Here, sight is believed. It is a temporary
suspension of disbelief in the life Eros has been removed from. In it are still
inscribed the fundamental demands of freedom, truth and justice, which emerge
over a pleasurable temporary experience. Hawley points out in his article why
one should listen to these signs and habits, and not just criticize. What
appears to the modern man who does not condemn the act of irrational behavior
of an unthinking crowd contains within it a sense of the complexity of life and
the purpose of overcoming it. The modern man separates himself from this idea
by using his own elitism of his own. O’Connell follows Ricoeur’s advice to
listen even more clearly. Following W. C. Smith, puts the title of the person
in the center of his examination. Therefore, his concern for what he calls the
preconceptual symbols, or special symbol of everyday life, is quotidian. You
get a little discussion of the liberation experience in the conceptual
representation of Gaudlya Vaishnavas’s philosophical concepts, though it
encompasses the whole gamut of language, prayer, story and touch in the daily
work of ordinary haisnavas. O’Connell points to the social aspect of these
symbols in their dual structure of compliance and the pursuit of humility.
Although structural coherence points to the need
for the distribution of meanings between topics, such definitions should, at
the same time, remain focused on everyday information, that is, of necessity,
which is fundamental. Therefore, the poetic poems he analyzes simultaneously
transmit information and make a complaint. They bring to the attention a
fundamental quality of all verbal actions (Searle, 1969). They clearly combine
the real awareness of purpose, the fullness of the material events of life, and
the fictional feeling of possible transcendence. Praying for deliverance is
also a personal dedication, or immersion. It starts with self-deprecation, is
done in public, and ends with the experience of liberation. The publicity of
this action is astonishing. It is performed before and directed at the divine
Vaisnavas community. Therefore, the liquification of self, of some kind, comes
into the community and involves the great mercy (krupa) of the
Vaisnavas. This is a common theme in all bhakti books. One always wants to
reach out to the bacterium community where the reality of everyday social
relationships is compared. Sacrifice, therefore, symbolizes the focus of the
ego in all its social manifestations of lust, greed, anger, hypocrisy, lies,
and confusion. The community of saints is characterized by compassion,
kindness, mercy and truth. The potential community is evident in the lives of
the saints. To them when someone asks for release. When a begging poet
describes himself as deena (heena) and heena (heena), he is stating that his
grief or oppression is the basis of his disability. It is a symbol of the
dalits, the oppressed who are freed from the unhappiness of samsara, quotidian.
The lust for pleasure in this world of deception and hypocrisy is condemned
because it is untrue. The lust for beauty has disappeared from it only to find
itself revived, apparently, in playful child-god eros. Since the community of
saints is the only possible community, it is not surprising that for poets
pleading for the worst crime ever committed on haisnavas.
O'Connell and I do not suggest that today's
Gaudiya Vaisnavas actually constitutes a potentially fleshly society. And they
themselves do not believe this to be so. With current practice, eliminating
public suspicion of self-centered focus is nothing more than calming down. It
does not have an instant messaging message. But the truth of that message stays
with us. If liberation will be in the realm of the true Vaisnavas, then human
liberation cannot come without the liberation of all. To reach this conclusion,
it is not enough to listen to Vaisnava - they must also learn to blame their
symptoms. The general existence of the common man and the limitless thought of
the human mind is a paradox where the title of the Hospital gives special attention.
The uniqueness of daily life and the reality of the stressful, divisive life is
constantly mentioned in bhakti poems.
That's where the truth of his statement is. We
hear of a life of deceit, hypocrisy and senseless exhaustion (sranti) in which
the true passions have disappeared. Bakhakta reappears only in the beauty and
deeds of Krishna, the god of the child. The hospital analyzes the apparent
brightness and conflict in Krishnakarnamrita. Focusing on lila, a playful
child, reminds us of Marx's thinking on Greek art (1973, p. 111). A man will
never be a child again or become a child. But does he not find happiness in a
child's childhood, and should he not strive to produce its truth at the highest
level? Is the real character of each age not living in the story of its
children? Why shouldn't the history of human childhood, its glorious
occurrence, as a never-ending stage, reflect the eternal charm? There are
unruly children and teenagers. Most adults are under this category.
