I want to say from the onset that my writing is not meant to be a scholarly history of Hinduism and I won't get into any debates about what Hinduism is, who is a Hindu, etc. I am more than cognizant of the various Hindu gods and goddesses and know the difference between a Shaivite and a Vaishnavite (I'm partial to Murugan who is also known in Mahayana Buddhism as Skanda.)
But all that doesn't matter for this purpose. After all, I am Buddhist with a Kali yantra tattooed on my back so you can figure that out by yourself. I am only writing about yoga as taken from my notes over the years and from the Joshi essay referenced in Part 1. You can read this or move on but be advised that I will not entertain any type of religious debate -- there are other forums where you can argue any point you want to make.
When I wrote that "Hinduism actually rejects yoga" in part 1, I knew those words would be shocking. But when the KYM teacher used those words he was talking about the way Hinduism in general views the philosophy of yoga as a path of liberation. I have to say that in any yoga training I have ever done I never heard it said that Hinduism gave birth to yoga. Yes, yoga philosophy is a part of Hinduism, but as for yoga originating in Hinduism, I beg to differ.
Before the time of Buddha (563 BCE to 483 BCE, approximate date of death) the religion of India was Vedic Brahmanism and alongside the Vedic tradition there was an ascetic (the sramanas) form of thought and practice originating in prehistoric times. Prof. Joshi writes that Buddhism had the closest affinity with this sramanic culture and Hinduism grew out of a fusion of Vedic Brahmanism with Buddhism and other sramanic religious trends.
In order to discuss the roots of yoga or whether yoga springs from Hinduism, let's keep some dates in mind: Vedicism, 1500-500 BCE; Tantricism and Hinduism, 500-1000 CE.
Sages (munis) and ascetics (yatis) lived in ancient India before the time of the Upanisads. Prof. Joshi writes that "the Rgveda describes a muni who practiced meditation and led an austere life. He is said to be 'long-haired' and probably wore a beard. The munis either lived naked or wore ... dirty garments and were experts in techniques of silent ecstasy." (Joshi, p.27)
This was the culture -- pre-Hinduism -- that birthed the beginnings of yoga.
In part 1 I wrote about Stephen Cope's talk on the history of yoga during my training at Spirit Rock. He drew a yoga timeline from the Vedas to the explosion of yoga after 1975 when Yoga Journal was first published. He emphasized that the renouncers of the Vedic rituals, these sramanas, starting from the 8th Century BC, used their own bodies and minds as laboratories for the direct experience of yoga and for the research on the nondualism of body and mind.
My KYM teachers taught that Samkhya and yoga are closely related. Prof. Joshi writes:
"In later Brahmanical tradition these two systems [Samkyha and yoga] are generally mentioned together. Yoga as a way of religious perfection is older than the Yoga system of thought now associated with Patanjali's Yogasutras (cir. 300 CE.) Yoga as a way was an essential element of Sramanic culture. Yoga is therefore of non-Brahmanical and non-Aryan origin. The munis and yatis of Vedic age practiced yoga and dhyana. This is clear from the Rgveda... The early Yoga was possibly identical with Buddhist Yoga or the way of meditation. As it belonged to the non-Vedic Sramanic tradition, the early Yoga was possibly non-theistic and ascetic." (Joshi, p.33)
Cope taught that Patanjali wrote the Sutras as a treatise for advanced yoga students and reminded us that only three sutras mention asana, the rest are about meditation and the human experience. So when it is commonly said that “yoga is 5000 years old”, that is not true because it was not until the Middle Ages (1300 app.) when the Hatha Yoga Pradipika was written followed by the Geranda-Samhita (1600 app.) and the Shiva-Samhita (1700 app.) that the yoga poses we are familiar with today were revealed.
The Sutras are not about asana practice but about uncovering the roots of human suffering. Yoga and Buddhism both grew out of the same cultural milieu of India as a reaction to the dogma of the Vedic and Brahmin culture. Buddha lived about 700 years before Patanjali wrote the Sutras but given the religious atmosphere of India at that time, it would have been impossible for Patanjali not to have been influenced by Buddhist thought. In his essay Prof. Joshi writes that the Mahabharata (which the Bhagavad Gita is part of) was compiled during the period when Buddhism flourished most in India, during 400 BCE to 400 CE: "the present form of the Mahabharata, with its ethics and philosophy, would have been impossible without Buddhism." (Joshi, p.13.)
Both the Sutras and Buddhism seek to uncover the roots of human suffering. When Buddha said that “second hand answers have no power to transform”, he was talking about direct insight into known experience, the known experience of sitting and watching the breath, watching the body in the body, and the breath in the breath.
Sounds like yoga (asana-pranayama-meditation) to me. It seems that if anyone should "take back yoga", it should be my ash-covered friends in the photo above because it was their pre-Hindu forebears who saw yoga as a path of liberation via one's own efforts rather than through being born into the right caste or through the rites and rituals of Vedic Brahmanism.
Reference: "Brahmanism, Buddhism and Hinduism: An Essay on Their Origins and Interactions" by Lal Mani Joshi of the Department of Religious Studies, Punjabi University, 1970.