A couple of comments, and then I’ll focus more directly on the original topic Shalahad wishes to discuss; namely, “Anyone who believes that Yoga can be pulled from its Hindu roots would be better off doing (ugh Pilates. Let’s discuss.”
First of all, let me clarify some I said. I replied to Shalahad by saying that yoga came from the rishis. By this statement I was referring to its eternal and timeless aspect, its nature as a revealed truth. I think this is a fair statement with scriptural support. I tend to think of the rishis as being universalists and as having ennunciated universal principals, which then later have come to be associated with a particular religion, Hinduism, which contains a wide variety of sects/paths/schools/practices or whatever terms one prefers. Of course we should keep in mind the view about ‘Hinduism’ that Arjun articulates, namely that “there is no religion called Hinduism, its a label that means the various religions based on the common ancient Yoga Texts and Vedas.” Fair enough, a common view, but not one shared by all ‘Hindus’: in any case yoga then just becomes associated with that family of religions. Same difference, a semantic and technical issue.
In the same sense one could, fairly, object that the term ‘Hatha Yoga’ should be used instead of just 'Yoga. But the most important point is that we understand each other.So back to “Anyone who believes that Yoga can be pulled from its Hindu roots would be better off doing (ugh Pilates.)” Leaving aside the apparent aspersion on the noble activity of Pilates, I think the question really boils down, in part, ‘What is real Hatha Yoga?’ Yikes!, anyone want to tackle that? My short answer would be that I should conform with the scriptural teachings, but then… how many western hatha yogis, not to mention teachers!, practice real brahmacharya? So we all fall short of the mark, and in a sense we are (almost) all divorcing our practice from its spiritual roots.
I think your question also leads to another question, one that I hope people will respond to: ’ How commonly does Hatha Yoga which is begun only for physical reasons awaken spiritual interests?’ My feeling is fairly often, and thus if someone’s inclination is to practice hatha yoga ‘without the Hinduism’, i.e. only for physical benefits, then that should be looked favourably upon. As their physical vehicle becomes purified conscious is also somewhat purified.
More on the early use of the term ‘yoga’:
There are uses of the term ‘yoga’ before its appearance in the Bhagavad Gita. It is used once in the Tattariya, Upanishad (2.4.1). David Frawley claims “Yoga can be traced back to the Rig Veda itself, the oldest Hindu text which speaks about yoking our mind and insight to the Sun of Truth. Great teachers of early Yoga include the names of many famous Vedic sages like Vasishta, Yajnavalkya, and Jaigishavya.” But I think the usage of the term in the Rg Veda occurs in a compound form, and there are different views as to its meaning. Can anyone cast further light on this?
I like Frawley by the way, but sometimes I think he might push the dates for his claims a bit farther back in the past than current evidence warrants. Possible the olderst reference to yoga occurs in the form of the famous image of the statue of Pasupati (?) meditating (?) in half-lotus from Mohendro-daro, part of the Indus civilisation, or Harrapan culture, flourished from 2500 BC to 1500 BC., thus making it an earlier, or later possible reference to yoga, depending on the actual dates of the Rg Veda.
I think I better stick a sock in it for now. (Question does this comment violate ahimsa?)
Namaste.
