This is a moot point. You cannot prevent the appropriation (or approbation) of cultures. How does anyone not retain the right to borrow ideas from others in the name of influence? Certainly there is the matter of that which is most pure, and I think this is largely what the article is addressing: the purity of yoga being diluted. Of course, however, the West will have no such talk of “purity”, for, as the top poster pointed out, however crudely, we are a mutt culture. If one does not give credit where credit is due in appropriating what he will of anything, eventually, as is usually the case, at least, he is found out and somewhat defamed. If they do give credit, then it is all the better, but at a certain point we are bound to lose sight of “origins” and look forward only to novelty and innovation. And objectively speaking there’s nothing “wrong” with this. On the contrary, to stay close to a point of origin, literally, we may render ourselves obsolete. Therein is the safety and the wisdom of “purification”, or, as I believe the term is, “maya” and the elimination of it. But we do little to apply this practice only to our own heuristic ends and not to our far more encompassing ideological ends; even feigned happiness is healthier and more productive than collective conformity and false ideals. I suppose if “Western Yoga” was “truer” to the original principles and practices the writer may have been happier, but would she even have this platform? Would there be a “Western Yoga”? And the same thing can be said of any market which was born of tradition and art and some sense of purity.