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:
Interesting the Rabbi says "yes" and the Hindu Swami says "no!" The facts are that all of (real) Yoga is Hinduism. Except for the "God" part of the equation, Hinduism is religion ("to link-back" [religio] and "a system of worship"). The various (real) Yogas constitute the Hindu religion. In fact, that one Sanskrit/Hindu word best describes the Hindu religion; i.e., "to yoke Atmana (individual Soul) and Brahmana (Soul Source)." The various (real) Yogas are the religious means by which Hindus accomplish this Spiritual Goal.
Swami Param
Classical Yoga Hindu Academy
- classyoga
February 15, 2009 8:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
With all due respect, I don't see that you have made your argument that yoga is a religion . A spiritual discipline is NOT a religion. Would you care to expand your original comments. You refer to Patanjali but nothing in the Sutras IMO classifies yoga as 'religion.'
- vtyogini September 5, 2009 3:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Interesting that someone who calls herself a "yogini" does not even know what is Yoga, and the fact that all of (real)Yoga is Hinduism. True, Yoga is not A religion --just as Baptism is not A religion; nor is Shabbat A religion. These religious terms refer to specific religious practices within a religion. So, the questions really are, "What is Yoga?" and "What religion is Yoga?"
The word "religion" refers to a "linking" ("religio") to "things spiritual" as well as "systems of worship." In this sense, Yoga is religion. The Sanskrit/Hindu word "Yoga" means "to yoke" ("yuj") to things spiritual. Certainly all of real Yoga is about yoking to the Spirit--that is the definition of the word! So, again, Yoga IS Religion. However, there is a very important aspect to the English word "religion" and that is "adoration of God;" and in this regard, Yoga is not religion, for Hindu do not believe in God. Hindus look to Brahman (impersonal Spirit Being [v.]) and various Spirit Beings (n.) such as Siva (Patanjali's choice) and Vishnu as well as female Beings such as Parvati and Lakshmi.
Of course, this now brings one to the question, "What religion is Yoga?" Any cursory bit or research will quickly reveal that all of real Yoga is Hinduism. "Yogini" look in a book on comparative religions and see where you find Yoga. In fact, there is not Hinduism without Yoga, and there is no real Yoga without Hinduism. The (H)indus invented the language (Sanskrit)and, of course, all the terms and concepts. All the Hindu scriptures (of course including the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali [one of the six orthodox systems of Hindu philosophy])detail the various Yogas which are the means by which Hindu yoke (or "link")to the Spirit.
Of course, the so-called " yoga " of today has been unethically divorced from Hinduism for various motives, primarily greed and egoism. By "yoga" what is meant is the Hatha Yoga of Hinduism. What is even more strange is that real Hatha Yoga is highly devotional. Hatha Yoga are Hindu devotional postures. Ironically, many wayward Hindus are the prime instigators of this modern phony yoga business. Out for money and a following, these people have created a spurious so-called "universal yoga" movement which is actually a very fundamentalist view. "Yoga is Universal" and "fits into anyone's religion?" How absurd. The Rabbi knows this is not true as would anyone from any non-Hindu religion. To see how this "universal yoga" stuff has premeated the culture look at who is taking the opposing side to this argument! Go Figure.
Swami Param
Classical Yoga Hindu Academy
- classyoga September 17, 2009 7:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I am a yogini because I practice and study yoga (perhaps I am misusing the term ?) and in fact, I do feel I know what yoga 'is.' Or should I say, what yoga is for ME. (J. Krishnamurti "Truth is a pathless land.") And I will be a student of this science and philosophy for the rest of my days as its depths can certainly not be plumbed in a proscribed period of time.
For me, yoga does not involve any religion in the sense of a requirement to believe in a particular deity. THAT is what I meant when I said yoga was not a religion. I should have been more clear. But it appears that you agree with me on this point. (Baptism and Shabbat are rituals within their respective religions; of course, they are not the religion itself. Most religions that I know of use ritual(s). Yoga, as a spiritual discipline , does as well.)
