By some estimates there are more than 10,000 different religions in the world today. Could yoga be one of them? Countless books and DVDs espouse the spiritual benefits of yoga practice, and there are certainly some enthusiasts who find it to be a religious experience. Others though, insist that yoga is no more a religion than jogging. What does yoga truly represent?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
The Traditional Purpose of Yoga
Yoga is Religion
Unfortunately, this Swami only adds to the confusion and actually adds fuels to the entire phony yoga movement. For example, simply because Baptism is not A religion is no excuse for a false claim that Baptism is not integral to Christianity. Such a false claim could lead to all kinds of non-sense such as Baptism studios and certified Baptism teachers who hold classes in underwater therapy. After all, Baptism is not A religion!
Similarly, all of Yoga is Hinduism. The various Yogas are the teachings and practices of the Hindu religion. Of course, one has to be clear on the usage of the English term "religion." "Religion" essentially means "to link-back" (religio). One could say this linking-back is to "things spiritual." The Sanskrit/Hindu word "yoga" essentially means the same thing; i.e., "to yoke" (yuj) to "things spiritual." Religion is also defined as "systems of worship." This scholarly definition is widely used to define the various religions of the world such as Hinduism (and its Yogas).
Interestingly, where one has to be careful is that religion is also defined as "adoration of God or a god." Clearly, Hindus do not worship God (an AS noun; male Creator Being) anymore than Christians worship Brahman or Siva or Vishnu. The use of god (meaning lesser than the "One God") is also very insulting and is directed towards religions such as Hinduism. We even capitilize our own names!
Also, examine the confusion when one repeats the cliche "I am spiritual but not religious," and then, in the next breath, "but I believe in God." The words "religion" and "spirituality" are often mis-used as the Swami also falls prey. Spirit refers to that which is incorpreal, therefore, literally, "no-body" can be spiritual. It is religion, in general, that provides the link to the Spirit. Hindus would use the word "yoga" or the yoke to the Spirit. So, except for the God reference, Yoga is religion and that religion is Hinduism.
Swami Param
Classical Yoga Hindu Academy
- classyoga
February 15, 2009 8:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Speak for yourself ...
Of course, your definitions can only really be your own. Others must be free to define religion for themselves, to define "spirit" and "spirituality" for themselves, to define "yoga" or "hinduism" for themselves. You might lay claim to the right to impose your definitions on others, however, there is little doubt you have no genuine power to decide for anyone what definitions they will and will not use.
I say all of this because your posting very much gives the impression of insisting your definitions are the ones that MUST be used rather than definitions the individual CAN use if they choose. One thing a genuine "religion" is not is a dictatorship. Unfortunately, there are millions of human beings who treat religion in precisely that manner. Any genuine religion is discovered and created by the individual, not imposed on them by others.
Yoga IS a religion if one wants it to be, or NOT if one doesn't. What is the real point of "yoga" - its definition or whether or not this practice or that practice is of benefit to individual human health, happiness and prosperity? Does the definition of yoga as a "religion" really change any of that? Questions relating to "yoga" ought to generally be scientific questions - is it or is it not of benefit to human life? Call it a "religion" or a "philosophy" or "a tuna sandwich" if you like. Such is generally irrelevant to the fundamental questions of benefit.
- Naumadd
February 21, 2009 8:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Tuna Sandwich Studio
Following Naumadd's advice, I am opening a Tuna Sandwhich Studio. Of course we will feature fish pose. Now (that is) Mad. Hiding behind irrationality is like closing one's eyes and pretending no one sees you.
The facts are that all of real Yoga is Hinduism--look it up.
- classyoga
February 23, 2009 7:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to Naumadd
It appears that you may not have read my other comments in this question of “Is Yoga a Religion?” If you had, you would have seen that I wrote a section entitled “It Depends on One's Definition of Religion.” It was the OpposingView.com people who chose the way of wording their question. Because of this, one of the first things I acknowledged is that “It Depends on One's Definition of Religion.” Because of the wording of their question, there was no choice other than to say "yes" or "no" and then explain from that standpoint. They provided no other options.
- Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati September 3, 2009 3:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Human Invention
No matter what you wish to to call what you do and why you do it, it is, after all, human invention which only supports my point. The question is "Is yoga a religion ?" As I mentioned, and because all religion is human invention based on each individual's experiences, understanding, wants, needs, values, etc., "yoga" can be a religion if one practices it as such. As I define "religion", if I establish a certain set of values surrounding physical and mental fitness and harmony and establish certain consistent practices based on those values, I've established a religion which may or may not be a portion of my overall personal religion encompassing all aspects of my own life. I understand this isn't how others define "religion" for themselves. They need not agree with my definition to respect it, and neither need I agree with their own in order to respect them. In my mind, no personal definition of "religion" is incorrect in and of itself but could be deemed "correct" or "incorrect" according to the subjective opinions of others. That others consider your personal definition "wrong" doesn't make it so and, in matters "religious", I believe that to be particularly true.
In any event, the question as it is posed by OpposingViews.com is overly simplistic and, I believe, worded in such a way as to create a false situation of dispute. I disagree that there is no choice but to answer "yes" or "no". To say that this is a false dispute isn't noncommital - it's committing to the position this is a non-dispute based on the fact "yoga" and "religion" are just words and one can define and use them according to one's own needs. The answer to the question can rightly be yes, no AND uncommitted. Persons can bicker all they like about whether or not "yoga" is a religion. In my view, the are both right to call whatever they practice and the reasons for it whatever they wish to call it. It's all human invention.
As I said, call it "religion", a "game", an exercise or a "tuna sandwich". What's most profoundly relevant is whether one has sound reasons for one's practices and whether or not they are of benefit to your physical and mental fitness and harmony. The words, the labels, are just that and no more.
Everything we human beings do could be construed as a "spiritual" practice. The question is, are you aware enough of the complex and dynamic aspects of your own life as a whole to see it in that way?
- Naumadd
September 3, 2009 7:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to Naumadd
I have already responded about the wording of the question by OpposingViews.com that “It Depends on One's Definition of Religion.” It was a part of my original reponse to their question. My point is the same as yours where you say the question is "worded in such a way as to create a false situation of dispute" However, I totally disagree with you that "there is no choice but to answer 'yes' or no'." In this regard, you obviously do not know what you are talking about. The OpposingView.com people wrote to me and asked me to comment as an "expert" (their term, not mine) on the question "Is Yoga a Religion?" They did NOT ask me if Yoga was an exercise , a game or a tuna sandwich. I agreed to respond to the question that they did ask. However, the ONLY choices they gave me were "yes" or "no". They did NOT provide a third choice of "Uncommitted" or any other choice (they DO give you the option of "Uncommitted" in your opinions). In light of their offering only "yes" or "no" options, I responded on the basis of the most accurate statement between those two. Once again, in case you have not yet noticed it, I said in my original responsese “It Depends on One's Definition of Religion.”
- Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati September 3, 2009 11:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The rare
coherent and polite comment.
- quantummechanik
September 4, 2009 1:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Samantics and games !
Any religions practice in itself of coarse is not a religion ! So this all becomes a silly game.
The involvement of a Swami in the first place is indicative of of Yoga being a Hindu religious practice.
The term Yoga means yoking......plain, simple and no games. Why would would one want to yoke and with what?
In America, people wish to embrace reincarnation because it gives them hope that there is more after death. For the Hindu, he already expects that, and finds himself needing to return and relive
Let's include: O Yes O No O Religious practice O Uncommitted
life here in some lesser or greater form to build better karma with a better next life. The Hindu wants to break free from this circle and come to settled peace.
Yoga is considered by the Hindu to be useful method for achieving this goal by yoking, let's say with the highest level God Brahma through the religious practice of Yoga and coming to the highest destination in karma and peace with the ability to leave the never ending circle of reincarnation.
American want to get into it.... Hindus want to get out of it.
I neither pass judgment on nor criticize Hinduism or the religious practice of Yoga. I do however with honesty tell it as it is and forgo the games.
Me! :- )
- Me2
April 29, 2009 2:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to Swami Param's comments
The argument of Swami Param is backwards, arguing from the part to the whole, which is illogical. Sprinkling or immersing in water may be a part of Christian baptism, but such use of water is not, unto itself a religion called Christianity. Like baptism, communion is also a part of Christianity. However, while there may be millions of people drinking wine and eating bread on Sunday morning in the name of Christian communion, there may also be millions of others having wine and bread with their meal in a restaurant. Unless one is going to argue that restaurants are churches, the wine and bread have nothing to do with religions unto themselves. Similarly, the practices of yoga with body, breath, and mind are not themselves religious activities.
