Source: community.nytimes.com
USA, November 30, 2010: [HPI note: The New York Times article “A Debate Over Yoga’s Soul,” summarized on November 28’s edition of HPI, spawned a prolific and intelligent debate among the readers, who posted hundreds of comments. You can see them here . Some examples are below, edited for brevity.
reader Manas, from San Francisco:
Chopra, Debbie Desmond and their ilk’s contention is based on the thesis that what is today known as Hinduism is dissonant from what they refer to as Vedic, ancient Indian, Sanskritic, Oriental, and what not. This asinine argument that “Vedic Tradition” and Hinduism are disparate is consummate dishonesty and is ludicrous at best.
Simply because the moniker Hindu is of recent origin does not imply a disjunction with everything prior to its coinage. Case in point, the appellation “India” for Bharatvarsh is of recent origin. This does not imply that the heritage of Bharatvarsh prior to European colonialism (which led to the moniker India) can be dissociated from India.
It is credit to Hinduism’s plural and inclusive philosophy that Hindus accepted a non-Sanskrit name for the harder to pronounce Sanatana Dharma. It is also to Hinduism’s credit that in consonance with its pluralism and inclusiveness, Hindus are happy to share Yoga, Ayurveda, Vedanta and other very Hindu traditions, practices and philosophies with non-Dharmic ideologues, without any sort of coercion for conversion. However, credit and recognition of their undeniable and inseparable roots in Sanatana Dharma (or its recent moniker Hinduism) would go a long way in cultivating a space of respect and empathy.
reader Siddhartha Banerjee, from Oxford, PA:
Of course, Yoga is Hindu. It comes from India and has been practiced by Hindus for centuries. What does that make it? And it is not unfair to ask those profiting economically from the Yoga industry why they wouldn’t want to acknowledge that connection
reader N.S. Rajaram, from Dartmouth, MA:
As the author of several books on ancient India, I am struck by the dismissive tone of Dr. Deepak Chopra whom the article rightly calls a New Age Writer. He is not a scholar, knows no Sanskrit, the sacred language of Hinduism, and has no competence to comment on its history or philosophy. He is a pop philosopher who borrows its symbols to market his books and himself. He has written also about the Buddha, Jesus and Prophet Mohammed though he is no more a scholar in these fields than in Vedic Hinduism.
reader Paul, from New York City:
Yoga uncoupled with a moral construct leads nowhere, except towards being more physically fit. Hinduism provides that moral construct.
reader Kel, from Texas:
I practice yoga 7 days a week in the privacy of my own home – so in my home I own yoga. And I’m a Christian – and my soul is doing fine.
reader Jane, from New Hampshire:
The “brand”? That doesn’t seem to echo the concern over “yoga’s debt to the faith’s ancient traditions.” It is frightening to me how ubiquitous ad lingo has become. Towns are brands, religions are brands, trees are brands, local agriculture is a brand, I am a brand…The only way to justify right action is to appeal to “brand?”
reader Srini, from New Jersey:
The genius of Hinduism is that it cannot be defined. It really is everything to everyone. It starts with “God is within you” and fans out to “You can worship God in any form”. This is where the multi-theism seems to have come to represent the religion. As far as yoga is concerned, it is what Yogis practice, and Yogi’s are wise people and one might suppose these Yogis were religious people and they melded religion and spiritual practice with the practice of Yoga. Hinduism suggests that one lead a moral life (Dharma and Karma – Actions and Consequences). So anyone can be a Hindu by definition – no requirement to worship a specific pantheon of Gods. Therefore Yoga belongs to everyone (my assertion, and of course debatable). I hope people involved in the debate take a step back and follow the tenets of Hinduism and “live and let live.”