I'm not sure what your point is for ME other than to chastise me for placing Hinduism separately from yoga philosphy as it is practiced in the modern day. I believe this authoritarian attitude is what makes most 'religions' (to use your word) unpalatable in the modern, western world. I agree with you, however, that many western 'yoga' teachers have not remained true to yoga's deeply spiritual roots. There are exceptions, of course.
Could this simply be a difference of opinion based on semantics? (the word 'religion')
I acknowledge and deeply honor, of course, yoga's interconnectedness to Hinduism. It would be ignorant to do otherwise.
- vtyogini September 18, 2009 8:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Would not one who gave and recieved Baptism, for example, be a Christian practicing Christianity? Similarly, one who practices the various Yogas would be a Hindu. Of course, those new to any religion would first be students. All Hindus are Yogis and Yoginis in as much as they study and practice Hinduism. However, the title "Yogi/Yogini" is reserved on for the renunciant Hindu. The true Yogi/Yogini, in this sense, is a no-body and would not "run-around" calling oneself "Yogini."
The crux of the matter is the question "What is Yoga?" Yoga is a Sanskrit/Hindu word meaning "to yoke Atmana (indidvidual Soul) and Brahmana (Soul Source)." The various Yogas are the means by which Hindus achieve this Soul/Self-Realization: Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Raja Yoga and Jnana Yoga, to name a few. So, we have the religious process ("to link; to yoke) in general and, certainly (without question)the specific religion known as Hinduism. For example, if one goes to Synagogue or Church, they will not learn the above.
It is often the "new-agey" claim that " yoga is science and not religion." Does any school or university teach Yoga as part of their science crriculum? Science means "to know." So, do you know what is Yoga as opposed to merely your feeling and "what it means to ME?" Also, by this mis-statement, do you mean that "religious people" don't know? In regards to philosophy, all religions have their philosophy. Again, in Hinduism, the Yoga Darsana of Patanjali is considered "One of the six orthodox systems of Hindu philosophy." I would add that this work (which you have obviously not deeply studied) is very authoritative. It is a bit humours how the "new-age yoga/yoginis" decry authority and then go ahead and set-up all the bogus "certifications," class fees, "teacher training," etc. In effect, these people have stolen the great teachings and practices from Hinduism, redefined them to suit their agenda and have created a phony yoga industry.
Speaking of the Saiva Hindu Guru Patanjali, this Hindu philosophy is not a manuel on Hatha Yoga which is what the "modern yoginis" focus upon (without disclosure, of course). Would not your class or classes then be classes in philosophy? One must also be aware that the Sanskrit/Hindu word "yoga" premeates all aspects of Hinduism and not simply found in this one Hindu scripture. The first mention of "Yoga" is in the Rig Veda, the oldest scripture created by the Hindus.
Many people also misuse the word "spiritual;" i.e., "incorporeal" when speaking about what should be called "religious practices." It is the body of religious practices that lead one to that which is beyond the body or Spirit/Soul.
The bottom line is that there is no real Yoga without Hinduism; and there is no Hinduism without real Yoga. Those who want to study real Yoga will study Hinduism. Those who want to propagate phony Yoga will continue to do so and continue to be confronted for this violation of a great religion and those who love it.
The facts remain that it is the Hindus would created the Sanskrit language and the subsequent term "yoga" to denote the way in which they yoked/linked to the Spirit. The Hindu/Yogic religion is well documented and is very different (naturally) from, especially, the Monotheistic religions.
My guess, is, vt, that you are a non-practicing Christian or Jew who simply wants to be an authority unto yourself while misappropriating the religious practices from an already established religion; i.e., Hinduism/Yoga.
It is true that Hinduism/Yoga does not demand the "believe in a particular diety." Again, Hinduism is not Monotheistic; this, however, does not make Hinduism a non-religion. Hindus look to many Spirit Beings. Remember religion is about "linking" and systems of worship." True, religion is also about "the belief in God," and, in this sense, only is Yoga is not religion. Since you (and others) are not religious, one assumes you do not believe in God. (This would cause a stir among many who claim they are "spiritual but not religious"). However, the definition of religion also includes "gods." While this word is not appropriate to Hinduism, we do have many MahaDevas and MahaDevis (male and female "gods"). Interesting that you quote Krishnamurthi whose very name means the Diety of Krishna! The notion of simply writing in a book by a person that "Truth is a pathless land" is oxymoronic.