Those who agree with Swami Param need to explore the etiology of the words Hindu and Hinduism. It is widely explained that the terms come from foreign invaders coming from the West to the East and crossing the Sindus or Indus River, and then referring to all of the people on the other side of the river as Hindus, after some evolution of pronunciation over time. To collect all of the activities of those people under one term, Hinduism, makes as much sense as referring to theoretical unified “religions” known as Africanism, Americanism, or Europeanism. While they may have some correlation to religious practices, these relate to geography, not the names of religions. Further, the words Hindu and Hinduism are nowhere to be found in the traditional texts such as the Vedas and the Upanishads, unlike Christianity referenced by the Swami, which has numerous references to Christ (over 500 in the New Testament). These points are widely known. The emergence of “Hinduism” as a unified “religion” that is a “whole” containing “parts” is a fairly recent occurrence in history. Yoga existed as separate practices long before the advent of the “religion” known as “Hinduism.”
The word “religion” itself also has to be explored and understood, as it is not as simple as the suggestion Swami Param makes that “‘Religion’ essentially means ‘to link-back’” I have previously listed a link on OpposingViews.com to a paper by Dr. Arvind Sharma (Professor of Comparitive Religions at McGill University, Canada) entitled “An Indic Contribution Towards an Understanding of the Word ‘Religion’ and the Concept of Religious Freedom”. In this paper Dr. Sharma explains the word “religion” and how it may or may not relate to the Indic traditions. Following is from his summary, which, although a bit lengthy, is quite informative, though you will gain greater insight by going to the Links and reading the whole article:
“The word religion is now part of global discourse specially as it is carried out through the medium of English. The word, however, is Western in origin which raises the question: Does a Western word, when used in global discourse, reflect the global religious reality or does it in the process of reflecting it, also distort it? It is contended in the paper that such in fact is the case—that when the word is used to represent the religions of Indian origin, the religions of the Far East and the indigenous religions—it in fact distorts reality.
“The word "religion" came into secular use in the nineteenth century and has since been freely used in the public sphere as if it were a neutral word, which could be impartially applied to all the religions of the world. However, the word embodies a certain concept of what religion is and this concept is rooted in its Christian background. In such a context the concept of religion implies that a religion is something (1) conclusive; (2) exclusionary and (3) separative. In other words, a religion, in order to qualify as such must hold that it has the final truth (conclusive); that in order to obtain it one must belong to it alone (exclusionary) and that in order to do so one must separate oneself from any other, specially prior, affiliation (separative). It is also separative in another sense: that religion constitutes a part of life, separate from the rest of it—a sense particularly pronounced in Christianity.
“All the three orientations of the word religion as conclusive, as exclusionary and as separative are in effect exclusivist in nature, a word to be carefully distinguished from the word exclusionary which has been used above in the sense of indicating the fact that the formal membership one one religion must exclude such membership of another.
“Such an exclusivistic orientation however does not characterise the Indic religious tradition or what we might also call the dharmic tradition.
- Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati September 3, 2009 3:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Definitions
As you point out, common western use of the word " religion " appears to be variant to the the way similar concepts and labels are used in other human cultures. Various cultures are right to view their beliefs and practices according to their own experiences, understandings, values and goals. What I've attempted to point out is, although we conceive of collective cultures, these are merely abstracts from what we know of the concretes of individual cultures. So too, the understanding and usage of a concept labeled "religion" is only ever from a personal point of view. As I mentioned, each of us is a religion of one. Whatever commonalities exist between one individual's beliefs and practices and those of another might be construed as a collective religion, but let us not forget that, although individual religions can have commonalities, they never actually cease being individual religion. Actual human beings with their experiences, understandings, value, and goals are real - abstractions, concepts and the labels we give them are merely invention. An individual is real, "community", "group", "tribe", "religion", these are only as real to us as we allow in our own minds. They do not actually exist.
Language is a tool, not a sacred cow. If one doesn't wish to call one's overall beliefs and practices a "religion", there is no real need to do so. On the other hand, if one wishes to call it that, there is no real obstacle to doing so. What others may or may not like in whatever you choose is more relevant to them and their own beliefs than to your own. If a word and definition exists that suits you, use it. If the word exists but the definition doesn't suit you, change it. If neither word nor definition exist to suit you, invent them. THAT is the nature of language. Individuals do it all the time and have done so since the beginnings of language. They will continue to do so. They will because there is no escaping the individual nature of experience, of understanding, of values and of goals and the need to express these things out into the world around them. We will use the language at hand if it is suitable to the moment. If it is not, we will adapt the tool to our needs.
