It doesn't matter one iota if someone claims it as their own, what matters is the benefit it brings. Do you think Patanjali (or whomever) would be protective of their techniques and trademark it, patent it, and extract wealth for it?
If they don't care then neither should anyone else, and perhaps this will help the techniques spread further, which I'm sure Patanjali et al again, would not be against.
If Jeff Bezos says he has invented a new operating system and upon a little digging it is discovered that he just tweaked and renamed Linux, then he should and will be called out, and it will hurt his reputation.
The problem is not with using knowledge to your benefit, that is why it is there. The problem is with plagiarism, misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty.
Linux has a licence and relies on copyright law. If yogic breathing techniques did have a licence, the best you could hope for would be an MIT/BSD licence. I don't see how that advances your view.
Even if Linux were not subject to a license, a person claiming to have invented an operating system who in reality simply forked Linux without giving appropriate credit would be considered a plagiarist.
And to expect a sagacious progenitor of a millennia-old practice like Pranayama to have considered modern-day legal protections is absurd.
> And to expect a sagacious progenitor of a millennia-old practice like Pranayama to have considered modern-day legal protections is absurd.
Yes, reductio ad absurdum was the point.
> Even if Linux were not subject to a license, a person claiming to have invented an operating system who in reality simply forked Linux without giving appropriate credit would be considered a plagiarist.
To consider "modern-day legal protections is absurd" but forking an operating system is what? I'd go for special pleading.
But to the point. Plagiarism is important in academic circles, it is not for breathing techniques, whether given by yogis or not. *Please show me why Patanjali would care, if he would not then why should anyone else?*
No, plagiarism is important in every circle, not just academic circles.
If you copy your colleague's work at your FAANG job and claim it as your own, you will be in trouble.
If a contemporary politician claims he has come up with this novel idea where decisions can be made with "majority vote", he will be mocked out of the room.
> No, plagiarism is important in every circle, not just academic circles.
Please show me how it would be important to Patanjali, or even how it will reduce the good the techniques bring, how it will negatively impacted yoga teachers, or something other than FAANG jobs, politicians and academia that simply aren't relevant to this discussion.
I'm not sure why you keep focusing on Patanjali, who I'll concede is beyond caring about this. But the people from his culture and civilization who ARE alive today do not want to see his works (some who consider it sacred) associated with "beer" or "goats" or commercialized without proper credit and respect, and it is important to them. I'm not sure why that reason is not good enough for you? Are you the kind of person who goes trespassing in sacred native lands in Hawaii or anywhere else, because after all the elders are all dead?
I’m not the kind of person who engages in cheap ad hominem with someone they’re in discussion with, that’s what I do know.
> I'm not sure why you keep focusing on PatanjalI
He’s the one whose techniques are (allegedly) being plagiarised, it’s abundantly clear to anyone who’s not busy trying to avoid the central point and instead engaging in ad hominem.
> But the people from his culture and civilization who ARE alive today do not want to see his works (some who consider it sacred) associated with "beer" or "goats" or commercialized without proper credit and respect, and it is important to them
Why do they care more than Patanjali? Why does being Indian matter when yoga is implicitly non-national? Nationalism, a disease which India currently appears riddled with, is a specious line of reasoning. Does the average Indian get more claim over yogic techniques than those of other nationalities who actually practice them? Ridiculous. They’re an idea anyway, even if they were “invented” today they couldn’t be copyrighted.
This whole line of argument is absurd, and I might be in a better mood to entertain them if you cut out the ad hominem, but I doubt it.
> Does the average Indian get more claim over yogic techniques than those of other nationalities who actually practice them?
I believe so yes. Not sure what you mean by “actually” practice but I assure you many many people in india practice it.
> He’s the one whose techniques are (allegedly) being plagiarised, it’s abundantly clear to anyone who’s not busy trying to avoid the central point and instead engaging in ad hominem.
I don’t think I ever mentioned plagiarism, you probably have me confused with someone else.
> Why do they care more than Patanjali? Why does being Indian matter when yoga is implicitly non-national? Nationalism, a disease which India currently appears riddled with, is a specious line of reasoning.
The fact that you’re even asking this question tells me more about your unchecked privilege than anything else. And re nationalism: no thanks we don’t need outsiders telling us what we should be thinking, we had 2 centuries of that, don’t care for it much.
> This whole line of argument is absurd, and I might be in a better mood to entertain them if you cut out the ad hominem, but I doubt it.
