First, it should be important for one to understand that what you are referring to as "Hindu" does not refer to any particular religion. The word "Hindu" simply comes from the word "Indu",
and had been used to refer to those who had been living as part of the Indus civilization and along the banks of the Indus river.
And how does this change the fact that the indigenous people living there had their own names for themselves and their culture?
This logic reminds me of English murde - cough cough settlers, who generalized the numerous indigenous cultures, tribes, and peoples they found as "Indian." So would you tell the American Indian that his/her culture is not Indian because Indian was a geographic misnomer? Would you risk an arrow through your face Amir?
What matters is not etymological and anachronistic considerations but the context and connotations it came to hold.
Terms such as "Dharmic" and "Hindu" are synonymous. Deal with it.
Those who were living in this geographical area were referred to as "Hindus" when other conquerers entered into the land. The word "Hindu" is simply a geographical identification
That doesn't change the fact that "Hindu" was simply a term that "caught on" and was used by the followers of whatever Dharma they were a part of to identity themselves.
- it does not refer to any particular religion, but the culture itself which has flourished in this area.
Yes, it now refers to the "whole package." Deal with it.
Stuff that everyone knows.
Drop you clinging to this idea that "yoga" is Hindu, the very word Hinduism is itself meaningless. Neither does "yoga" require any belief system
Epic fail logic is epic fail.
The etymology of the word Hindu is meaningless in light of the fact that Dharmis of all sorts use it, among other older and indigenous terms, to refer to their culture and religion, or aspects of it, alike.
Back then, the people of the Indian subcontinent referred to themselves by other general terms. Now we use "Hindu," "Indian," and so on.
The foreign origin of the word "Hindu" does not mean that the entire thing to which it refers is not part of Indian heritage.
By your laughable logic, Christianity would not be Judaic in origin since Christianity is an English word.
If yoga is Hindu, then the air is Japanese, and electricity is American. It is just like saying that the big bang was Christian because it was discovered by a Christian.
Fail analogies are fail. Fail logic is fail.
General knowledge belongs to no one.
Cultural and religious practices belong to/originate in different cultural groups. Yoga is Hindu/Indian/Dharmic, Shinto is Japanese, The Haka is Maori, and so on.
Does this mean that there exists a cultural copyright? No. But does it mean you can go around, for example, commercializing Shinto gods, rituals, and so on without seeking the opinions and views of those who follow that culture? No.
You, Amir, are not Indian and therefore, what you say has no import in this matter.
As far as the "methods" of yoga are concerned - then too, it has nothing to do with a belief system.
The methods towards yoga are just part of a science and technology for the expansion of consciousness.
Which are Indic in origin.
That is why Buddhists have made use of the yogic sciences, Jains have made use of the yogic sciences, the "Hindus" have made use of the yogic sciences, Sikhs, Charvaka's, all have made use of the same technology alike.
Yeah, because we all belong to the same general Indic culture.
The only pre-requisite for making use of the yogic sciences is to be a human being.
To truly understand Yoga and to truly appreciate it, you have to understand and immerse yourself in its cultural roots, which are Indic.
Truth is not something that can be organized, and any attempt to organize it is moving dimensions apart from the inexpressible.
Yoga is not the Truth but a way to reach the Truth. All different cultures have their own way of realizing that Truth and those who are not a part of the culture have no right to decide what interpretation is acceptable.