its good that the West rediscovers its polytheistic heritage and roots. the difference with the religion of Shiva and India though is that its a living religion. The Gods and Goddesses are worshipped by a billion people, they are a presence in the daily lives of people, in the way that the Gods of Greece used to be thousands of years ago. Christianity took over, monotheism prevailed, but that didn't happen in the east
And this is why it is fortunate that Hinduism remains living (well, one of many reasons) - because those of us in the West who are working to revive the pre-Christian European religions are able to shelter with our cousins to the East, and draw from what they have preserved to aid in the resurrection of our own more immediately ancestral spheres that are such close cousins to the Hindu [-C.A.R.]
This Dint happened in the east? FYI The East is full of Monotheism people, Infect there's more Monotheist in the East rather then the West, and Islam is the Leading of it. Dont speak if you dont know anything @Jay Paul.
@@urzirwanomar1962 calm down Urzir Wan Omar. I'm talking about Hinduism which is a living religion full of Gods and Goddesses. Monotheism couldn't replace it, and never will
@@szymonbaranowski8184 nah it is the great 7 sages not steppes . 7 sages are ancestors of all humanity and steppes , all humanity can trace their origins to one of the sages of the 7.
I came after seeing your chat with lord Jive. The way you weave these webs and tie the ancient to the modern is truly great, along with your style and production. Thank you for bringing such content to English speakers. I had to subscribe.
Another marvelous video Michael, I truly loved it! Tragedy is one of the greatest accomplishments of the ancient Greeks and I’m glad you took the time to speak of it in such an elucidating way; connecting it to Hinduism, the hippie movement, the cosmos, eternity, individuality, and death. Bravo!
Thank you very much. Yes, tragedy IS the big thing that came out of Greece, we believe. It's important to understand it however as an expression of a larger "imaginary" that is uniquely Greek. Our other episode, "Limitless" might she some additional light to this, as well as the little snippet I uploaded from my interview with Unregistered a couple of weeks ago.
The “talk back” is actually the Shakti(feminine/creative) or symbolically represented with the ring of fire around Shiva/Void/“that - which is not”). Thank you for helping me understand another side of the ancient Greek Dionysian! Love these conversations on myth & symbol and think more discussion is key for us all.
Thank you for watching. And on that note, the "talk back" that we are referring to is not as much divine as it is human. It's not Shiva's counterpart, the Yin to his Yang so to speak, that does the talking, because in that case, you would have two gods talking among themselves, and no sense of tragedy (the gods are immortal, hence never tragic). It's the ego-consciousness taking back to the eternal recurrence of time.
I think this is one of the best episodes of AGR: You gave a very interesting and explicit explanation of 'the birth of tragedy' putting together into a synthetic approach an entire library of references to it. Bravi!
Thank you. It was indeed special for us somehow. Together with "Limitless" that we did a few months ago, it felt like going back to our roots in a way. So, well spotted!
Thespius: “okay, cool, but what if I don’t want my ego to die?” The Buddha, every-time one pops up: “Oh! Jump in the pool already! The water is fine! Scaredy cat!”
ΤΡΟΜΕΡΟ κανάλι, πραγματικά συγχαρητήρια, οι λήψεις και το editing είναι σε επιπέδο τηλεοπτικού ντοκιμαντέρ και τέλεια αγγλική προφορά για απήχηση σε ευρύτερο κοινό. Πραγματικά σας αξίζουν πολύ περισσότερα views. Οι προγονοί μας θα ήταν περήφανοι. Είδα τα περισσότερα βίντεο σε ένα βράδυ όταν σας ανακάλυψα.
I had not encountered the story of Thespis before; although one thing I would observe - Indo-European religious ritual is often, itself, a dramatic performance; and which features singing and performative actions, a beat and musical accompaniment. Why this is relevant is because these are also often characterized by an individual participant taking on the 'mantle', some of the 'essence' of a particular character from the mythology in their course. This is something that, as I say, often features an individual bearing the essence, taking on the 'role' (in the ritual re-enactment) of a specific figure - rather than part of a generalized 'chorus' (although *that* notion is certainly *also* present - a recent piece of mine looked at a rather .. resonant structure, in fact) It is not hard to see how the Greek approach to drama might have substantively carried forward this tradition - albeit transforming it in a way, so that even though performances of plays *were* often part of a ritual context [I am thinking here in particular of the 'Great Dionysia' of Athens - which goes rather beyond what people might think if we say 'a comedy-writers' competition' , and not least because the God Himself was in attendance watching], there is something rather different in the mechanism of action: The more 'purely' ritualine performance, its mechanism of action is metaphysical - it re-immanentizes out into the world some emanation of the original events, original benefits and outcomes secured via the original participants' mighty (indeed, literally Mythic-caliber) deeds. The 'dramatic' performance, meanwhile, whilst quite potentially still drawing from the aforementioned, has as its prime mechanism of action the direct influencing of the audience. Aristophanes' excellent play The Frogs, for instance - while it *references* the Katabatic journeys of Herakles & Dionysus, and the necessity of 'bringing back the past' and the wisdom of the forebears even (especially!) amidst more contemporary and dire crises ... its primary way to do this is to present to a watching audience, stirring rhetoric and creative conceptual explication through audible means. It wouldn't be nearly so effective at it if there wasn't already a deep and deeply, richly resonant mythic sphere for both playwright and audience to draw from in the course of engaging with the play, of course - but even though it allows people to engage with the mythic in a way (as an audience), it still feels rather different to the more purely 'mythic-participationary' / 'eternal return' style performances (where the 'audience', such as it is, to be influenced - is Reality itself) So, perhaps it might be said that this Thespis character - the innovation he might be regarded as introducing (apparently, in-line with something Aristotle may have recorded around the figure being responsible for adding the Prologos etc.) would be that of speaking to the audience. The human audience, I mean. Paradoxically, therefore, the performance goes from a ritual that is performed for 'eternity', the cosmos (broadly speaking), to one that is (also) for a terrestrial, sidereal, and temporal human audience. Which is, itself, an interesting and not unremarkable movement. Some might say that it would be a trajectory that would eventually bring us heavily de-sacralized if not outright mindless 'entertainment' - Gods turned into "superheroes" played by actors in Marvel films for 'blockbuster' profiteering and record-breaking ticket-sales in lieu of quality let alone accuracy and any hint of the supernal only really present in purloined grandeur and residual mental associations. That's ... perhaps not entirely untrue - but is very definitely seeing only the negative. I would prefer to think of it in entirely different tones & terms - namely, that of making mythic belief far more broadly accessible, bringing another shade of beauty more approachably into the world, and providing a further sphere within which persons may engage with such and hopefully become improved in fairly direct consequence. That is to say - it represents a potent vector for the (re-)enchantment of the world ; even if some unfortunate fashions and scriptwriting in recent times has seemingly sought to misuse it to propel the opposite. [-C.A.R.]
"often features an individual bearing the essence, taking on the 'role' (in the ritual re-enactment) of a specific figure" I think that what was special in the case of Thespis, is that he took the role of the "Human." His point of view was human rather than divine. In a strange sense, he incarnated ... us! "Some might say that it would be a trajectory that would eventually bring us heavily de-sacralized if not outright mindless 'entertainment'" That is what Nietzsche though for sure, and he blamed Socrates for it. In fact, the latter parts of his "Birth of Tragedy" deal with exactly this occurrence. Just as the ego-consciousness had to "stand up to eternity" with Thespis and later Aeschylus, too much chatter, and the demotion of the chorus by Euripides, brought an "over-rationalisation" that led to the disenchantment you spoke of. That is according to Nietzsche of course, and he has a beautiful scene where he imagines Euripides watching a tragedy by his master Aeschylus, not quite getting "why" he feels the depths that he does. He turns around to ask another member of the audience... and there is Socrates! Quite a funny and insightful metaphor. Nietzsche had more humour that his "Bronze Age" supporters give him credit for.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited I have not read the relevant Nietzschean work, but I am interested at the notion of a conflict (of styles and otherwise) between Euripides and Aeschylus being played out therein. Because that's exactly the substance of the Agon in Aristophanes' The Frogs (a play which I quoted a segment or two from in the course of our on-air conversation, if memory serves). It's actually a really interesting examination of .. well .. not only the dramatic styles, but everything bound up in such. Euripides has this reputation (justly) as a great innovator, and then Aeschylus starts pointing out (with the aid of a little bottle of oil [Lekythion]) how it appears the former's works are surprisingly formulaic - it turns the thing upon its head ! I could rant about this at some length, but I think that I'll let Dionysus do the talking. Or, at least, Aristophanes' presentation of Dionysus (in English translation) at the conclusion of the Agon : "By Zeus the Savior, I can't decide. For one has spoken cleverly, and the other one clearly." And, further - "They are my friends, and I won't judge them. For I will not be on hostile terms with either one. One I consider clever, the other I enjoy." Eventually, Dionysus does indeed declare Aeschylus to have beaten Euripides (and in a further shot, Aeschylus has Sophocles keep his throne warm while he's up in the world of the living saving Athens - so Euripides cannot claim it even inadvertently); and I think that's .. well, that's it - Euripides is presented as 'too clever' and even outright obfuscationary; Aeschylus' verses as being 'clear' - at least in terms of their spirit, and certainly (indeed, apparently semi-literally) more 'weighty' in measure. Although ultimately, it may well come down to the 'values' found in the work of either - and their potential lessons for the Athenian polis of the day (then in the darkest period of the Peloponnesian War). Interestingly, Aristophanes also invokes Socrates during the course of this Agon in .. not entirely complimentary terms. [-C.A.R.]
@@AryaAkasha I think there was a self-awareness of what led Athens to its downfall. The ancient theatre reflected the whole culture. Don't forget that in ancient Sparta, a poet was legally fined for adding a string to his hard, thus breaking the tradition. Given that, think of how films changed during the 1960s to reflect the Liberal values that we now see in its utter extreme. The ancients were not so naive as to think this was "mere entertainment."
Lord shiva is not only the god of dance Shiva is also protector of all flora and fauna Shiva is also the god of death God of yoga and spirituality God of everything that cant b observed by 5 scences
The original Dionysus, Zagreus, was son of the Sky God and Underworld Goddess. He played with Zeus's lightning bolts as a baby. There are always depths; or, rather, more surfaces.
I came of age in the 60's, but never did I embrace the eastern imagery. Shiva was part of the mythology of a very alien culture and way of understanding things. At the time I was a Canadian and Shiva never spoke to me in the same way as Dionysus. I entered college as a fine arts major and this was what introduced me to the Greek plays. These were stories to which I could, and still do, relate. These were stories of passions and realities upon which fate played her games. I spent two years hitch hiking and living on the road, before settling down and completing a degree in the sciences. The nature of man, as I see it, is far closer the Greek understanding of Dionysus than it is of Shiva. In my living room I have a bust of Appolo and of Dionysus reminding me daily of this fact, but then, I am a westerner.