Many are interested in Yoga (however confused). Perhaps one day you will realize that to proceed further, you need to go deeply into the study and practice of Hinduism. One can convert or adopt to this ancient Hindu/Yogic Dharma or religion.
Best wishes,
Swami Param
- classyoga September 19, 2009 8:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank you, Swami Param, for taking the time to share your opinion and knowledge on this topic.
That being said, I have proven myself correct once again about never discussing ' religion ,' because all it seems to do is to encourage someone to convince me that I am wrong and try to sway me to see things differently.
I thought I was clear in my statement of being a student of yoga and certainly never claimed any expertise. But I do appreciate the effort you've put forth to enlighten me on various aspects of Hinduism/Yoga. To set the record straight, I am neither a non-practicing Christian or Jew who 'looks to be an authority unto myself.' Before my practice of yoga, I would most certainly have taken this comment as an insult, but then, I'm sure that was not your intention.
It saddens me that you (an expert in Hinduism and Yoga) think my use of the practices of yoga constitutes a 'misappropriation' of them.
Suffice it to say these practices have changed my life and transformed my way of thinking. For that I will be eternally grateful.
- vtyogini September 20, 2009 10:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Dear Swami Param,
Can you please clarify which first "Hindu" book accepted Yoga as Hinduism? Seers like Panini, Utpala and even Patanjali the Yoga Guru himself have clearly stated that Yoga is not of the Vedas. I can quote the passages, but that is not the point here. Even the word "Hinduism" was only accepted after seer Sankara.
To me, the Yoga Sutras was written to support the "Classical Siddhanta" religious philosophy and to reject philosophies that do not support dualism that is the presence of separate entities of God and numerous souls.
In this way, Patanjali rejects the religious philosophy of Jainism, Buddhism and the Vedanta philosophy, all which do not recognize separate entities of God and Souls. The present Saiva Siddhanta also rejects this concept as it does not agree that the universe is part of Siva - the godhead.
However since the concept of "Reincarnation, Karma and Maya" are part and parcel of the Classical Siddhanta concept and that of the Indian mind, any philosophies that do not recognize these three are not accepted by the Indian masses. Thus Mahavira, Buddha and Badarayana (Viasar) are all "forced" to accept Yoga as it is the means to the soul to escape this rebirth cycle, although they do not need this in true accordance of their philosophies.
By classifying all as "Hinduism" we are destroying the "individuality" of each of the Indian cultures.
To me Yoga is an extension of the "Classical Siddhanta" religious system which rejects image worship, accepts the presence of a separate God and souls, the world to be true and as an extension of God, and Yoga is the practice to connect (to be with union) the souls with God.
This concept is definitely not Jainism, Buddhism, Vedanta, Saiva Siddhantam or Hinduism. All of them have “borrowed” only the pratice of Yoga from the Classical Siddhantam and are now claiming it to be theirs.
And true to the Siddhanta philosophy, it is a concept which one can accept or reject but still practice Yoga and Meditation to escape from reincarnation. And that is the key word – “escape the cycle of reincarnation.”
In reality, Jainism, Buddhism and Vedanta do not truly need Yoga or Meditation as their concepts of God and Souls contradicts the concept of seer Patanjali.
Anbae Sivam
(God is Compassion)
- Saint
October 29, 2009 6:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I agree with Rabbi Brier's argument that Yoga is not just a physical exercise. That being said it is certainly not a religion in its own right. It is a part of several religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism, and has even been incorporated with some success into Western religions such as Christianity. It is not and cannot be a religion in its own right.
- richardsonkr October 28, 2008 7:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I believe it an error to reserve the word "religion" for those only officially recognized as such. It is my conviction that there is the official "list" of religions many individuals dance around and praise, however, each of us is genuinely a religion of one and can only ever truly be such. I'm quite certain you can pick any two Christians, any two Jews or Muslims, any two Buddhists or Hindus or Pagans and no two believe or practice quite the same. There is no escaping individuality and therefore any officially-recognized organized religion is and only can be a very narrowly defined ideal in a world where every one tailors their own beliefs and practices.
