Clearly - am preparing a post using that Wikipedia entry.

Scott Miller: Anandamayama, used to ask people who asked her what her religion was “What religion do you want me to be?” And she would be that.

I like this person. Do you know if she's seeing anyone? Also, has that been written up anywhere (else) that you know of? (Couldn't find it on an initial searches)

I think there's a parallel, but that it's more within the framework as I developed it. A lot of your yogels are perfect Nones, I suspect - "Spiritual But Not Religious." They don't consider Yoga a "real" "religion," and few of them think of themselves as Hindu - you don't think of yourself as Hindu, do you? - but they somewhat promiscuously and non-declaratively appropriate bits and pieces of Hinduism, Buddhism, and whatever-else-ism into an approach to the entirety of their relations to each other and to the infinite or their idea of the infinite, and to their daily lives. It's religion without, apparently, a coherent discourse or discursively coherent relationship to other religions. Very none-ish, modern or post-modern, and democratic compared to the ancient, exclusivist, and "noble" yoga practices as well as to conventionalized organized religion. It's easy to imagine a situation in which some oppressive fundamentalist government declared Yoga a brand of polytheism or encouragement of polytheism or some other blasphemy, outlawed it, and sought to stamp it out. I'd be kind of surprised if that's never happened, but maybe it somehow slipped through, pretending just to be a sport or medicine or hobby etc. without any particular "spiritual" or "religious" dimension.

a decent summary except for the radically stupid parts

The research would be miserable, though there was some of that in the never-to-be-made movie about which less said the better. Probably should have been more, but, then again probably not, since the better it was the worse it is.

Unless both are self-evident and only our occluded vision prevents us from recognizing or holding onto recognition once made - which I acknowledge would amount to the same or almost the same thing, making everything we "know" as "reality" that same faith- and immortality-negated state of occlusion.

Have just been reading a book which adopts a version of the first of the two above positions, for mainly political-philosophical and historical purposes (explaining Hitler and the Germans): "Presence" is only ever presence before or under God, but in a fully occluded state, associated with what the author, Eric Voegelin, calls "radical stupidity," presence is mere presence as a moving point between past and future in a degenerated, linear, time-keeping sense, which apparently arose at the same time as the "modern."

So what? So a few "outlets" considered a book "inflammatory"? Islamist rage filled the streets telegenically for a few hours one day? Sheikh al-Nobody issued a fatwa? What does that have to do with "the point" I missed? What is "the point"? Islam bad, Christianity good? Is that "the point"?

"The point"? What ""point"? What is it with you and "the point"? "Only one had an aggressive reaction" to what? What are you talking about? It almost reads like you maintain some utterly self-serving and historically totally fantastical notion that Judeo-Christian-identified cultures have overall demonstrated a general reluctance or inability to fight or kill? What planet are you on? And who in a "modern audience" takes "all of Mohammed's claims" as "diktat" or as any more or less suspect than the claims of the Peter and Paul?