Thank you for sharing. A great life story indeed. And yes, I agree with you (although I may be a little more biased), Greek stories have something that ochres do not. A more direct connection with being, if I may say so...
"It is very common for people who are not from india to be unfamiliar with Shiva.".. There is no comparison between the vague, primitive idea of Dionysus and the highly structured intellectual and philosophical framework of Shiva (consciousness) described through its vast literature and practices called Tantra in Kashmiri Shaivism a sect in Hindusism. In comparison, Dionysus, while rich in symbolic meaning within the Greek context, primarily represents themes of fertility, nature, and the breaking of societal norms. The intellectual depth and the systematic approach found in the philosophical doctrines of Kashmir Shaivism make it a highly advanced spiritual tradition, distinct from the more mythological and symbolic representations of figures like Dionysus in Greek mythology. Thus, drawing a comparison between the two is challenging, as Shiva in Kashmir Shaivism embodies an advanced metaphysical and spiritual concept, while Dionysus is more of a cultural and religious figure with different connotations.
A further point of perhaps interest - one understanding prominent in Hinduism is the notion of the universe (and all that goes on therein) as the Divine Play. With Lord Shiva & His Wife as the lead actor & actress, but also producers, scriptwriters, directors, set-designers, etc. etc. engaged therein. The Universe is referred to as Divya Abhinaya-Mantapa - the Divine (Divya) Theatrical-Performance/Expression (Abhinaya) Hall or Pavillion (Mantapa). Shakespeare was, it should seem, quite onto something when he proclaimed in 'As You Like It', "All the world's a stage ..." The drama carried out therein, one way it is referred to is as Nataka ( नाटक ) [and the 'Nata' (नाट) is the same term as that in 'Nataraja' - 'Dance' and 'Drama' being heavily entertwined concepts, just as they were in parts of the Greek dramatic sphere]. An example for this can be easily found in the prominent Devi Hymnal - the Mahishasura Mardini Stotram ['Hymn of the Vanquisher of the Buffalo-Demon']: नटित नटार्ध नटी नट नायक नाटितनाट्य सुगानरते Nattita Natta-Ardha Nattii Natta Naayaka Naattita-Naattya Su-Gaana-Rate Acting/Dancing (Nattita) [as] Half (Ardha) the Actor/Dancer (Nata), Actress (Nati) [and] Actor (Nata) [are the] Protagonist/Lead (Nayaka) [of the] Act/Drama (Naattita) [being] Performed (Naattya), Delighting In / Engrossed In (Rate) the Beautiful (Su-) Song / Performance (Gaana). Interestingly, there *appears* to be a somewhat direct Nordic cognate understanding - although there, while it is a 'play', it should seem more that it is a 'game' - with the universe standing for a board, and playing-pieces moved about thereupon via Divine Hands [per the remarks in the Voluspa inferentially upon the subject]. Now why i mention all of this is because that's part of the thing when it comes to the entirely understandable sentiments pertaining to death etc. - going 'behind the curtain', indeed. The drama is not so rich if there is not that peril and the emotional timbre of fear induced via the suggestion of a permanent ending. At least, for many people - it can certainly be argued the other way, that overcoming such enables *truly* heroic action. Indeed, truly heroic action that therefore overcomes permanent ending is quite literally the meaning of that justifiably (indeed, literally) famous phrase: 'Kleos Aphthiton' [seen also via its Sanskrit cognate, in the RigVeda: Sravas Aksitam ] Live well enough, and your story attains the immortality that your physical form cannot. So long after the latter is only dust, the former yet still lives on. But the point is - if it's all a Play, if it's all a dramatic act or a rather enthusiastically embraced recreational game ... then yes, it is easier to 'not take it so seriously', in the end. Although that's *only* 'in the end' - prior to reaching that point, whilst 'life' is still 'alive', and a 'live occurrence' , taking it seriously is very much recommended. It's just that the fact it's a Play (in either sense of the modern word) means one should also endeavour to live with a certain sense of spectacle ... and also never forget to have some *fun* with it, too. [-C.A.R.]
Another genius video well done! and just like your first Dionysus video this one speaks to me: I spent many years chasing the enlightenment of the Indian spiritual traditions, but recently I have come to think that enlightenment does not exist (at least in the way Westerners assume it exists), because our modern Western ego identities take up much more psychic energy than the enlightenment frameworks can hold. In pre-globalised India there was much more balance between the ego and the unconscious, therefore the representations of enlightenment were far more appropriate.
"because our modern Western ego identities take up much more psychic energy than the enlightenment frameworks can hold." I think you've hit the nail on head. Bravo!
I've often felt this way when confronted with eternity. I have felt and experienced this tragedy, and I contemplate it often. We are told that our individual consciousness is like a ray of light from Shiva, who is like the Sun. In this way, we are truly eternal outside the perspective of our individuality. Yet temporally, we will and must experience this crushing defeat called death. I think we can and should experience both sadness and joy at this realization. It should also drive us to transcend ourselves.
Alain Daniélou argues in his book Gods of Love and Ecstasy that Dionysos, meaning the Gof of Nysa is an adaptation of Siva, and they're thus identical.
You're describing an experience I had, after chanting The Jesus Prayer for some hours. I felt like I was literally outside of myself, sort of above and behind, but, at the same time, I think, I never left the body. Something happened, on a spiritual level, with the locus of the "I". This mind-body mechanism continued to go about its business, like the whole thing was just a movie playing out; a river of celluloid passing under a lamp and a lens. The biological and cultural programing was all "I" had to work with, so to speak. But what had been a more rigid constellation of associations, between points of light, seemed to shatter, like ice crystals, then, to melt and pool and resurrect. While it was the same constellation as before, somehow, it was not so confining to me as it had been. As with the body, I seemed to overlook the connections in my own mind's experience, so that every point of data was now directly related to every other point; or, at any rate, if I could not anticipate every relation, nonetheless, I was poignantly impressed with the sense of my mental apparatus as a unity, in which the available information would surface, or find its way, through chain reactions; it was only a matter of time. The process could not be accelerated; but, at this point, it could be recognized; accepted. No longer was I so personally identified with those chemical and metaphysical reactions, like a pinball in my own mind, but, rather, I dispassionately "knew what I knew". My assumptions were all provisional, and I knew (i.e. assumed) that they did not need to be more, or other, than they were, in fact. The only possible associations between ideas were still just taking place, automatically, including doubts, reconfigurations, and deconstructions; as this "I" was felt by the body to be nothing but an eavesdropper, or a witness; more of an Eye, than an I. Everything happened with preternatural spontaneity. The body prepared tea, sat down, and sipped from it. The mind, or brain, was sort of vainly struggling to make sense of what had happened; to classify the experience, and identify with it, but none of the mental operations were "sticking". They just sort of broke up and floated off like smoke. After a while, the brain was speculating that "I" was a guardian angel or maybe just a light of awareness, overlooking this eternal river of mud. At the same time, it seemed plain that there was nothing else. Reality was fully present and there was nothing to compare with present reality, so there was no resistance or impatience; just a matter of fact awareness that it was all one thing; a sequence or stream in which "not one tittle of the law could be skipped", or overstepped. This person, whose life was the only life I had, at present, had no practical choice but to play out his karma/dharma, under the ever watchful eye of consciousness. Even if he/I became enlightened, there would still be nowhere else to go, nothing to discover, realize, transcend, or escape. All of that is it. This is it. This is the only world. Right here. Hello. Nothing is more spiritual than what is now, and your spiritual progress, so called, has nothing to do with you. We attach labels and invent distinctions but, ultimately, it's just this; I mean, that attaching was it, all along. A game to occupy the mind. As the ego is an identity for the light of awareness to occupy, inhabit, inherit, or receive as grace from God. It - He - can't do anything else but be Itself - Himself, like we can't; it is what it is. Sometimes I like to call it This. We may speak conveniently of "the other side", but, when we get "there", we do not call it "the other side"; rather, we will continue to say, just as we always have, "We are in this world", just as we shall always be. Amid reflections of this type, something clicked or reconnected; I seemed to decide that it was better to embrace this experience, since it was going to happen regardless, - it was the literal word and will of God, - and since it would be more interesting to surrender to the current; or allow myself to become reinvested with the journey. Since that day, I've been measurably much less anxious, more present, authentic, honest, confident, and courageous. I can date so many changes to that point. Another breakthrough, was fasting on water and electrolytes; specifically, potassium chloride and sodium chloride [SEE: "snake juice", or "snake diet"], and a generally low-carb, high-protein, high-fiber diet. That's my story, until it changes! 🙏 'NEAR IS AND DIFFICULT TO GRASP THE GOD' ~ Friedrich Hölderlin
Wow! It sounds like a truly mystical experience. The thing is, as Allan Watts used to say when lecturing on the history of "mystical experiences," that despite being considered "weird" by the mainstream, these experiences, in the context of human history, as (Watt's words) "as common as measles." I've had experiences like those, but strangle, I never felt they could be described by "ego-death" or "accepting the Now" or anything like that. They were very much focused on Beauty and the Erotic. But I guess that God reveals himself in different ways. Or rather, we have different ways of relating these revelations.
Yahoo - According to tradition, in 534 or 535 BC, Thespis astounded audiences by leaping on to the back of a wooden cart and reciting poetry as if he were the characters whose lines he was reading. In doing so he became the world's first actor, and it is from him that we get the world thespian.
This reminds me of Ramakrishna And how he lives in both Worlds of Brahman and Samsara, choosing to see Samsara as a manifestation of Brahman and even God Herself(when this association is made, it is no longer Samsara, but Maya)
Correct. But from those who point at Hindu ideas today, most have no feeling for the tragic. I’m not including you, because I don’t know your thoughts, but mostly, the people who are “into” Eastern philosophy understand it as a “happy pill” that tells them that “it’s all going to be ok in the end.” We have to ask why those Greeks cried in front of the tragic poems they heard yearly in their great theaters. Did they not read enough Osho, perhaps? :-)
@@AncientGreeceRevisited yeah, the Eastern Happy Pill is a clear sign of Orientalism, a kind of false categorization and defining power that wishes to seize the "Eastern" into this happy go lucky chamber. The Happy is but one small aspect, if anything But usually, what people mean by the Eastern is either Middle Eastern or India, not the Far-East of China And even when they do so, they do with an Indian lens ZhuangZi, a "Daoist" or so we like to define him as for the sake of easier understanding, did not cry at his wife's death, not because he thought that it would be fine in the end, but because his tears have run dry and squeezed out to the brim. It's utter insanity or madness even
You can research on Indo Greek religions and Indo Greek Kingdoms. Here are some links en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek_religions en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek_Kingdom
Sir when you mention the first Greek encounters with Shiva, do you have a reference? Was it when Alexander invaded? I know afterwards there was an Indo-Hellenic culture for a while in the north west of India. There's a statue in India with a reference to Hercules
Yes, plenty of references indeed. Strabo, the great geographer speaks of an "Indian Dionysus" as mentioned by Megasthenes, and relating to the "mountain worshipers" (Shivaists). In his Geographica (Strab. 15.1.58) he wrote: "Speaking of the philosophers, he [Megasthenes] says, that those who inhabit the mountains are worshippers of Bacchus, and show as a proof (of the god having come among them) the wild vine, which grows in their country only; the ivy, the laurel, the myrtle, the box-tree, and other evergreens, none of which are found beyond the Euphrates, except a few in parks, which are only preserved with great care." You can find more information here: www.jstor.org/stable/1062337 or in Alain Daniélou's classic "Gods of Love and Ecstasy: The Traditions of Shiva and Dionysus" (g.co/kgs/SjLQ9F). I would take the latter with "a grain of salt" as the English say. It's highly politicised in relation to various counter-culture movements, but still a good resource for further reading.