I happen to see myself as a writer with a consistent practice based in deeply held beliefs and values that I consider to be genuinely spiritual. I call it a religion. Sometimes I have a specific name for it, sometimes I don't. I'm right to do so. Agree or don't agree. Your view isn't relevant to my position, but is very relevant to your own. The most one can say is " yoga is a religion in my mind" or "yoga is not a religion in my mind". What it is in the mind of others is not yours to decide.
- Naumadd
September 3, 2009 8:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to Naumadd
In relation to the question posed by OpposingViews.com, it is irrelevant what my personal " religion " is or is not. The rest of the world, outside of Swami Jnaneshvara and Naumadd (or whatever your real name is) does not work according to our personal "religions." Rather, it works in its collective perceptions, which is what I believed that the OpposingViews.com people were asking about. As you noted, it really doesn't matter what you think.
- Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati September 3, 2009 10:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to Swami Param's comments
The argument of Swami Param is backwards, arguing from the part to the whole, which is illogical. Sprinkling or immersing in water may be a part of Christian baptism, but such use of water is not, unto itself a religion called Christianity. Like baptism, communion is also a part of Christianity. However, while there may be millions of people drinking wine and eating bread on Sunday morning in the name of Christian communion, there may also be millions of others having wine and bread with their meal in a restaurant. Unless one is going to argue that restaurants are churches, the wine and bread have nothing to do with religions unto themselves. Similarly, the practices of yoga with body, breath, and mind are not themselves religious activities.
Those who agree with Swami Param need to explore the etiology of the words Hindu and Hinduism. It is widely explained that the terms come from foreign invaders coming from the West to the East and crossing the Sindus or Indus River, and then referring to all of the people on the other side of the river as Hindus, after some evolution of pronunciation over time. To collect all of the activities of those people under one term, Hinduism, makes as much sense as referring to theoretical unified “religions” known as Africanism, Americanism, or Europeanism. While they may have some correlation to religious practices, these relate to geography, not the names of religions. Further, the words Hindu and Hinduism are nowhere to be found in the traditional texts such as the Vedas and the Upanishads, unlike Christianity referenced by the Swami, which has numerous references to Christ (over 500 in the New Testament). These points are widely known. The emergence of “Hinduism” as a unified “religion” that is a “whole” containing “parts” is a fairly recent occurrence in history. Yoga existed as separate practices long before the advent of the “religion” known as “Hinduism.”
The word “religion” itself also has to be explored and understood, as it is not as simple as the suggestion Swami Param makes that “‘Religion’ essentially means ‘to link-back’” I have previously listed a link on OpposingViews.com to a paper by Dr. Arvind Sharma (Professor of Comparitive Religions at McGill University, Canada) entitled “An Indic Contribution Towards an Understanding of the Word ‘Religion’ and the Concept of Religious Freedom”. In this paper Dr. Sharma explains the word “religion” and how it may or may not relate to the Indic traditions. Following is from his summary, which, although a bit lengthy, is quite informative, though you will gain greater insight by going to the Links and reading the whole article:
“The word religion is now part of global discourse specially as it is carried out through the medium of English. The word, however, is Western in origin which raises the question: Does a Western word, when used in global discourse, reflect the global religious reality or does it in the process of reflecting it, also distort it? It is contended in the paper that such in fact is the case—that when the word is used to represent the religions of Indian origin, the religions of the Far East and the indigenous religions—it in fact distorts reality.
“The word "religion" came into secular use in the nineteenth century and has since been freely used in the public sphere as if it were a neutral word, which could be impartially applied to all the religions of the world. However, the word embodies a certain concept of what religion is and this concept is rooted in its Christian background. In such a context the concept of religion implies that a religion is something (1) conclusive; (2) exclusionary and (3) separative. In other words, a religion, in order to qualify as such must hold that it has the final truth (conclusive); that in order to obtain it one must belong to it alone (exclusionary) and that in order to do so one must separate oneself from any other, specially prior, affiliation (separative). It is also separative in another sense: that religion constitutes a part of life, separate from the rest of it—a sense particularly pronounced in Christianity.
