The Yoga Disease
Tuesday, 4. May 2010 - 7:32 PM
Preface
It began with this factual article by Dr. Aseem Shukla who exposed the “theft of Yoga” in America. Dr. Shukla details out what we already knew: that Yoga has been appropriated by self-proclaimed “Masters” and “Yogis” and that it is a flourishing, $6-billion enterprise. But Dr. Shukla’s more crucial point is that Yoga has been steadily delinked from Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma from which it originates. And it’s pretty much free for all today, as Dr. Shukla notes that there are “themed (sic) Yogas:”
“Christ is my guru. Yoga is a spiritual discipline much like prayer, meditation and fasting [and] no one religion can claim ownership,” says a vocal proponent of “Christian themed” yoga practices. Some Jews practice Torah yoga, Kabbalah yoga and aleph bet yoga, and even some Muslims are joining the act.
And look who first took exception to Dr. Shukla’s piece: the millionaire “mystic,” and “healer,” Deepak Chopra. Which is logical given that Chopra is one of the early birds to cash in on the yet-unharvested bounty that Yoga offered to the materialistic mind. More on this in a little while.
Dr. Shukla in turn, responded to Chopra’s poorly-written, illogical, and accusatory piece, and calls Chopra’s bluff thus:
Indeed, Chopra is the perfect emissary to fire a salvo against my assertion that delinking Hinduism from its celebrated contributions to contemporary spiritual dialogue…The right messenger because Chopra is a principal purveyor of the very usurpation I sought to expose.
Deepak Chopra and his brand of highwaymen are ultra materialists who did two things phenomenally well: they made a near-perfect diagnosis of the societal ills of the USA and packaged their snakeoil to a similar level of perfection. They worked at the level of individuals. They didn’t say “you know, you and your family is fucked up and I have the cure,” but “you know, this healing/soul-body/consciousness/Yoga thing really works. And this is how it is done. It improves your health, reduces obesity, makes you flexible, puts you in touch with yourself…” In other words, How to win friends and influence people: the Yoga Edition. And Chopra & co were equipped with the right tools: a convent education back in India and stints at prestigious hospitals across the US. The tag of a medical doctor counts for a lot in the US (he’s a doc, he must know what he’s talking about) not to mention this:
IN Los Angeles a radio station plays tapes of the lectures of Deepak Chopra, the world-famous mind/body guru, late into the night. Chopra’s mellifluous, seductive, pukka Anglo-Indian voice wafts across the nocturnal southern Californian airwaves, dipping here into Ayurvedic medicine, there into quantum physics, offering simple connections to the “unfathomable mysteries of karma”, gentle guides to better health and intriguing promises of a body that will never age. A deliciously soothing cure for insomnia.
Read the underlined words again. The mellifluousness and seductiveness is an undeniable crowdpuller. All Google searches revealed one unanimous quality about Chopra: his masterly oratory, a quality common to successful politicians and leaders and among others, self-styled Gurus: remember Osho?
So is Deepak Chopra’s–and similar folks’–empire built only on sheer oratory and fluff? Does he know any Yoga and Hindu philosophy at all? As Dr. Shukla shows, Chopra is aware of these concepts and philosophies but refuses to as much as acknowledge them as rooted in Hinduism. Worse, he seeks to divorce them from Hinduism.
Which brings us to the next question: what exactly do Deepak Chopra & co teach/preach?
The Rape of Yoga
Most self-styled healers, Yoga and spiritual Gurus teach physical exercise not Yoga. In Yogic terminology, they teach asanas or postures and add some doses of Pranayama (breathing techniques/practices) and meditation. But their main ingredient is the generous booster-dose of “consciousness,” “liberation,” “ageless body,” “timeless mind,” “perfection,” “enlightenment,” “deeper aims of Existence,” “creation,” “Karma,” “afterlife,”….. However, they have no idea of the actual meaning of these terms, their origins, context of usage, and the philosophical systems that underlie them. But if they do know it, it’s even worse because they’re then consciously committing fraud.
But here’s the beauty: folks like Deepak Chopra don’t need to know the actual meaning of these terms because the average participant who enrolls in these courses is actually looking for this: a sense of hope and reassurance, and a solution to overcome the emptiness that has come to characterize (mostly) the Western society post the early 20th century. Yogasanas, meditation, and pranayama guarantee a sense of calmness, stability, and inner peace, which can only be experienced and is repeatable. However, this doesn’t mean those are the only benefits it bestows upon the practitioner. But to an empty mind, these positive benefits have an avalanche-like, and in some cases, a life-altering effect. And once people have experienced this, they’re willing to believe any tripe that’s packaged in the garb of Yoga.
The extent to which Yoga has been mangled today, especially in the US is incredible. It’s fashionable among even the lay folks to speak about stuff like the “different systems and schools of Yoga” and other balderdash out of absolute ignorance. The blame for this lies squarely on the doorstep of folks like Deepak Chopra.
At the very basics, we need to clearly distinguish between Yoga as a darshana, a system of philosophy from Yoga as we find in texts like the Hatha Yoga Pradipika. This difference is akin to looking at the arati performed in temples and concluding that Santana Dharma is just this. A genuine Yoga teacher/Guru will explain this difference at the outset. Patanjali, the father of Yoga-as-a-system-of-philosophy, in his terse Yoga Sutras, talks about asanas in just two or three places in a total of 196 aphorisms. Even there, he simply says that it is recommended for a Yoga practitioner to sit in an asana that allows the mind to concentrate.
A genuine guru will also tell you about adhikari bheda, something I mentioned in an earlier post, from which I quote:
…Adhikari bheda, which simply means that a student should first successfully complete all the previous courses before attempting to sit for an Engineering exam.
This is equally applicable in this case. Yoga is not for everybody: and I’m talking about aspirants who want to reach the final state of Yogic bliss or Samadhi. Asanas, pranayama, meditation, etc are merely aids for attaining Samadhi. According to tradition, only a person who has actually experienced Samadhi is qualified to teach them to others.
But what are the self-proclaimed Yoga Gurus actually teaching? “Healing,” “wellness,” “well-being,” “being attentive,” “mindfulness,” and related nonsense in the name of Yoga. For good reason. The purveyors of such terms are not self-realized souls, I suspect they haven’t ever experienced Samadhi (I challenge them to prove me wrong). They are but mere traders. Their mantras of “healing,” and “wellness” simply means: “I need to keep you coming to my classes, I want you to buy my CDs, DVDs and books.” This also explains the filthy trend of branding/patenting/trademarking–Bikram Yoga, Iyengar Yoga, etc–that has tarnished the original aims and goals of Yoga. Read this vomit-worthy “guideline” of using “Iyengar Yoga brand”:
I.6. Iyengar Yoga Teachers refrain from using the “figure and temple” trademark design registered with the United States Patent and Trade Mark Department in BKS Iyengar’s name. The use of this service mark is reserved for use by non-profit organizations comprised of students and friends of BKS Iyengar who meet the criteria of I.1 and are approved for such usage by the Service Mark Committee (Asteya).
This beautiful instance showcases the Art of Defecating in the Plate that You Eat out of. Asteya (non-covetousness), as one of the Yamas (absentions) of Patanjali Yoga, is twisted to mean “non-covetousness of BKS Iyengar’s brand of Yoga!” While Patanjali laid down this as one of the principles to be strictly adhered to in order to attain Samadhi, the “Iyengar brand” lays it down to prevent the leakage of a single dollar/cent/rupee/paisa from its coffers. And these Gurus lecture millions on righteousness, soul, rebirth, ego, Karma, and peace. The gulf as it’s already clear, lies in precept and practice.
Branding/claims of ownership goes against the very spirit of Yoga and indeed, the entire Indian ethos. Why does a guy who talks about liberation need to enter into multi-million dollar businesses with Richard Branson? Equally, why didn’t Patanjali or any other sage claim ownership on individual asanas and breathing practices?
Yoga is a Disease
A common factor characterizes most of these self-styled soul-savers and agents of liberation: they rarely, if never, enter into public debates. They’re content to ignore genuine criticism directed at them. For instance, read this biting dissection of Chopra’s “expert” views on Genes.
Deepak Chopra really is an embarrassment. I’ve tussled with his weird arguments before, and now he’s flounced onto the Huffington Post with another article (prompted by an article on human genetics in Time, but bearing almost no relationship to it) in which he reveals his profound ignorance of biology, in something titled The Trouble With Genes. Chopra is a doctor, supposedly, but every time I read something by him that touches on biology, he sounds as ignorant as your average creationist. He also writes incredibly poorly, bumbling his way forward with a succession of unlikely and indefensible claims. This latest article is one in which I think he’s trying to criticize the very idea of genes, but it’s more like he’s criticizing his own lack of knowledge. [...] Instead, though, what we get is the maunderings of a third-rate mind with no understanding of even decades-old ideas. Instead of revealing any working knowledge of biological thought, Chopra gives us a list of questions about the gene that he is wondering about, and also claiming that no one else understands, and babbling foolishly. Some of these would be good questions coming from a student who seriously wanted to learn, but coming from an M.D. who routinely pontificates on how your body works, and stated with such a stunning certainty that because he doesn’t know, no one else does either, this is an infuriating list. Can we get Chopra’s license to practice medicine revoked, if he has one?
This criticism needs to be taken really seriously because it is about Deepak Chopra’s primary area of expertise/profession. This criticism exposes his (lack of) credentials in that area. Given his unintelligible pontifications on his current area of “expertise” as a Guru/Healer/Mystic, we have a fairly reasonable conclusion: that Chopra relies more on his oratory and confidence in the power of the igorance of the masses (how many educated, laymen can understand genetics? If Dr.Chopra spins something about connecting it with past lives, it must be true. After all, he’s a doctor). This explains why he doesn’t engage in anything that seriously challenges him. But like most similar Gurus, he lets his loyal band of blind followers speak for him. Once in a while, when questioned, he comes up with acrid and illogical rejoinders.
Secondly, yoga did not originate in Hinduism as Prof. Shukla claims. Perhaps he has a fundamentalist agenda in mind, but he must know very well that the rise of Hinduism as a religion came centuries after the foundation of yoga in consciousness and consciousness alone. Religious rites and the worship of gods has always been seen as being in service to a higher cause, knowing the self.
The preacher of daily inspirations, and the unveiler of Spiritual Laws loses his cool so easily that he is compelled find hidden agendas in peoples’ minds instead of giving a factual rebuttal! And that, when Dr. Shukla hasn’t named anybody. Guilty conscience, doctor? Tch tch tch. Dr. Shukla has already given an effective rebuttal so I won’t touch that portion again. But, Dr.Chopra, the “fundamentalist” term has been hurled at Hindus enough times for us to know that you have a sizeable repertoire of jokes, your anger notwithstanding.
Before you accuse me that I’m singling out Deepak Chopra, let me tell you that I’m using him merely as an example, a celebrity case study if you will, of what I call the Yoga Disease that’s spread across the United States. It has been transformed into a disease because of the vile potion that Deepak Chopra & his ilk have injected into an otherwise noble philosophical system. On the other side, as Dr. Shukla says, Chopra doesn’t have even the basic gratitude to acknowledge the roots of the source of his magnificent empire. Now, some folks say that “Yoga doesn’t need his gratitude.” This is a braindead argument and it simply encourages others like him to steal from, and appropriate native traditions without acknowledgment.
Here’s something to Deepak Chopra who rants incoherently about Yoga being rooted in “consciousness alone.” By this token, Chopra must not sue me if I use one of his patented/trademarked/copyrighted snakeoil techniques and claim that it is rooted in “consciousness alone.” This applies equally to any self-proclaimed Guru trying to hide under a similar umbrella. I do not decry or call for these Gurus to stop teaching whatever techniques they are teaching but for heaven’s sake, give credit where it’s due, don’t misrepresent and most importantly, don’t blabber about things you don’t know. Teach asanas, etc by all means but call it by its name: don’t package it as philosophy or Yoga.
In parting, here’s a very fundamental point even the most informed critics of Deepak Chopra & co miss: a true Yoga Guru will not advertise his/her Gurudom. Think about it.
Tags: Commentary, Deepak Chopra, False Yoga Gurus, Hindu, Hindu Philosophy, Hinduism, India, Indian Philosophy, Meditation, Patanjali Yoga, Patenting Yoga, Pranayama, The Rape of Yoga, Yoga, Yoga Disease, Yoga Disease in the US
4. May 2010 - 8:19 PM
Beautiful peice again. However I beleive you are wasting your anger. People like Chopra are beyond contempt, he is nothing but a English speaking quack (that is if you can call the gibberish english). The biggest fallout is the caricaturization of a sophisticated spiritual exercise. Most centres now put yoga in the same line as aerobics, exercise, Zumba etc…just another fitness regime.
I don’t want to sound like an apolgist for the west but i have seen far genuine questions from some of my friends here than answers from the likes of mr.chopra.
The Modus operandi for the chpras of the world is realy simple. They are just marketing a stereotype that the intelligentsia from India has created over the last 6 decades.
As for the intended consumers they are lapping up the stereotype. Instant coffee is better than no coffee at all but once they get a taste of the real thing they will understand.
Ravi
4. May 2010 - 9:06 PM
@Shantanu
We can write all we want, protest all we can, but we cannot change for sure is the Future of India’s history.
If you have read Romila Thapar’s take on Somnath, you would understand what I am talking about. 50-100 years down the line, articles of the Dr Chopra variety will be used by Secular Historians to make their readers believe that ‘Yoga’s relation to Hinduism isn’t an undisputed fact.
Historically proven tools (mastered by Secular historians) like Multiple-Perspective(sation) and Context(ualisation) will be deployed with precision to finally prove that the bond between Yoga and Hinduism (or Sanatan Dharma) are as good as the bonds between rubber tyres and mangoes.
Words like Hindu Terror and Saffron terror will serve the same purpose in romanticising the Islamic Terror and 26/11 will be remembered as a revolt by the marginalised against the tyranny of Upper caste Hindus.
History of Future is on its way.
4. May 2010 - 9:54 PM
Except in parts of Kerala, Ayurveda in its authentic form is very hard to find today. Every quack in Delhi calls himself an Ayurveda expert. Undoubtedly, maximum damage was done by those folks abusing the name of Ayurveda. Let this not happen to Yoga. I even have serious doubts about Swami Ramdev – for his claims on both Yoga and Ayurveda. One glimmer of hope in the world of Yoga is the Bihar School of Yoga.
4. May 2010 - 10:32 PM
If Indians want to stop these businessmen from claiming Yoga and patenting it etc, India needs to step in and claim all Yoga and its offshoots as traditional knowledge and go after every single person making illegitimate claims about it through the legal system. Unless India protects its intellectual heritage with the same vigour that private companies like Microsoft and Bill Gates protect their products, it will be robbed of all its traditional knowledge and ideas.
5. May 2010 - 3:00 AM
Sandeep,
Some one asked me, “Is Yoga real?”. My answer had to consider that s/he means Yogasana/Pranayama/Dhyana in some sense and with an impression that there is some “magic” in it. The point is, not all curious men know much about epistemology or right sources to look, and people like me will have to give some answer irrespective of our qualification. This invariably results in some confusion and misunderstanding although intentions are genuine.
