I see that there is a debate regarding “true” yoga v. whatever else is out there. So, is this a fundamental(ist) issue? What do (serious? orthodox?) Hindus think about calling the “unreal” yoga?

I’m wondering if since all the “other” stuff we call yoga isn’t “true” yoga in your view, it then is void of whatever spiritual power would be associated with “true” yoga?

I understand that asanas are only a small part of the whole yogic path. Does performing asanas have special “powers” or anything from Hindu perspective if not viewed as Hindu?

Appreciate your insight,

HY

Thanks for you perspective and clarifying You are correct in that there are some basic beliefs in what is called “orthodox” Christianity. There are so many branches and views that differ, but the basic, basic issue relates to the fact that Jesus existed in history, is the son of God/God, died on the cross for our sins and resurrected from the dead, and salvation is a free gift we accept to be in restored relationship with our holy, perfect, loving God. The rest is gravy:-)

These truths about real Yoga/Hinduism are a far cry from the spurious Yoga exercise business and/or vague “spirituality.”

Swami Param
Dharma Yoga Ashram (Classical Yoga Hindu Academy)

I’ve read that on another blog. The person said that making the assumption that “Hinduism” was created at a certain date with set concepts when it’s just an umbrella word created by Westerners to encompass all the native beliefs and practices in India.

I’m not familiar with Hare Krishnas or their beliefs, but since “Hinduism” doesn’t require you to believe anything specific so I don’t see why they wouldn’t.

I guess “required” isn’t the right word, but christians have set beliefs, but we don’t.

Thanks for your perspective. BTW, your comment wasn’t deleted, I just was off the computer for a while–taking a media break. Someone else commented on the some non-Hindu type origins of yoga on another page…I’m looking into it.

The Hare Krishnas are hindu, no?

Actually, Christians are not “required” to do anything (if people say they are that is just “religion” and man-made rules). Whatever we do is because we believe in a loving personal god–thus we pray, worship, honor, etc. When you accept this as reality then you want to follow in loving God and others…

I’m learning more about all this and thank you for your comment!

Thanks for writing! I am so thrilled that you took the time to provide such a thoughtful response the provides me with further learning and expansion of perspective. I greatly appreciate you sharing your insights on this topic with me, as well as, pointing out further areas of study.

I’ll have to look further into the concept of Naphsha that you mention. I know that the majority of the New Testament was written in Koinonia Greek and some Aramaic. This direction will be helpful to my studies.

What you say about qualifying the word Yoga is extemely helpful in clarifying categories. Also, I appreciate your words on origins and owning of ideas.

It gets me excited to keep going when I read such a response as yours.

Thanks again!

Regardless, the capacity of mind-body union, yoking or yoganess was always there, waiting for someone to discover it. Yes, it was, most likely, DISCOVERED in the East, very possibly by a Hindu. But Hindus did not CREATE yoga. They just got lucky because they were, probably, the first to invest the time and energy to explore areas of being human that others had not … yet. Hindus might have figured out what no one else had ever figured out before. But the first person* to discover the unconscious mind had no rights to defining it for anyone else, except for his/her copyrights to their writings about it. It’s just there, regardless of who figured it out.

(*Usually thought in the West to be Freud, but the Aramaic-speaking discoverers of naphsha [see below] already had it figured out long before Freud did.)

So too, Hindus might have discovered this inherent process or capacity, what they called yoga, of being a fully actualized human being (even though not usually explored by most people.) But once discovered and revealed to humanity, Hindus have NO claim to tell other people what yoga IS or IS NOT for anyone, except those who ask them. Hindus have every right to tell anyone and everyone who wants to know what yoga means and is TO THE HINDU (as long as you can get all the Hindus to agree on what that definition is). But they have no standing to tell other people what yoga is or is not for anyone else.

And if you go to the classical Sanskrit dictionaries, the word yoga has MANY definitions that have nothing at all to do with anything remotely religious, spiritual or mystical. To say that yoga IS (fill in the blank), is not being honest nor fully truthful. … However, to say what Hindu-based, Patanjali-style Yoga IS to certain people, can be very truthful and accurate. But the word yoga by itself must be qualified by the user to the satisfaction of all involved in that particular conversation, without assumptions.

Hindu yogis should not pretend that they can claim and define the word *yoga* by itself. Doing so does psychological and emotional violence — anti-ahimsa — to anyone who strongly believes differently. The Hindu, or whoever, needs to allow for other manifestations of what yoga means, even if they have to shut up for a while and learn from others, even if the others are not so enlightened. Even if the other person’s personal definition is repugnant.

Sorry Gang, the age of unquestioned authority is OVER.

Except in very casual conversation, people should not be using the word yoga by itself, even by so-called Hindu authorities, because it leads to confusion, disagreement and conflict (very anti-yoga). This is an example of words that (unless you are speaking or writing to a group that already fully agrees with your interpretation) for general use needs qualifiers. The word yoga, used by its self, is too basic, generic and general to pin it down to just one definition, and in the end, destroys the humanness of the essence and benefits of physical/mental/relational yoga as it is thought of by people like me.

Even if the qualifier is: My approach to yoga is …, that at least personalizes it, and does not necessarily impose upon or invalidate the point-of-view of the listener.

As to the Pope banning mind/body yogic practices, whoever is Pope right now would do well to read the small book titled Enlightenment which explores the deeper meanings, from the Dead Sea Scrolls, of certain words from the New Testament, and the very important word NAPHSHA.

Long story short: Naphsha refers to a pre-conscious, meditative state that links the un-, sub- and conscious minds, and does so under a body of moral law (in the case of naphsha, the Ten Commandments and the several hundred sub-statutes of the first five books of the Old Testament). Jesus (or someone at the time) taught and often referred to this phenomena repeatedly in the New Testament, but you have to read the Aramaic translations to see it. Unfortunately, the concept of Naphsha has been translated nearly out of existence, to the point very few know its meaning, at all. I was very lucky to stumble across the book. But from an early age I knew some concept like Naphsha HAD to be in the Bible, IF the Bible was a truly holy book. (To the degree I accept the concept of holiness, which isn’t much.) And oh yes, the concept of Naphsha IS on Google!

So here’s to the Stopping of Doing Violence (the practicing of Ahimsa) to other human beings by NOT being too emotionally attached to particular usage of certain words.

Thanks for Reading,
David Scott Lynn