uestioner 1: It really seems strange to me that even in the East, yoga is confused with Hinduism. I think this shows how little of yoga is lived these days, and how little of its ancient discipline has been transmitted. I also find the ways and means of so-called Theravāda Buddhist yoga – especially its attention on breath – to be very close to Patañjali's yoga. What do you think?

What you say is perfectly true. But merely talking or reading books will never reveal these things to anyone. To understand yoga, it has to be lived.  

Questioner 2: Then Hinduism and Buddhism are not opposed to each other?

No, not at all. Why should they be? Minus its profusion of anthropomorphic deities, the highest vision of Advaita Vedānta, or so-called Hindu Philosophy, is precisely the vision of Buddhic Liberation. These are not two currents. Cultural and political influences have only made them appear so. You see, what we take to be "Religion" is largely just the elaboration of superficial rites and rituals, the costuming, the graphic design, the ribbons and the bows, the politicized press releases. "Religion," in this way, is just so much cultural accretion. But what the soul truly seeks is an unadorned simplicity, an intimate transparency of knowing peace. 

What does Hindu actually mean then?  

As a modern term, Hindu has evolved from the Indo-Iranian root sindhu. This Proto-Indo-Iranian word *sindhus literally refers to the "Indus river" and the culture pertaining to its long expansive valley. This is where Hindu culture first developed.[1] Historically, however, at a very early date, Persian explorers entered the Indian subcontinent from the far Northwest. After they returned, they published chronicles. But due to the phonetics of their native Persian language, the 'S' of Sind became an aspirated 'H.' This is how the people of the Indus Valley came to be known generically as "Hindus" by the Persians. This flawed intonation inevitably stuck[2] and was later re-imported when the invading Moguls conquered India. Since they always referred to the locals as "Hindus," the term was adopted by the Indians themselves as a way of distinguishing native culture from that of the foreign Muslims.[3] But it should be noted that still today there is a region, a people and a language called Sind. 

Then where does the word "India" come from?  

The Modern term "India" is simply ancient Greek, though pronounced a little differently than in English, of course. It is an early Hellenism whereby the Persian 'H' was changed to 'I.' This further lends knowledge of the ancient Greek indikos and Latin indicus, equivalent adjectives meaning "Indian, pertaining to India, having to do with India," etc. Similarly, the botanical term for Indian hemp is Cannibis indica.

Hindu, then, and I emphatically state, simply means "Indian," "Made In India"—"A Product of Hindustan." 

Q1: It's a little confusing though. You seem to be implying that "Hindus" are simply the people born in India, and not the followers of a religion. One must make up one's mind whether Hindus are a religious community or not, and then speak consistently.

My mind is clear. "Hindus" do not make up a religious community. "Hindu" has little to do with "religion," per se. At best, "Hindu" implies a tentative community. 

'Tentative?'

By "tentative" community I look to the fact that, fundamentally, "-isms" need not at all be conjoined to the various religious sectors of India, especially in so far as they attempt to discern the degree to which there is retention of, or origin in, a Brahmanical field; hence the traditional schemata, "Brahmanical," "heretical" and "foreign." But as I have written, "gurus" are actually the main religion in Indian society because people don't normally "belong" to churches or temples but honor a personal guru. I would further suggest that the "institution" of the guru is fundamentally "heretical," or perhaps more civilly expressed, "heterodoxical." That is to say, it is a tradition contrary to the Brahmanical institution of hereditary priesthood, and does not accept the Vedas as inviolable scripture. Indeed, the traditional hereticism of the guru in India is at the truest heart of Hinduism. And it should be. It's so beautiful.

To some extent, I agree with you. But this nonetheless takes us to a fundamental methodological problem, does it not? Under the general description of "Hindu" as an inhabitant of the land east of the Indus (especially true for around 500-300 BC), both Jains and Buddhists would be "Hindu" in origin. That apart, could you offer a consistent and comprehensive statement of "Hinduism" as defining "a" religious community? I would at least enjoy hearing your attempt.

Again, I repeat that "Hindu-ism" can only imply a religious community in a "tentative" sense. You see, the culprit here is "-ism," I feel. I find this obsessive suffixing of "-ism" to the end of all sorts of words is one of the most unacademically sound penchants we of the scholarly breed exhibit; and which indeed makes Hindu-ism a catchall term that ultimately defies any helpful definition. I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that Western "scholarship" contrived the term in the early part of the 19th century. The Oxford English Dictionary traces "Hindooism" to an 1829 reference in the Bengalee, 45. It also refers to an 1853 usage by the German Indologist Max Müller. But as a final point a reiteration, the a modern term "Hindu" simply means "Indian" or "Made in India" – "A Product of Hindustan."