“All the three orientations of the word religion as conclusive, as exclusionary and as separative are in effect exclusivist in nature, a word to be carefully distinguished from the word exclusionary which has been used above in the sense of indicating the fact that the formal membership one one religion must exclude such membership of another.
“Such an exclusivistic orientation however does not characterise the Indic religious tradition or what we might also call the dharmic tradition.
- Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati September 3, 2009 3:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Endless mind games
Bharati is perfect example of the endless mind games of confusion. Pretending to speak from a "mountain top consciousness," he cannot see the ground beneath him. The simple facts about real Yoga are that the language, the practice, the Dharma were all created by the (H)indus. Hinduism is Yoga; (real) Yoga is Hinduism. Real Swamis are teachers of the Hindu/Yogic lifestyle. It is interesting that many "swamis" who pretend not to be Hindus (but something grandiose)most often end up (like "swami" Rama)in unethical behavior which is the result of not being able to see the wisdom and common sense of boundaries.
Swami Param
Dharma Yoga Ashram (Classical Yoga Hindu Academy)
- classyoga
September 4, 2009 11:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More mud slinging by Mr. Param
More mud slinging, Mr. Param? You are only making it clear that you really do not know what you are talking about, and do not practice what you seem to preach. Have you not heard of the principle of ahimsa, non-harming? The accurate part of what you refer to is "dharma". Why do you not stick to talking about dharma, which is an accurate and most beautiful term? If you would try to find commonality with others, you would not have so much trouble with your trashy comments that you put all over internet blogs and websites, including when you first wrote to me personally some 5 years ago or more. Sincerely, may you find the true meaning of principles such as ahimsa and dharma, instead of just spewing your venom.
- Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati September 4, 2009 12:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bharati limit
mmm...your very general comments simply demonstrates your egoism, Bharati (your bio also takes care of that). Swamiji.com? Come on. Again, the facts are that all of real Yoga is Hinduism--look it up. If you don't realize this fact, why call yourself a "swami?" Because of unethcial people like Rama and others (who were/are in the business of promoting themselves), we have all the non-sense in the name of Yoga today. If you dare, why not e-mail me directly? Our website has numerous examples of the facts of Yoga as well as the denigration (this is himsa!) of our sacred Hindu/Yogas. A real Swami (like teachers in any religion ) is suppose to protect the Hindu/Yogic Dharma not destroy it!
Swami Param
/>classyoga@aol.com
classicalyoga.org
- classyoga
September 6, 2009 7:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
param confusion
Mr. Param,
You are a very confused man who refuses to look at the facts and to follow the lead of other swamis, such as those referenced. You keep throwing out your trash. Your totally closed mind leaves me with no interest in having any contact with you at all. That is why I blocked your email address years ago when you sought me out to proselytize your confusion. Look in a mirror. It is YOU who are egotistical with classical psychological projection. I still offer the sincere wish that you come to know the true meanings of ahimsa and dharma, as it is obvious that you do not understand these. Please do not write to me again, either here or at my email addresses. As Upanishads suggests, wake up! You probably will not do it, but my wish for you is that you do.
Dandi Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati
- Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati September 6, 2009 8:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Real Yoga
Like so many who love to distort and promote their self, Bharati clearly demonstrates that he is unable to discuss the issue but rather make vague, allegations with no examples. Pretty sordid behavior. Why not discuss the issue? Are you afraid that your errors may be exposed?
For the mature individuals looking for the truth of what is Yoga simply do your homework. Critical thinking rather than simply using the opinions of others (who may call themselves "experts")is necessary. So:
1. Get a dictionary and encyclopedia. Look up the words "Sanskrit" and "Yoga."
2. Get any book on comparative religions and look up "Yoga." One will also realize where "Yoga" is not!
3. Go to Hindu Temples, Ashrams, etc. and ask about Yoga.
4. Go to non-Hindu religious organizations, Ministers, lay people, etc. and ask them if they teach Yoga. (Caution, #4 may get you into trouble, for "obvious" reasons.)
Again, it is easy to make bold assertions that have no basis in fact. However, when the facts are challanged, those who make such bold assertions often run and hide (and block e-mails, etc.) and play silly mind games.
Bharati's notion that he is a Swami (and I guess he claims not to be a Hindu--he will not discuss it)is absurd. Imagine a Rabbi, Imam or Bishop not claiming to be a Jew, Muslim or Catholic Christian, respectively. One would have to look at such an individual as, what? A con man? A deluded person? Go figure. And, those within their respective religions would be amiss if they did not challange such arrogant individuals.