I have met three kinds or people. First, those who think Yoga is a new age phenomenon, attribute cult like features and are skeptic. Second, attach mystical meanings, seek no clarity and are in bliss about the confusion. Third, is the kind you talk about. They are book sellers, Ordinary people looking for a job or venture, or “intellectuals”, infamous for their terrible misunderstandings. It is unlikely that there is any cure for the third category. There is a fourth kind which actually tries to pitch to those who do not want to try Yoga because it is a “Hindu Stuff”. They try to associate Yoga with Indian Traditions. I see them on the Internet. Good luck.
5. May 2010 - 3:23 AM
Ragu,
What exactly is your point?
5. May 2010 - 5:09 AM
Deepak Chopra is a true idiot. Purely a baniya style guru. He just wants to make money. He can come no where near BKS Iyengar , the Guru of Yoga who extols Patanjali. From where is Rishi Patanjali ? New Jersey?, Abu Dhabi ? Rome ? . You never know this fellow may even say that. Kuch Bhrosa Nahi aaise Chirkut Maharaj logo ka. Does Chopra know anything about Rishi Patanjali?
Buddhu hai Chopra.
Sitting in USA and trying to fool Americans and writing some char cent ka philosophy makes Deepak Chopra an imbecile of the highest order. Chopra is baseless lotta full of gas and 100% gnanasunya.
5. May 2010 - 9:40 AM
Such bitterness. Both in the article and the comments. If this bitterness is a part of the “True” Yoga of which you speak, I say, let it die. The true Guru may not advertise, but I doubt they would spend so much energy on criticism or defamation either.
5. May 2010 - 10:15 AM
Wow, and look how monotheism has been steadily delinked from Judaism, from which it originates! Talk about a free for all….
5. May 2010 - 10:34 AM
Rajiv Malhotras U turn theory deserves mentions here. Articulates the grand theft larceny and subsequent denigration of Indian traditions
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/prasthu/pages/PP_data/uturn.pdf
5. May 2010 - 10:39 AM
This is history repeating itself – welcome to new age colonialism!
The likes of Deepak Chopra have colonised what is inherently in our DNA.
We allowed ourselves to be plundered and colonised centuries ago and we are doing the same
We need to reinstate our acknowledgement and pride of all things that are our core.
The Western world can cloak the practice of yoga with all kinds of garb but it is intrinsically a part of Hinduism.
It cannot be separated from it.
If that jerk Deepak Chopra has not even got this right, he is certainly no guru.
So don’t waste any more of your time on this fraudster.
This exposure is great as it is !
5. May 2010 - 11:40 AM
I think all you pseudo intellectuals have entirely missed the point. Deepak Chopra has helped many people and is not all about marketing and money. He doesn’t need to tell you how many free
tickets, books, cds, tapes …. he has given to people who could not otherwise attend his lectures, who otherwise would not have embarked on their Spiritual path. At least he is out there trying to make the world a better place. I for one have never heard him claim to be a Yoga Guru. Precious, small minded, judgemental and resentful … lighten up and look at the big picture
5. May 2010 - 1:39 PM
Jane Barnes:
Deepak Chopra is a liar. Period.
5. May 2010 - 7:56 PM
@Sandeep
My point is, while institutionalized and consistent disassociation needs protest, we need to be tolerant to individual’s right to present his own understandings/misunderstandings. This includes, tries to present a view that does not sound very religious and focus on Yoga than its origins.
5. May 2010 - 9:58 PM
a well written and well needed article for the present troubled times in which we live. i just would like to make a point. every yoga system classifies the sadhaka’s mind, faith, actions etc into three precise categories of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. it is only the sattvic mind which can intuit a sadhaka in the right direction of sadhana and even in this, at a very advanced stage, a guru is indispensible. it is very clear from the actions of these people that they seem to be filled with a lot of Rajas mixed with tamas if at all with a more or less of sattva. well it is natural for a sadhaka to get entangled even more because of the godmen/guru job, which they have undertaken. each and every sadhaka/godman has to undo what he has done to himself and also to others through his preaching ( this includes whatever good as well as bad effects they might have had on the minds of the people) and programs. unless he does this, there is no way of spiritual progress. the scriptures say that false godmen will appear everywhere in kali yuga and the yoga system itself cannot be practised to it’s fullest extent because of the influence of ‘lust and gold’ and disease.and so also the capitalist countries are ready to welcome anything that involves money whether it’s porn or yoga.maybe, that’s the reason for the sprouting of so many shallow, half baked philosophers and godmen. therefore, my point is ” these godmen’s agenda to propagate false doctrine and our effort to stop them are both in the same footing ( like the other side of the same coin)”. the true rare sadhaka might be in an ashrama or in the attic of his room, totally shut from the din and rattle of this sensual world and will realize his goal, if he is true to his heart and goal.
aurobindo’s “essays on the gita” gives a clear and lucid intrepretation of this kind of misstep taken by the sadhaka/godmen on the path of yoga. very few are the ones who has the will to control money, name, fame, power and the sensual mind to reach beyond the regions of the mind, may be none in this kali yuga to be precise.
5. May 2010 - 11:18 PM
Deepak Chopra,Sri Sri, Osho all are/were ripping from the hindu knowledge base and nicely market it for the west. I once happen to see Chopra in interview with Larry King, where he did not have the courage to admit whatever he teaches is ripped off material from the hindu dharma. Even in our own backyard the Art of Lying Guru Sri Sri, charges $400 for teaching his patented Sudarshana Kriya which is nothing but a rip off from Patanjali’s paranayama. In one of the interviews to rediff Sri Sri was asked why did they patent Sudarshana Kriya. His answer was, that his followers had put in lot of work researching this (even though it is traditional knowledge) and they felt if they don’t patent it someone else will and hence they went ahead and patented it. That was the most brain dead justification you could hear from Sri Sri. These guru’s can be called Teflon Guru’s for they do not stick to the sanatana dharma but feed off of it and line their pockets.
6. May 2010 - 12:44 AM
@Kedar & jane Bares
No, Deepak chopra is timid. He fears facing challenges from strong anti-indian lobbies and loosing popularity with his clients if he speaks the truth. Hinduism doescarry lot of baggage with it because Hindus were politically powerless for last few centuries and that in turn allowed misrepresentation of their religion.
6. May 2010 - 12:52 AM
I am open to your arguments, but would find them more compelling if they were less angry. Anger is the antithesis of rational discussion.
Further, the article appears to me to be stretching at times (a single twitter post does not, in my opinion, constitute “Some Folks” – can I take any single tweet and attribute to it “some folks”? I can say if it really is “Some folks” I would hope for a better reference than a single tweet).
And yes, it makes sense that a true Yoga Guru will not advertise his Gurudom, I haven’t noticed Mr. Chopra advertising his Gurudom. I’ve seen him advertising his teachings (which you appear to claim is fine, so long as he doesn’t package it as Yoga), but that’s not the same thing (and if you meant something different, then you maybe need to clarify).
I’d like to see actual examples of his failings, too, but I don’t find any (plenty of quotes of OTHERS complaints, but no examples). For example, you state that Mr. Chopra is ignorant on the topic of Genes, but you don’t site an example (you site OTHER people making the same claim, but they don’t site examples either). Did he say that Genes come in 31 flavors? If he’s so stupid, there must be examples you can quote and demonstrate his ignorance. And when you state that the “criticism exposes his (lack of) credentials” – no, not really, since it doesn’t use any examples either. To expose something you need examples, evidence, arguments. “Babbling foolishly” is not an example.
Show me he’s an idiot, don’t tell me.
You give a decent example in his illogical rejoinders (though you don’t explain exactly the facts that contradict them, as if we should all know them, but if we did, we wouldn’t need this piece, now would we?) but then accuse him of having Anger, in a piece obviously filled with it’s own (and when the pot calls the kettle black, makes it hard for us to take you seriously).
I’m sure to people who already agree with you this seems alike a wonderful piece. I’m not for or against you, knowing very little about Mr. Chopra – never bought one of his books or seen him talk, and am more than happy to listen to any well reasoned critique of him (or anybody), but this most certainly was not it. It appeared over-reaching, citing questionable sources (a TWEET?!?!), venomous (certainly mocks him – and even Ravi poster saw it was angry), and lacking any evidence except opinions and the opinions of others. Disappointing piece.
6. May 2010 - 12:59 AM
Ragu,
>>we need to be tolerant to individual’s right to present his own understandings/misunderstandings
Sure, we’re entitled to say bullshit in our own private spaces/domains but the problem here is that this bullshit is packaged as health/wellness, etc and sold to millions.
>>This includes, tries to present a view that does not sound very religious and focus on Yoga than its origins.
Seriously, THIS is ignorant at the best and I don’t want to be uncharitable to you so I strongly suggest you read up first on these:
1. The concept of religion
2. Foundational concepts of Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma.
3. Yoga
And then revisit your comment in its light.
6. May 2010 - 1:06 AM
I understand how you feel about yoga being misrepresented (and I also dont support the commercial side of it) but I also think if this form of ‘yoga’, the physical side, is helping people and bettering people’s lives, it is a good thing..
6. May 2010 - 4:05 AM
@sandeep
Could you be a little more specific in your objections. By not stating them specifically (“The concept of religion” is a slightly broad topic, and up to a great deal of interpenetration by a large number of people, don’t you think?), and makes it sound like – while you object to what he said, you’re using the cover of “Hey, I don’t know how to give a precice objection, so I’ll say that I don’t want to be mean and then say that if you understood a SINGLE thing about religion you’d know why you’re an idiot”. I have a degree in philosophy, and I don’t understand your objection. It may seem that it should be obvious, but I like to think I understand these things reasonably well, and I don’t know what it is. Could you be more precise?
It DOES appear to me that you might be confusing “Tolerance” with debate (you appear to think he is arguing we should not debate others or debate poor ideas, and that’s not what he’s saying, he’s arguing for tolerance, two different things – not mutually exclusive. You can both debate, contradict, AND tolerate).
6. May 2010 - 8:23 AM
DeeQuack’s recent Quotes, from twitter-
“Good people– a liittle upset,want to own yoga — understandable.”
So understanding and condescending…
“Some of those quotes from me are real, although out of context. Feel compassion for these obsessed angry people.‘
Is it necessary to consider them as ‘obsessed and angry’ in order to feel compassion towards them, DeeQuack ?
“I nurture gratitude. When I express gratitude for what I have in life, I learn not to take things for granted.‘
Do you express gratitude to bharateeya samskriti for everything that you have plagarised, DeeQuack ?
“There are two lasting bequests we can hope to give our children. One of these is roots; the other, wings. -Hodding Carter ”
Are you sure that thought did not come from your ‘consciousness’, DeeQuack ? Why do you feel necesary to give credit to a westerner for that thought, when for everything that you lifted from bharateeya samskriti which you peddle, you claim credit to yourself or your ‘consciousness’ ?
Is it that only westerners deserve to be acknowledged DeeQuack ?
Ironic to see that quote mentioned when efforts have been to cut the roots of the stuff plagarized and sell them in market as if they grew out of Quack’s head.
Next few quotes do not need any comments!
“When I practice philanthropy, I can educate people, encouraging them to be independent, more aware, and more creative. ”
“My life purpose is reaching critical mass for healing, personal/social transformation, and enlightenment. What is yours?”
“I would like to live in the world that is free of poverty and violence where love and compassion are guiding principles. How about you? ”
‘My Intent is to honor motherhood as the most sacred profession of humanity.“
6. May 2010 - 10:41 AM
@Sandeep
Thank you. I agree on the ‘bulshit packaging’ part.
On the second, Thanks for the suggestion. Although, there is lot to read, I believe I do have some understanding. As you will know, many involved in research related to exact sciences run away from anything even remotely sounding religious. They argue that Yoga is mystic, cult related, New Agish etc. It is to these kind of people that Yoga needs to be presented in a language using analogies such as gym, counseling, life style, authenticity of which, they readily acknowledge (Not that analogies correct or their repulsion, but gets them listening). That is not to disassociate Sanatana Dharma from Yoga. These must be clearly discounted, at least until they start to look at the Dharma differently.
I fully understand that Pranayama for instance, is part of Yajurveda Nityakarma (Atah PranayamE viniyogaha) practiced, at least from the days of Vishwamitra. Even Deepak Chopra concedes in a post later on, responding to Shukla. Your post certainly highlighted the gravity of this nonsense. Which, I now realise, has reached a stage where everyone disassociates it from Dharma just to be able to make it their own. I certainly do not have any sympathy for them. Thanks again for a cool headed response.
6. May 2010 - 10:47 AM
Nick,
For some one with a ‘philosophical degree’ you should know that Indic traditions are fundamentally different from Semitic religions. Indic traditions(Hinduism, buddhism, Jainism …) are experiential where as Semitic religions are Monotheistic (Mytheistic). Each of these Semitic traditions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) trace their lineage to Abraham and ‘one God’ and contradict each other. Their dogma is antithesis og Yoga. Yoga means ‘to join’, join Jivatma with Paramatma.
Here are some excerpts from Hinduism Today article:
“However, it is equally true that the leaders of some religions have spoken out strongly against the practice of yoga by their followers. For example, the Vatican has issued a number of warnings to Catholics about yoga over the years. In 1989 it warned that practices like Zen and yoga can “degenerate into a cult of the body” that debases Christian prayer”
“In 2008 the leading Islamic council in Malaysia issued an edict prohibiting the country’s Muslims from indulging in the practice of yoga, fearing its Hindu roots could corrupt them. The council’s chairman, Abdul Shukor Husim, explained the decision: “We are of the view that yoga, which originates in Hinduism, combines a physical exercise, religious elements, chanting and worshiping for the purpose of achieving inner peace and ultimately to be at one with God. For us, yoga destroys a Muslim’s faith. There are other ways to get exercise. You can go cycling, swimming.”
“Clearly, it is not just its specific practices, such as chanting the mantra “Om,” that make yoga Hindu. It is the philosophy itself. The fact that the goal of yoga philosophy is mystical experience–or, more precisely, a mystical experience of the oneness of the soul with God–is the most central attribute that makes it inherently Hindu. …
It may not be an advisable practice for followers of religions in which unitive mysticism is unacceptable, as stated by the religious leaders of such faiths…
However, a caution to all who follow the path of yoga: be prepared to become gradually more and more aware of the unity of all that exists! ”
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=5064
And, I am only an engineer not even a philosophy minor !
Malavika
6. May 2010 - 10:49 AM
@guru
The real reason for Sri Sri to patent Sudarshan Kriya is the Deepak Chopra types, that will take this product and earn money for their selfish needs. Sri Sri does sevearal charity work and so this fees is well used. Further, anything give free is not taken seriously by our people. For eg – Vivekanda Kendra used to charge Rs.75 for a 21 day yoga course. People that enquired about the course did not take it seriously after learning about the fees (some asked if the fee was for a day). People that learned this Yoga by paying Rs 75 started their own yoga centres and charged Rs. 2,000 for the course. Sri Sri has prevented such manipulation by patenting S. Kriya. He gives credit to Patanjali Sutras during discourses and talks a lot about upanishads and Gita (which i doubt D Chopra does).
6. May 2010 - 11:01 AM
Nick, Jane Barnes
You still have NOT adressed the issue of Plagiarism. What Deepak packages and sells is not his original work but lifted without attribution from Hindu philosophy and traditions. Yes, Yoga is one of the six different Darshanas(Point of Views) of Hindu philosophy. Trying to sever Yoga from its roots is nothing but grand theft. This Guy goes on Larry King live and proclaims himself to be an Advaita Vedantin without mentioning that it is a part and parcel of Hinduism.
