Ishwa helper Reged: 03/03/02 Posts: 553

Re: Meaning and significance of Siva [Re: willie] #17094 - 06/05/02 04:28 AM Edit Reply Quote

It's a huge mistake, Willie, to supplant European tendencies to India. In India, something like Jihad or Inquisition wasn't known prior to the coming of prophetic religions. They knew many philosophical debates. They were even held officially with mostly kings as referees. After losing to AdiShankara, Mandana Mishra became his foremost pupil. After defeating Buddhist philosophers, Buddhism was still practised in India, because Buddhism was very much part of Hinduism. India has known from very ancient times many movements and cults. Though there were debates, everyone could move freely. The power of Hinduism has always been to absorb. This very simple, peaceful but powerful force of Hinduism is the rootcause for exclusive movements, especially for the prophetic ones, to see Hinduism as a 'danger' for their own existence. While Hinduism has a natural tendency to absorb and harmonize, many non-Hindu movements want to exclude, excel and even exterminate. About post-Vedic scriptures New movements and scriptures don't have anything to do with a Brahman giving this world up. It has to do with people rewriting older basical ideas and rituals to serve the purpose of their times (and creators). The Quran is based on Torah and NT material. The NT is grown out of the OT traditions and Graeco-Roman material with Indo-Persian Mitraism. Everytime it's that older ideas survive in new shapes, with new emotional outlet, with new political or social settings, etc. The works are a combination of a reinterpretation of older ideas and a reflection of contemporary ideas. About modern time Where are the modern works? You should better ask, where is the modern necessity to write them? No one wants to listen or read, no one takes the time to listen to themselves. This is the MTV and CocaCola flash time, wherein people just don't want to have a time out till they get a heartattack, an accident or a crisis. Older philosophies used to be recitated or sung, interwoven with traditional accounts in a very vivid way. The senses were entertained and massaged, and the inner sense was awakened. That takes time. Today the entertaining part is split in many media forms, and is almost completely split from the spiritual part. As the senses are split, they are also out of balance: the inner senses are so dull and the outer so extreme that they need extraordinary stimulation to get in balance again. There are modern works, but they fulfil the needs of people especially outside India, whether Indian or not: Some like Deepak Chopra, others Mansukh Patel. There are pupils in the tradition of Svami Shivananda, etc. The difficulty is not in a modern work or modern teacher, but in the modern attitude. Spirituality needs time and deep (self)reflection. Things that modern people seems to have forgotten. They want instant spirituality instantly. The irony is that people need spirituality, but don't want to spend time and efforts to be spiritual in practice. Some even are ashamed to be openly a spiritual person, others do terrific pr to get a spiritual designation, etc.