To quote myself on the subject: "These incredibly strong resonances were recognized by the Greeks themselves - and there is a justly famed episode from the conquests of Alexander the Great wherein a certain city, identified by the Greeks as ‘Nysa’, was spared from the sword due to its proclaimed association with (indeed, its founding by) Dionysus. This ‘Nysa’ was situated in what was, in those days, still Hindu country in modern Afghanistan. Interestingly for our purposes, part of the ‘identification’ made by the Greeks was that the “Meru” that Nysa was supposed to be near to, was broadly commensurate with the ‘Meron’ which in Greek meant ‘Thigh’. Thus making for a perhaps unexpected linkage of the Indo-Aryan Axis-Mundi with the more standard Classical origin-story for Dionysus, featuring His emanation from a Great God’s thigh. The latter of which was said by the Greeks to have taken place in a locale called ‘Nysa’, connected in the folk-understanding of the time with the concept of the Tree [perhaps even the World Tree - another well-known Axis Mundi expression of the Indo-Europeans which would correlate with ‘Meru’]. It is often said by academics looking backwards upon the account with benefit of hindsight and comparative analysis that the city in question was most likely a Shaivite one - perhaps the ‘Nysa’ may have been ‘Naishada’ [‘Hunter’ - a well-known quality of Rudra; ‘Zagreus’, a prominent epithet of Dionysus, is similar in its ambit of meaning]. Of further interest for our purposes is an intriguing set of references in both Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Bibliotheca and Strabo’s Geography to Dionysus in India in relation to ‘Pillars’. In the former case, wandering India personally setting up these structures; in the latter, said ‘pillars’ only being found where the “Dionysus” as the Macedonians knew Him was venerated (or, to be sure, where Herakles was hailed, also). And there is an obvious explanation for this - to be found in the form of the ‘Pillars’ made active use of even today in Shaivite worship: the ShivLings and other assorted Lingams, some of which are of truly tremendous proportion. So, of course, ‘Pillars’ either set up by the God in question, or by those who worship this God, is exactly what we should expect. Both in the Classical commentary, and of course in the actual Indian Hindu lived practice of the time. And subsequent. For it can be fairly said, I think, that Dionysus - as with the rest of the Indo-European Pantheon - still Lives There Loudly. " aryaakasha.com/2020/09/29/on-the-indo-european-interpretatio-of-dionysus-a-roaring-exaltation-of-the-sky-father-comparatively-considered/ [-C.A.R.]
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Speaking of politics, hippies mostly were Corporation Counter-Culture and Hindu religion and writings were pushed by the schools, the colleges, the status quo. "Going to India to find yourself" became a joke, in time.
its said in various ancient texts, and mainly, in Dionysiaka, through records and finally proven, that when Dionysos reached India, thousands of years before Alexander, the residents, Indians, adapted him as their deity, and named him Shiva, so did the Egyptians, before he reached India, Dionysos set to Egypt for a while, there, the Egyptians adapted him to ''Osiris''
In hinduism 'Talk back' is your act of living and life itself. In kashmiri shivism your life is like a canvas that shiva paint on. You create a beautiful picture out of your life.
The problem in what you say is what you mean by "you?" Are you an ego-consciousness of simply the canvas on which Shiva paints? What I have tried to explain is that in Shivaism, it's the latter that is constantly privileged, and as the West, in its decline, has become spiritually "orientalised," it has adopted some of these ideas in various forms. Which is why a lot of "gurus" today speak about surpassing your Ego, dissolving into the greater universe etc. In ancient Greek tragedy you have the ego-consciousness standing next to Shiva-consciousness in dialogue, and that is unique as far as I can tell.
@@Captain_Sosuke_Aizen What I mean is reaching a point where both are held in equal pedestals. Both the egoic-consciousness and the "oceanic" Shiva consciousness. Not privileding one for the other. Just to give you an example, when I sent this video to a friend of mine, who is deep into "New-New Age" spirituality (which definitely privileges the latter), he said "Great video, but what's more interesting is when you realise that both the "actor" (Ego) and the troupe of dancers (Universe) are ONE." And I though.. man, what a clever way your ego has devised for you NOT to understand my point. Because if you insist they are both one, you demote the Ego. The Ego does NOT think that it's one with the universe, and does not WANT to be one. Because becoming one is literally what we call "death." The Ego does not want to die, and hence, it does not want to dissolve into God. The Indian view, in my understanding, is to educate oneself into letting go of this egoic desire, "massaging" the ego into a state of relinquishing its claims on the Self. What I am also saying is that Greeks though differently, and had a respect for the Ego as that which makes us most human. And the Greeks were nothing if not humanists. At the end of Blade Runner you have the now famous "tears in rain" scene, where the android, having lived its 4 years has just acquired emotions, just when its about to die. It's desire, as it stated very clearly in an earlier scene was "LIFE." But life is not a quantitative phenomenon. One who lives more does not necessarily live better. It's only when mere existence is apprehended as an aesthetic phenomenon that it becomes life proper, even if for an instance before death. That is the essence of Greek tragedy. The android in Blade Runner - in true Greek fashion - gets what he wants but not in the way that it want it. It gets life by becoming able to die (machines do not die, they expire) and then... it dies. I hope that is clear(er).
It's not far. But what we are suggesting is to question "who is that YOU who cannot escape?" Surely it's not the part that has been identified with the divine in nearly all religions of this world. Because that part is actually the author of that destiny. It's the part that think it CAN escape, and thinks it is merely suffering this destiny. The two came in dialogue in the great tragedies like in no other place in history.
Of course every ancient civilization of the World had its deep rooted cultural aspects and mythologies with slight differences in ideologies. It's very tragic how the West had neglected their own roots and focused on conquering and colonizing countries and exploiting them vehemently. It became the need of the time (in 1900s) to spread the ancient knowledge against this imperial force. So the East spread what was known to them and close to them: the Eastern Mysticism. The tragic is that the West got overwhelmed!
If we take into account Atlantis, which existed almost twelve thousand years ago, it becomes the oldest known civilization of the world. Then, it's no wonder that Shiva derived from Dionysus, since the oldest findings of the Hindu pantheon are about five to six thousand years old.
I feel archaic Greece gods/goddesses, as well as philosophers like Heraclitus and the Homeric tales are just as good as any eastern mysticism. It irritating so many westerners think all of western thought is, is either some Christian theology which is also unique or typical liberal philosophers like Hobbes, Hume, Kant and Hegal. We also have a very cyclic tradition that is just as inspiring and unique.
You are right! And it's not just mysticism, it's philosophy as well. We are so inundated with the Eastern "transcend your ego" "all-is-one" and :"you-are-thou" type of "philosophies" that we forget Hegel's "battle for recognition" or Anaximander's tragic sense of life. The latter are truly Western, one might even say "Indo-European" philosophies. It's astonishing how we have forgotten our own roots.
Hellenism is not an actual Greek term. You might pick the "Olympian" faith as a better term. In terms of relatedness... well, perhaps not sister but first cousins. We had an interview with Arya Akasha a couple of weeks ago on this topic ...
Hellenism could work, although hellenism refers to a broad thing, it's the whole culturel, way of thinking, living and acting of the hellenes. It's just that in the christian roman empire the word got associated with the old faith, but yeah, both religions are related
@@xiuhcoatl4830 Well, "Hellenism" began to be used in a world that was already thoroughly "hellenised," i.e. the Late Hellenistic Era. In that regard, it was a little like "Americanised" during the late 20th century, a century where everyone was americanised to some degree; so that when someone used that term, they probably meant something more that just "following the capitalist mode of production." More like an "over-Americanisation," if one may use the term. Likewise, in the first Christian centuries, Hellenism referred not to the language and broader culture like you say (I mean, the Gospels were written in Greek after all) but mostly to an adherence to the "old" faith. In that respect Xiuhcoatl is in fact correct, but my objections are that this - and for the reasons mentioned here - was a word for "the other," the pagan, the dogmatic believer stuck in the old ways. Having said that, it's just a word, and as long as it reveals the truths we are after, I have no problem using it either way.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited don’t get stuck on a word. Words after all change meaning over time. So ‘Hellenism’ with the capita H could have indeed become like Hinduism, encompassing a whole way of life, a whole civilization. It’s a pity the Hellenes rejected Hellenism then and went with worshipping a Jewish carpenter from the Galilee. The question is why? Why did the Greeks go with Christianity when the Indians stuck with Hinduism despite centuries of Islamic invasions and Christian colonialism under the British. Why did Hellenism die while Hinduism thrives today and making a come back with Hindutva?
@@nomanor7987 It's a fascinating subject, but remember that Greek culture - like any other - went through a long period of decline before this decline was visible. In fact, the flame that was Greece was extinguished pretty early, perhaps following the Peloponnesian War. What you have following that is a culture that looks identical in every aspect, yet slowly becomes preoccupied with life after death, as if this life is simply not enough. The Orphic cults that were present throughout suddenly become dominant. The works of Hermes Trismegistus (of which we did an episode) are another example. The spiritual road was open to Christianity even before it arrived.
nata in Latin natal means to be born, dance of creation indeed, dance of life and death, circle of passing generations modern western culture has only idea of linear time either with destruction at end or lack of any end and sense to the road don't bet on reincarnation reincarnate while living not loosing yourself and loosing it that's what natural change is
Shiva predates Dionysus by several thousand years. Shiva is a major deity in Hinduism, which is one of the world's oldest surviving religions, with roots dating back to the Indus Valley Civilization in the third millennium BCE. Shiva's origins can be traced back to the early Vedic period in India, which began around 1500 BCE. Dionysus, on the other hand, is a deity from ancient Greek mythology, which emerged around the 8th century BCE, several centuries after the earliest records of Shiva worship in India. Therefore, Shiva predates Dionysus by a significant margin.
