THE articles in this series have two objectives: to introduce the modern meaning of bhakti texts and to examine the current significance of bhakti practice. These goals come as a result of deep concern for the future and the importance of culture in a rapidly changing world, especially in the Third World. In particular, writers are at least seriously concerned with the role of bhakti in the modern system. The concept of modernization and culture emerging from these articles is very different from that prevailing in the East and West. In Western literature on this subject, two traditional and modern terms are considered dichotomy or continuum. A more realistic viewer may try to identify certain aspects of a particular culture as modern which means that they may be used to minimize and destroy other seemingly barriers. These attitudes are rooted in what is happening in the Western world through their culture. The growth of capitalism and scientific technology saw the complete collapse of the old system. The elements of culture, or the ideas and beliefs of the world, were redefined and transformed into a new system with which a new institutional system emerged. Thinkers who see and understand this critical past break are frustrated by it.
They have expressed it in various terms such as: Gemeinschaft and
Gesellschaft, mechanical and organic solidarity, culture and civilization,
traditional authority and administration, sacred and national organizations,
rank and class, and so on. Modern social science has inherited these. It has
evolved and made the world as an invisible concept that works in all societies,
as in the case of Talcott Parsons ’Pattern Variables & dquo; (Habermas,
1970). Men like Max Weber had to understand the separation of culture as a
unique and special process, such as the reflection of the past in the
double-edged thought of common sense. Overwhelmed by its inevitability, they
waited for its action with great skepticism. With the subsequent spread of
objective prudence and technical knowledge, those transit routes have been
forgotten. With the fall of the colonial powers, the interest in modernization
of Third World societies grew. Many Western scholars simply refer to a detailed
system for breaking away from the Western culture.
The widespread Western view now encourages the use of culture as a tool
to destroy itself. Technology systems combine such considerations into policies
and attempts to use culture to deceive the masses into modern ones. In India,
for example, Western-minded intellectuals share this enthusiasm for modernization.
At the same time, they have a distinct view of their culture. Western scholars,
many of whom were missionaries or colonial rulers, had begun studying Indian
culture long before the advent of post-colonial technology. They are fascinated
by the teachings of Hindu philosophy and are fascinated by social norms. They
criticized the practice, the superstition and the social authorities and could
not understand its relationship to the philosophy they were learning. These
attitudes, as well as those of post-colonial social science, had a strange
effect on Indian intellectuals. First, as servants of the raj, they had to act
as mediators of a foreign power and forgive the people and themselves.
As the state was determined to bring about major changes in public
order, in order to accommodate the interests of the big city, uncooperative
intellectuals had to make excuses for themselves, excuse themselves and make
them legitimate. To achieve this and to conform to the emperor's view of their
culture, they have developed a historical perspective. It portrayed the social
life of the Vedic Aryan as pure, innocent and happy and said that as a result
it had a tolerant, all-encompassing, universal vision. Such a view of the world
was given as a result of the subsequent unification of paganism that resulted
from the conquered and conquered Aryan tribes. These practices included human
sacrifice, state art, idolatry, and the occult. The conquered tribes, it was
disputed, were not destroyed or enslaved, but were deemed humanely as inferior
(Bedekar, 1969). This idea allowed young intellectuals to be proud of their
culture and to promote radical social change at the same time.