This will be my last response since I'm finding it increasingly hard to believe you're arguing in good faith.
> Should I wait for some reasoning to back that up or do I have to ask? If I ask will I get an answer?
The Yogic practices originated in the Indian subcontinent, so yes the people who identify themselves with the same civilization and culture as the person(s) who originated these practices do have a larger claim as to how these practices are presented, taught and understood. It would seem that your claim that such a notion is "ridiculous" is on much more shakier ground than mine. I don't see you presenting any reasoning as to why you believe this is "ridiculous". You certainly feel so, but there's nothing special or important about your feelings on the matter.
> People who practice it versus people who don't, like the average Indian.
Not sure what relevance this has to the matter, but ok thanks for the clarification.
> Many people who are not Indian practise yoga - why does the average Indian have more claim to it than these people? Would Patanjali think they do?
See above.
> Again, no answer, just ad hominem.
No ad hominem, just an observation. I keep saying that there are people who sometimes dislike the co-opting and whitewashing/rebranding of Yoga (see the linked article). You keep insisting that it's not a problem and that I should just not care. It's again hard to attribute good intent here. BTW on the topic of ad hominem, you're the one who seemed close to accusing me of rabid "nationalism", perhaps not those exact words but you and I both know exactly what you mean.
> Why do they care more than Patanjali?
Why not?
> Poe's Law comes to mind.
Randomly throwing the names of rhetorical devices or "laws" in a conversation does not make your argument any stronger FYI.
> The Yogic practices originated in the Indian subcontinent, so yes the people who identify themselves with the same civilization and culture as the person(s) who originated these practices do have a larger claim as to how these practices are presented, taught and understood.
Why did Patanjali not mention that Indians have more claim over his techniques than humanity? Why do those who, on average, do not engage with his ideas think they have more claim on them? Are you going to claim there is an innate link between ideas, ancestry and where one is born? Ridiculous.
> I don't see you presenting any reasoning as to why you believe this is "ridiculous"
Because I assumed that relating the ownership of an idea to its geography when it is explicitly taught to be applied to any human, and moreover, that ownership to those who were born later on the same land but probably aren't using the idea, to be obviously ridiculous but I didn't take into account that you'd be a nationalist.
> See above.
You didn't answer above.
> No ad hominem, just an observation.
Ad hominem is a fallacy of relevance where the one committing the fallacy avoids addressing the substantial point with observations about their opponent in the debate.
> You keep insisting that it's not a problem and that I should just not care. It's again hard to attribute good intent here.
Again, ad hominem. What is the bad intent? What would be bad faith? You're yet to provide a reason why this plagiarism - that you didn't bring up but waded in to - is a problem other than someone taking offence over something that isn't theirs and that they probably don't do.
> > Why do they care more than Patanjali?
> Why not?
See above.
> > Poe's Law comes to mind.
> Randomly throwing the names of rhetorical devices or "laws" in a conversation does not make your argument any stronger FYI.
It wasn't part of my argument, it was an observation, though not ad hominem as I didn't avoid the point.
It matters because the adopter may highlight only 3 out of 20 exercises and if you did not know the original source, you may never learn about the other 17. Not that you may need the others, but maybe if you were aware, you could explore further and use the variations that are already well known to slice and dice when one kind of breathing may make sense as compared to the other.
Someone posted this link, so I am just repeating it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCmB8Tnvmw. This is an hour long video focusing on different kinds of breathing as part of yoga. Do look at the top comment (as of now) as it provides time-links to 12 different kinds of breathing - bhastrika, kapal bhati, bahya pranayama, agnisaar kriya, anuloma viloma, bhramari, udgeeth, ujjai, shitali, sikkari.
If someone develops 3 of the practices on their own, sure, they can describe only what they know.
But if they sourced (and productized) 3 of them from a known source, they should refer to the main source, no? Kinda like open source - use but credit.
If I learn 3 exercises lifted from a course of 20 and start doing them, say dead lifts, pull ups and bent over rows, then because the Youtube channel I learnt them off doesn't mention the other course I'm not going to find out about it?
Even if we were to wind that back to an earlier time period without all the benefits that search algorithms and the like bring, how would one who benefits from these techniques have such low interest that they'd never bother to find out anything more? I don't buy it.
> Kinda like open source - use but credit.
I'm all for giving credit. What I don't see is how that negatively impacts anyone in this situation - is Patanjali looking for credit? Does he need credit? Have they brought any of his techniques to more people?