The Greeks were ordinary children ... The
children's god of bhakti poetry is both a common child and a symbol of human
childhood. In the language of daily life he is a sinner, but as a sinful god he
restores the truth and the eros of the simple, normal life-style, which is
symbolic of sin and hypocrisy associated with social order. The subtle
restoration, by comparing the poetic comparisons of the self-satisfied will
denied by the ruling mind of organized social order (Marcuse, 1966), probably
achieves nothing but a temporary liberation from evil. It may be the only
practical way to create an emotional state of witchcraft, happiness and random
devotion. However, the continuation of the sinner-god myth suggests something
more than that in the hospital. It raises a growing distance between concise,
unmistakable philosophical approaches to moksa and bhakti. I wonder if we
are seeing in this transition a movement towards diversity driven by ideologies
of high and low culture. The hospital seeks assistance with Mary Douglas's
analysis of the sign structure to assess discrepancies between the central
structure and the distinctive signs. He goes on a step further to suggest that
different symbols may have the function not only of creative input or
anti-structural elements, but may, at times, be opposing structures that seek
to alter, replace or deny, and pass the central structure. This leads him to
re-interpret the myth of Bali in Kerala. The hospital does not consider it
necessary to link the vision of Bali with the rise of sacrificial monarchy in
the transformation of non-class-to-class societies. He interprets the power of
Bali as a nostalgic myth. Nostalgia, in this case, belongs to a society free of
lies, cheating, theft, and sudden death. As the celebration of Onam as the
return of the myth of Bali to its people, the mystery of what is real and power
is redefined.
Bali stands here as a symbol of both the nobility
and the naivete, and Vamana represents cunning (Bedekar, 1967). And yet, in the
official version of the myth, Bali is transformed into a powerful demonic king
and Vamana becomes the hero of the threatened gods (Jaiswal, 1967). Analysis of
this feature requires more detailed listening and criticism work outside the
scope of this introduction. Namboodripad's delicate version of the fairy tale
is an example of this work. To him, the people of Bali have been waiting,
beyond this myth, to finally achieve the potential society. The potential and
real problem of society is seen as a conflict between natural and inherited
work in Kinsley's article. The difference presented is like the bhakti
translation itself. At Kinsley, Gita operates under the public obligation and
the official roles and responsibilities of the division. It demands that the
bhakta perform social functions and elevate the earth as a sacrifice to Vishnu
and make daily life a religious tradition. This is, indeed, a translation of
the Gita as found in the Brahmanic texts. When dharma is understood in this
way, it speaks only as a stressful moment, as a work in which the joy of work
is stolen.
If we examine Kinsley’s view of natural activity
little by little, what does wP find as its main spring? When is this work so
compulsory that it requires a state of revolt in accordance with the social
order? It is clear, when we understand the position of women poets in medieval
society, that the problem of jobs is not just between the performance of public
works and their abandonment, but rather the abandonment of that land and those
activities from which it has produced unblemished happiness. completed. Where
can we find this problem that is more likely to occur than in the life of a
young bridesmaid who exchanges for herself in an unknown patriarchal family?
The sadness of the oppressive social practice is probably nowhere clear than this
imprisonment of a young woman in a family that tends to hate. A sympathetic
woman, under conditions of oppression, sees the god as another place for her
husband, I think, not as the first as a separate object, but rather as a strong
denial of the person the husband is not. but it should. The conflict
between the two potential kings: god and husband, is not a question of choice
between options. For example, O'Connell's Gaudiya Vaisnavas, the god of them is
a unique king because he is looking forward to an independent and equitable
relationship with his servant, beloved or baker. The husband of the world
symbolizes seduction, imprisonment, the oppressive reality of family life,
while the god as a man or a lover symbolizes freedom, liquidity or liberation.
The choice made by Mahadevyakka or Mirabai was not a withdrawal. Their
involvement with the king became a hot topic. It was the culmination of an
unattainable quest for quotidian. They reject oppressive marriage and not
marriage, oppressive sex and not making love. Like Radha, their love for
Krishna transcends the prison gates of official work, false dignity, respect
and forcing oppressive relationships. In order to reconcile the conflict
between natural work and inherited work, Kinsley calls for a rift between
Radha-Krishna and Arjuna-Krishna relations. This contrast cannot contain the
universal bhakti message of both relationships.
In sympathetic female poets, dedication
symbolizes the defeat of the unfamiliar and unrealistic work ethic, as well as
the confirmation of natural work as a real and enjoyable, sensual and enjoyable
work. Love for God is a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection,
a warm fondness or antitype for a romantic relationship. They celebrate the
same aspect of the work that Partha found as true knowledge in a conversation
(samvad) with Krishna. It is not a lesser fact than that of Mahadeviyakka or
Mirabai, whom they find as a provocative organization with the king. Kinsley's
comparison makes sense when we take a closer look at the hegemonic definition
of bhakti. The Gita, described as an uncompromising eirenicon, emerges as an
example of the hegemonic use of bhakti when interpreted as an excuse for
oppressive social order. Suspicious of Gita's message, therefore, Kinsley is
right. Jnanesvar, who I think is suspicious and listens to her at the same
time, re-uses the liberating message of Gita. For him, the Partha-Krishna
relationship is related to the teacher. Their speech is like a lamp that lights
up another lamp. Jnanesvar’s Krishna wants Arjuna to retain his identity and
restore joy and happiness to the work by removing resentment and anger.
The dynamics of gitatataa, says Jnanesvar, are
like the beauty of Siva's beloved: fresh forever. He speaks of the whole
culture, not just Gita. The straightforward jacket of dichotomies of static
structure only limits our ability to capture the dynamics of culture and its
eternal youth.