The sun is the sun. If a nation worships a sun-god during the last one hundred years while another worships a different one for the last one thousand, that says nothing about the nature of these gods which represent the sun, and everything about those nations themselves. Dionysus was a minor deity while Shiva a great one. and all that means is that the Greeks demoted the aspects of life expressed by Dionysus. And it’s exactly this demotion which leads to the Euripides Bacchae !
They are actually cousin systems that both have roots in a common earlier belief system; I have heard that Dionysus was a god that was introduced later; kind-of like how Aphrodite is assessed to be derived from the Sumerian goddess Innana… and his story involves traveling to India and back.. Could he in actuality be a variation of Shiva adapted to the Greek pantheon and culture (and then demoted)? I think it’s quite possible…
@@michellem7290 I don’t believe Dionysus was a “late-comer,” in fact, the opposite. Dionysus has his roots in the pre-Greek, pre-Indo-European world of the early Bronze Age! There is a myth where Ariadne, princess of Crete, and after helping Theseus conquer the Minotaur, gets abandoned by her hero in an island, where she is “rescued” by Dionysus. It’s as if the two pieces of Cretan mythology: the great mother and her “Ever-dying and Ever-rising god” are reunited at last.
With all respect, there are some massive overgeneralizations here about Shivaism that need to be acknowledged - and I say this as a Tibetan Buddhist who's coming at this from an outer perspective already, and someone who still enjoyed watching this video. The worst of all, however, is the statement "instead of simply relishing in (Shiva's) beauty like the Hindus, (the Greeks) dared to go beyond it." This is a oversimplification of colossal proportions. I would imagine that you're aware there's essentially 3 modes of Hindu metaphysics - dual, semi-dial, and (much like Buddhism) non-dual. On a dual and semi-dual level there might be some truth to this in the sense that people either see divinity as separate, or as a connected factor that they are not fully apart of (and thus worship and find a preference within the divine "other") - but within the non-dual portion, which is a massive part of the Hindu world, it's very much believed that everything is one, and there's tantric practices that are all about joining this oneness - either in a ritually-pure lower kind of way, or in a non action, non ritual higher natural way. These are practices that most certainly do not just "relish" and don't "go beyond," and with all respect, statements like this are, perhaps unintentionally, out of the Colonialist rule book of ignorant denigration and explanation. (Again, I don't think you're purposely trying to do this, though I think this is the situation of what's happening) Secondly, within a commented response, your argument for the difference and perhaps superiority of the Greek system is that it recognizes that there's an individual that's suffering, even though it's really part of a greater divinity, and that it's unique in appreciating the humanly aspect of ego in step with the divine - but this also is not universally true within Hindu practices - Kashmir Shaivism being a good example which very much does see both as divine and important without "privileging" one over the other per se. Of course in Dzogchen within Tibetan Buddhism, there's very much the idea that the only way to really appreciate each moment is to recognize that everything is just the play of the nature of the mind (lhundrup), which is also primordially perfect (kadak), which in no way "privileges" a divine other due to the "divine" being empty yet also spontaneously present and the nature of compassion. There's really a plethora of beliefs within the system. I should also mention that we know virtually nothing about the actual real-life practices of the Dionysian and Orphic cults - and while there's some interesting research about related subjects via Peter Kingsley, to draw any real conclusion on what they practiced is mere speculation and presentism. But thank you for bringing up an interesting subject.
Thank you for this detailed response. I appreciate the time you took to write it. You are a good writer and I can see that you understand the topic well. To respond, please acknowledge that this channel is about the Greek rather than Hindu practice, and can therefore do little but generalise on subjects that are **not** the essence. It's impossible for me to know the subtle nuances of the various Hindu practices. But I want to ask you, even if I could, and did, what could the result be? That we cannot utter a single statement about the religions of India as a whole because for every such statement one can find a cult or variance of one that contradicts it? You may find it strange but that is where a lot of the "Hinduism" that write critically about this video would rather leave it, and I'm calling it out as a "passive-aggressive" claim to superiority. "Thou shalt state no principles of our religion because we can find you an exception and call you a fool" kind of a thing. Now, let's go back to the actual essence of this video, the cults of Dionysus rather than Shiva" When you wrote: "... the Greek system is that it recognizes that there's an individual that's suffering, even though it's really part of a greater divinity," you hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what we're presenting, and it shows that you really "got" our content. But there is a subtle difference that might have eluded. That what for the Hindus was "transcendence" - and I believe that I **can** make this claim, that the variety of Hindu practices were transcendent in nature. They aimed to take the ego-consciousness to a level **after** this waking life that we fnd ourselves. So what I'm saying is that this promising potential, whose reality I do not doupt for a moment, is what the ego calls **death**. Now this al may sound just find to the modern reader of this post. But I claim that this is exactly because what you criticised initially **actually** happened in Europe and the US, way before this channel was born: that is, an over-generalized understanding of eastern matephysics, but people like Allan Watts and even Osho! Whenever one listens to them, they may come out believing that death is a good thing to be awaited, and that "life is game" where - when you die - you get another life of your choosing! And it's exactly THIS "understanding" that we are countering in this video, where - in its cultural decline - the West is welcoming death as a restful sleep. We need to go back to the Greek tragedies and dare to see them for what they are still presenting us.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited My response to that would be to say that: by creating a gigantic and pompous overgeneralizations such as ""instead of simply relishing in (Shiva's) beauty like the Hindus, (the Greeks) dared to go beyond it," one is already basing a chunk of their argument on a false strawman fallacy to the point of rendering the rest of their work highly questionable and as a potentially invalid source. The fact of the matter is, practice that "go beyond" are not rare hidden facets of the religions - they're also major denominations. There's certainty nothing wrong with exploring the exciting takes on what the Greeks may have believed, and creating avenues of contrast; however, basing theories that are explicitly stated in a way that incorrectly put down another mode of belief - especially when those statements are not correct in and of themselves - is not typically a great way to make an argument. If you're not aware of the subtle nuances of another religions practices (or perhaps widespread nuances), perhaps jumping into inflammatory comparisons stated in a factual way is not the best route. There's certainly nothing wrong with stating "I'm not a scholar on Hindu practices, but as far as I know," and then making a comparison - in doing that, you're not setting yourself up for the equitable criticism you're receiving. Frankly, I believe you know better than to say "I'm calling it out as a 'passive-aggressive' claim to superiority." That's like someone saying "unlike Greek Myth, Christianity doesn't just just let their practitioners believe that there's only an unhappy hell afterlife; unlike the Greek's, Christianity actually goes beyond, and gives you a promise of heaven." And then anyone with more than a basic knowledge of Greek myth would automatically think "what are you talking about? There's the Eleusinian Mysteries with a better afterlife, the Bacchic mysteries with a better afterlife, etc." And then having the person respond "I can't be responsible for knowing the subtle nuances of the religion; frankly I think this is just a call to superiority to not criticize your religion and to try to call me a fool for a rare exception." The rest of your argument is certainly a fine and interesting for one to debate, although I would also disagree. Again I'm not a Hindu to begin with, so I can't really argue their points in any definitive matter, though I think there's a large emphasis on certain aspects that place the importance on life right now without glorifying Death. From a Vajrayana Buddhist point of view, we already have Buddhahood now, we just need to realize it; though Death is not a glamorized thing, because the belief is that it's already here in every moment. You you have any interest in the subject, you may want to look more into Hindu/Buddhist Tantrism (which not not about sex as it's depicted in the West, but is about becoming and or/realizing that you already are the deity). In particular, Shaktism, which is the principle mode of practice in Bengal. Kashmir Shivaism is also another fascinating tantric subject, in addition to Advaita Vedanta, which is a non dual for of Buddhism.
@@SatiricSatyr Without wanting to enflame you ever more. When I say "instead of simply relishing in (Shiva's) beauty like the Hindus," - is that not what is advertised at the very least by modern gurus? Is that not what Sadhguru (Jagadish Vasudev) is basing his teachings? Isn't this unification with the One central to Hinduism? Besides the nuances which - as I wrote - are impossible to capture in a 10 minutes video - isn't this transcendence of the Ego central to Hinduism? If you tell me that "no it's not" then I got it all wrong. If you tell me "yes, but..." I would agree without you having to complete that phrase. Because it's obvious that what we attempted is getting the broad strokes.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited I think a lot of this simply comes down to use of language, and individual definition. I don't equate the act of "relishing in" with the act of "unification." Relishing, to me, implies a more passive and simplistic mode of action that appreciates dually from a distance with a perspective of the deity being superior and other (and in fact, within the classification of tantric practices, is identified as a very low level practice). "Unification" implies an action of engaging in practices where one is, and becomes something (that something being the deity, or the nature of the deity itself). From my perspective, the word choice is dooming your argument, and may unintentionally be coming off as condescending - thus the dissenting comments. Again, with all respect, the subcontinent of India is literally the size of Europe, and while I don't think you actually think that there's only 1 form of Hinduism or that Sadhguru encapsulates the majority or the main stream belief system (he doesn't; frankly I also think your understanding of his practices are based on incomplete beliefs), I fear that statements like that may unintentionally come across as a kind of Western-centric pan-eastern white-washed oversimplification. It's not that you or anyone else is expected to have intense knowledge of any of this or an interest in it - it's a matter of having the cultural humility not to overgeneralize and create (what I would consider) inflammatory comparisons phased not as opinions, but as objective truths, where one party is presented as having a deeper belief, when in reality the argument is based of a spiritual stereotype and does not represent the blatant complexity of actual practice. Ie: "(the Greeks, unlike the Indians), dared to go beyond it." I don't really see how the details of how "transcending ego" is defined has to do with that statement, or how an implied limitation of transcending ego means that they dare not "go beyond" just relishing in Shiva's beauty. Perhaps an argument better defined in other words. The point of mainstream Hindu dharmic practices typically puts an emphasis on their definition of "dharma" - the importance of daily life, and seeing your personality and daily life as the deity itself; thus the emphasis not being on death, but the innate compassion of phenomena. Thus to go back to an argument in your past response 1) I would agree that Hindu practices are "transcendent" in nature - but that phrase has no inherit meaning as it's definition changes all over the sub-schools and different religions. 2) I would disagree very strongly that even mainstream Hinduism is taking ego consciousness "after this waking life" to the moment of Death, considering there's such an emphasis on the now, and experiencing oneness within the moment. The practices you're describing seem more like the practices of ascetics (which I should add, are the kind of gurus hippies tended to gravitate to - ascetics, who while are a beautiful addition, do not actually even represent the mainstream). If anything your points might be a stronger argument towards the great Theravada Buddhists than Hindu's as a whole. Thank you for the dialogue though.