Deepak Chopra is plain dishonest. Why should plagiarism of Indic traditions be considered OK?
6. May 2010 - 11:48 AM
The arguements posted hera are interesting and off the tangent. Jonas Salk never patented the Polio vaccine. People benefitted a lot from this. But there was no internet that time. Salk paid the price , he never recd the Nobel Prize for medicine for his Nobility was greater than Nobelity. The word ” e ” for ego is between b and l in Nobel , meaning that there is a lot “b” itching and intellectual “l”ynching before the individual is awarded the prize. Fortunately , the word ” e” comes as last alphabet in Noble . it is not smashed between two alphabets . It is free friends. So free your ” e” ego and do the following as mentioned below.
The best way is ti create a massive web site with all the Yogasanas , to avoid exploitation for commercial purposes. Once all the Yogasanas are online, one cannot patent it anywhere in the world. On this web site just give credit to the Supreme being , Lord Siva and Patanjali who recd it for mankind. Include all the Sanskrit verses and the divinity associated with the asanas. No Guru will be able to patent Yoga if this massive web site is created. It is Indians from India who should do this. You guys are so good at software , web development etc. Waste no time. Once upon a time , it was the false Gurus caught by the tail. Now it is time to catch these pseudo Gurus by the web.
6. May 2010 - 12:07 PM
@Malavika
As to your first post. I understand all of that. I don’t see which of my points, however, you are arguing against. Was there a point I made which you were refuting? I suggested that the author should have included specific examples of his lies, I said I am unaware of Chopra claiming to be a Guru, I said that one tweet does not make a consensus, I said that sandeeps objection to Ragu that he needs to understand religion was a broad criticism for an individual point that he made about the difference between tolerance and discussion without actually addressing the point.
You’ve done a marvelous job explaining the difference between Semetic religions and Indic religions. I am not sure which of my points that is intended to refute.
@Malavika
I guess I don’t understand who is being plagiarized against. To plagiarism means to pass someone else’s work off as your own. Is he taking credit for inventing something someone else did?
This is part of my point. He may be bastardizing the religion – but that’s not plagiarizing. It seems to me in peoples anger they are being a bit caviler with their charges and ‘evidence’.
I don’t know enough about Mr. Chopra. He may very well be committing unspeakable crimes. But I’m having a devil of a time understanding the arguments you put forth as being evidence (and I’ve outlined why. Using a tweet as “proof” of a trend is grossly unfair. Quoting other people’s opinions on data as “proof” is unfair, and I’ve outlined above where the author did this,. ETC…).
Anger smacks of intolerance, and that was, I think, Ragu’s point, and is anger is not consistent with honest argument or criticism (and this plagiarism charge is a good example. Plagiarism is easy to prove, find a work he stole, cite the original author and prove he claimed it was his. If that’s not what he did, then he didn’t plagiarism, if you’re upset that he’s bastardizing the religion, then charge him with THAT, THAT you can prove, and THAT is a rational argument). It may be that this isn’t the place for that, I suppose, maybe people here just want to vent, in which case I suppose I should have kept my mouth shut, venting is cool, it’s important. But since it appeared to me that this essay had the goal of convincing me of something, that I would point out where I thought it was being unfair.
6. May 2010 - 12:10 PM
In such an article that is suppose to defend the basis of Yoga has indeed quickly turned into a of bashing Deepak Chopra. It’s good to remember that the true roots of Yoga no matter who missed interrputed what, is based on the self, self awareness, and ultimately used to keep in touch with our higher selves. Anybody who dedicates his life to create such a positive movement of love and light with using such tools as Yoga is in fact note worthy. Life is all about perception and the author of this article obviously has a very negative and insecure perception of himself. Otherwise he would not see the world or other individuals in the mannor what he does. Maybe you might want to pick up one of Deepak’s books. To try to degrade someone who is spreading awareness and healing to the world is just a depiction of you really are. Open you heart and your mind for you are incredibly closed off. Deepak Chopra is a gift.
6. May 2010 - 12:36 PM
@Malavika,
That was a good response.
@Nick,
I promise I’ll respond to you in detail when I have more time.
6. May 2010 - 1:21 PM
Nick said:
“Anger smacks of intolerance, and that was, I think, Ragu’s point, and is anger is not consistent with honest argument or criticism (and this plagiarism charge is a good example. Plagiarism is easy to prove, find a work he stole, cite the original author and prove he claimed it was his”
Read Aseem Shukla’s posts, No point in repetition.
Instead of trying to psychoanalize me, read URL I posted, URL on U-Turn theory and Deepak’s articles in Washingtonpost where he clearly trys to delink Yoga and Hinduism and makes contradictory statements. Later he agrees that Yoga is part of Santana Dharma. A few sentences later he claims Yoga is not intrically related to Hinduism. What a phoney.
Deepak wrote an entire book on pop Yoga “The Seven Spiritual Laws of Yoga: A Practical Guide to Healing Body, Mind, and Spirit” without even mentioning Hinduism or Patanjali . Patanjali codified the Yoga Sutra, he himself does not claim to be the ‘Original One’. If you are asking for original author you missed the entire point of Indic traditions, where there is no founder. I wonder how you passed the philosophy major.
You, show me one occasion where he credits Hinduism for Yoga or Meditation. Non attribution implies that it is his original work. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of Hinduism knows Advaita Vendanta is part and parcel of Hinduism. Claiming that he is not a Hindu but Advaita Vedantin is sheer dishonesty. How come you ignored my specific evidence?
Malavika
6. May 2010 - 1:30 PM
Nick said:
” don’t know enough about Mr. Chopra. He may very well be committing unspeakable crimes. But I’m having a devil of a time understanding the arguments you put forth as being evidence”
If you don’t know about him why are you supporting him to the hilt?
“if you’re upset that he’s bastardizing the religion, then charge him with THAT”
What is your definition of bastardization of religion?
6. May 2010 - 3:09 PM
If a teacher of Yoga does not give credit to Patanjali, condemn him as you all do. He deserves to be condemned. Continue it vigorously.
6. May 2010 - 4:22 PM
“I do not decry or call for these Gurus to stop teaching whatever techniques they are teaching but for heaven’s sake, give credit where it’s due, don’t misrepresent and most importantly, don’t blabber about things you don’t know. Teach asanas, etc by all means but call it by its name: don’t package it as philosophy or Yoga.”
Well said… but there is a big marketing potential in calling it Yoga Classes instead of Asana/Pranayama classes(Which you have duly explained). Atleast in India where most people know that Yoga is more than just excercise/aerobics(but don’t know what more yoga is, than just excersice), the mention of Yoga opens up greater opportunities.
We usually hear claims from so called spiritual gurus saying that they took 1000s into Samadhi during a 2 day course on Patanjali Astanga Yoga etc., which is more than just laughable. Also Yoga is linked with vibrations, wave patterns, going around arali/ashwattha tree will be labelled as transfer of Cosmic energy etc., that will give more ayur-arogya, just to appeal to the new scientific minds.
Most of the new age Yoga therapy etc., doesn’t consider Yama-Niyama, then they come to Asana-Pranayama which they teach to a certain extent, they just don’t give a thought about pratyahara and Dharana. Next comes Dhyana where some self-acclaimed Paramahamsa will give a lecture and the participants listen to him with eyes closed, and at the end, some people get some sort of respite from their mental occupancies and feel relaxed. Some others get good sleep during the lecture, and say that “I could not know what was going around me… it was very very relaxing” which will inturn be marketed as “Sri Sri Paramahamsa X during his lecture took y number of people into Samadhi”
With new-age Yoga/Spirituality, words like samadhi, Paramahamsa are becoming too common…
6. May 2010 - 4:41 PM
@2bornot2b After patenting Sudarshana Kriya, Sri Sri isn’t teaching for free.. So your point of avoiding Rs75-Rs2000 manipulations doesn’t stand. What Sri Sri has essentially achieved is, no other person can claim to teach the same for say $200(assuming that Sri Sri charges $400)
Who are we to claim copyright on something that has existed for milleniums? I hope Sri Sri would atleast agree that he did not invent Sudarshana Kriya?
6. May 2010 - 5:17 PM
How India knocked out Neem patent out of WR Grace as the pesticidal properties was known for milleniums to Indian farmers. Just create a massive web site for Yoga as mentioned before and the rest will be for all and not for commerce.
6. May 2010 - 6:39 PM
Vishwa said:
“Who are we to claim copyright on something that has existed for milleniums? I hope Sri Sri would atleast agree that he did not invent Sudarshana Kriya?”
So true, I am disappointed that Sudharshana Kriya is not a Free ware. In Software you have freeware, which can be freely distributed, enhanced and updated. However to exploit it commercially one has to pay royalties. Of course Indic traditions throughout the milleniums have been freeware, a gift of anicient Hindu Seers for the benefit of entire Humanity. As has been noted by several posters here. However, this is no reason to indulge in plagiarism.
Malavika
6. May 2010 - 7:33 PM
Sandeep, thanks for the information. I heard of Chopra before, never paid serious attention to him. I am not sure he really deserved the attention of one blog post.
I do not think, at this age, commercialization can be stopped. When it comes to the heritage of a group of weak people who also happen to be mostly indifferent to their heritage, appropriating that heritage is very easy. Thus this group of neo-robbers are out there to make money. This is not new. Euro-centric and later Marxist historians played with our past to suit their agenda. We saw and as usual showed our indifference.
We pretty much know how Yoga disease started. Sooner or later, these people would start making modifications to the posture and start the patenting (some zen gurus already did this). This would in turn damage the practitioners, some great journalist would write a revealing article about it and then yoga would be reviled and will be thrown to the other reviled concepts like Hinduism. Then West can go to newer fad, we can safely concentrate on following Patanjali. Meanwhile we have to tolerate Chopra and thousands like him until their time run out.
Stealing/plundering (it was only wealth and history later) has happened in our past, it is happening again (this time our heritage) and in some form or other it would happen again in future (whatever would be left).
6. May 2010 - 8:36 PM
I am an Indian and a Hindu and very proud to be one. Religion has such a negative impression on most people in the modern world, the way to reach all human beings around the world is through spirituality. The essence of Hinduism, like yoga, pranayams, teachings of the Vedas and Bhagavad Geeta need to reach the whole world, and the way of doing it sometimes, is by spreading the knowledge of the spiritual practices than as part of our religion, because if were to spread it like it were teachings of our Hindu religion, we wouldn’t be able to attract most people to this fold, like yoga which is good for everyone. So my point is, everyone needs the knowledge, the whole world should benefit, and if it means delinking yoga from Hinduism, so be it. In the heart of heart, the whole world knows the truth that yoga originated from India and it is what our Hindu sadhus and great saints practiced and taught. Look at the larger picture, the whole world benefits from these teachings and practices, which came from Hinduism, and that’s a matter of pride for us as Hindus.
On aside, I do not agree with people who commercialize spiritual teachings and practices for material gains, that is just going against the grain of all all they preach and teach.
6. May 2010 - 9:55 PM
@Malavika
I assume you’re referring to “Hinduism, as a faith tradition, stands at this pass a victim of overt intellectual property theft”. That’s great hyperbole, but the reality is that failing to tie Hinduism to Yoga is not plagiarism. Period. It may bastardize Yoga, but it’s not plagiarism – plagiarism is a very specific thing. I know there’s no “Original One”, that was my point… That’s why it can’t be plagiarism (I did study, surprisingly enough).
“If you don’t know about him why are you supporting him to the hilt? ”
I’m not. I’ve made it clear I’m not defending him, I’ve said he may well be guilty of all of these things and worse. What I’m saying is that this post fails to mount an effective attack on him.
What I am doing is criticizing the methods of this post as being disingenuous.
I’ll repeat, again, what I disliked about the post. It’s intellectually dishonest to imply a consensus from one tweet. It calls him a liar without citing actual lies he told. It says he shouldn’t call himself a Guru without quoting where and when he ever called himself than (and I’m not sure he has ever), and so on.
I have not defended him, not once. I am citing faults with this particular critique.
6. May 2010 - 9:55 PM
andeep few days ago i read the same article at varta i wanted you to write on that and seeing this i am truly glad. Yoga is the eternal teaching of Vedas, our sages used this technique to achieve salvation with God. Infact this salvation is for every human being. Christian concept of salvation is only limited to Christ as claimed by church, unlike christ who referred spiritual eye as christ conciousness.Infact he taught sanatan Dharma not any sect called christanity. Mohammad, afterr analysing him i do not consider him as a man of God. But on Origins of yoga we must be very clear that it is vedas our sages were philosopher of Vedas, and whatever they have written is not coch n bull stories but truth, which is beyond human conception, they all had achieved samadhi.
Modern day christanity has developed christian yoga. Infact sages are very clear whatever tallies with vedas is truth rest all is illusion of mind. So we should decide ourselves. I repasting origins of yoga so that we can counter falsehood at every step:;
It is often said spirituality has no religion etc. I would say the all forms of yoga commercialized today are based on Great Rishi Patanjalis work Patanjali Yogardarshamam on astanga yoga. He was philosopher of Vedas and as per eternal philosophy of Vedas and yoga God manifested in him. Yoga is inseparable part of Vedas and its origination itself is from Vedas .I give you mantras with meaning from swami Ram Swarup ji so that you can update your Yoga section as we should clear all the misunderstanding regarding our glorious past :-
The Knowledge of yoga has emanated from Veda. Almighty God (the preserver, destroyer and creator) is the donor of this knowledge to Agni, aadtya Vaayu and angira rishi at the beginning of this creation. Lets here from Samadhist yogi Swami Ramswarup ji about this:-
Accordingly, we must also invent that when the Earth created and to whom the theory of YOGA was taught first? And how it spread?
In this connection learned MATTERLIC in his book “The great secret” has written,
“let us once given ear to Rig Veda, the most authentic echo of the most immortal traditions.”
“Let us note now it appreciates the formidable problems.”
“There was neither Being nor non-Being. There was neither atmosphere nor heaven above the atmosphere. What moved, and whither? And in whose care? Were there waters and the bottomless deep?”.
“There was then neither death nor immortality. The day was not divided from the night. Only one breathed in himself without extraneous breath and apart from Him , there was nothing.”
“There, for the first time desire awoke within him, this was the first seed of the spirit. The sages, full of understanding, striving within their hearts, discovered in Non-Being the link with Being ”
From the above description one can conclude that at the very beginning of creation, there was God alone with the matter (Prakriti) which was to be used to create the universe. Secondly there was no death because there was no life, as death is only possible if there is life. Thirdly God created all beings like man, woman, space, sun, moon, earth, water, flora and fauna etc. All our ancient Rishis and Saints realized this truth. Now listen the authentic echo of Yajur Veda in Mantra seven of Chapter thirty-one:
“After the creation of earth and all beings ,the knowledge of four Vedas originated from the almighty, omnipresent, worshipful and venerable GOD”.
Manusmiriti in its Shalok 1/23 throw the same light in this connection :-
“The God Almighty created the earth and human being . Thereafter He showered His blessings to four Rishis by generating the knowledge of four Vedas in their souls to enable the mankind to attain the stage of Arth (Finance), Dharma (Religion), Kaam (good wishes and to get happy family life) and Moksh (Final liberation )”.