To me it seems that in every age, bhakti has had
its strong and liberating moments. It is always a critique of oppressive social
order, but it has never been a social order in itself. It remained in danger of
being authorized to be placed in the hands of theologians, and thus it often
became his opposition. Extreme expression of emotional love for God was also
classified as a deviation from the divine. From a legal standpoint, therefore,
it was simply a matter of humiliation or disgrace. Similarly, the message of
the Gita was transformed into the forgiveness of the Brahmanic social order.
The question of the power of cultural change, of its compatibility, should not
be raised in relation to its immediate availability as a modern model. Such
efforts reflect a positive view of modernity and culture. In his highly
regarded article, Klostermaier prefers to remain at this level, and thus avoids
conforming to Western language genres and Indian culture. He embraced the
diversity of heart and understanding, and of the many and chosen people. For
him, Krishna bhakti, like the revolt of many people, was an emotional assertion
over intellect. This is puzzling, considering his view of understanding the
place of knowledge according to Indian culture. My conclusion to his analysis
would be that bhakti, like the revolt of active producers, opposed the monks
and sculptors of their idea. It was a rebellion against the division of the
heart and wisdom because such divisions allowed the legalists, such as
mediators, to turn the symbols of freedom into law. Klostermaier says that
India has a lot to offer Western countries in terms of trade between two types
of underdevelopment: material and religious.
His criticism of early Christianity — by
overruning the European consciousness movement — opens up possible access to
the broader context of the abridgment of reason during critical divisions and
culture. The real source of power in a living culture, such as the Indians, is
revealed in comparison to the Western culture which is divided into two parts.
The Hare-Krishna movement, as long as you are still deeply attached to the
tradition of re-planted by choice, will continue to create animosity. Most
people will treat the achronistic promotion of rural beauty and the unspoken
criticism of modern science as something fashionable. They will have solid,
logical reasons to do so. What Indian culture has to offer in Western lands,
perhaps, is not its cheap imitation, but rather the ability to perpetually
criticize which Western youth will once again find themselves. There is much we
can learn about obedience, as there is from criticism, the Christian message
(Bloch, 1972). Klostermaier is right in believing that Krishna's prowess is
less likely to take over in North America.
In fact, the frenzied rage and rejection of
science and modern society is reminiscent of the Mahanubhava radicalism that
the icon commented on. He makes an important point about the counterproductive
production of countercultures. By revolting against social order without
finding a practical basis for such an act, the Mahanubhavas became easy prey
for the hegemonic invasion. They are forced to hide, to protect themselves. By
their religious practices they were separated, and they were only tolerated as
perverted heretics. Warkari sampradaya also emerged as a serious criticism of
socioreligious order. It challenged the power of the Brahmin religion and
reached the point where it threatened the medieval Brahmin-Kshatriya empire. In
response to Ishwaran's allegations that the lack of order was the cause of
Warkaris' inefficiency, we may point to Nemade's suggestion that it was the
result of mass political instability.
Nemade also discovered the fundamental principles
of Buddhism and Jainism in Warkari poetry. After the two religions failed in
society, due to the occupation of the ruling classes, the poets of
Warkari-saint divided their times into true liberties. Nemade is more cautious
than most other critics of the bhakti of not being able to think and show
crowds to openly rebel under immature social conditions. However, he puts his
case here, and refuses to check the current value of the bucket. He calls it
conservative reformism. A broader effort to explore the modernization of bhakti
should not be limited. It has to come from the concept of vernacular languages
for cultural development. We need to approach him with our whole heart, mind,
and soul. The articles in this series give an indication of the significance of
such determination, although, in my personal opinion, some show a greater
willingness to listen than to criticize, others to rather than to listen. In contrast,
many Indian philosophers and their Western counterparts, in general, have lost
all hearing ability. Where they show the opposite directions, it is to
distinguish the Little Culture from the Great. On the other hand, for the
people of India, the little bhakti tradition associated with it is a way of
life. It is a living tradition. They just listen to it while the wise men are
still suspicious. I hope that this critical introduction and the topics from
which the debate comes will be seen as a starting point for closing that gap.
If the real, noticeable rise towards the attainment of social norms is to unite
the masses, it is unlikely to emerge from the inclusion of symbols of unknown
or dead cultures. Signs of freedom will have to be found internally, by those
who will bear the burden of the act of change. These symbols, though common to
both the abstract philosophy of procreation and the practice of daily ritual,
cannot be traced back to any of these isolated arrangements. That has always
been a bhakti message. That's where modernity lies.
REFERENCES BEDEKAR, D. K., Samaj
Cintan Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1969.
BEDEKAR, D. K., Dharmacintan Pune: Samaj
Prabodhan Sanstha, 1977.
BLOCH, Ernst, Atheism in
Christianity New York: Herder and Herder, 1972.
DHAVAMONY, MARIASUSAI, Love of
God According to Saiva Siddhanta Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.
0 Comments