@@SatiricSatyr If it's down to the word "relish" then we are splitting hairs, it's a miscommunication rather than a disagreement. The word was used because this "unification" that you mentioned as active participation is not aesthetically neutral, at least from what's been reported by those who had the experience. It's a state or ecstacy, of pleasure beyond hedonic sensations of the flesh, it's a "+" rather than a "-". There is a very interesting case of a woman neuroscientist who suffered a stroke that rendered half her brain inactive for a short period of time, while she retained consciousness. Her name is Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, and she wrote a book detailing her experiences. Her interpretation is that as her Left hemisphere shut down she was unable to keep the boundaries that separated her from everything else. The result was a state of ecstacy that went beyond words, and much like Sadhguru's one. There, she "relished" in this one-ness so much that she totally forgot her state of emergency, until her brain - or half of it - came back "online" and started sounding the alarm. The state of one-ness is described by so many mystics as a state of "just being", not being "for" or "towards" something. Hence I found the word "relish" to be useful. And apart form that, our episode is, of course, Western-centric, as Sadhguru's view is Eastern-centric. Impartiality is an impossibility. The only thing we can do is know which point we are looking at things from.
6:54 this reminds me of a prayer that we used to do... Which said that "life is a gift, death is compassion" Although I found nothing spiritually uplifting about what thespis did - it is something that everyone does Everyone blames and cries and thinks everything is unfair Nothing extraordinary about it Religion was made because people didn't want to be miserable all the time - and the way of thespis is just someone so lost in their own that they fail to see everything beyond "The everything beyond" is anything but misery To someone who has risen above good and bad, comfort and discomfort, pleasure and pain - to that someone, life wouldn't look like a tragedy - a pretty average and random hindu here who has just started exploring her own religion ( so a beginner hehe 😉)
What is extraordinary about what Thespis did, is that he did it in the middle of his ecstasy. Religion may SEEM like it was invented to sooth life’s inherent pain, but whoever has experience this ecstasy I speak of, whether through sudden enlightenment, years of patient meditation, or, like yours truly, through chemical means, knows that life’s pain does not simply go away like with some sedative, but is truly seen as the minor, and almost comical “growing pains” towards an eternity of bliss which is at store for the mystic. The catch however is that you, the ego that is going towards death is not the subject of this experience, but rather an ephemeral mask to be cast away. To pull yourself out of this bliss and back into your consciousness proclaiming “I choose to remain mortal, and therefore a Man” is truly astonishing, proven by the fact that it was NOT done in any other culture … I hope that I have you a better sense of why this fear of Thespis was not as mundane as you made it sound ;-)
This video made me think about the Divine Liturgy. I can see the parallels and symbolism, but the meaning eludes me. Jonathan Pageau has interesting content about Orthodox symbolism and the movement towards Re-Enchantment. Check it out if you’re interested.
Yes, plenty of connections to be drawn there. Have a look at our older episode "The God that Bled" for further connections (ruclips.net/video/c7A3KqNLOSc/видео.html)
Ends with the same notion of iconoclasm particular to West / Abrahmic world view that they can talk back to eternity. Nor they understand Shiva nor Dionysus
It's amusing to me; this whole hippie movement, the whole idea behind it, was a Dionysian rejection of the perceived Apollonionism of the fifties. I am an American, so it is framed wholly differently here, as if the ideas behind the esoteric concepts were new and funky, but in reality, these young people were being psychically pulled to the roots of their pagan ancestors. It was never anything new to the European consciousness of America, it had just been folded under layers and layers of Cubist/Abrahamist conditioning. The old gods are still with us, the old psychic imprints, just waiting to come screaming back out into the modern era again. Drugs, and their removal of conditioning, the Bacchant nature of them, the divine madness, must be re-embraced if we are to survive the consumption of the curse of Abraham.
You are right, what came into America as new, was actually pretty old... But there *was* a difference. And a very important one. And that is that, you need to take those Eastern religions into their own, proper context to understand them fully. What some of their mystics say might give you the impression that we are all aspects of the One, the Divine, God, and therefore, in a certain sense... equal. But the societies that were build on top of those religions, and here I am talking about the myriad of cultures and kingdoms in the sub-continent of India, were everything *but* egalitarian. They were hierarchal, patriarchal, authoritarian, like most ancient societies in fact. This was no "mistake", and to call it a "misinterpretation" is to imply that we in the West can know their cultures better than they do. It's that we in the West never took this "normative" part of Eastern religions seriously. We wanted only the transcendent part, the one that talks about "one-ness". Philosophers like Allan Watts, and for all their beauty, did much to reinforce this mis-representation of Eastern religions as they came pouring into the West. Lost were the arranged marriages that form the backbone of social continuity in the caste-based system of India. Lost were the patriarchal respect inside of families and towards leaders and kings that were seen as father figures of their people. But without those, what ended up dominating in the West was a purely Dionysiac cult that could only lead to self-destruction.
Nope. Not buying it. Being "one of the hippies that traveled to India". Dionysus never "stood up to Shiva". Why would he ever need to? They are vastly different deities with some overlap in function. The hippies were not "the lost generation", they impacted world culture in innumerable ways. Where I'm standing, Dioysus is a demigod in Greek mythology and an archetype of Jungian psychology. Shiva is a living God CURRENTLY worshipped in Hinduism. The idea that Dionysus has "outdone" Shive is ludicrous.... The mysteries of Shiva are VAST. It is NOT a quick study. The idea of putting HIM in competition with Dionysus is silly. If anything, they both would have a great affinity with each other.
I think you missed the point of this video entirely. It is not Dionysus who "stands up to Shiva" but the Ego that dares to stand in the center of the dance, to break away from the sacred trance of acceptance and say "I am here!". Shiva is the dance, as well as the dancers, and he is identified with Dionysus in this capacity alone. That is Alain Danielou's point also, in his book "Gods of Love and Ecstasy." What we tried to convey is that in Greece alone, someone broke from the dance and re-asserted himself as an individual AGAINST the eternal flow of energy that is symbolised (albeit in different ways) by those two gods.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Aaahhh! I totally missed the point. Thank you for taking the time to clarify. I'm going to watch it again keeping all this in mind. :-)
Dinosys can't be compared to shiva. First like all greek gods, his stories have been distorted by centuries of Judeo-Christian rewriting of it's popular tales and then even if we believe about all his stories...he doesn't compare to the might and indescribable glory of lord Shiva. Lord shiva is self manifest , dinosys was born. To give you a description of his power, once in great rage, lord shiva cut off a lock of his matted hair. From that lock of hair, when it touched ground , emerged a being more brilliant and effulgent than a million suns and with a energy like that of universal fire. It's said that when he arrived on earth, the entire earth trembled , there were tsunamis all over the world and earthquakes and the meteor shower started happening at a rapid pace. His chariot was said to be pulled by millions of celestial lions. He was so mighty that his head touched the skies. He was a burning inferno million times over. A god born only for war. His name was "Veerbhadra". Same was the case of "Kartikeya" - he was born from the very semen of lord shiva - the only son of lord Shiva born through his semen. Lord Shiva had spent billions of years in ascetic practices before even the creation of material world began..his powers are beyond our comprehension.
All that these differences may say, is that the same ASPECT of reality that is represented by Dionysus-Shiva was demoted in Greece while held in absolute reverence in India.
Bacchus was the Thracian pagan god, the Greek philosophy didn't came from mysticism but the influence from Mesopotamia and Egypt. Greece was more akin to middle easterners than Germans or Gauls or Nordic people, not only in thought but culture too. It's no surprise that barbarians or goths never took any interest in Greek philosophy like Arabs did. Even in the Christianity phase Europe's theology owes much to Plato and Idealism while the real gem, Aristotle was cherished by Muslims.
In the Roman Empire, it's true, the line between East and West ran through the Ionian Sea (between Greece and Italy). Yet, there is something non-eastern in Greece that we are trying to explore. This video shows an example of what that might be ...
I have actually found Wikipedia to be quite insightful, at times :-) The whole point of this presentation, being a Greek channel, was Dionysus. So I’m glad we hit a never on that front.
dear Ancient Greek revised, I am into seeing the second video after the Dyonisos one. See? Again, some little lacune. Ecstasy is the opposite of anaestetic. Anaestetic all senses down. Ecstasy, all senses wide open. So not out of the body experience but connetion, being part of the whole, phisically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, but also the moment of the chaos, fermentation, bliions of new yeastes and bacteria that trasform into angels share through trippe definelty shit... ans being having some shit is good, all conttext. No shit no good crop. What goeas around comemes around in perfect harmony. The Joy aspect is related to the 21st of June Summer soltice energy point, North. That is the point where we can try to take off and reach the next level. Maximum speed, lowest acceleration, tending to decelerate till 21 of September harvest. Summer Fire. Autumn Metal, the cut, the beginning of the chaos. Or Chaos at 21 of March, Spring time, Wood. The Courage also. The trasformation and the use of the Winter immobility to reverse and create a new accelerating status quo. Organic Growth Chaos/Organic Fermentation chaos. On that regard I would ask you if you had considered that Dyonisos was the last God to enter the Olympo. Did you know the Gods have been added to Ancient Greek civilization little by little? Not all in one block. The More they knew, the more they add. Want to hear the voice of Dyonisos by St John? 15... I am the Truth Vineyard... Take away if you obbey to my commandment with... if you listen to my need... ask and it will be given... Dyonisos is the opposite of war. He is a good of Peace and Aboundance. No need for war. Why? I don't know if you were aware of all this elements about Dyonisos, but I would really reconsider your knowledge comes from fantasy. Interesting really interestning work though. Really. Another little thing about missing a few points about Greek times is that they had different words to describe things that now we use just one. Like here in Ireland we have 15 20 different way to cal rain. Shower, drizzle, etc, on another way we have 5 to ten way to call the sun... Greek peaople have different way to call love: 7 I think, aound that, and... erotical love different than friend love or love for a god, an idea, funny people the Greek, and eventually they didnt have time just as we know it today. They called time, exerienced by peoples talk, in 2 way, chronos, past present future, kairos, the right moment, later traslated interpreted by latis as karpe diem. Eternity concept a bit different in Dyonisos way...
Thank you for your loooong message ;-) A few things I can say: Ecstasy is NOT the opposite of anaesthetic, at least not grammatically. Both are Greek words that are currently in use, so I should know. Ecstasy comes from ec (εξ) meaning "out" and stasis (στάσης) meaning "to stand" *, so "to stand outside," which is really fitting for the experience. Whether you gain connection is not in contrast with this word, as the idea is that once you stand outside of your Ego-Consciousness, you find yourself as "One with the Universe." The word anaesthetic comes from "aesthesis" which is "sensation" or feeling. Lastly, what we tried to convey is that this "joy of being one" is ONE aspect of reality. We have to understand that the "Hinduisation" of Western Spirituality has left us in a state where we cannot appreciate the tragic sense that the Greeks tried to impart on us. Death is tragic, and no amount of seeing life as a flow of energy is ever going to sooth your pain for losing a loved one. Dionysus is the flow, our Ego is the individual existence of beings. We must not forsake one in favour of the other. * (think of it as the Spanish "estar" rather than "ser", it's the "to be somewhere" rather than "to be someone")
He didn't subscribe to Buddism Aldous Huxley was a writer. Timothy Leary actually instigated the massive use of LSD. Aldous was a strong influence for Jim Morrison, but he is not a God. Neither is Timothy, or Gerrery. They all got really fucked up, and made their mark.