In the subsequent liberation struggle and the establishment of a
post-independence political system, this theory seemed equally important (Lele,
1978). These ideas have traditionally contributed to understanding the movement
of buckets. Indian and Western intellectuals have long ignored bhakti. To them
it is not a fundamental teaching of Indian philosophy (Dhavamony, 1971). They
see bhakti as a form of devotion, especially the most developed and most
prominently performed by the lower classes: shudras and women. Only the elite
who can understand the cunning of Vedic philosophy can see the fulfillment of its
message. That message, that the world is a deception (maya) and that reality is
in the unity of one person or person (atman) and the essence of all that exists
(brahman) is worth considering. It is discussed, discussed and evaluated in
cleverly purified discussions. It refuses to attend anything that may turn out
to be a devotional, or worshipful deity. Ironically, the bhakti was a clear
rebellion against this indirect view which raised the dual existence of those
who opposed abortion and those who practiced irrational rituals. Unbeknownst to
them, modern intellectuals are ready to dismiss it as part of the latest, just
as some of them proclaim the futility of Indian invisible philosophy and modern
works. No longer trapped between foreign rulers and their people, the
intellectuals of the day in India could boast or despise their culture of their
own free will and still claim the right to stand above the masses, to control
them and to try to change what the common man is a living culture (Rege, 1978).
Although the modernization of this concept is not in the minds of the authors of this collection, they take a culturally mature view with buckets. Ishwaran, Zelliot and Gokhale-Turner explicitly refer to modern bhakti-related models. Ishwaran identifies two past stages of ethnocentrism and truth in modern theory and hopes for the emergence of a third category of enduring models. He cites Lingayatism as one such model because it depends, in his view, on the universal values of freedom, equality and consideration that must be pursued within a cohesive society. He analyzes Basavanna's philosophy and practice and shows how these values are openly or indirectly distributed. Ishwaran's analysis raises many questions. For example, what is the general trend of rising, falling and re-stabilizing universal values? Why did they come to find a unique manifestation in the preaching and practice of Virasaivism? Ishwaran speaks of a period of decline followed by a revival in the 19th century. We wonder why we went down. We also wonder how the renewal was affected by the forces that initially caused the decline. What other social forces were associated with the revival? Moreover, since the current internal practice of the Lingayats, it is thought, is still guided by these universal values, what is the relationship of the modern Lingayats with the surrounding, co-operative world? How will the pursuit of these principles by the Ll’ngqyots turn from the existence of the area to the real global practice of the whole community? These are not idle questions.
Their goal is to suggest that the Basavanna revolutionary power should not be viewed as a threat, one of incomparable wisdom. In fact, it was a unique moment in the ongoing transition to Indian culture. Only as a separate event can be associated with bhakti. Claims that they share the same force can be rejected and thus alone can be shown to be appropriate as a reform movement. Ishwaran is focused on its planned operation and its public vision. He says such an organization alone brings tangible results. It leads to lasting change in the social system. From this you come to the conclusion that the bhakti movement simply reinforces the ancient order and made it attractive while the planned rebellion of Basava produced a permanent model for imitating the universe. This is a prominent, effective argument. It goes from the result to the source and gets it according to the terms set by the result itself. Creates unanswered questions within the limits of such a framework; the questions I gave the sample in the last section. As Nemade points out in his article, the organization's choice and its role in the uprising may be determined by the social status of the participants. Ishwaran does not tell us what impact the previous social position of Lingayatism followers had on its operation.
Perhaps we can find clues to this in the recent revival of Lingayatism.
James Manor states that, for example, in 1945, the Lingayats — a group based in
Bombay Karnataka — had ousted the statistically and economically weak Brahmans
from almost every position in the Congress which was the only significant
political power there (Manor, 1979, p. 189). If this is the case, then the
revival of Lingayatism may seem to fit the pattern of national re-enactment of
the middle-class rural region on the eve of independence (Lele, 1980). The
creative momentum, critical after Virasaivism is unquestionable. Its functional
classification as a modern model raises questions. Attempts to seek direct
advice that apply to Basavanna or Nanak on modern-day sedition will have dire consequences
such as the blind imitation of the peaceful withdrawal and political
indifference of the Warkaris. Ishwaran's understanding of the global values
disseminated by Basavanna, for us, is an important start - as long as we are
willing to set aside the excluded, divisive structures of the year of social
stability. Instead, we should try to re-invent the dynamics of the dynamics of
these values of Indian culture as a whole. Their specific manifestations of
theory and practice should be placed in that context. Some recent scholarships
may be helpful.
0 Comments