The same truth is seen in the 3rd Sutra of Chapter 1 of Vedanta Darshana by Viyas Muni :
” Worship the God who is the origin of Four Vedas”.
Similarly Guru Nanak Dev Ji also preached: “Onkar Veda Nirmaye” Meanings: “The Vedas were originated by God.”
Similarly, there are so many statements of Vedas and other Holy books where it is clarified that the Almighty God is only the origin of four Vedas, Now we come on the point that from where the Yoga Education originated. In this connection please see the contents of Mantra No 4, Chapter 7 of Yajur Veda as under: “Aspirant of Yoga should learn and practice the eight fold of Yoga i.e. 5 Yamas-Non-violence, Truthfulness, Abstaining from theft, Celibacy and not to store the articles more than the requirement (Self Abnegation)”.
5 Niyams- Cleanliness, Contentment, Austerity, Study of holy books and Trust in God. Their Niyamas are also five. Then Asana, Pranayama, Pratayahar, Dharana, Dhayana and Samadhi. Again in the above Mantra it is preached that “O aspirant try to stop internal breathing (Paranayam) to perish away the false knowledge, sufferings, ravages of hatred and tension etc. Thus remove through the power of Yoga all ills and becoming abstemious attain the Yoga property and guard it”. Yoga properties are eight sidhis (will be briefed afterwards) and realization of God (Samadhi). The same description of Yoga Education is seen in several Mantras of remaining three Vedas. Some mantras Are quoted below:
(a) Rig Veda Mantra I, Sukta 93 Mandal 9 Says:- When a Yogi has control on his 5 organs of action, 5 organs of perception and mind through the power of Yoga, in this way when he does meditation, then he sees God (realize God within his soul)
(b) Same Veda’s Mantra No 50 says:- O God kindly be firmly established in our hearts during the Yogic and devotional morning practices inhalation, exhalation (Pranayam).
(c) Sama Veda Mantra no 908 also states: O Omnipresent God, Thou are realized by the Yogis/Tapsavis/wisers in their hearts through the power of Yoga i.e. Pranayam and meditation etc.
(d) The God has been realizing through the eight fold paths of Yoga by the Yogis.
From the above it is learnt that the Yoga knowledge is the origin of four Vedas and thereafter spread by Rishis/Munis/Gurus traditionally from mouths to mouths and ear to ear within man kinds considering the same the most authentic and immortal tradition which one is a right and true path to worship and realize God too by overcoming sorrows /sufferings /ills and death etc, attaining the final stage of Arth, Dharam, Kama and Moksh.
So, the most authenticated, immortal and traditional knowledge of Yoga to worship God is originated from God’s voice in the shape of four Vedas at the time of creation on the Earth by him. That is why Manu Samriti says “Vedo Akilo Dharma Mulam”.
Meaning – the most ancient authentic and immortal echo in the shape of four Vedas is the root of all religions in the world and accordingly the origin of worshipful Yoga philosophy is also has its origin from Vedas.
6. May 2010 - 10:19 PM
Namaste Wrote: “Such bitterness. Both in the article and the comments. If this bitterness is a part of the “True” Yoga of which you speak, I say, let it die.”
There is tremendous venom here. “Vomit worthy” and “braindead”, etc. As I said, I had thought this was an attempt to make an argument, but I think it was more to rally people who already support the position. In that vein, it was very effective.
Good luck, all.
7. May 2010 - 1:01 AM
Sandeep,
A case can be made within Hindu sampradaya against yoga I will not use the shopworn classification of shatdarshana. We have 100s of darshanas. Some of them do not go anywhere near mukti or even sat-chit-ananda. BKS Iyengar and his guru-bratha the late Pattabu Jois are good asana experts and although given to claiming knowledge of ashtanga yoga, they are superficial on deeper matters. Today Karunanidhi and his son Stalin probably know more about the real experience of yoga than these buffoons. Both of them began as basic asana practitioners and have gone on to more subtle matters.
7. May 2010 - 2:07 AM
I had decided I wouldn’t come back to this page again, but I wanted to make one more broad attempt at my point.
I will pose the following argument. “I believe the city of Boston is in the United States of America.” Okay. How do I prove it? Well, I will posit two premises to prove it. First, that the city of Boston is in the state of Texas. Secondly, that the state of Texas is in the United States. Therefore Boston is in the United States.
Now, the formal logic of the argument is perfect (which is to say it is a deductively valid argument). Further, the conclusion (that Boston is in the United States) is in fact correct.
However the argument has a serious, serious flaw. While the second premise (that Texas is in the United States) is true, the first premise is in fact FALSE (Boston is in Massachusetts, not Texas). The conclusion of the argument is in fact true anyway, but that is not in any way as a result of the quality of the argument. The argument is in fact very, very poor.
I have not once defended Mr. Chopra – I have not disagreed with the conclusion of this essay (I have not said “Boston is NOT in the United States”). What I HAVE said is that the evidence presented does not lead to a strong argument. The author claims that “this criticism exposes the lack of credentials” – but the criticism he quotes gives no evidence – it simple “exposes” the opinion of the author, but no supporting evidence.
Now follow the link that the author provided, and you’ll get good evidence. But this essay is supposed to enlighten me, is it not? If the author gave the Chopra quote “nobody really knows what a gene does”… THAT tells me that maybe Chopra is an idiot. But quoting a guy who SAYS Chopra is an idiot… that’s not evidence, but it IS what this author did. In fact, even when there were plenty of rational arguments available, the author uses hostility/passion instead (come on, a twitter quote? That’s the best he can do? I’m supposed to be impressed by that?)
What makes it really tough to swallow is when the author makes GREAT and astute observations (like how Chopra doesn’t need the answers to preach them – which he supports well and argued beautifully. Best part of the piece), because then you say – well gee, clearly he can think well… why is the rest of the piece high on accusations with no evidence (and commenter now with this plagiarism bit – it may be a lot of things, it’s not plagiarism to fail to mention history. It may be to copyright, but that wasn’t what Mala argued. He too, argues from anger, not reason.)
I want to be convinced, but if I need to read all of the supporting material and look for the proof myself, what’s the point of the essay?
You can tell me “He knows nothing about Gene’s”, in which case you’re asking me to take your word, or you can show me the quote he made about genes. The latter is better, the author opted for the former.
It makes it difficult to take what might be honest criticism seriously – especially when the insults begin to fly (and I dare say, I think my objections have been well articulated, and I’m being accused of defending Chopra – which I have not done once, and questioned how at all I could possibly have passed philosophy). The author is the only one who appears interested in actually addressing these points (as he indicated by noting he’d get to me, but not writing up some half-assed 2 second response designed to quell discussion instead of addressing the points – though the “Learn Religion” comment was not productive.)
In fact, all I have learned from this is what the previous author said. If you guys represent the true spirit of this religion…. Well that… What can I say, that’s vomit worthy.
In any case, I contest neither the logic not conclusions of this argument (and I’ve made that clear more than once). I contest the strength of the evidence the author poses, which, especially given what appears to have been available, traded venom for efficacy. I am a natural third party, I wanted to learn more, and the knee-jerk hostility has not further endeared me to the quality of your position.
7. May 2010 - 3:06 AM
@Nick,
As promised, here’s my response.
I’m quite intrigued that of all things in my post you noticed only my tone (braindead, etc) and probably didn’t care to read in full all the links I’ve provided in my post. Among other things, it contains the very evidence you say I haven’t provided. I suspect you haven’t read my post carefully enough.
I don’t really need to justify anything or tom-tom about myself but since you’ve repeatedly commented about the tone, language, venom, etc, I’m compelled to say that I’ve studied both deductive & inductive logic for at least 3 years apart from having a traditional grounding in Vedic education–that includes Yoga (asanas and pranayama included) for 8 uninterrupted years. I’m also familiar with both the Western & Indian systems of debate/logic. And I continue to do serious study of comparative religions, mainly Hinduism/Eastern religions and Semitic faiths.
Here’s the thing: in analyzing phenomena like Deepak Chopra, it is very very very important to have at least a working knowledge of the historical, social, political, contemporary, and other factors/aspects/conditions of India. A lack of this kind of background usually elicits comments like yours.
PS: Now, I’d like YOU to establish your credentials. Just like I’ve done my share of homework, it’s only fair to expect you to do yours. You can’t expect me to spoon feed you and/or take the debate forward on your terms. As someone who insists on strict logical principles, I’m sure you agree that a debate has to be on equal footing.
7. May 2010 - 3:21 AM
Kaanganeya,
>>A case can be made within Hindu sampradaya against yoga I will not use the shopworn classification of shatdarshana. We have 100s of darshanas.
I’m kinda shocked at your comment. Normally you’re pretty sensible, reasoned & knowledgable. Can you show me how you can make a case against Yoga in our sampradaya? On your 2nd point, not all schools can be called darshanas. There’s a reason why the shatdarshanas are classified as such. I’d like to hear how you concluded that there are 100s of darshanas.
>>Today Karunanidhi and his son Stalin probably know more about the real experience of yoga than these buffoons. Both of them began as basic asana practitioners and have gone on to more subtle matters.
Again, quite disappointing unless you meant this sarcastically.
7. May 2010 - 4:33 AM
This if for Mr. Know-it-all:
Your first premise is not false -
>>> From Wikipedia:
Boston, Texas – Boston is an unincorporated town in and the county seat of Bowie County, Texas, United States. It is part of the Texarkana, Texas–Texarkana, …
>>>
7. May 2010 - 5:22 AM
Yogena cittasya padena vacam malam sarirasya ca vaidyakena yopakarottam pravaram muninam patanjalim pranajaliranato’smi abahu purusakaram sankha cakrasi dharinamsahasra sirasam svetam pranamami patanjalim.
In English
Let us bow before the noblest of sages Patanjali, who gave yoga for serenity and sanctity of mind, grammar for clarity and purity of speech and medicine for perfection of health. Let us prostrate before Patanjali, an incarnation of Adisesa, whose upper body has a human form, whose arms hold a conch and a disc, and who is crowned by a thousand-headed cobra.
From the web site of the reknowned Guru of Yoga BK Iyengar.
There can be no other Guru better than BKS Iyengar for Yoga. He has dedicated this great form to Sage Patanjali. He has genuine centers all over the world and all of us who are enlightened know the real facts. People trying to bring in some faiths are stooping to nonsense. All must thank the internet for atleast giving the authentics to speak out boldly as not done before. These charlatans would have had a great time indulging in nonsense if the internet was not there, which they have gleefully done in the pre cyberspace era.
Begone charalatans.
See the web site for the sanskrit and english quote.
http://www.bksiyengar.com/modules/IYoga/sage.htm
http://www.bksiyengar.com/
These charalatans look like nitwits infront of BKS Iyengar
7. May 2010 - 6:17 AM
@Sandeep
“You probably didn’t care to read in full all the links…it contains the very evidence you say I haven’t provided”
That’s exactly what I said. I said (look it up) “Now follow the link that the author provided, and you’ll get good evidence.” I explain the evidence in the link, that it is good, and explain what my problem is.
So here we have a point of agreement. If you’d like to address the issues we disagree on, let me know, but I already said the evidence was in the links. So I would counter that you probably didn’t care to read my post.
7. May 2010 - 6:21 AM
For Mr. Over the Hill
I expressly said the “city” of Boston. Boston Texas, as you noted is a town.
7. May 2010 - 6:30 AM
2bornot2b,
Your argument makes me think Sri Sri is some sort of modern day robin hood, but this robin has a extra ‘b’ and a ‘g’ in the word robin
. He was implicated in land grabbing in the outskirts of bangalore by the special judicial committee that the Karnataka government had setup, the news got promptly hushed up after 2 days. I have heard to a lot of tapes/cds of sri sri, he comes across as someone who is clueless about what he is talking. That way Osho at least could talk authoritatively on any subject whatever his other shortcomings maybe. I sometimes wonder if Patanjali had ever patented this knowledge, how rich his family would have been today just by earning roylaties 
7. May 2010 - 6:41 AM
The best essays contain the evidence IN them. You could have done this, and kept the essay just as long (or even made it shorter and easier to read, you got over 500 words of quotes) if you had removed quotes that give people other people’s opinions (“Chopra really is an embarrassment”) to the actual evidence (“Chopra claimed that ‘nobody really knows what a gene is or how it works”). Both quotes taken from the same link you provided, but one TELLS (you’re telling me he’s stupid) the other SHOWS (You’re showing me the stupid thing he said).
As I said before, in nearly all of the links you provided, you quoted the less salient (but more hostile) OPINION but left the EVIDENCE for the people to look up on their own (by your own admission now).
Like I said before, if your goal is to fire up people who already believe what you think, that’s a great way to do it, they don’t need evidence, they already believe. But if it’s to educate people to your opinion and ideas, making them LOOK for the evidence, instead of including it, drastically weakens the piece.
As I said, I’m neutral. I WANT to be convinced by you.
Is it your supposition that the best way to convince me of your argument is for ME too look up the facts to support YOUR argument, because you’re too busy quoting the all important “maunderings of a third-rate mind” line?
7. May 2010 - 12:08 PM
I’m monopolizing the board, and I apologize. I’m used to essays, papers and discourses, and I need to remember that this is a blog, not an essay, and the standards are different (I don’t blog, so I’ll chalk it up to inexperience.). I also need to remember that this blog is (presumably) in India. The names should have given it away, but honestly, the English is so good it never crossed my mind. I can see Indians feeling a much, much deeper sense of betrayal than I can imagine.
Having said all that, I was not arguing that he didn’t betray Hinduism. I argued that there were much better and more effective ways to make the point that he did (and there are… but that may not be the point). Purely from the position of argument, it was so disheartening to see so much good evidence in the links for making points, evidence that the author ignored for angry rhetoric (and I think it’s clear he could have used that evidence, even he said it was in the links, ergo not in the post). I think this could have been done a lot stronger, but this isn’t an essay or debate forum, the author might not regularly draft, and his audience isn’t a group of people he’s trying to convince, so all of my criticisms are likely completely inappropriate to the venue.
I think I’m right, though, when I say there’s a lot (a lot) of anger here. It’s sad, because you may have a point, but the anger is palpable –in the post and the replies – so much so that to any observer like me (who stumbled across this by accident) asks “how objective can these guys be?” Doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but makes it hard to convince people stumbling on to you you’re right. There is A LOT of name calling (and quoting of name calling) in the post.
I do stand by my comments – I think they were largely accurate (though I think people misunderstood them. Sandeep’s insistence that he demonstrate credentials in logic makes it sound as if I he thinks I questioned his logic. I never did. I was questioning Malavika’s conclusion that I had defended Mr. Chopra… I did not… The lesson in logic, intended for Malavika, somehow drew Sandeep’s (and OverTheHill’s) ire. People got upset QUICKLY here…).
And this is the venue for that, isn’t it? A place to vent. And that’s a good thing, that’s what a blog is there for. And that makes my comments (even if everybody agreed to stipulate them as sound) irrelevant. I missed the point completely.