I don't know what exactly you are pointing to. Aldous Huxley wrote "The Doors of Perception" describing his experience with Psilocybin, and included some of his insights in perhaps his most famous work "Brave New World." Never did we say that "he was God" (whatever that could ever mean!)
Why does he speak at though he has knowledge of India 😐 brother don’t even know they used shiva to build the archetype of Dionysus 🤔 talking about Europe as the old world when it’s just a baby compared to Indian thought and democracy
Maybe for the greeks of the time it was a new thing to see the similarities in their gods and hindu gods. Remember worshiping of the same deities took on different forms and names as civilizations spread, and empires conquered each other.
You have interesting thoughts but a shallow understanding of Shiva, and a very western judgemental approach towards the Hindus. The spritiuality, for you, hasn't sunk in yet. The more you will read, the more you will realise that you are trying to create a one-upmanship with a whole culture and a people who don't look at you or the Greek culture as a competitor, but actually have a great fondness for it,.
Dionysus is not Shiva they’re the complete opposites of each other especially when it comes to their values ethics morals and temperament. Specifically what triggers your temper. Dionysus is the embodiment of all the worst qualities associated with the Demiurge. Brahma can be considered the Demiurge Yaldalboath, an Old Testament God. Shiva is superior to brahma as indicated by the stories involving the pillar of light and the removal of Brahmas fifth head. This is reinforced by the significance and importance placed on Shiva who replaced Brahma, as a figure of worship. At best Dionysos is one of the Asura or Deva Associated with archons created by the demiurge The real Hindu connection involves the sacred tree involving Buddha And DIO Nasu What Christianity considers Satanism is just the demonize ation of Middle Eastern Gnosticism, As well as the beliefs tied to the Tocharian Celts Hindu Assyrian Scythian As Rudra Shiva is the horn god of the hunt There are many stories explaining his was association with the bull or the musical instrument of the Horn Which puts him in line with Cernunnos What’s in front of CERN?
No god IS any other. The question is “what aspects of reality do they embody?” On this a count there ARE many similarities between the two, as they represent the ecstatic flow of “one-ness.” Both Shiva and Dionysus have traits that are markedly different to those of the “Indo-European” gods of old. They are “wild”, “unruly”, even a little crazy. They are followed by chaotic spirits. They defy contradictions and thrive in mischief. Contrast this image to Zeus and you’ll understand where I’m going with this.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited I hate listening to people arrogantly impose modern paradigms onto the past... What do you know of actual history? The Tocharian of the Tarim Basin? Pleasd explan in DETAIL how these two opposites are similar? Who is Zagreus?
@@AncientGreeceRevisited How is Shiva who is beyond Brahma's comprehension similar to the Deva/Asura, INDRA'S half breed clone? Dio is a Nephilim at best Explain the hierarchy.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Now if you want to compare Dio superficially to a Budha, maybe... Dio Nasu... Sacred tree plus the Selinus / Bacchus connections. Or go babylonian with Baal El Duma Tammuz Dummuzi With ties to Ashera Ishtar Inanna Peresphone? Sure. Dio is the embodiment of the Demiurge, Old testament God Yaldalboath Shiva is an aspect of the New testament god. Shiva is like MARDUK
the arrogance of Thespis is entertaining to say at the most but of no spiritual significance whatsoever. It ignores the fact that the individual exists within the eternal. To complain about an inevitable fact is indeed a tragedy, just like child cries out to their parents for attention. So as you rightly said, to go into ecstasy and stand beyond our limitations is the way. We could say that human lowest qualities are tragic and human highest qualities are ecstatic. The difference between the Hindus and the Greeks it is that the Hindus propounded methods (Yoga) which can transform the human consciousness towards ecstatic frequencies.
Yet, this ecstatic fullness is a state where the ego dissolves. The Greeks must have known about this, but their uniqueness is to dare stand at this razors edge, where the ego faces its ultimate dissolution in holy terror but does not give in without speaking out its mind. If that has no spiritual significance for you... I don’t know what does :-)
@@AncientGreeceRevisited absolutely, I was too harsh earlier. The spiritual has place for everything in existence. Now that I rethink about it. In India the equivalent would be the tantric practices. They have to do more with being at this razor edge and "downloading" into the physical realm. Great channel brother! Keep stimulating the subtleness of life
Think you are a fan of this channel? Prove it and help us shape the future of AGR - Complete a 2-minute survey
forms.gle/p8JWG7bccLFuwxaA8 🙏
its good that the West rediscovers its polytheistic heritage and roots. the difference with the religion of Shiva and India though is that its a living religion. The Gods and Goddesses are worshipped by a billion people, they are a presence in the daily lives of people, in the way that the Gods of Greece used to be thousands of years ago. Christianity took over, monotheism prevailed, but that didn't happen in the east
And this is why it is fortunate that Hinduism remains living (well, one of many reasons) - because those of us in the West who are working to revive the pre-Christian European religions are able to shelter with our cousins to the East, and draw from what they have preserved to aid in the resurrection of our own more immediately ancestral spheres that are such close cousins to the Hindu
[-C.A.R.]
Guys, wait till you see the episode :-)
This Dint happened in the east? FYI The East is full of Monotheism people, Infect there's more Monotheist in the East rather then the West, and Islam is the Leading of it. Dont speak if you dont know anything @Jay Paul.
@@urzirwanomar1962 calm down Urzir Wan Omar. I'm talking about Hinduism which is a living religion full of Gods and Goddesses. Monotheism couldn't replace it, and never will
@@zoobee India is only a small part of the East, and Hindu is even smaller and getting smaller day by day, so dont say the East as in whole.
Beautiful and inspiring. Hail Dionysus/ Shiva!
both with source in Indoeuropean people's cradles, eurosteppe
@@szymonbaranowski8184 nah it is the great 7 sages not steppes . 7 sages are ancestors of all humanity and steppes , all humanity can trace their origins to one of the sages of the 7.
@@szymonbaranowski8184that's Judeo-Christian garbage,
@@JorgeJimenezkagyu hail Jesus as Dionysus also translates to it and also osiris from egypt
Nothing beautiful about cults
I came after seeing your chat with lord Jive. The way you weave these webs and tie the ancient to the modern is truly great, along with your style and production. Thank you for bringing such content to English speakers. I had to subscribe.
No, you chose to :-)
Kali Yuga is where we are. As if there is a feeling that there lies a great truth under the blanket of ignorance.
Another marvelous video Michael, I truly loved it! Tragedy is one of the greatest accomplishments of the ancient Greeks and I’m glad you took the time to speak of it in such an elucidating way; connecting it to Hinduism, the hippie movement, the cosmos, eternity, individuality, and death.
Bravo!
Thank you very much. Yes, tragedy IS the big thing that came out of Greece, we believe. It's important to understand it however as an expression of a larger "imaginary" that is uniquely Greek. Our other episode, "Limitless" might she some additional light to this, as well as the little snippet I uploaded from my interview with Unregistered a couple of weeks ago.
The “talk back” is actually the Shakti(feminine/creative) or symbolically represented with the ring of fire around Shiva/Void/“that - which is not”). Thank you for helping me understand another side of the ancient Greek Dionysian! Love these conversations on myth & symbol and think more discussion is key for us all.
Thank you for watching. And on that note, the "talk back" that we are referring to is not as much divine as it is human. It's not Shiva's counterpart, the Yin to his Yang so to speak, that does the talking, because in that case, you would have two gods talking among themselves, and no sense of tragedy (the gods are immortal, hence never tragic). It's the ego-consciousness taking back to the eternal recurrence of time.
Man, what a youtube channel this is. Please keep it up!
❤
I think this is one of the best episodes of AGR: You gave a very interesting and explicit explanation of 'the birth of tragedy' putting together into a synthetic approach an entire library of references to it. Bravi!
Thank you. It was indeed special for us somehow. Together with "Limitless" that we did a few months ago, it felt like going back to our roots in a way. So, well spotted!
Thespius: “okay, cool, but what if I don’t want my ego to die?”
The Buddha, every-time one pops up: “Oh! Jump in the pool already! The water is fine! Scaredy cat!”
A slight gratitude for Shiva, for Dionysus could be reconstructed again. Now, we can embrace both with all our spiritual senses.
Well, hot damn. This is the most fascinating lesson in comparative religion I've received in quite a long time.
I wish this video lasted one full hour. Such an interesting concept, and so well presented.
ΤΡΟΜΕΡΟ κανάλι, πραγματικά συγχαρητήρια, οι λήψεις και το editing είναι σε επιπέδο τηλεοπτικού ντοκιμαντέρ και τέλεια αγγλική προφορά για απήχηση σε ευρύτερο κοινό. Πραγματικά σας αξίζουν πολύ περισσότερα views. Οι προγονοί μας θα ήταν περήφανοι. Είδα τα περισσότερα βίντεο σε ένα βράδυ όταν σας ανακάλυψα.
Σε ευχαριστούμε πολύ πολύ!
I had not encountered the story of Thespis before; although one thing I would observe - Indo-European religious ritual is often, itself, a dramatic performance; and which features singing and performative actions, a beat and musical accompaniment. Why this is relevant is because these are also often characterized by an individual participant taking on the 'mantle', some of the 'essence' of a particular character from the mythology in their course. This is something that, as I say, often features an individual bearing the essence, taking on the 'role' (in the ritual re-enactment) of a specific figure - rather than part of a generalized 'chorus' (although *that* notion is certainly *also* present - a recent piece of mine looked at a rather .. resonant structure, in fact)
It is not hard to see how the Greek approach to drama might have substantively carried forward this tradition - albeit transforming it in a way, so that even though performances of plays *were* often part of a ritual context [I am thinking here in particular of the 'Great Dionysia' of Athens - which goes rather beyond what people might think if we say 'a comedy-writers' competition' , and not least because the God Himself was in attendance watching], there is something rather different in the mechanism of action:
The more 'purely' ritualine performance, its mechanism of action is metaphysical - it re-immanentizes out into the world some emanation of the original events, original benefits and outcomes secured via the original participants' mighty (indeed, literally Mythic-caliber) deeds. The 'dramatic' performance, meanwhile, whilst quite potentially still drawing from the aforementioned, has as its prime mechanism of action the direct influencing of the audience.
