[mathemagical]

In doing this you are completely divorcing a people's fundamental belief system and heritage from them so that "people who don't subscribe to" the existence of that people's heritage, culture and belief system don't feel offended.

This is complete cultural appropriation and you should stop perpetuating it while making money off of it.

[scpedicini]

If we as a species didn't "culturally appropriate", the world would be hundreds of years behind in terms of progress. Invention itself is built on the idea of taking pre-existing concepts, combining and adapting them in new contexts. The idea that you can't borrow some existing body of knowledge because it's inherently sacrosanct and cannot be divided is just patently absurd.

[mathemagical]

Cultural appropriation refers to the use of objects or elements of a non-dominant culture in a way that doesn't respect their original meaning, give credit to their source, or reinforces stereotypes or contributes to oppression. - Google

The problem here is not invention. The problem here is that aliabramovitz and company "like to stay away from those [theological] aspects as it can be off putting for people who don't subscribe to a certain philosophy or theology", in a subject matter where the original theology is a core part of it, and that too a theology that is not aliabramovitz's own theology in order to cater to people who dislike the theology of the original owners of the practice.

So no, white people stealing other peoples practices and bastardizing them !== Invention necessary for the world to progress.

It is simply stealing and removing the original in order to cater to Abrahamics and to make money.

[lonesword]

> The problem here is not invention. The problem here is that aliabramovitz and company "like to stay away from those [theological] aspects as it can be off putting for people who don't subscribe to a certain philosophy or theology", in a subject matter where the original theology is a core part of it, and that too a theology that is not aliabramovitz's own theology in order to cater to people who dislike the theology of the original owners of the practice.

And as an Indian who used to practice Yoga as a child (too boring for me now) I'd say that this is completely fine. If the theological aspect was indeed crucial for deriving value from the whole experience, people would eventually lose interest because they wouldn't be gaining anything from the aliabramovitz's venture right?

Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?[1]

[1] Quote by Douglas Adams

[mathemagical]

And as a Hindu (the aforementioned theology in this discussion) I will point out that yoga is not a stand alone exercise or something that needs to entertain you in order for you to continue to practice it, but rather part of a whole discipline of preparing your body in order to sit down and meditate for long periods of time.

And this is the exact reason that these practices should not be divorced from their theological fundamentals in the way that White Abrahamics practice it.

And this is also why you as an Indian should not be happy to let the whole be stripped into parts and sold for money and commoditized down to an entertainment or sport that you are "bored" by.

[lonesword]

>but rather part of a whole discipline of preparing your body in order to sit down and meditate for long periods of time.

The implication being that this is the sole purpose of Yoga and there is no benefit in viewing it as yet another point of exercise? A hypothetical:

I have no interest in meditating for long hours, but practicing yoga and the "it helps you calm down" kool-aid that marketers promote actually helps me. It's not the "real thing", and I have an inkling that without the spiritual aspect I am missing out on a lot. However, I continue to practice it since I derive some benefits from doing so, and have no inclination to pursue the matter deeper.

^ I honestly see nothing wrong with the above scenario. I would accept someone who "dabbles" in Yoga without caring for its spiritual aspects the same way I accept someone who lifts weights 5 days a week but completely ignores nutrition. Sub-optimal? Yes. Should it be condemned? No.

[cercatrova]

I appreciate that it's been secularized, we shouldn't stop people from practicing yoga or meditation just because they don't want to subscribe to a religious ideology. Sure it did come from religions but there's no need to keep it tied to that religion if it can help more people outside of that, in a scientific sense (ie increased flexibility, breathing etc).

[afarrell]

Cultural appropriation of something that many members of a culture promote is good. Without it, the only cultural symbols that people can get an intro to are those from European cultures.

-----

That said, I encourage people to read the Bhagavad Gita. As someone who has long appreciated meditation from a secular perspective, I've recently started reading it and am finding it valuable.