Quite frankly, I find the "official vs. unofficial" argument a distasteful one because it lacks respect for the individual, divisive and denigrates the notion one must find one's own path to enlightenment and fulfillment. There is no doubt many will find commonalities in belief and practice, however, to turn those commonalities into "us vs. them" is as anti-spiritual, anti-enlightenment and anti-happiness as I can imagine for human beings.
Yoga can be and is a religion ... if the individual practicing it says it is in their own lives. They need not turn to others for that determination. Those beliefs and practices feed their idea of what is their "spirit" or they do not.
That is all. Legal or community sanction are quite unnecessary. Authentic spirituality is discovered, not mandated or rubber stamped.
- Naumadd November 2, 2008 1:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I completely agree that the "officiality" of a religion is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is legitimate. We really need to define terms. I would define a religion as a complete spiritual system, with several definite components, including, but not limited to, a moral code, theological beliefs, ritual, a legendary/mythical component, etc. While it is not necessary to have all of these components, yoga really only has the ritual element of religion. It doesn't have a moral code, it certainly does not put forth any theological truths, I have heard no stories of legendary yogi. Yoga is a spiritual exercise, but is not a complete spiritual system. That being said, it can be incorporated into a complete spiritual system with a great deal of success.
- richardsonkr November 2, 2008 6:14AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I don't agree that yoga is a religion, nor that a religion needs to fit your definition in order to be a religion, but yoga does have:
1. a moral code, for example, ahimsa, do no harm
2. many legendary yogis - buddha is just one of them
- Santa Cruz Mom November 4, 2008 9:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'll be the first to admit my ignorance on this issue, of course I am not one of the experts put forward in the main articles. That being said, I'm not so sure that ahimsa is part of yoga when standing alone, so much as it is a part of Buddhism and Jainism. The same could be said for the legendary yogis, are they yogis only, or are they Buddhist heroes admired by yogis? If yoga is a religion, it could be argued that many martial arts, such as Karate, are religions.
- richardsonkr November 21, 2008 3:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Yoga is a term which means yoking, and in itself is not a religion , but is a practice of Hinduism.
It is hoped that through yoking with the god Brahma that one can break free from the circle of reincarnation and come to a place of eternal peace instead of needing to keep coming back to raise ones level of Karma.
It is a practice from a specific religion with different types of yoga as in Hatha yoga for exercise , Kundelini yoga for sensual heightening, to sexual semen retention and orgasm control as in Tantra yoga.
- Me2
March 25, 2009 5:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
In various other discussions, I've believed and mentioned that each of us is necessarily a religion of one - regardless of the specific religion or religions to which we claim membership. It is quite true that no two christians or muslims, jews, buddhists, hindus, wiccans, pagans, etc. hold to quite the same set of beliefs, hold quite the same set of values or practice those beliefs and values in quite the same ways. Yes, of course, there will be similarities, however, no two are identical and, in my opinion, there is so much variety of belief, value and practice that it is perhaps dubious to claim the existence of "organized religion" at all. One need only look at the founding, formation and evolution of Christianity alone to see that there has been no ubiquitous agreement on belief, value and practice within that religion ever in its history in spite of claims to such. Every "organized religion" is an edited work with unending disagreement over its content and direction.
Branded an "atheist" by members of so-called "traditional religions", I've been accused many times of having no religion at all. As I've also explained many times, I indeed have my own religion as I define it - putting to practice my beliefs and values which happen to be many and supportable by fact and reason and deeply held. All that is true is I am not a member of the religion or religions of those critics. I happen to believe their ideas of human life, spirituality, philosophy and religion to be as the understanding of children. That they cannot or are unwilling to expand their understanding of human psychology, of human life and of the need of each individual to discover and walk their own positive path is of little to no consequence to those who can and ARE willing. Their dysfunctions are regrettable but, in any event, temporary if enough human beings are genuinely dedicated to the positive progress of the human experience rather than perpetuating its tired traditional mental chains.
If one sees one's practice of yoga as a "religion", then it is. The opinions of others has little or nothing to do with it. We each define for ourselves what is necessary to our health, happiness and prosperity and, assuming it does not prevent others from doing the same in their own private lives - we should have it.