Aristophanes' excellent play The Frogs, for instance - while it *references* the Katabatic journeys of Herakles & Dionysus, and the necessity of 'bringing back the past' and the wisdom of the forebears even (especially!) amidst more contemporary and dire crises ... its primary way to do this is to present to a watching audience, stirring rhetoric and creative conceptual explication through audible means. It wouldn't be nearly so effective at it if there wasn't already a deep and deeply, richly resonant mythic sphere for both playwright and audience to draw from in the course of engaging with the play, of course - but even though it allows people to engage with the mythic in a way (as an audience), it still feels rather different to the more purely 'mythic-participationary' / 'eternal return' style performances (where the 'audience', such as it is, to be influenced - is Reality itself)
So, perhaps it might be said that this Thespis character - the innovation he might be regarded as introducing (apparently, in-line with something Aristotle may have recorded around the figure being responsible for adding the Prologos etc.) would be that of speaking to the audience. The human audience, I mean.
Paradoxically, therefore, the performance goes from a ritual that is performed for 'eternity', the cosmos (broadly speaking), to one that is (also) for a terrestrial, sidereal, and temporal human audience.
Which is, itself, an interesting and not unremarkable movement.
Some might say that it would be a trajectory that would eventually bring us heavily de-sacralized if not outright mindless 'entertainment' - Gods turned into "superheroes" played by actors in Marvel films for 'blockbuster' profiteering and record-breaking ticket-sales in lieu of quality let alone accuracy and any hint of the supernal only really present in purloined grandeur and residual mental associations. That's ... perhaps not entirely untrue - but is very definitely seeing only the negative.
I would prefer to think of it in entirely different tones & terms - namely, that of making mythic belief far more broadly accessible, bringing another shade of beauty more approachably into the world, and providing a further sphere within which persons may engage with such and hopefully become improved in fairly direct consequence.
That is to say - it represents a potent vector for the (re-)enchantment of the world ; even if some unfortunate fashions and scriptwriting in recent times has seemingly sought to misuse it to propel the opposite.
[-C.A.R.]
"often features an individual bearing the essence, taking on the 'role' (in the ritual re-enactment) of a specific figure"
I think that what was special in the case of Thespis, is that he took the role of the "Human." His point of view was human rather than divine. In a strange sense, he incarnated ... us!
"Some might say that it would be a trajectory that would eventually bring us heavily de-sacralized if not outright mindless 'entertainment'"
That is what Nietzsche though for sure, and he blamed Socrates for it. In fact, the latter parts of his "Birth of Tragedy" deal with exactly this occurrence. Just as the ego-consciousness had to "stand up to eternity" with Thespis and later Aeschylus, too much chatter, and the demotion of the chorus by Euripides, brought an "over-rationalisation" that led to the disenchantment you spoke of. That is according to Nietzsche of course, and he has a beautiful scene where he imagines Euripides watching a tragedy by his master Aeschylus, not quite getting "why" he feels the depths that he does. He turns around to ask another member of the audience... and there is Socrates! Quite a funny and insightful metaphor. Nietzsche had more humour that his "Bronze Age" supporters give him credit for.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited I have not read the relevant Nietzschean work, but I am interested at the notion of a conflict (of styles and otherwise) between Euripides and Aeschylus being played out therein.
Because that's exactly the substance of the Agon in Aristophanes' The Frogs (a play which I quoted a segment or two from in the course of our on-air conversation, if memory serves).
It's actually a really interesting examination of .. well .. not only the dramatic styles, but everything bound up in such. Euripides has this reputation (justly) as a great innovator, and then Aeschylus starts pointing out (with the aid of a little bottle of oil [Lekythion]) how it appears the former's works are surprisingly formulaic - it turns the thing upon its head !
I could rant about this at some length, but I think that I'll let Dionysus do the talking.
Or, at least, Aristophanes' presentation of Dionysus (in English translation) at the conclusion of the Agon :
"By Zeus the Savior, I can't decide.
For one has spoken cleverly, and the other one clearly."
And, further -
"They are my friends, and I won't judge them.
For I will not be on hostile terms with either one.
One I consider clever, the other I enjoy."
Eventually, Dionysus does indeed declare Aeschylus to have beaten Euripides (and in a further shot, Aeschylus has Sophocles keep his throne warm while he's up in the world of the living saving Athens - so Euripides cannot claim it even inadvertently); and I think that's .. well, that's it -
Euripides is presented as 'too clever' and even outright obfuscationary; Aeschylus' verses as being 'clear' - at least in terms of their spirit, and certainly (indeed, apparently semi-literally) more 'weighty' in measure.
Although ultimately, it may well come down to the 'values' found in the work of either - and their potential lessons for the Athenian polis of the day (then in the darkest period of the Peloponnesian War).
Interestingly, Aristophanes also invokes Socrates during the course of this Agon in .. not entirely complimentary terms.
[-C.A.R.]
@@AryaAkasha I think there was a self-awareness of what led Athens to its downfall. The ancient theatre reflected the whole culture. Don't forget that in ancient Sparta, a poet was legally fined for adding a string to his hard, thus breaking the tradition. Given that, think of how films changed during the 1960s to reflect the Liberal values that we now see in its utter extreme. The ancients were not so naive as to think this was "mere entertainment."
This is beautiful. I feel like I just discovered a treasure. Happily subbed!
Lord shiva is not only the god of dance
Shiva is also protector of all flora and fauna
Shiva is also the god of death
God of yoga and spirituality
God of everything that cant b observed by 5 scences
god of every gender identity too in Ardhanariswar roop
The original Dionysus, Zagreus, was son of the Sky God and Underworld Goddess. He played with Zeus's lightning bolts as a baby. There are always depths; or, rather, more surfaces.
@@TheRealValus and shiva has no mother or father so don’t compare with Dionysus
I came of age in the 60's, but never did I embrace the eastern imagery. Shiva was part of the mythology of a very alien culture and way of understanding things. At the time I was a Canadian and Shiva never spoke to me in the same way as Dionysus. I entered college as a fine arts major and this was what introduced me to the Greek plays. These were stories to which I could, and still do, relate. These were stories of passions and realities upon which fate played her games.
I spent two years hitch hiking and living on the road, before settling down and completing a degree in the sciences. The nature of man, as I see it, is far closer the Greek understanding of Dionysus than it is of Shiva. In my living room I have a bust of Appolo and of Dionysus reminding me daily of this fact, but then, I am a westerner.
Thank you for sharing. A great life story indeed. And yes, I agree with you (although I may be a little more biased), Greek stories have something that ochres do not. A more direct connection with being, if I may say so...
Shiva is about nature of cosmos too.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited but this is why we have shiva and shakti.
"It is very common for people who are not from india to be unfamiliar with Shiva.".. There is no comparison between the vague, primitive idea of Dionysus and the highly structured intellectual and philosophical framework of Shiva (consciousness) described through its vast literature and practices called Tantra in Kashmiri Shaivism a sect in Hindusism. In comparison, Dionysus, while rich in symbolic meaning within the Greek context, primarily represents themes of fertility, nature, and the breaking of societal norms. The intellectual depth and the systematic approach found in the philosophical doctrines of Kashmir Shaivism make it a highly advanced spiritual tradition, distinct from the more mythological and symbolic representations of figures like Dionysus in Greek mythology.
Thus, drawing a comparison between the two is challenging, as Shiva in Kashmir Shaivism embodies an advanced metaphysical and spiritual concept, while Dionysus is more of a cultural and religious figure with different connotations.
glad that one channel mentioned it... lot of prays to Dionsyus.... har har mahadev
Wonderful Story and Very Well Done! Thank You
Excellent! Fascinating …
thank you!
The eternal dance of individualization with unification 🤗
Interesting episode! I was watching a video with Devdutt Pattanaik about the east vs. west myths a couple of days ago...
your fire died just at the end of the video. good timing!
Intentionally accidental ;-)
A further point of perhaps interest - one understanding prominent in Hinduism is the notion of the universe (and all that goes on therein) as the Divine Play. With Lord Shiva & His Wife as the lead actor & actress, but also producers, scriptwriters, directors, set-designers, etc. etc. engaged therein. The Universe is referred to as Divya Abhinaya-Mantapa - the Divine (Divya) Theatrical-Performance/Expression (Abhinaya) Hall or Pavillion (Mantapa).
Shakespeare was, it should seem, quite onto something when he proclaimed in 'As You Like It', "All the world's a stage ..."
The drama carried out therein, one way it is referred to is as Nataka ( नाटक ) [and the 'Nata' (नाट) is the same term as that in 'Nataraja' - 'Dance' and 'Drama' being heavily entertwined concepts, just as they were in parts of the Greek dramatic sphere].
An example for this can be easily found in the prominent Devi Hymnal - the Mahishasura Mardini Stotram ['Hymn of the Vanquisher of the Buffalo-Demon']:
नटित नटार्ध नटी नट नायक नाटितनाट्य सुगानरते
Nattita Natta-Ardha Nattii Natta Naayaka Naattita-Naattya Su-Gaana-Rate
Acting/Dancing (Nattita) [as] Half (Ardha) the Actor/Dancer (Nata), Actress (Nati) [and] Actor (Nata) [are the] Protagonist/Lead (Nayaka) [of the] Act/Drama (Naattita) [being] Performed (Naattya), Delighting In / Engrossed In (Rate) the Beautiful (Su-) Song / Performance (Gaana).
Interestingly, there *appears* to be a somewhat direct Nordic cognate understanding - although there, while it is a 'play', it should seem more that it is a 'game' - with the universe standing for a board, and playing-pieces moved about thereupon via Divine Hands [per the remarks in the Voluspa inferentially upon the subject].
Now why i mention all of this is because that's part of the thing when it comes to the entirely understandable sentiments pertaining to death etc. - going 'behind the curtain', indeed.
The drama is not so rich if there is not that peril and the emotional timbre of fear induced via the suggestion of a permanent ending. At least, for many people - it can certainly be argued the other way, that overcoming such enables *truly* heroic action. Indeed, truly heroic action that therefore overcomes permanent ending is quite literally the meaning of that justifiably (indeed, literally) famous phrase: 'Kleos Aphthiton' [seen also via its Sanskrit cognate, in the RigVeda: Sravas Aksitam ]
Live well enough, and your story attains the immortality that your physical form cannot. So long after the latter is only dust, the former yet still lives on.
But the point is - if it's all a Play, if it's all a dramatic act or a rather enthusiastically embraced recreational game ... then yes, it is easier to 'not take it so seriously', in the end. Although that's *only* 'in the end' - prior to reaching that point, whilst 'life' is still 'alive', and a 'live occurrence' , taking it seriously is very much recommended.
It's just that the fact it's a Play (in either sense of the modern word) means one should also endeavour to live with a certain sense of spectacle ... and also never forget to have some *fun* with it, too.
[-C.A.R.]
Another genius video well done! and just like your first Dionysus video this one speaks to me: I spent many years chasing the enlightenment of the Indian spiritual traditions, but recently I have come to think that enlightenment does not exist (at least in the way Westerners assume it exists), because our modern Western ego identities take up much more psychic energy than the enlightenment frameworks can hold. In pre-globalised India there was much more balance between the ego and the unconscious, therefore the representations of enlightenment were far more appropriate.