I do hope you can let go of some of the anger. I think anger is a bad thing most of the time (if not always), and when speaking of a thoughtful religion, undermines the credibility a bit. And it causes you to attack people (like me) genuinely curious about what you have to say (and while my arguments were not appropriate, I don’t believe they were factually incorrect, and I would hope would have been of some benefit). And I’m not sure you want to alienate people.
I do think my objections were sound, but they were not appropriate, and I apologize.
Anyways, good luck with you’re blog, sorry for hogging it up so long. Please try to let go of a little of your anger…. I’ve never seen anger do anybody any good. Sorry if I wasted your time.
7. May 2010 - 1:32 PM
In principle I agree with Nick, that despite there being lots of truth in the post of Sandeep, and the replies of other readers, we could do with a little less of anger, and more of objectivity. It increases the credibility.
On the whole, I congratulate Sandeep, I have always admired your work. Please do carry it on!
7. May 2010 - 2:36 PM
in this iron age, it is said in the shashtras that the righteous, disciplined,straight forward and truth seeking individual will suffer at the hands of the half knowledge, undisciplined, carefree ( all this in regard to our hindu tradition). it is quite clear from sandeep’s statement of his dedication and whole heartedness to hindu tradition and yoga, that he is true sadhaka following perfectly the yoga and hiindu scriptural principles. well, to see from his point is very difficult unless one has the same dedication and hard work towards the tradition. unless i or we do that, we cannot say that sandeep’s statement is wrong. and let’s ask ourselves those who have discussed in this interesting forum, have we done the same home work as sandeep.
but so also nick has a point here, it is also stated in the shastras in an allegorical form that currency/coins of the golden age is not valid in the bronze age and so also the stringent form of yoga and hindu traditieon which was practised tens of thousands of years ago will not be suitable for people of this age may be with a few exceptions.
so also there is another story which says that a mother cooks the same fish for his childrens in different forms according to the likes of each one. one may like it fried, one may want it with gravy. there’s nothing wrong in it. both these stories are said by sri ramakrishna in his gospel.
sri ramakrishna also says that no one spiritual attitude should be meddled with, as many paths; so many faiths.
7. May 2010 - 2:47 PM
srimad bhagavatam states, that in kali yuga out of the four limbs on which dharma is upholded, only one will prevail, that is truth and truth alone. rest of three limbs is very difficult for people of this age. sandeep is speaking the RAW truth in an angry tone. jnani angrily says brahman alone is real; this world is unreal. and the vijnani cooly says even every layer of the world is filled with nothing but the brahman. jnani will one day become vijanani and accept the vijnani’s point of view.
7. May 2010 - 2:56 PM
i forgot to quote the above two statement to SANDEEP & NICK.
7. May 2010 - 2:58 PM
SORRY it is AS MANY FAITHS; SO MANY PATHS. not as many paths ; so many faiths.
7. May 2010 - 4:51 PM
I guess Deepak’s yoga is baniya yoga (money making yoga!) You know greed seems to ruin everything. But you know people for whom Oprah and DR.Phil are gurus are likely to consider Deepak as their guru as well! The man is clever–he make $$$ out of people’s stupidity. It’s just laughable how stupid people are to listen to such people and take them seriously!
7. May 2010 - 10:12 PM
@Nick
Thanks for the support in your second comment. I did find Sandeep’s answer vague and patronising. Accusing me of ignorance (or assuming) is not so charitable, but I have tended not to let it come in my way to avoid quibbling. I also agree with many of his opinions and think he is doing a wonderful/sincere job articulating responses to some contentious issues. Some personal attributes of being harsh, I think, can either be discounted or is required to address realities which are equally or exceedingly harsh.
@Sandeep
You certainly could to be more tolerant to dissent.
8. May 2010 - 4:56 AM
@ Nick
“I also need to remember that this blog is (presumably) in India. The names should have given it away, but honestly, the English is so good it never crossed my mind.”
What’s with the condescending tone here? English so good you thought it just cannot be from a blog within India? Your main objections are to the alleged “angry” tone of the article and that you were referred to some external links. What you call anger, I call passion and I fail to see your gripe against such expressions. Making strong passionate statements is not to be confused with anger and bitterness.
I also do not understand your objection to providing links in an article. Too lazy to look up external links? Just stick to watching TV or reading print media.
Sarcasm aside, why can’t you see that providing external links is absolutely the right thing to do when you want to give credit to the original authors and avoid accusations of plagiarism? Besides, that’s how it’s done on the Internet. Any credible news article or blog references external links that provide more information.
You seem to have appointed yourself as some sort of professional critic of the author’s writing style. What are your credentials to offer such criticism? Why do you expect the author of this blog and the commenters here to conform to some standards that you expect? Learning about how your country’s culture and legacy is being defiled and misappropriated will infuriate anyone who is passionate about such things. And most commenters here are merely expressing outrage when they learn about it. You seem to want every comment here to come with a “G” rating.
You also presume that anyone here who is in agreement with the author already held such views and was not necessarily convinced by what he says in this article. I call that arrogance. You seem to think you’re the only one with “objectivity” around here. I would urge you to rethink, re-read your own posts before you submit them. I have read all your comments and you come across as someone with a superior attitude judging other folks and dishing out unsolicited advice.
8. May 2010 - 8:26 AM
Well said, CC. Seems to me some westerners still carry that image of the meek Hindu/Indian who never raises his voice, and never shows any angry emotions, and never challenges white people and their views/perspectives – sort of an Uncle Tom. And if he transgresses, then he is making his religion/heritage/country/culture look bad. Wow, what a(n) unwilling cross to bear. I wonder which constituency Nick represents when he opens his mouth and one he is careful to not give a bad name to. Nick, care to enlighten us “Indians with good English” regarding it?
8. May 2010 - 9:53 AM
Nick,
In spite of monopolizing the blog, you still have NOT answered the following questions raised.
Malavika: You, show me one occasion where he credits Hinduism for Yoga or Meditation. Non attribution implies that it is his original work.
No Answer.
Malavika: Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of Hinduism knows Advaita Vendanta is part and parcel of Hinduism. Claiming that he is not a Hindu but Advaita Vedantin is sheer dishonesty.
How come you ignored my specific evidence?
No Answer.
Malavika: Your Definition of bastardization of religion.
No Answer.
You coin a new phrase and try to wriggle out of plagiarism charge and claim to be ‘objective’.
You can go around in circles, but I will come back to these basics.
8. May 2010 - 10:51 AM
Hello Nick,
I find your interventions extremely interesting, but am baffled by your insistence in persisting with airing a lot of opinion even as you vehemently declare love for fact. You are rather big on this anger thingy, aren’t you? Anger gets your goat. Anger seems to upset you. Anger goads you to offer advice to people. I wonder what you do for a living — a shrink? Marriage counselor? Anger Management Services consultant for the Fortune 500?
Anyways if you weren’t a non-Indian I’d have mistaken you for an Indian commie! I’m glad you are not an Indian commie! You know, my country’s commie dingbats are more interested in editorializing than in conversing. You gotta watch them do it. Their style is a combination of the clergyman’s sermon from the pulpit and the school headmaster’s admonitions to boys who write a love letters girls. Coming to think of it, Deepak Chopra’s bluff and bluster is in their recipe too.
Please continue to offer your interesting analysis of Anger on the global internet. If you are familiar with the problems of road rage, teenager moodiness and postmodern post-menopausal stress among leftwing women, please share those insights as well.
Warm regards.
8. May 2010 - 11:31 AM
http://www.hinduism.co.za
8. May 2010 - 2:31 PM
@Selva
Thanks for this excellent link. Worth preserving for referring to again and again.
I am not a fan of Deepak Chopra, But a few points-
Deepak Chopra avoids using the word Hinduism. But he has quoted from Hindu scriptures extensively in his books. He says that Maharshi Mahesh Yogi talked about Vedantic, but not Hinduism. In my view it was because he did not like using the word – as it is a name given by foreign invaders. But it does not mean that he wanted it to mean something other than Hinduism.
The practitioners of Yoga in Western countries avoid using the term Hindu because so much of negative propaganda is being circulated regarding this, and they do not want it to disturb whatever they are doing.
But I think having given so much to the Western world – Yoga, meditation, Ayurveda – it is time that Hinduism, which is the originator of all these knowledge, should be glorified. Instead of rebutting the wrong propaganda anywhere and everywhere (although sometimes it is necessary), if positive attributes and benefits are highlighted, then we can ensure that people will not fall prey to the misinformation.
Someone said starting a free website on Yoga – that could be one step. The one site quoted above – http://www.hinduism.co.za – is also a step in the right direction. The nest step would be to popularize such websites.
8. May 2010 - 6:20 PM
Lets remember Deepak is not the first and will not be the last. In 1940s there was ron.L hobbard, a comic writer who took every little detail from the vedas and started what is called scientology, Though credit is given to the eastern scriptures. http://www.scientology.org
8. May 2010 - 6:40 PM
Check for ron. L hobbard in wikipedia. He was a psycopath, sadist and totally on drugs. He was worth 600million dollars. A modified form at present is robbing indians as landmark forum education. They charge 7000 for basic course and 15000 for advanced course and many more levels untill one becomes a teacher.
8. May 2010 - 7:11 PM
Epic: http://www.everythingisterrible.com/2010/05/not-that-pagan-yoga.html
9. May 2010 - 12:01 AM
Excellent blog post. Westerners have tried to de-link yoga from its true spiritual roots (hathayoga is merely a physical-vital aspect to Yoga, which of course also encompasses Bhakti, Jnana, Karma). They do this for a variety of reasons, including ego attachment to Christianity, along with the inability to face the fact that the true Yoga also involves removing Lust (a big one in the decadent west), Greed, Ambition, Narcissism. Also, they are afraid to truly incorporate the idea of dharma because of their misunderstanding (dharma DOES NOT mean duty) and their intolerant religious heritage. Christian yoga is a misnomer because Christianity does not have the idea of dharma (following ones natural law) and does not believe in the Self-realization, which is the ultimate aspiration for the practice of yoga. Having said all of that, there are still many in the West who do have an understanding of the role of hathayoga in the larger practice of Yoga, along with the truths behind it.
9. May 2010 - 2:59 AM
@OT
‘Please continue to offer your interesting analysis of Anger on the global internet. If you are familiar with the problems of road rage, teenager moodiness and postmodern post-menopausal stress among leftwing women, please share those insights as well.’
that was a good one. You should see some of the know it all foreign hippees with extremely high opinion of themselves that try to “teach” the natives at the various NGO’s in our part of the world…. They kind of evoke the same kind of reaction….
9. May 2010 - 4:02 AM
Okay, I’m back, and will anwser the questions posed (I thought they were self anwsering, but okay)…. But before I do, may I see if I can get a grip on this debate…
My Point: In order to support the specific charge of plagiarism there MUST BE a person who is taking credit for the work of another. Period. Failing to credit a religion is not plagiarism. Whose work, precisely, is being stolen?
Response: “you missed the entire point of Indic traditions… there is no founder. I wonder how you passed… philosophy. You, show me one occasion where he credits Hinduism for Yoga or Meditation. How come you ignored my specific evidence?”
Point: The phrase “Some folks” implies a consensus (all be it a small one). A single tweet does not make a consensus, period.
Response: “…Why are you supporting [Chopra] to the hilt?”
Point:
Response: “in analyzing phenomena like Deepak Chopra, it is very very very important to have at least a working knowledge of the historical, social, political, contemporary, and other factors/aspects/conditions of India”
My Point: There’s a good deal of anger in these post and replies.
Response: “I’m compelled to say I’ve studied both deductive & inductive logic for at least 3 years… having a traditional grounding in Vedic education–that includes Yoga (asanas and pranayama included) for 8 uninterrupted years. I’m also familiar with both the Western & Indian systems of debate/logic. And I continue to do serious study of comparative religions, mainly Hinduism/Eastern religions and Semitic faiths.”
My Point: The post would be MUCH better served if the evidence supporting the claims were INSIDE the essay, not linked from it. It shouldn’t be my job to research the evidence in support of YOUR arguments (even when you’re good enough to provide the links)
Response: “[You] probably didn’t care to read in full all the links I’ve provided in my post .Among other things, it contains the very evidence you say I haven’t provided.”
Is this a fair assessment of the debate thus far?
9. May 2010 - 4:38 AM
@cc
“What’s with the condescending tone here?”
A fault with the written word is that people impose on it a tone they think they hear, which can often be different from the intended tone.
“English so good you thought it just cannot be from a blog within India?”
You are assuming that because I thought the blog was American, I must have thought it could not be Indian. No. I assume most people, when they stumble on a blog they’ve never seen before, take queues from the language of the blog that tell them where it’s from. I assume most blogs written in German (certainly not all) are based in Germany. Those written in British English I think most people assume it’s coming from England.
I do not think that failure of it to occur that this was an Indian blog is the same thing as me actively saying “Hey, the English here is good, they can’t be non-Americans”. As I said, I think most people assume the nationality of the blog based on the language. I don’t think that makes them racist.
But CLEARLY I offended you, and I do sincerely apologize. I’m sorry for the offense. It was not intended.
9. May 2010 - 4:51 AM
@ Malavika
“You, show me one occasion where he credits Hinduism for Yoga or Meditation”
Don’t need to. The purpose for doing so would be to defend against a charge of plagiarism. But you can not plagiarize a religion, and you answer to my question (Who is he stealing from) appeared to be nobody.
He may be a bastard for not giving credit to Hinduism, but my point, as ever, is it’s not plagiarism (especially if people intend to argue it can’t be copyrighted. The same quality that prevents copyright prevents, in the strictest and formal sense (And I mentioned when I started I was strictly speaking) prevents the ability to plagiarize).
“How come you ignored my specific evidence”
Because your ‘evidence’ did not address my question. Who, exactly (name please) has he plagiarized? You presented excellent evidence of dishonesty, thank you, but I never claimed he wasn’t dishonest, I claimed he wasn’t plagiarizing. Plagiarism is a specific charge with specific criteria, and you provided no evidence of that charge, ignored (laughed at, actually) my fair question who did he plagiarize?
“Your Definition of bastardization of religion.”
I don’t have one. Didn’t realize you wanted one. I was suggesting that maybe that was your complaint of him. If it’s not, then it’s not germane to the discussion. But I don’t have a definition off the top of my head. IF you think it’s important for some reason, I can try and come up with one.
“I will come back to these basics”
Good. So let me remind you of questions you haven’t answered.
1) Does a single tweet constitute a consensus (or “some folks”).
2) Should I have to follow links to find the evidence supporting someone else’s article, or would the article be better served having the evidence in them?
3) If a complaint about Chopra is that “[He] looses his cool… instead of giving a factual rebuttal…”, should not the author try himself to give a factual rebuttal instead of using words like: poorly-written, illogical, accusatory, highwaymen, ultra materialist, absolute ignorance, embarrassment, weird, profound ignorance, braindead, incoherent? Could his point not be better served by containing more evidence inside it, and less insults? Do the insults not undermine credibility, at least a bit, and is it not possible to be passionately opposed to him but have enough valid points that you do not need to insult him, especially if this is a religious debate?
9. May 2010 - 5:20 AM
@ot
“You are rather big on this anger thingy, aren’t you?”
Well,, as I said… personally I do not believe anger contributes… well, anything positive to anything. Professionaly I don’t think it makes a good point better, it makes it weaker, because it invites a questioning of motives, and as I said, I’d like to see the piece stronger.