Define religion for yourself. You cannot define it for another.
- Naumadd February 21, 2009 8:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
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
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
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
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
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
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
coherent and polite comment.
- quantummechanik September 4, 2009 1:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Perhaps you ought to say "does not apply to yoga in some or many minds, but may apply in the minds of others". That has the virtue of being accurate. It seems you want to make the point but don't quite get there that a dictionary is a guide to how language is commonly used but not a rulebook to how it MUST be used. It cannot speak to every context in which the word may be used and it is smart not to attempt to do so. There are many understandings of the concept of " religion ". There are far too many, in fact, to ever include in a single book.
Over six billion and counting.
- Naumadd September 3, 2009 8:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
May I borrow this list?
- mmm November 4, 2008 10:40AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Anyone can say anything they choose to say but it does not make it so. Here are the facts: The (H)indus created the Sanskrit language (thus all the terminology that goes with " yoga ")and all the subsequent practices of Yoga. All one has to do is the least bit of research to uncover these facts. Look in a dictionary, encyclopedia and books on comparative religions. If so-called "yoga is universal," why is there absolutely no mention of Yoga in the Monotheistic religions? These guys who promote this universal yoga stuff are really only looking out for their own business interests--like swamiji.com. How absurd.
Swami Param
- classyoga September 6, 2009 7:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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
Is Yoga a Religion?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes ...
I say that, yes, yoga is a religion if one practices yoga religiously. Of course, much of what we do can be viewed as a religion insofar as "religion" is merely the consistent practice of what one believes in one's daily activities. I view myself as a writer and an artist and pursue those crafts as a result of deeply held beliefs. I call what I do a religion, even if only a religion of one. I sustain the practices because, if I'm authentically devoted to those practices with conviction, those practices, in turn, sustain me as well. This is why I do them.
Yoga could, from a certain point of view, be seen as very much a religion in the sense of the major religions, perhaps even more so. I dare say there are those who perform yoga I've know personally who are far more authentically devoted to it than most of those I've met who proclaim themselves "christian" or "jewish" or "muslim" or "buddhist" or just about any other label one might wish to apply from the traditional list of religions.
It is long overdue that one not adopt a specific religion because it is on a list, but rather to create one's own religion whatever that may be, provided you do so authentically and consistently and with conscious thought in doing so. Call it a "religion" or don't. What matters most is this - does it feed your spirit and allow you to exercise that spirit ... or not. If it doesn't, it matters little what name you give to it. It may be inappropriate for you.
- Naumadd
November 2, 2008 1:37AM
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.
As an atheist who practices Yoga...
...I must say that's definitely no. I practice Yoga for the health benefits...flexibility, muscle strengthening, and mind-body balance (which in and of itself might be a spiritual thing, but far from a religion).
The goal of Yoga is to get in touch with one's inner self and bring your body into balance. That doesn't seem religious to me.
- bagpiper2005
January 28, 2009 12:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
... to you
But would you agree that yoga could be viewed as a religious practice to another? If, in fact, others view their yoga practice as a religion , do you believe them wrong to view it that way? Why? How would your view of their practice be more relevant than their own view?
As you say, "the goal of yoga is to get in touch with one's inner self". As it happens, the root meaning of "religion" is to "connect or re-connect". Wouldn't the claim that one is "getting in touch with self" during yoga practice suggest the usage of the term "religion" if one chooses to do so? As an atheist similar to yourself, I discount the idea of a "supernatural", but I absolutely claim a need of the word "religion" in that I have deeply held beliefs and values which I use as the motivation for things I do on a consistent basis which greatly satisfy me spiritually (again, a naturalistic spirituality). When I was younger, all sorts of physical exercises were deeply meaningful to me and I practiced them consistently and with vigor. Many would not have called what I was doing a "religion". I see why they would not, however, I would and did think of it in that way. I don't believe I was wrong to do so and thus I don't believe it wrong to think of your own yoga practice as a "religion" if you choose to do so. I don't think there's disputing that the experience of many individuals with yoga or with many other consistent practices is spiritual and religious in nature. It think it appropriate if they choose to call what they believe and do a "religion". Of course, it's wrong of them to press their own views of their personal experience and practice onto the choices of others and vice versa.