All of these questions are yet to be answered with anything approaching a negative impact.
no, it does matter. Because once someone has appropriated it, they can block access to the original material.
Theft of the commons is one of the enduring themes of capitalism.
Could be soft-blocks, i.e. burying links to the original source so no-one finds it, reducing the number of teachers or the ability of those teachers to make a living, etc.
Could be harder blocks; say the new company patents it. Files takedown notices against alternative presentations. Yes, you could fight them on "prior art", but now you have a legal fight as well as the difficulties of promoting the technique.
And while I'll take your word for it that Patanjali et al don't mind one group spreading their techniques farther, are we so sure that Patanjali et al would feel about that one group claiming ownership and only allowing that group to access it? Perhaps Patanjali didn't try to trademark/patent (or the equivalent) their techniques because they were morally opposed to this?
That's a slippery slope argument, which may not be fallacious, not all are.
If we accept that Hof and Nestor have "appropriated" these techniques then the next question would be how has that led to the blocks you've outlined? When will I lose access to the authentic teachings?
> are we so sure that Patanjali et al would feel about that one group claiming ownership and only allowing that group to access it?
I reckon he'd be against it as Patanjali et al seem more focused on sharing the knowledge in order to benefit others but who's to know.
> Perhaps Patanjali didn't try to trademark/patent (or the equivalent) their techniques because they were morally opposed to this?
I think this point has been covered but I'll add that I've not noticed any form of communism in the system of yoga Patanjali systematised.
> Cultural appropriation refers to the use of objects or elements of a non-dominant culture in a way that reinforces stereotypes or contributes to oppression and doesn't respect their original meaning or give credit to their source. It also includes the unauthorized use of parts of their culture (their dress, dance, etc.) without permission.
I await Patanjali to serve papers that use of his intellectual property isn't allowed, apparently because it reinforces stereotypes or contributes to oppression.
Maybe we'll hear about the Buddha's thoughts on copyright next and how derivative works are unauthorized.
It's not really cultural appropriation. It's simply false appropriation. Claiming another's works as your own fancy innovation. Claiming another's achievement as yours with no original attribution.
I wasn't aware that either Hof or Nestor were academics so I'm not sure how it's relevant.
As to the accusation that they've stolen an idea, someone should outline their accusation explicitly and then, far more importantly, explain why I should care. As I've pointed out, Patanjali wouldn't (or you can point out why he would, that would be interesting).
> I wasn't aware that either Hof or Nestor were academics so I'm not sure how it's relevant.
Classic Strawman Argument. Sad to see this on HN. I never claimed they were academics. Just that doing this in academics would get you banned.
They are journalists. The century-old Society for Professional Journalists has a simple statement on plagiarism in its Code of Ethics: “Never plagiarize. Always attribute.”
The outline has already been made clear by several posters in this thread.
“doesn't respect their original meaning or give credit to their source.”
See I can pick parts of a random definition off google the same way you do.
Have you heard of “beer yoga”? Or “goat yoga”? It’s the very definition of disrespectful of the original meaning etc. I’m guessing not, but feel free to be entitled to your opinion, it’s a free country after all
> See I can pick parts of a random definition off google the same way you do.
I shared the whole definition I found from the first result returned to me[1], and I didn't use Google. If you have a better definition then I would suggest that a better response would've been to share it instead of falsely accusing others of mistakes only you have made.
Uh ok, Bing/DDG whatever, that's an odd thing to nitpick. I'm not sure who is accusing whom of what, I just pointed out that the definition YOU found from wherever, has the exact phrase I alluded to above. The phrase I quoted specifically says why this could be seen as cultural appropriation, but you seem to be intent on arguing semantics of words and nitpicking so I'm not really sure what your goal is here.
> Bing/DDG whatever, that's an odd thing to nitpick
Actually, it serves as an easy way to display how little your claim resembles reality, because it underlines how zero of what you wrote is correct.
> I'm not sure who is accusing whom of what
Have you considered reading the thread you’re commenting in and not wasting the time of others?
> I'm not really sure what your goal is here.
If you want to claim that it’s cultural appropriation then the definition matters. If the definition doesn’t matter then neither does the claim, and it would serve only as one more meaningless pejorative in the service of ad hominem that does nothing to advance the conversation. Which, as far as I can tell, is the whole purpose of “cultural appropriation” as a concept.
If they don't care then neither should anyone else, and perhaps this will help the techniques spread further, which I'm sure Patanjali et al again, would not be against.