@cc
“Too lazy to look up external links?”
Not at all, and the genes example I gave before proves I did in fact look them up. It’s just I think if the author is serious about explaining himself to other people, his piece would be better served putting the evidence IN it. Do you disagree? As I said, as a person interested in hearing what he had to say, I think he shouldn’t make ME look up his evidence for HIS argument. You don’t agree?
“Why do you expect the author.. to conform to some standards that you expect”
Because, as I said in an earlier post, I was being stupid.
“[having one’s] country’s culture and legacy… defiled… will infuriate anyone”
Yes. That’s what I said in the post above, the one you quoted as being condescending. I agree.
But, as I said in that post, I stand by my arguments. I believe they are correct, though that standard was grossly inappropriate. Since people continue to ask me to defend my points, I continue to make them. But you are correct, the standards are inappropriate. And I apologized, and do again.
As I said before, however, adhering to those standards might make third parties whom he might wish to educate about the piece more inclined to hear his arguments. Do you not agree?
“you presume that anyone here who is in agreement with the author already held such views”
Not at all. That would be stupid since I’m not the only one to criticize him. I presume that his audience was not an impartial audience whom he explicitly was trying to convince, and I stand by that.
“You come across as someone with a superior attitude”
If I do, I apologize. Cite examples, and I will explain myself or cede that you are correct (as I have done already in the occasion above).
“dishing out unsolicited advice.”
Every opinion here was, as I understand it, unsolicited – those that agree or disagree with the piece.
The author has not asked me to stop, I have not violated any terms of service, and have (I believe) remained completely civil. The owner of the blog is also, obviously, able to ban me at any time. I am doing what everyone here is, offering unsolicited opinions.
9. May 2010 - 5:34 AM
@CC
To reiterate. You are absolutely correct. It was unfair of me to expect him to meet my standards (which is why I said that in the post you quoted earlier). It was, as I said, stupid. I was also ignorant (as you pointed out) of the history of the author and of the posters (entirely my own fault, as I said), and their relation to the issue.
I would reiterate, however, that I believe he could make a better argument with less anger.
“What you call anger, I call passion”
Well, all anger contains passion. Not all passion contains anger. Yes, the author is passionate. But terms like “breaidead” – you do not think these speak to anger? Admittedly, there may be cause (which you point out… which implies you must be aware there’s some anger, or else why say that there is a good reason for it).
If you believe he can make his point as good or better with anger than simply with passion, I think we’ve found a point on which you and I will likely never agree. If you believe he has no anger, I go back to my previous point, that most of the quotes are of insults, not evidence. A passoned person cites evidence, an angery person cites insults.
I’m happy to look up the evidence (I did). I just think his anger blocked him from taking them. The best points inside those references were left inside them in exchange for quotes that called him names (and I’ve cited exact examples above).
That’s anger. It was disappointing, cause Sandeep might have a point, but he’s too busy quoting anger and expecting ME to support his argument.
but like you pointed out, it’s his blog, so I suppose who cares. I should have kept my mouth shut….
9. May 2010 - 5:56 AM
@Ragu
Thanks for taking the time to say so. I appreciate it.
9. May 2010 - 6:36 AM
“If a complaint about Chopra is that “[He] looses his cool… instead of giving a factual rebuttal…”, should not the author try himself to give a factual rebuttal instead of using words like: poorly-written, illogical, accusatory, highwaymen, ultra materialist, absolute ignorance, embarrassment, weird, profound ignorance, braindead, incoherent? Could his point not be better served by containing more evidence inside it, and less insults? Do the insults not undermine credibility, at least a bit, and is it not possible to be passionately opposed to him but have enough valid points that you do not need to insult him, especially if this is a religious debate?”
-The author does not have to necessarily give a “factual rebuttal” if the initial analysis is that Chopra lost his cool and in turn did not give a factual rebuttal. That is merely an observation. Stating that someone lost his cool is not really an “insult.”
- As for Chopra himself, my impression of him is that while some of what he says has truth to it, he does not strike one as having any substantial or concrete realizations or experiences in the matters he tends to discuss or write about. The fact that Chopra lost his cool indicates a sign of his ego-attachment to his work, which is the antithesis of one path of yoga, Karmayoga.
9. May 2010 - 8:20 AM
Hello Nick,
>>Well,, as I said… personally I do not believe anger contributes… well, anything positive to anything.
Perhaps you are an expert in this subject and maybe the corporates hire you to get their angry employees under control, but I am not sure you are always correct.
Let me give you a personal example. Recently on another Indian blog I read an interesting exchange. A fruitcake who seemed to be an extreme leftwinger got quite angry and started railing against another blog called Shadow Warrior. You get the point? A moron is so angry he vents bile against blog B on blog A! It makes you think, doesn’t it? “This guy has so much bottled up inside him against Shadow Warrior. Who the heck is this Shadow Warrior and why does he make fruitcakes angry?” Intrigued, I looked up the Shadow Warrior blog, and got to like it. Did nothing come out of anger in this case? Nah.
Granted the man’s anger didn’t help himself much, but there are examples that can illustrate that use case as well. I am not convinced for instance that the valuable and voluminous insights you are brining are free of emotion. There definitely is a fire within your belly. You wouldn’t dump so much otherwise on an Indian blog sitting far away in America. I like the fact that anger gets you upset, otherwise people have gotten to hear so much on the subject from an expert!
While on the subject, I’m also interested in your views on post-menopausal stress in leftwing women. I want to understand if there’s any connection between leftwing PMS and anger. If you have heard of a couple of Indian ladies called Medha Patkar and Arundhati Roy, you’ll understand why I am asking.
Warm regards.
9. May 2010 - 10:32 AM
Hello OT
Now that is an excellent, and a FACINATING example.
The example shows something I would agree with, which is there are no absolutes. It shows that some good can come from anger, so my statement that no good comes from it is most certainly false.
I think you’re right.
I’ve looked at my previous posts, and about half the time I qualify my statements about anger (‘It’s usually bad”), and sometimes I speak in absolutes (“It’s never good”).
I will try to rally myself and be even more precise (though increase in precision makes posts longer, something I’d like to avoid)
Would it be fair to say, do you think, that the bulk of what I’ve written could, in context, be summed up simply by saying that I believe (strongly) that this was an angery post, and that the author would have benifited considerably from dialing that down (considerably)? Is that a fair summation of what I’ve been saying, do you think?
If so, then the only question is was there anger, and would you agree that this post would have been better served with less of it?
Before you answer that, I’d like to take your example of anger “causing” good. In it, you met a fruitcake who started railing against “Shadow Warrior”. This caused you to investigate Shadow Warrior. You found you liked him, learned something new, and Voila, something good.
But Fruitcake lost out. In fact, could his anger, which spurred your curiosity, even have gone a step further and predisposed you to be more receptive to Shadow Warrior? After all, this guy was “an extreme leftwinger”. It was tempting to investigate, wasn’t it?
I would posit that not only did fruitcake fail to make his point, he actually supported Shadow Warrior by being so mad. And fruitcake may well of had good points, but you’ll never know, because you’ll never take him seriously again, will you?
So was there really good, at least for the poster? Does your example not strengthen my argument that perhaps the author of THIS post might do well to modulate his anger?
“There definitely is a fire within your belly”
Indeed, but I would return to the difference between passion and anger. Gandhi was effective because a) he was right, b) he had passion, c) he did not speak in anger. Remove “c”, and does “a” matter as much?
I’ve been passionate, got close to angry once on this board, but no, not aware of anger yet. I’ve said a few stupid things, and all of them came the closer I got to anger. I still would posit what I said before, anger is the antithesis of reason. I hope looking what I’ve posted, agree or disagree, it’s disciplined, reasoned, and (reasonably) precise. You can’t be precise and angry at the same time (look forward to seeing if you have an example to prove me wrong again)
Nick
9. May 2010 - 10:33 AM
@Gyan
Thanks
I know you were not agreeing for my benefit, that it was just your opinion and you were expressing it. None the less, thanks.
9. May 2010 - 12:15 PM
I’ve been thinking about it, OT. You know, I personally DO think that the less anger I have, the better my life is. And I think that was a subtext I was trying to add in to the rest of it (though again, in terms of the quality of a piece, my experience is that while passion CAN improve writing, anger only weakens it).
None the less I posted to this blog, I believed, because I found the topic interesting. I wonder now, if in fact you are not correct, if in fact maybe I stopped by more because I saw anger and I wanted to quell it. There are a number of other arguments available to me, criticisms I considered (a few touched on by others that could be explored), but I’ve neglected them all for this anger issue.
In fact (as evidence of the aforementioned lack of ability to detect tone in writing and our projection of a tone onto a post – as a few have said I was condescending when I would disagree), I have reread your 8/10 10:51 post. I thought it was condescending, though encouraging, and I ignored the obvious contradiction that implies, read the post thoroughly, and replied.
But I read it again, and I’m not sure it was at all condescending. Admittedly, fortune has handed me a great deal of free time for about a week, so I have the time to spend here I normally would not, but still it has been a good deal of time, and I have placed CONSIDERABLE focus on anger haven’t I. Anger REALLY does get my goat (lol), doesn’t it?
I’ll have to think about that (as, indeed, I hope you can tell I have been).
I don’t think it bares relevence to the validity of my points (as, again, I have said criticisms of the effecacy of this peace are aimed at contradicting it’s conclusions – just it’s methods for getting there. I don’t know if Chopra is a bad guy, I just know this piece, as is, would make me more likely to like him). I stand by my arguments.
But man…. Anger really does piss me off. Right or wrong, I’ve been quite motivated, haven’t I (and less by my desire to be convinced by the argument than I had thought).
I have to say, the anger of the post brought me here, didn’t it, and kept me. As you said, people got to hear from me, and I from you, so again, you are proven right (though, If I was angry, would I have been as receptive to your comments? Could I benefit from your insight if I were angry? Indeed, anger tends to close the ears, does it not?).
Your comment made my day. Thank you. It’s 3:00 AM in the morning, I’m going to bed, so I suppose it will have to make my tomorrow, but my apparent compulsion for fighting anger and the possible good of anger are astute points, and food for thought
. Thx!
Nick
9. May 2010 - 12:23 PM
Exhausted and rambling. My last post made little sense. I apologize the difficulty u’ll have reading it, so I’ll sum up.
You were again right as to the benefits of anger, and that I learned from you again proves it.
I will question again, though, if I personally could have had the benefit if I had been angry, since I’d likely not have given your comment the attention it deserved, or perceived it as an attack and reacted viscerally. So far any of the “pro anger” arguments either of us have made seemed to have benefited the people who were not angry more than those who were.
9. May 2010 - 4:13 PM
“Failing to credit a religion is not plagiarism. Whose work, precisely, is being stolen?”
What else to expect from americans squatting on the land misappropriated from native indians, gotten rich on slave labour of africans ?
what do these ‘people’ know about what is right and ethical.
Next time this fellow sees a motorcycle unattended, he may probably Nick it, asking if caught- ‘Whom did I steal from ? There was nobody!’
Nicker is named aptly.
9. May 2010 - 5:11 PM
@ Nick,
I can see you’re passionate about ‘presentation’ styles and how you form your opinions based on the tone of the article.
So, if I may digress for a bit and come back to the actual topic of the article, viz. that one Mr. Deepak Chopra has used the ancient knowledge of Yoga and the wisdom of Hinduism for his own personal gain without giving credit where it’s due and by trying to “sanitize” and justify his misappropriation by de-linking a religion from it’s teachings. Have you been able to gather information on the above independently from resources other than this blog? Have you formed an opinion yet? Would you care to share that here on this forum?
9. May 2010 - 10:41 PM
@Incognito
There, again, I think you prove my point. Are you suggesting we plagiarized the native Americans (they are not Indians, by the way)?
Of course not. Because we didn’t.
When Christopher Columbus “discovered America” (which of course he did not, he discovered the Bahamas, and far from a hero, his crew was on the verge of mutiny), he began a policy of enslavement and genocide against the native people, murdering (conservatively) about 100,000 (a mean feet given the lack of modern technology). By his third visit families would hurl themselves off cliffs to prevent capture.
After the founding of the United States we expanded. We DID NOT “misappropriate”, as you say, land from the natives. We stole it. We murdered the residents and, in what is often considered the first use of modern biological warfare, distributed blankets to the natives which were infected with small pox.
Now, if you told me my country committed theft, murder, genocide…. I would say you are correct. If you accused us, on these grounds, of plagiarism, I’d disagree with you, and I’d be correct.
I have not said Depack isn’t dishonest, I’ve not said he isn’t a bad man. I’ve said I haven’t seen support for the charge of plagiarism, which, again, is a very specific thing.
Your motorcycle example is apt. If I stole a motorcycle, even if there was nobody on it, it does have an owner, correct? If it did not, it wouldn’t be theft, right?
So, if it makes you happier, let me rephrase the question. Who owns Hinduism? For him to be plagiarizing, he must be taking something that BELONGS to someone else. Who owns it?
If you want to accuse him of getting rich on the backs of others, on dishonesty, on false enlightenment basterdised for the masses, go ahead, looks like maybe you’re right. And you suggest American’s can’t know what’s right and ethical. I never said he was ethical, I never said what he was doing wasn’t wrong (I even granted it may well be), I simply said that based on the evidence presented in this piece, it’s not plagiarism.
If you’re confident of plagues, bring a lawsuit. I suspect it would fail because I don’t see you meeting the criteria.
10. May 2010 - 12:30 AM
@Nick,
This is probably gonna be long so you’ve been warned.
I haven’t ever explained myself but given your insistence on the anger bit, I thought I’ll indulge you. LOL. Kidding.
1. I’ve been running this blog for 10 years now & most readers here know that I write primarily for myself. I don’t have an audience in mind when I write–if people like what they read here, it’s a bonus for me. Neither do I claim to be right always–to me this blog is a means of self-education.
2. In my world, tone is secondary to substance. I use “tone” to correct your wrongful description of “anger.” In all truthfulness, I’m not a whit angry when I write any post. This tone suits me well and I do choose my words carefully. And now to your VERY first comment here. I’ll only address that–the rest of your comments are exchanges with others, so I hope you have a productive exchange with them.
3. Your single tweet charge: my friend, as you said, this is not a scholarly paper but a blog and it expresses my opinion and some of my opinions do have a history behind them–in this case, that “single tweet” wasn’t really a single tweet. I had about 30+ tweet exchanges with that person. Besides, put a Google search on the argument that that tweeter made (Yoga doesn’t need anybody’s gratitude, it’ll survive on its own, etc) and you’ll find hundreds of such inaccurate stuff.
4. >>I haven’t noticed Mr. Chopra advertising his Gurudom. I’ve seen him advertising his teachings (which you appear to claim is fine, so long as he doesn’t package it as Yoga), but that’s not the same thing (and if you meant something different, then you maybe need to clarify).
Oh well, if you want to nitpick, fine. He doesn’t advertise his “gurudom” with the exact same term…he hasn’t called himself a Guru but are we arguing semantics here? He is in fact, advertising his Gurudom in different terminology: healer, mystic (he’s had the label applied to him & hasn’t stopped anybody applying it on him which means he’s fine with it), teacher of Yoga & spirituality, etc. All of these do qualify as Guru.