As a Hindu Swami, I am proud to do my part to live and teach the Hindu/Yogic Dharma/Hinduism/The Hindu religion /Sanatan Dharma/Brahmanism, to mention a few of its names known by scholars and other interested parties. We need the help of other (real) Swamis and others to help clarify much of the present day confusion about Hinduism/Yoga--confusion created by confused and egocentric individuals.
All one has to do is look at the perverted business of so-called " yoga " ttoday to see the outcome of those who lacked any kind of vision.
Swami Param
Classical Yoga Hindu Academy
- classyoga
September 8, 2009 11:02AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"Word As Weapon: The Misuse of Terminology in the Study of Hinduism"
The following quotes are from Dr. Frank Morales (Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya) in an article entitled "Word As Weapon: The Misuse of Terminology in the Study of Hinduism"
...Used often as a matter of convenience even by followers of the religion itself (including by this author), the term "Hindu" is not a term that is inherent to the religion itself. Rather, the term is known to have been first coined by the ancient Persians, who were culturally, religiously, and perspectivally extrinsic to the culture. The term was first used by these ancient Persians in order to conveniently designate the ancient Vedic spiritual culture, and was mistakenly used to refer to the Vedic religion as primarily a geographic and ethnic phenomenon, more than as a religio-philosophical world-view. To the ancient Persians, the word “Hindu” simply referred to the culture, people, religion and practices of the peoples who lived on the other side of the Sindhu River. In the ancient Avestan Persian language 's' grammatically became 'h'. Thus, the Persians pronounced the name of this river “Hindhu”, rather than “Sindhu”. Thus, ironically, the currently used word “Hindu” is itself a corruption of the Persian word “Hindhu”, which is in turn a corruption of the term “Sindhu”, which is itself only referring to a river, and not a religion! Thus when the word “Hindu” is used today to refer to the ancient religion of India, the term is in actuality a corruption of a corruption of a word whose meaning is irrelevant to begin with.
The terms "Hindu/Hinduism" are not self-referential terms that the practitioners of the Vedic world-view chose for themselves or called themselves. These words are not attested to in any of the ancient Vedic or Classical Sanskrit literatures, or even in any of the many local dialects of ancient India until the medieval era. One will not find the term “Hindu” used to describe the Vedic religion in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, or anywhere else in the Vedic scriptures. The word “Hindu” is not intrinsic to the religion of the Vedas at all. It was not, in fact, until as late as the 19th century, under the colonial rule of the British Raj, that these dual terms even acquired any legal significance on a national scale in India.
The actual term that the Vedic tradition uses to refer to itself is “Dharma”. The word Dharma is found repeatedly throughout the entire corpus of the Vedic scriptures, from the Rg Veda to the Bhagavad Gita. There is almost no scripture in the entirety of Hinduism where one will not come across the word Dharma as the preeminent name of the religion in question. Sometimes the word Dharma is used by itself; at other times it is used in conjunction with other qualifying words, such as “Vaidika Dharma” (Vedic Dharma), “Vishva Dharma” (Global Dharma), or "Sanatana Dharma" (the Eternal Dharma). The diversity of adjectival emphasis will vary in accordance with the precise context in which the word is used. Of these terms, the name “Sanatana Dharma” has been the most widely used name of this ancient religion, and is used as far back as the Rg Veda, the very earliest scripture of Hinduism, and the earliest written text known to humanity.
Link to the original artile:
http://tinyurl.com/4aq7j6
- Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati September 4, 2009 12:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Quotes from 8 swamis who disagree with Swami Param
Swami Param saying that yoga is a religion does not make it so. I am in very good company of others who also say that yoga is not a religion, and have included quotes from 13 people in the section entitled “A Few Quotes on Yoga Not Being a Religion”. These 13 quotes include those from 8 swamis: Swami Sivananda Saraswati, Swami Chidananda Saraswati, Swami Rama, Swami Satyananda Saraswati, Swami Krishnanda, Swami NadaBrahmananda, Swami Viditatmananda Saraswati, and Swami Maheshwarananda. Possibly Swami Param would also opine that each of these swamis also "only adds to the confusion and actually adds fuels to the entire phony yoga movement."
- Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati September 4, 2009 11:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.