricket originated in England, if it is being played in India by Indian cricketers it is less difficult to assert that it is English - but notice that it is still cricket even if the players are talking in an Indian dialect and the match is in Bangalore with Indian umpires and an Indian crowd.
Again - you are frustrated because you don’t fully accept the logic and backslide into racist taunts and european conspiracy theories about AIT and the translations of the Vedas.
We also have to notice that there is nothing particularly English about striking a bat with a ball - even in the way that it is played in the game of cricket.
So, to talk about the claim that “Cricket is English” we have to look at what it means for something to be English - and what it means for something to be cricket.
This is why you are baffled by my response which is “Cricket is English” but also “Cricket is not English” - we must discuss the context of those statements to be able to offer the reader any succourance…
And this is what I have been wanting to discuss with you and as yet - we have not reached agreement mainly because you are unwilling to submit your claim to rigourous analysis and wish to persist with contentious ancient Indian history - in the same way I might talk about coins found from the the Iron Age in Britain with people holding sticks to try and prove that crickets tradition is actually older than we think from having read authoritative books about it such as the Wisden Almanac.
The point is that IN RELATION TO YOUR CLAIM that “yoga is hinduism” IT DOES NOT MATTER how old Hinduism is - or yoga - or where each was first practiced unless we are prepared to enter into a discussion about what each represents.
You have shown that you are either unwilling or unable to enter into a mature and intelligent discussion about Hinduism and yoga and continue to offer me information dumps from ancient Indian history to try and prove a point that is MOOT.
I do not want to read ancient Indian history for its own sake - but only in relation to how it might help us describe Hinduism and yoga - and as I already know about ancient indian history, about Hinduism and about yoga I can say that reading about them actually helps very little when it comes to actually being a Hindu or a Yogi.
Swamis will want to tell you - as I have - that both Yoga and Hinduism are vast collections in themselves and, like other religious traditions dovetail into what we know as Sanata Dharma (SD) in one way or another.
Here, you need to understand Sanata Dharma as an infinite concept, wheras Hinduism and yoga both have a strat dayte - and presumably an end date.
Neither one is universal or infinite in the same way Sanata Dharma is - they are both discrete sets of rituals, beliefs and practices that are related to each other - perhaps like brother and sister.
In a similar way od describing he realtionship notice how the father can be a father without having a particular son (in that he may have a daughter) but the son cannot be a son without a father.
So - it is necessary for you to look again at your logic and probably soften your hardline claim that “yoga is hinduism” to avoid further unecessary frustration for yourself and avoid marginalising the interests you are failing to represent in their entirety.