5. >>you state that Mr. Chopra is ignorant on the topic of Genes, but you don’t site an example (you site OTHER people making the same claim, but they don’t site examples either). Did he say that Genes come in 31 flavors? f he’s so stupid, there must be examples you can quote and demonstrate his ignorance. And when you state that the “criticism exposes his (lack of) credentials” – no, not really, since it doesn’t use any examples either. To expose something you need examples, evidence, arguments. “Babbling foolishly” is not an example.
That article that dissected his Gene thing that I linked to contains this precise example. The author who critiqued Chopra’s stuff on Genes has line-by-line exposed how ignorant Chopra is on the subject of Genes/genetics. And yeah, it does contain the example, evidence, and some great lessons for people on the basics of Genetics. Please do read carefully.
6. >>You give a decent example in his illogical rejoinders (though you don’t explain exactly the facts that contradict them, as if we should all know them, but if we did, we wouldn’t need this piece, now would we?)
Well, if I sat to explain the facts that contradict them, you’d need several hours to read them. But to be fair, I’ll try to work on a piece which tells those facts. Besides, do read Dr. Shukla’s second piece that I linked to (it’s titled, Honor thy heritage). It contains those facts.
In closing, let me reiterate what I told you earlier. A lot of folks here and in India identify with & know exactly why Chopra fits all those unflattering adjectives I used on him. It’s similar to saying Senator X or Member of Parliament Y or Pat Robertson is an idiot and a babbling fool without having to resort to write a reasoned critique of such people. Deepak Chopra is slightly better than such people.
You apparently lack that kind of knowledge about Chopra.
10. May 2010 - 12:42 AM
@Nick,
Also on the question of plagiarism, you need to ask the right question instead of sticking to the definition of plagiarism as we know it in common parlance. And to do that, you need to know Indian/Hindu traditions to a fair degree of accuracy.
The charge against Chopra is NOT one of plagiarism–whoever has made it is incorrect–rather it is about appropriating a hoary tradition and patenting it. There are some things that you simply CANNOT patent. You can patent your song but you can’t appropriate a few notes on a musical scale, package it and sell them as your own. This is the best analogy I can give at the moment to what Chopra has done. Here’s the thing because you probably don’t know anything about Hindu traditions and practices. Some Hindus practice a certain technique of pranayama (“breathing practices”) as part of their DAILY worship, twice a day. Now if Chopra patents this technique, a few million Hindus will have to pay royalties to this crook to practice what they’ve inherited over at least 3000 years.
Get the point I’m trying to make?
10. May 2010 - 1:18 AM
“I can see you’re passionate about ‘presentation’ styles”
Very much so.
“and how you form your opinions based on the tone of the article.”
No. Tone is only a small piece of a presentation. It dominates the conversation here, not because of tone’s general significance, but because it is (in my opinion) the largest fault in this particular instance.
“Have you been able to gather information on the above independently from resources other than this blog?”
I have not attempted to do so.
The original thesis fascinated me. But the more people take my criticisms of the approach as criticisms of the thesis (another hallmark of anger. And Incognito’s post is the most recent and stark example of the pervasive anger I’m pointing to, and I’m not sure he’s prepared for a rational discussion on the topic).
If people are unable to have reasonable discourse on the methods of discussion, I would have far less hope for an effective discussion on the thesis itself.
I’ve continued the discussion of the quality of the author’s arguments because I enjoy it, and because I believe I am correct, but I’ve lost any interest in the quality of validity of the thesis, because there is too much anger for it to be argued rationally, and, as I said before, I’m honestly not going to go out and do the research to prove or disprove the sanitization argument for the author, and the venom here has leached any interest I once had in doing so.
Much, as I suspect, as your “fruitcake” leached any desire you had to treat his argument seriously. Saying that “my people” are not qualified to make ethical claims (though I don’t think I’ve touched much on ethics, but rather efficacy) is one of a dozen statements made in these posts that de-motivate me to care about the position itself (though I still critique the argument defending that position).
The little research I did do a few days ago I did developed some opinion on, but since those opinions would be far more volatile than that which I’ve presented so far, and it does not appear to me that my critiques have been met as constructively as I would have hoped, I’m not going to introduce even more volatile criticisms.
10. May 2010 - 1:37 AM
“There are some things that you simply CANNOT patent.”
I agree. I agreed several posts above, and agreed he could not copyright it either. So we are in agreement.
I agree he can not copyright or patent Indian/Hindu traditions. Period. He can’t, and I’ve stipulated that twice already, and I do so now again.
So we agree. Good.
“The charge against Chopra is NOT one of plagiarism–whoever has made it is incorrect”
That’s what I’m saying. Good. I’m glad we agree. The charge was made by Incognito, and Malvika, and I agree, they are incorrect. They likely are basing the charge on the article you referenced “Dr. Chopra: Honor thy heritage” where the author says “but the guilt of plagiarism carries no statute”.
I’m glad we have that topic down, but in my mind it was a minor criticism, and as I said before it was not of you or your essay (neither was the logic one), but of people defending your work. So while I’m glad you and I have resolved this, this was not a complaint I had of you, but rather Malvika. I am glad we appear to agree on this point, I appreciate you saying this, and I hope we can move on to my points about your essay.
“And to do that, you need to know Indian/Hindu traditions to a fair degree of accuracy”
This is part of my problem with the “tone” of your reply to Ragu – the vagueness.
I disagree with this statement. I don’t believe I need to know ANYTHING about Indian/Hindu traditions to know that you can not patent it. Anybody of even moderate intelligence should know that you can not patent it.
When you suggest that I can not understand this particular aspect of your argument without understanding these traditions, not only do I think your wrong, but I think it’s a way of not having to take the time to explain it to me, saying “just take me at my word”. It feels condescending (like your statement “learn religion, then get back to me in that context), which is a shame since the statement “you can not patent Hinduism” is so obviously and 100% true.
This is why anger weakens your argument. Your most recent post, that you just made. I find zero anger in it. None. It is passionate one, but not angry. It is well reasoned, disciplined, and says a lot I agree with. THIS kind of thing can absolutely convince me (though now that the anger is toned down, it seems to me we have more we agree with than perhaps it seemed).
I agree with EVERYTHING in your last post, all of it except “And to do that, you need to know Indian/Hindu traditions to a fair degree of accuracy” – I’m sorry, I don’t need to know that to know you can’t patent Hinduism, or to understand your arguments (I’m reasonably bright, and I think I’ve been fair and actually listened) and I think you underestimate both your readers and your own oratory skills if you believe that.
10. May 2010 - 1:38 AM
my last post @sandeep
10. May 2010 - 2:02 AM
@Nick,
And two, I don’t under or overestimate anybody. I write what I know and if I find something that I believe to be incorrect, I call it out.
>>I don’t believe I need to know ANYTHING about Indian/Hindu traditions to know that you can not patent it. Anybody of even moderate intelligence should know that you can not patent it.
First things first: I’m not here to convince anybody. Neither do I want you to agree with my conclusions. I write based on knowledge & truth & take care to cover logical loopholes–anger/tone notwithstanding
Now to address your point, you’re obviously talking about a very specific context–in this case, the non-patentability of Yoga/Hindu traditions. And no, if people with moderate intelligence know that they can’t patent it, what explains a Deepak Chopra & his ilk? And two, Yoga is merely one part of a copious amount of Hindu traditions, most of which cannot be separated from Yoga. My point is today Chopra & co will patent Yoga, tomorrow it’ll be something else which presents a potential business opportunity to them. Seriously, if you understood Hindu traditions, you’d know how easy it is to make a business opportunity. Another related example: Bhagavad Gita for management, for schools, for Anger Management (sorry, couldn’t resist that
) etc etc. And the Bhagavad Gita talks at some length about Yoga. So tomorrow, you might see me writing a similar post about some other guy appropriating Bhagavad Gita in much the same manner. It’ll be neverending. Which is why I said, without an accurate understanding of Hindu traditions is necessary to deal with a subject like this.
Is this clear or will you revert with the vagueness charge again?
I repeat, I’d rather not look at stuff like anger/tone, etc. It may weaken the argument, but I believe in saying the truth like it is: Deepak Chopra is a fraud and a charlatan and I’ve shown enough & more evidence why he is so. If that offends people with wafer thin skin, too bad. What would you rather choose: the “anger” in my post or the fact that I’ve pointed out that this guy is unfairly milking gullible people?
10. May 2010 - 2:16 AM
@ot
I would like, before you and I continue, an answer to my question.
Do you think there is an overall tone of anger, both in the post and comments, and (given the example’s of fruitcake we discussed) do you not think the piece would benefit from modulating that tone?
10. May 2010 - 2:54 AM
@Sandeep
“I’m not here to convince anybody.”
Exactly. That is why my comments were all extremely inappropriate, and my starting this discussion was, in my words, “stupid”. I misjudged your intent and audience. See my post of 7/10 12:08.
I continue because people continue to question my points, which invites a response. I will happily stop at your request. The ball is bouncing, so I am going with it, but it was inappropriate for me to start it.
Having said that, your essay DOES attempt to try to convince some people, so I’m not sure that “you’re not here to convince anybody” (should I quote examples where you try to convince people)?
“I find something that I believe to be incorrect, I call it out.”
Indeed you do, and saying “you need to know more about religion” is indeed calling it out. But calling it out and making a valid point are not the same thing.
You appeared both to be trying to make a point, and then when the efficacy of making that point is called into question, argue you are not trying to make a point (which is what “not here to convince anybody” means).
“It’ll be never-ending”
The point you are trying to make is called “ad-infinitum” and it is one I can understand without fully understanding the religion.
In fact, If I could not, why would you make the argument to me? You have argued that “My point is today Chopra & co will patent Yoga, tomorrow it’ll be something else”. I COMPLETELY agree with you. See, you argued your point, I understood and agreed, and I did not need the full understanding of Hindu traditions.
I agree with you, if he patents a religion (or any part there of) it opens a watershed of opportunities in that religion and others. I need to understand Hinduism to know that?
In fact, so far, for every point where you have said I need a full understanding of Hindu traditions to understand, you have successfully explained to me, AND gotten me to agree, without said understanding. My objection that you underestimate your audience (and your own power to convince people) stands.
“explains a Deepak Chopra”
Do not confuse his popularity with popularity for the idea of patenting Hinduism. I’ve never heard he was trying to patent Hinduism, and I suspect most people, even if they liked him, would be opposed to the idea.
“vagueness charge again”
Which charge was vague? I’ll re-explain it.
“I’d rather not look at stuff like anger/tone”
You know what. This is YOUR BLOG. Who the heck am I to come in here and lecture you about tone. Maybe you just want to vent, and heck, EVERYBODY needs to vent.
That was why I did my 12:08 post, and why I apologized, and I do again. I’m sorry, it’s unfair.
I’ve continued because people said I was wrong and appeared to continue to ask questions, so I answered. I believe I was right (and while you don’t concede the point, you agree it’s possible that anger “may weaken the argument”), so I continued to defend it.
But all of my defenses (and all of the attacks on me) missed one point. Maybe you’re not trying to convince people. Maybe it’s not your job to defend yourself against my criticisms of how to post better. And that’s true. I was wrong.
I’m not worried about you offending people with thin skin. I just thought, if he was unfairly milking gullible people, by showing people, by speaking out about it, you could educate them, fight him (like I said, I DON’T think intelligent, rational people think you should be allowed to patent a religion). But you undermine your ability to educate people as to his crimes if you let anger dominate your argument.
But all of that assumes your intent was to educate, to posit an argument, to convince people. And it wasn’t. I suspect I may have caused a lot of frustration over what really was a waste of time. THAT’S the real point, and again, I’m sorry. I was stupid.
I have continued only because – as you point out, if you see something that is incorrect, you call it out, and while I should have kept my mouth shut, people keep calling me wrong, and I don’t think that (my arguments at least) were.
You appear to agree with me that you might have had anger, and that it might have weakened your post, and you appear to have agreed with me that strictly speaking there’s no plagiarism.
And I must agree with you that none of that matters. This is your blog, you don’t need to explain yourself to anyone. I thought I might be helping, but I grossly misunderstood (ignored, really) your intent. My fault, my stupidity (again, see 12:08), period. I should have stayed out of it.
Good luck, thanks for taking the time and being so patient with me. I hope you believe me when I say I sincerely do appreciate it.
Nick
10. May 2010 - 4:56 AM
yoga is about ideas too. Not just asanas. It is about the ideas of well being- physical, mental, spiritual, the ideas developed by thousands of rishis through their life times, that guide people to realize themselves. Selling these ideas, without due acknowledgement of the people who originally developed them is plagiarism.
‘Who owns Hinduism? For him to be plagiarizing, he must be taking something that BELONGS to someone else. Who owns it?‘
The western concept of ownership is not shared universally by all cultures and traditions.
The native americans never considered that they ‘owned’ land or its resources.
So if the westerner displacing the native american asked the question- “Who owns this land ? For me to be accused of stealing, I must be taking something that BELONGS to someone else. Who owns this land ?”
He may not get an answer other than maybe, “the Great Spirit owns it”. To which he may give the reply ” There is no Great Spirit. I am not stealing anything from anybody”. or ” The Great Spirit is the ‘almighty’ ‘god’, and in bible he has said that all land and its resources are for the enjoyment of a christian like me. so I have every right to take this land from heathens like you” something on those lines.
What do you own anyway, do you ‘own’ your body ?
Can you stop the death of the millions of cells in your body that take place evey day , and their replacement ?
Can you stop natural degradation of your body ?
Do you have a sale deed proving that you own your body ?
What if somebody takes away an organ from you, saying it is god’s property, or that there is no ownership certificate and besides, you are not going to take it anywhere when you die anyway ?
Osama probably thinks he is doing some good job. So perhaps, did all those suicide bombers.
Issue is that their concept of life is not universally accepted by everybody.
Beyond the law books, beyond the sharia, beyond western concepts and semantics there is righteousness, dharma, discernable to every inquiring mind and undecipherable to influenced-minds.
“Who owns Hinduism? ” is a wrong question. ‘hinduism’ is not a thing that somebody ‘owns’. So your question is as meaningless and misleading as the question by the misappropriating westerner.
Yogic concepts and ideas have been developed through millenniums by many rishis. Just like the motorcycle being there means that somebody built it and brought it there, although the builder or owner may not be in its immediate vicinity.
Yogic ideas and concepts should be considered as heritage, recognized as such and the rishis who developed it acknowledged. If the names of the rishis are forgotten, then the tradition that helped develop it and maintains it must be recognized, acknowledged, indebted to.
As regards lawsuit-
“People in the West have acquired considerable skill in interpreting and manipulating law. Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the supreme solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required. Nobody will mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk. It would sound simply absurd. One almost never sees voluntary self-restraint. Everybody operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames.”
“I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale than the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses.”
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, on 8 June 1978 at Harvard University
namaste
10. May 2010 - 6:10 AM
@Incogneto
I sincerely appreciate your reply. I apreciate the obvious thoughtfullness of your comments and the genuine respect with which they apeare to be presented.
Your point about western ideas of ownership is a powerful one, and by far the one that I like the most. You make an excellent, excellent point. Your critique of the American legal system is (I regret to say) fair as well.
I would argue that in fact, given everything you said as true, that might in fact have consequences for this argument which have not been considered, but all of your points are certainly fair, and I appear to have warn out my welcome (and indeed, should never have come). I wanted to say I think you make some excellent points, and I’m very glad you made them, and I will continue to tussle with them.
