Labels Without Differences [was christian yoga]

[Guest guest]

Dear Mahahradantha:

 

Thank you for your thoughtful and heartfelt reply. However, I think

you may be reading a bit too much into my post and its intended

scope. Please allow me to clarify a few major points:

 

*** i do not like the label "Hinduism" at all and only use it very

reluctantly since it is an expression invented by western Scholars

and does not do justice to the great diversity of religious

expressions existing on indian soil. ***

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

*** But if the word Hinduism comes into play one must define

Hinduism as something different from the other Indic Religions or

Asian Religions otherwise the word does not make any sense at all. I

do consider it unjust to the Buddhists, Sikhs, Sufis and Jains to

deny them the right to define themselves as they like. ***

 

Fair enough; but such an assertion can't be made in a vacuum. It's

all about context. My post was not about how people "define

themselves," nor do I have any interest in limiting people's self-

definitions. Rather, I was addressing the ways in which such labels

and divisions serve only to obscure the common origins of Yogic

practices – and, by extension, I guess – the reasons why I find the

idea of a "Christian yoga" to be so problematic.

 

I think you will agree that all of the so-called Hindu religions –

Shaktism, Shaivism, Vaishnavism, and their various subdivisions; as

well as Buddhism and its many schools, and Jainism and its

approaches, and even Sikhism, are branches on a single ancient

trunk; the Indic Religion Tree, if you will. ;-) Similarly, Judaism,

Christianity, Islam, and all of their various subdivisions are

branches on another ancient trunk – the obvious name being the

Abrahamic Religion Tree.

 

Now I have no interest in arguing over which of these trees

is "better" – it is enough to understand that they are profoundly

different; that they grew from different soils and are fed by

different waters. That is, each has its own distinct base

assumptions about the nature of God and the Universe. Each has its

own meditative and mystical traditions. They are not easily

exchangeable or mutually transferable.

 

I don't know whether you've studied horticulture, but if you are

interested in that field then you may something about the process of

grafting: For example, how the branches of several different

varieties of apple tree can be grafted onto a single young trunk –

so that, in its maturity, you end up with a single tree producing

two, three or more different kinds of apples. I have even seen

grafted trees producing apples on one branch and pears on another!

There is enough genetic similarity that it works.

 

But there are reasonable limits, of course: If you attempt to graft

the branch of an orange tree, or olive tree, or banana tree or

whatever, onto an apple trunk, the branch will wither and die. The

trunk and the branch are just too different. Sure, they are all

fruit trees – but whatever genetic similarity may exist between them

is simply too distant and vague to allow this sort of trunk to

produce that sort of fruit.

 

Now let's return to the Indic Religion Tree: Because all of its

branches are fed by the same trunk, we can expect that all of its

branches will produce similar fruit. And sure enough, they do – the

various forms of yogic practice you cited in your original post are

those fruits. The similarity – and some level of interchangeability –

is to be expected. These practices did not spring into being

independently or by chance. They are predictable "genetic

variations" on a single theme – the life-giving sap of the trunk

(the Vedas, Harrapan civilization; fill in the blank as you please)

that feeds all of its various branches, whatever their human labels

may be.

 

*** Some fervent universalist Hindus like to stick a Hindu Label on

everything, even modern inventions, declaring hinduism as supreme

and at the same time denying this right to others. i am opposed to

this attitude. ***

 

Me too. It is a very unattractive trait, albeit it common in many

different religious traditions.

 

*** The author you cite is assuming that his interpretation is more

valid than those of the majority of other indological scholars […]

Contrary to the author i do not base my opinion merely on unproven

assumptions that are contrary to well established facts […] ***

 

I'd only note that Dr. Narendra Nath Bhattacharyya is hardly the

maverick, loose-cannon rebel that you seem to be portraying. On the

contrary, as head of the Department of Ancient Indian History and

Culture at the University of Calcutta, with more than four decades

in the field under his belt, he is one of the "grand old men" of

Indological studies – he's not bucking the establishment; he *is*

the establishment! He has authored scores of texts – many of them

the standard in their field – on the development of Buddhism,

Jainism, and the Bhakti and Tantric traditions; not to mention

massive tomes on Ancient Indian History and Civilizations that are

pretty much primary sources. Suffice it to say, Bhattacharyya's

assertions are neither shocking, nor revolutionary, nor even

controversial. I think if you go back and reread my excerpt from his

work, in light of what I've written above, you may even agree.

 

*** The only buddhists that consider themselves non-distinct from

Hindus are found in the community of […] ***

 

Again, my friend, it's all about context. My post was not about what

members of various sects of the Indic Religion Tree may or may

not "consider themselves" to be. I was simply responding to your

statement that "Yoga does already exist divorced from Hinduism since

appx. 2500 years. you just didn´t notice. Since appx 500 years

before Christ, Buddhism was founded." I found this to be misleading –

or, more specifically, an anachronistic application of modern labels

to ancient distinctions that obscures rather than clarifies the

topic under discussion. You are certainly free to disagree with me,

but I did want to offer the above clarification for whatever they

may be worth.

 

I'd add that the larger purpose of my post – which I failed to make

clear, perhaps causing your misreading of my argument; for which I

apologize – was more directly relevant to the "Christian yoga" idea;

i.e. that the author is trying to graft an orange branch onto an

apple tree. My opinion? It ain't gonna make it. ;-)

 

Thanks again for your excellent and impassioned post.

 

aim mAtangyai namaH