There is an interesting debate brewing over yoga. The Hindu American Foundation posted an article entitled “Yoga Beyond Asana: Hindu Thought in Practice” on its website. The article seems primarily educational. It simply explains that there is more to yoga than āsana (posture) and prāṇāyāma (controlled breathing). These are but aspects of a robust philosophical, theological, and moral tradition. It does not claim that everyone who practices āsana yoga should subscribe to the philosophy or even that they should read the yogasūtras or other texts. It simply suggests that yoga should not be completely dissociated from its Hindu roots. The last paragraph of the article is, I think, worth citing in full:
“The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) reaffirms that Yoga, “an inward journey, where you explore your mind, your awareness, your consciousness, your conscience”, is an essential part of Hindu belief and practice. But the science of yoga and the immense benefits its practice affords are for the benefit of all of humanity regardless of personal faith. Hinduism itself is a family of pluralistic doctrines and ways of life that acknowledge the existence of other spiritual and religious traditions. Hinduism, as a non-proselytizing religion, never compels practitioners of yoga to profess allegiance to the faith or convert. Yoga is a means of spiritual attainment for any and all seekers.”
An article in today’s New York Times highlights a polemic that has emerged with respect to this attempt to educate Americans about the roots of yoga. The article, by Paul Vitello, is filled with troublesome reductionisms and misconceptions about Hinduism, so I am somewhat reluctant to recommend it. However, looking past these problems, it raises interesting questions, I think, about religious practice, identity, and “ownership.” “Nobody owns yoga” says Debbie Desmond, a yoga instructor. Indeed… neither does anyone own ideas – but we tend to at least offer a citation when we borrow those ideas, no?
Some years ago, when I was a seminary intern at a church, my pastor started a meditation service on Wednesday evenings patterned after certain Buddhist meditational practices. A parishioner started conducting yoga sessions on Monday nights. I thought this was great. Ramadan rolled around and I suggested that we devote one of our Wednesday prayer sessions to learning about the salaat, and perhaps even practicing it once. There was an uproar of objection. My pastor said something to the effect: “Salaat is a Muslim practice – we might insult and upset them and give them the impression that we are stealing their practice.” I didn’t push him on it… after all, I was just an intern. But it did strike me as odd that we could “borrow” Buddhist and Hindu sacred practices but not Muslim practices.
I am curious to know what you think. Do religious persons “own” their forms of prayer and practice? Granted, adaptations should be done carefully and respectfully (which is, I think, what the HAF is requesting), but are there limits to which practices can and cannot be performed? Are there dangers of religious syncretism here? If there are, then can these dangers be negotiated – and to what end – or should we just stick to “our” traditions and practices? If religious traditions are an amalgamation of history, doctrine, and praxis, then can we come to know and understand our religious others without knowing – or perhaps even practicing, on occasion – “their” traditional practices? What do you think?
PS – for those curious about the image I’ve chosen for this post, it is the symbol of my alma mater, Dharmaram Vidyā Kṣetram, of the two-natured Christ in the lotus position (a yogic āsana) meditating in front of a buddhist dharma wheel. It is, I think, an interesting borrowing of religious traditions.
Thanks for this relevant question. Fundamentally, I think the answer is context specific and a universal solution isn’t going to be easy for us to “get at.”
I think, when communities start “practicing” modes of worship, meditation or reflection that are unique to other religious traditions, much of the consideration hinges on your line re “adaptations should be done carefully and respectfully.” And I think part involves consulting with whatever “other” religious communities are involved on a local context.
For example, earlier this year I was helping put on an interfaith service. The service was designed to reflect on experiences from the 2009 Parliament. My contribution was from the Christian perspective, but I wanted to demonstrate how inspirational the creation and disillusion of a Tibetan Buddhist sand mandala in Melbourne was. As an illustration, I constructed a piece of sand art that mirrored some stained glass in a Lutheran chapel and, at the end of the service, everyone participated in the disillusion of the mandala.
Before I did any of this, I consulted with the Buddhist representatives who would be at the service. I wanted to make sure I wasn’t appropriating the religious tradition in any way. After this conversation, where I determined a way to engage with this practice in a respectful way, the final product was both illustrative and respectful. I think, absent of that conversation in that context, my actions may have been perceived differently than I desired. In a different context, this illustration may not have been respectful.
Hi Honna – excellent points about both context and consultation. Thanks, especially, for the story! What a wonderful thing to do and a marvellous way to build bridges!
As I read, a story came to mind–an American Baptist pastor at our former church went on a sabbatical to explore yoga, meditation, and other presumably “Eastern” practices. He was grappling in his own mind with this question of appropriating the traditions of others when he discovered a Christian community that carries out a centuries old meditation practice in the Christian tradition. The discovery put him at ease. Honestly, it can be difficult to find a true point of origin for myths, practices, beliefs…. I do like Honna’s idea of speaking with those who live closest to the practices. This seems to have the greatest sensitivity.
This is an extremely pregnant question for me, as I roam around religious spaces trying to work out how they develop effective communities, since I’m actively looking for what pieces of technology we might use to build Humanist communities.
My instinct is to assert that no one “owns” any tradition of thought or practice, and to see faith traditions as the common heritage of humankind. However, I recognize that some groups or individuals might object to another group, not identified with theirs, “taking” or “appropriating” elements of a religious practice. So, a knotty problem.
Thanks for raiding this, Brad!
Great post. I started a reply, but it got too long, so I made a separate post http://goo.gl/pPSfF! Cheers!
Paul
Honestly, I think the reasons why it is ok to “borrow” from “Eastern” traditions is because the West, for the most part, still sees these practices as exotic. Exotic things become trendy.
I think it is great to incorporate practices from other traditions but rarely is it done well. We do not make the connections enough for parishioners to understand what exactly they are doing. For example, Buddhist styles of meditation are wonderful and they easily can be applied into a church community but what about Christian forms of meditation/asceticism? A great series for a church could be comparing Buddhist practices with those of Teresa of Avila.
Perhaps I am rambling but I think that too often, churches adopt other traditions practices without taking the time to uncover similar practices in their own tradition. In addition, it can create another stereotype that all Buddhists do to practice their faith is meditate for hours on end or Hindus just do yoga.