Thanks!
Nick
10. May 2010 - 6:12 AM
“Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses.”
Excellent lines. Keep it coming. Great words.
10. May 2010 - 10:56 AM
@Incognito Mitra…gr8 response and a very thought provoking post indeed!
BTW, the basic difference, what I have noticed, between occidental and oriental view of thinking is that while the former views everything as black and white (binary – either 1 or 0 or to quote Bush: Either you are with us or you are against us!
), the latter views all the things, more often than not, as all grey!
And one more thing what I’ve also noticed is IMO the Westerners’ notion of that their ideas, esp. those related to culture are universal and by and large should be acceptable to all and sundry!
and thats why such chest-thumping and brow-beating on women’s status in countries like Iran, Pakistan at al (I know much of this might be propoganda! 
)….arrey! what makes them think that they have right to grandstand and pontificate on all matters, esp. those that doesn’t concern them at all directly, and then they wonder as to why so much anti-Westernism permeates these societies! 
10. May 2010 - 1:00 PM
@Nick,
You’re feeling hurt unnecessarily. Here’s the thing: please don’t try to read too much into my intent or whatever. It has been the tradition of this blog to keep an open house: I don’t censor or moderate any comment unless it’s extremely offensive. You’re free to question and critique anything I say. When I say I’m not here to convince anybody it simply means, as I said earlier, I write for my own education.
As I see it, the major point of contention between us hinges on this point: my insistence on you reading up on Hindu traditions and your insistence on the opposite on the grounds that logic/reasoning alone is sufficient to carry you through to appreciating (or not) any point I may make in that regard.
>>And I must agree with you that none of that matters. This is your blog, you don’t need to explain yourself to anyone.
The “my blog my wish” line in my world smacks of extreme arrogance and if I had taken it, I’d not have allowed free discussion here in the comment space.
>>I thought I might be helping, but I grossly misunderstood (ignored, really) your intent.
and it’s my turn to ask you not to underestimate yourself.
You are helping in ways you can’t fathom
10. May 2010 - 2:05 PM
AH! what a debate. When will the people in parliament learn proper ways of discussing and debating issues rather than shouting like minks. Maybe they should learn from blogs such as this one.
10. May 2010 - 4:48 PM
Hola Nick,
I am glad you admit that you are consumed by a burning passion when you are writing such large amounts of stuff on this blog. Now, I don’t think passion by itself is any problem, just as any emotion by itself isn’t, but dumping so much non-content, without focusing on the matter at hand, may suggest the possibility that you are not in control of your passion. Now, _that_ is a problem: allowing your passion to get the better of you. Have you heard of the term “dispassionate analysis”? Why is a dispassionate analysis supposed to be a good thing? Because too much passion clouds judgement. It is not without reason that dispassionate analyses are often brief, factual and focused on substance. I am not saying that passion and anger are necessarily enemies of reason and logic; but I have seen too many passionate people ramble on and blabber away. I met a dude on a different blog a few months ago. The chap was publishing voluminous essays on liberal conservatism. Very passionate about the subject. I suggested to him to focus on facts. He took some time to do it, but once he did, began to make sense. Yes, dealing in facts actually takes a lot more time, research and energy than producing a 1000-word essay on anger management. But facts are always the best strategy when making a point. (Maybe they are a bad strategy when one has no point to make, ha ha ha! I guess it’s some well-known Yank who said: “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”!!)
Anyways, to reiterate, I admire passion in people. But I like a good argument better. I’ll keep coming here to appreciate yours but looks like it’s gonna take some time before you make one because currently your passion is centered on anger management tutorials.
Warm regards.
11. May 2010 - 11:17 AM
Hello Nick,
How do you do. I was eagerly waiting for yoga-related arguments from you; sans too much passion of course. Surely, Sandeep is not the only person around here who knows something about the subject. Surely, others are knowledgeable too, and surely, they aren’t shooting their imbecile mouths off without having a clue what they are talking about.
For instance, I am intrigued about this thing called “Christian Yoga”. From the name, I infer that it is positioned as an alternative to Yoga, which is known to be Hindu in origin, for if it weren’t, the competitor might as well be called “American Yoga”, “Bay Area Yoga”, “Beltway Yoga” or “My Pastor Invented This Yoga”.. So we have this Christian Yoga. What exactly is it, then? Is it aimed, for example, at training Catholic priests to keep their minds off little boys? Does the seershaasana of Christian yoga also require reading from the bible aloud while in that position? Is the savaasaana mandated to be performed lying down inside a coffin, lid closed? I really want to know what the key differentiators of Christian yoga are.
If there’s nothing substantial that distinguishes Christian yoga from the original Hindu Yoga, except the name, then the implications are not good. For it shows that Christians are so insecure that the influence of the good stuff of other faiths on their flock worries them insane. Here in India we celebrate composite culture, you know. We like Muslim food like garlic naan and biryani and we appeciate the Muslim contribution to Hindustani music. But American Christianity seems to be intolerant of composite culture. That bothers me because a lot of Indian churches are hq’d in the West and they get lots of $$ you know. The possibility that the insecurity and bigotry of western churches is imported into India cannot be ruled out.
So it is imperative that we Indians comprehend in detail what this Chrtistian Yoga is all about. Perhaps you can make a valuable contribution there, without too much passion of course.
Warm regards.
11. May 2010 - 12:47 PM
@Ot
Your point is relevant. Western cultures have huge problem in giving credit to where it is due. This attribute makes them plainly dishonest in their interactions with the people and cultures of other countries.
I remember the days when I was doing my Post Graduation in Science. At the time some eminent Indian scientists, who had left USA for good after working there for long periods, were making the rounds of all major Indian Universities, trying to educate students about their experiences in the USA. They told the following-
1. Most of the time Indian scientists do not get credit for their work.
2. Their papers are not published in established scientific journals unless it was co-authored by some white scientist. Sometimes they had to just give the name of an American scientist even if he was not at all associated with the research.
3. That white scientist’s name should be the first name in the paper, even if the original research is done by an Indian.
4. That way all the research done by Indian scientists ended up being attributed to some White Man.
5. No awards were given to Indians unless they were jointly shared by a White scientist.
..and so on. They were advising the students to abstain from going to USA and find opportunities here.
Still our best minds went there. I am now out of touch with them, so do not know what happened to them!
Regarding Christian Yoga, I came across the following site- http://www.christianspracticingyoga.com/altsite/index.htm
There are various contributors. Some have given a little credit to Hinduism, some have tried to reconcile the Yoga philosophy with Christian philosophy, while some have plainly rejected the Hindu legacy.
Their main problem lies in the fact that Jesus said – “The path to God lies through me.” That is their biggest problem. They have to go by The Book.
While Hinduism strives to make you capable of witnessing the God, and you are given the tools and you may witness the God for yourself with your own efforts, do not take me on my words – that was the approach of our sages. In Abrahamic faiths that is not so. You have to take the word of the Book. Take it or leave it!
We are open to reconciliation. They are not. That is a philosophical dilemma.
I think Nick can help us here – the reason/logic being his biggest weapon.
11. May 2010 - 1:52 PM
“The path to God lies through me.” Exactly well said. Just because the Jews did not accept the Son of God concept , the act of Pilate , the Roman Emperor was transferred to punish the Jews. This continued till 1945. Just count in the number of years for this grand act.
Can you imagine a greater misappropriation than this?
There is an excellent web site of Prof David Kertzer from Brown University. Just go thru this and you will know this stupendous act of misappropriation. Here is his web site and some of his books also.
This is a true story. Got thru this.
http://www.davidkertzer.com/books/kidnapping_of_edgardo_mortara.html
See his web site and go on clicking on the books.
http://www.davidkertzer.com/
I visit Ramana Ashram , whenever I get time. I like his philosophy of conquering the “I” I was travelling in a bus to Madras ( Chennai) with a group if Indian , pilgrims. Somewhere discussing an article the internet Hindus ( Indians). I kept smiling at them and said hello. I joined in the conversation and told them that if it was not for the internet , your passive resistance for correcting misappropriation , would not have succeeded. The internet is a great boon to Indian faith.
Whenever I do my simple yogic exercises, I always pay my respects to Patanjali. Let anybody say anything about the credits for Yoga , I will do my Namaste to Sage Patanjali.
11. May 2010 - 2:43 PM
@SimthJ
I went through the links. They are eye opening.
@Sandeep
There is a need to create a kind of Internet Watchdog, which will keep track of anything that tries to misappropriate the Hindu heritage. It will catch the misinformation at its inception and give a suitable rebuttal through blog comments, articles, etc. A few people, who can afford, give their time and energies.
Wrong information has to be fought with Correct Information.
You cannot stop them, but you can check them.
13. May 2010 - 9:36 AM
Hindus have no one to blame but themselves. THIS IS CULTURE WAR PEOPLE! FIGHT IT!
15. May 2010 - 11:26 PM
Take a look here:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/137/20100515/740/tnl-author-shows-yoga-owes-debt-to-forgo.html
16. May 2010 - 7:55 AM
I have asked passionate Nick to put his anger management tips aside and focus on Christian Yoga instead, and guess what, my suggestion made him so angry he vamoosed. Can at least a Jack or Blake or Chiramel step forward to take the conversation forward?
16. May 2010 - 10:37 PM
Hi Sandeep
I really appreciate this blog post about the Yoga Disease…it is the exact subject I was hoping I would find when I discovered your blog….check out these other blog posts below about Deepak Chopra, the origins of yoga etc… I think you will be interested in the comments where several comments attempt to defend Chopra and also de-link yoga from Hinduism
http://www.yogadork.com/2010/04/26/yoga-beef-deepak-chopra-vs-aseem-shukla-on-yoga-hinduism-and-western-egos/
http://www.yogadork.com/2010/04/29/yoga-and-hinduism-deepak-chopra-vs-aseem-shukla-beef-continues-with-fervor-religious-and-non/
http://www.yogadork.com/2010/04/29/yoga-and-hinduism-deepak-chopra-vs-aseem-shukla-beef-continues-with-fervor-religious-and-non/
16. May 2010 - 11:23 PM
@OT 7:55
Probably left in the nick of time, so to speak.
Mr. If-you-dont-agree-with-me-you-are-angry Nick, who was repeatedly threatening that his next post was going to be the last one, kept coming back, a glutton for punishment.
But who knows, he might return (and not return, like Macarthur).
19. May 2010 - 1:57 AM
Here is an interview with a rep from the Hindu American Foundation. They do good work. The girl is a very good spokesperson for the Take Back Yoga campaign. The interview is about 7-10 minutes in. But the show itself doesn’t have much traction.
http://www.stateofbelief.com/show-archive/234-may-1-2-2010
May 1-2, 2010
This weekend on State of Belief, how do people of faith feel about immigration? A leading pollster and a representative from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops discuss the religious case for a humane approach to this controversial issue. Plus, the Hindu American Foundation weighs in on what they’ve called the theft of yoga and we’ve got a look at some of the week’s top religion stories with ReligionDispatches’ Peter Laarman.
Don’t miss Welton’s own thoughts on religious freedom and the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
This week’s guests:
Peter Laarman is Executive Director of Progressive Christians Uniting, a network of activist individuals and congregations.
Sheetal Shah is the Director of Development and Outreach for the Hindu American Foundation.
Robert P. Jones is CEO of Public Religion Research Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization in Washington, DC. His group recently released a study called Religion, Values and Immigration Reform.
Kevin Appleby is Director of the Office of Migration Policy and Public Affairs at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Religion and Radio done differently – this weekend on State of Belief.
19. May 2010 - 1:21 PM
“If there’s nothing substantial that distinguishes Christian yoga from the original Hindu Yoga, except the name, then the implications are not good. For it shows that Christians are so insecure that the influence of the good stuff of other faiths on their flock worries them insane. Here in India we celebrate composite culture, you know. We like Muslim food like garlic naan and biryani and we appeciate the Muslim contribution to Hindustani music. But American Christianity seems to be intolerant of composite culture. That bothers me because a lot of Indian churches are hq’d in the West and they get lots of $$ you know. The possibility that the insecurity and bigotry of western churches is imported into India cannot be ruled out. ”
You mentioned “American Christianity”. Churches in America are of the Protestant variety though Catholicism (the mother cult of christianity) does have bases (churches) here and there. Most of the U.S. South is radical protestant Christian and the terrorists of Nagaland are Baptists. The Presbytarians are active in the state of Mizoram. The Baptists are regarded as radicals even by the Christians themselves and they are the bigger threat (read up about the situation in Manipur, where the Maitei Hindus have been ordered to become christians by May 31 or else face annihilation). In all there are 30,000 different cults of christianity but India faces the biggest threat from Vatican (controller of most mass media including press agencies in India), Baptists, Presbytarians, Methodists, Seventh day Adventists and the Lutherans.
20. May 2010 - 8:02 AM
Excellent article by Prof David Kertzer. It should be an eye opener for all Indians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/09/opinion/the-modern-use-of-ancient-lies.html?pagewanted=1
The concluding para is very relevant to Indian faiths.
Given the historical role of Christianity in promulgating such hatred, it is not unreasonable to hope that church leaders will face their own past with clear eyes. They should be among the first to call attention to these lies, and they should be among the loudest in their condemnation of them.
Indians should read about the history of what has happened in the past in other countries, esp with the Jews. The same tactics may be operative today in Asia.
24. May 2010 - 1:04 PM
Offtopic:
You might want to take this opinion poll and encourage your friends to do so too.
http://bit.ly/bZQesY
2. June 2010 - 6:14 AM
RE: Nick.
I think ext links must be provided to substantiate any fact cited by an article writer from that source. However, general guidelines to any peer reviwed article writing expects a brief statement from the original source provided must be a part of the body of the article. Just providing a link and not mentioning what the link is provided for is not scientific. Merely confusing. A generic statement- that Dr. A is talking nonsense please see the link provided- is incorrect way to write a scientific paper. The said nonsense must be qualified. If it is true then Nick has a point. If the fact (from the article cited) is mentioned in Sandeeps article Nick,then has no case here.
Dont stretch too much on Nicks english comment and anger comment. His demand to ‘tell me who is copying from whom (plagiarism)’ is justified.Basrardization comment was a perfect contextual fit in his write up.Cheers. Surya, chicago
3. June 2010 - 8:47 AM
If Deepak Chopra knew any Hinduism he should know a little Mimamsa too right? If he really did he would know that Mimamsa rejects the idea of consciousness!
11. June 2010 - 11:47 AM
Can somebody really patent yoga asans? In order to clear the air and clearly demarcate whether method of performing yoga can be patented, i have found an interesting post titled “Can a method of performing yoga be patented?”. i hope this will provide some clarity with regard to the subject. Link: http://indianipinfo.blogspot.com/2010/06/can-method-of-performing-yoga-be.html
17. June 2010 - 8:18 PM
Sandeepji,
All your posts are “angry” posts..I think when you pen your thoughts to the blog,you should only lay cold arguments with passion..but plz do not contaminate it with “anger” and “negativity”.Just a request..coz when reading ur post..I feel lots of hostility.Its OK about politics..but when writing about Hindu philosophy where “nishkama karma” is so important even during war,you are contaminating your karma with anger.Dial it down..