As I've point out before, many people call themselves "buddhist", " muslim ", "christian", "jew", "taoist", "wiccan", "witch", "druid", "pagan", on and on, but no two individuals using any of these labels, or any other labels you might wish to add to the list, harbor precisely the same beliefs and values or precisely practice in the same ways. This makes every individual a religion of one. No matter how many commonalities exist between two or more individuals, no two can or will share every single experience, understanding, value, goal or practice. Because no two are the same, I think it safe to say one individual cannot define what is or is not a "religion" for another.
Nevertheless, let me be clear: although what one believes, values and practices, how one wishes to define them and what one chooses to call them are matters of choice, it is the properties of nature itself that determine whether or not one's beliefs, values and practices are correct or incorrect.
- Naumadd
September 3, 2009 8:51PM
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.
Mirroring of religion
I don't practice yoga myself, but I know a few people who do and they are agnostics/atheists and have nothing to do with religion what so ever. They do it because it relaxes them.
Recently yoga was forbidden for muslims in Malaysia, because they say it is a religious expression.
I think religious people mirror their own religiousness on everything else that people think or do. They say evolution is a religion, atheism is a religion, some even say pot is a competitor of religion. This is all because they can't believe other people can do or think certain things for no religious reason at all, especially when they think it could drive them away from the religion they obey. They want to kill it before it could eventually "harm" their own religion, even when there's no single shred of evidence that it will.
Now they found their next victim: yoga. Probably it makes religious people think that it's a competitor to their way of praying.
- genejunkie February 11, 2009 2:22PM
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.
Words taken hostage
What's happened is the "big-label religions" - and just a few in particular - have attempted and largely succeeded in taking the word " religion " hostage to their own understanding and usage of it. Of course, their control over the concept and word is rather weak in that all one really has to do is refuse to accept their very narrow and simplistic usage of the word and begin to define and use it as you see fit in your own individual life. One ought not be quick to distance oneself from a word simply because what one believes and practices doesn't fit how others define "religion". I would contend that you in fact have a religion but only if you define the word in ways the "big-label religions" are likely to reject.
So be it. Language is merely a tool. If you are able to use language, you are free to use it in whatever manner you choose provided others understand what you mean in doing so. Their agreement isn't necessary, only their understanding. No one owns the word "religion" exclusively nor can they.
The concept "religion" is too valuable to outright reject as a tool in understanding one's own experiences and life. Because others wish to strangle the word into submission to their own small minds doesn't mean you have to do the same. I personally feel the concepts and words I use to label them must grow as I grow. This is why my definition of "religion" has grown far beyond its common meaning to one that fits the places I need and wish to go, and I'm not alone in doing this.
The word "religion" is not the exclusive property of the "big label religions". It belongs to and can be defined and used by anyone who wishes it.
- Naumadd
September 3, 2009 9:06PM
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.
You hijack everybody yourself
I don't know what exactly you're responding to when you say I do have a religion , the atheism or yoga part, but as I said I'm not into yoga myself I assume it's about my atheism. But either way I disagree with you.
Is not believing in gnomes or Zeus a belief or even a belief system or comparable to a religion? I don't think so. Just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby either. Atheism is not a religion and atheists are not religious just for being atheist.
When you juggle with the meaning of words and extend the meaning of the word religion to your own liking by saying language is merely a tool, you can claim that it doesn't matter what you say, because you're always right and we only disagree about the meaning of a word. By doing so you're hijacking everybody as being religious yourself. "A cage is not just the area limited by bars, but the whole world is a cage". Words do have a particular meaning. A hammer is not a screwdriver nor a peanut. Therefor the lack of belief in a higher spirit, worshiping and devotion (to some spiritual leader) can't be a belief or religion.
If you say I am religious in one way or the other, maybe you should explain yourself some more were I should search for my religion then. I'm getting curious! Not that I am, but just as an example, being (extremely) devoted to something, like a job or a football team is not yet being religious.
- genejunkie September 6, 2009 4:23PM
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.
um..
I believe no because it's just something you do to relax.
Just being healthy with your body. Nothing about religion .
- SCV
June 12, 2009 1:41PM
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.