"because our modern Western ego identities take up much more psychic energy than the enlightenment frameworks can hold."
I think you've hit the nail on head. Bravo!
I really enjoyed this video. Great work!
I've often felt this way when confronted with eternity. I have felt and experienced this tragedy, and I contemplate it often. We are told that our individual consciousness is like a ray of light from Shiva, who is like the Sun. In this way, we are truly eternal outside the perspective of our individuality. Yet temporally, we will and must experience this crushing defeat called death. I think we can and should experience both sadness and joy at this realization. It should also drive us to transcend ourselves.
Thank you for your understanding. It seems that you truly got the essence of our video.
@AncientGreeceRevisited thank you. Your videos are informative and helpful.
Alain Daniélou argues in his book Gods of Love and Ecstasy that Dionysos, meaning the Gof of Nysa is an adaptation of Siva, and they're thus identical.
You're describing an experience I had, after chanting The Jesus Prayer for some hours. I felt like I was literally outside of myself, sort of above and behind, but, at the same time, I think, I never left the body. Something happened, on a spiritual level, with the locus of the "I". This mind-body mechanism continued to go about its business, like the whole thing was just a movie playing out; a river of celluloid passing under a lamp and a lens. The biological and cultural programing was all "I" had to work with, so to speak. But what had been a more rigid constellation of associations, between points of light, seemed to shatter, like ice crystals, then, to melt and pool and resurrect. While it was the same constellation as before, somehow, it was not so confining to me as it had been.
As with the body, I seemed to overlook the connections in my own mind's experience, so that every point of data was now directly related to every other point; or, at any rate, if I could not anticipate every relation, nonetheless, I was poignantly impressed with the sense of my mental apparatus as a unity, in which the available information would surface, or find its way, through chain reactions; it was only a matter of time. The process could not be accelerated; but, at this point, it could be recognized; accepted. No longer was I so personally identified with those chemical and metaphysical reactions, like a pinball in my own mind, but, rather, I dispassionately "knew what I knew". My assumptions were all provisional, and I knew (i.e. assumed) that they did not need to be more, or other, than they were, in fact. The only possible associations between ideas were still just taking place, automatically, including doubts, reconfigurations, and deconstructions; as this "I" was felt by the body to be nothing but an eavesdropper, or a witness; more of an Eye, than an I.
Everything happened with preternatural spontaneity. The body prepared tea, sat down, and sipped from it. The mind, or brain, was sort of vainly struggling to make sense of what had happened; to classify the experience, and identify with it, but none of the mental operations were "sticking". They just sort of broke up and floated off like smoke. After a while, the brain was speculating that "I" was a guardian angel or maybe just a light of awareness, overlooking this eternal river of mud. At the same time, it seemed plain that there was nothing else. Reality was fully present and there was nothing to compare with present reality, so there was no resistance or impatience; just a matter of fact awareness that it was all one thing; a sequence or stream in which "not one tittle of the law could be skipped", or overstepped.
This person, whose life was the only life I had, at present, had no practical choice but to play out his karma/dharma, under the ever watchful eye of consciousness. Even if he/I became enlightened, there would still be nowhere else to go, nothing to discover, realize, transcend, or escape. All of that is it. This is it. This is the only world. Right here. Hello. Nothing is more spiritual than what is now, and your spiritual progress, so called, has nothing to do with you. We attach labels and invent distinctions but, ultimately, it's just this; I mean, that attaching was it, all along. A game to occupy the mind. As the ego is an identity for the light of awareness to occupy, inhabit, inherit, or receive as grace from God. It - He - can't do anything else but be Itself - Himself, like we can't; it is what it is. Sometimes I like to call it This. We may speak conveniently of "the other side", but, when we get "there", we do not call it "the other side"; rather, we will continue to say, just as we always have, "We are in this world", just as we shall always be.
Amid reflections of this type, something clicked or reconnected; I seemed to decide that it was better to embrace this experience, since it was going to happen regardless, - it was the literal word and will of God, - and since it would be more interesting to surrender to the current; or allow myself to become reinvested with the journey. Since that day, I've been measurably much less anxious, more present, authentic, honest, confident, and courageous. I can date so many changes to that point. Another breakthrough, was fasting on water and electrolytes; specifically, potassium chloride and sodium chloride [SEE: "snake juice", or "snake diet"], and a generally low-carb, high-protein, high-fiber diet. That's my story, until it changes! 🙏
'NEAR IS
AND DIFFICULT TO GRASP
THE GOD'
~ Friedrich Hölderlin
Wow! It sounds like a truly mystical experience. The thing is, as Allan Watts used to say when lecturing on the history of "mystical experiences," that despite being considered "weird" by the mainstream, these experiences, in the context of human history, as (Watt's words) "as common as measles." I've had experiences like those, but strangle, I never felt they could be described by "ego-death" or "accepting the Now" or anything like that. They were very much focused on Beauty and the Erotic. But I guess that God reveals himself in different ways. Or rather, we have different ways of relating these revelations.
Yahoo - According to tradition, in 534 or 535 BC, Thespis astounded audiences by leaping on to the back of a wooden cart and reciting poetry as if he were the characters whose lines he was reading. In doing so he became the world's first actor, and it is from him that we get the world thespian.
I will never hear the dreadful cry of a goat the same way again 🐐I knew what trago meant, but never that tragedy is the goat's song
This reminds me of Ramakrishna
And how he lives in both Worlds of Brahman and Samsara, choosing to see Samsara as a manifestation of Brahman and even God Herself(when this association is made, it is no longer Samsara, but Maya)
To live in Unity and Acceptance of Both Worlds
Seeing them BOTH as Good
Correct. But from those who point at Hindu ideas today, most have no feeling for the tragic. I’m not including you, because I don’t know your thoughts, but mostly, the people who are “into” Eastern philosophy understand it as a “happy pill” that tells them that “it’s all going to be ok in the end.” We have to ask why those Greeks cried in front of the tragic poems they heard yearly in their great theaters. Did they not read enough Osho, perhaps? :-)
@@AncientGreeceRevisited yeah, the Eastern Happy Pill is a clear sign of Orientalism, a kind of false categorization and defining power that wishes to seize the "Eastern" into this happy go lucky chamber.
The Happy is but one small aspect, if anything
But usually, what people mean by the Eastern is either Middle Eastern or India, not the Far-East of China
And even when they do so, they do with an Indian lens
ZhuangZi, a "Daoist" or so we like to define him as for the sake of easier understanding, did not cry at his wife's death, not because he thought that it would be fine in the end, but because his tears have run dry and squeezed out to the brim. It's utter insanity or madness even
@@dhdhebeb1780 Yes, that’s more like it.
You can research on Indo Greek religions and Indo Greek Kingdoms. Here are some links
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek_religions
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Greek_Kingdom
Brilliant
Thanks!
Sir when you mention the first Greek encounters with Shiva, do you have a reference? Was it when Alexander invaded? I know afterwards there was an Indo-Hellenic culture for a while in the north west of India. There's a statue in India with a reference to Hercules
Yes, plenty of references indeed. Strabo, the great geographer speaks of an "Indian Dionysus" as mentioned by Megasthenes, and relating to the "mountain worshipers" (Shivaists).
In his Geographica (Strab. 15.1.58) he wrote:
"Speaking of the philosophers, he [Megasthenes] says, that those who inhabit the mountains are worshippers of Bacchus, and show as a proof (of the god having come among them) the wild vine, which grows in their country only; the ivy, the laurel, the myrtle, the box-tree, and other evergreens, none of which are found beyond the Euphrates, except a few in parks, which are only preserved with great care."
You can find more information here: www.jstor.org/stable/1062337 or in Alain Daniélou's classic "Gods of Love and Ecstasy: The Traditions of Shiva and Dionysus" (g.co/kgs/SjLQ9F). I would take the latter with "a grain of salt" as the English say. It's highly politicised in relation to various counter-culture movements, but still a good resource for further reading.
To quote myself on the subject:
"These incredibly strong resonances were recognized by the Greeks themselves - and there is a justly famed episode from the conquests of Alexander the Great wherein a certain city, identified by the Greeks as ‘Nysa’, was spared from the sword due to its proclaimed association with (indeed, its founding by) Dionysus. This ‘Nysa’ was situated in what was, in those days, still Hindu country in modern Afghanistan. Interestingly for our purposes, part of the ‘identification’ made by the Greeks was that the “Meru” that Nysa was supposed to be near to, was broadly commensurate with the ‘Meron’ which in Greek meant ‘Thigh’. Thus making for a perhaps unexpected linkage of the Indo-Aryan Axis-Mundi with the more standard Classical origin-story for Dionysus, featuring His emanation from a Great God’s thigh. The latter of which was said by the Greeks to have taken place in a locale called ‘Nysa’, connected in the folk-understanding of the time with the concept of the Tree [perhaps even the World Tree - another well-known Axis Mundi expression of the Indo-Europeans which would correlate with ‘Meru’]. It is often said by academics looking backwards upon the account with benefit of hindsight and comparative analysis that the city in question was most likely a Shaivite one - perhaps the ‘Nysa’ may have been ‘Naishada’ [‘Hunter’ - a well-known quality of Rudra; ‘Zagreus’, a prominent epithet of Dionysus, is similar in its ambit of meaning].
Of further interest for our purposes is an intriguing set of references in both Pseudo-Apollodorus’ Bibliotheca and Strabo’s Geography to Dionysus in India in relation to ‘Pillars’. In the former case, wandering India personally setting up these structures; in the latter, said ‘pillars’ only being found where the “Dionysus” as the Macedonians knew Him was venerated (or, to be sure, where Herakles was hailed, also).
And there is an obvious explanation for this - to be found in the form of the ‘Pillars’ made active use of even today in Shaivite worship: the ShivLings and other assorted Lingams, some of which are of truly tremendous proportion. So, of course, ‘Pillars’ either set up by the God in question, or by those who worship this God, is exactly what we should expect. Both in the Classical commentary, and of course in the actual Indian Hindu lived practice of the time. And subsequent. For it can be fairly said, I think, that Dionysus - as with the rest of the Indo-European Pantheon - still Lives There Loudly. "
aryaakasha.com/2020/09/29/on-the-indo-european-interpretatio-of-dionysus-a-roaring-exaltation-of-the-sky-father-comparatively-considered/
[-C.A.R.]
@@AncientGreeceRevisited thank you so much sir!
@@zoobee Alexander lost that battle of hydaspes
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Speaking of politics, hippies mostly were Corporation Counter-Culture and Hindu religion and writings were pushed by the schools, the colleges, the status quo. "Going to India to find yourself" became a joke, in time.
its said in various ancient texts, and mainly, in Dionysiaka, through records and finally proven, that when Dionysos reached India, thousands of years before Alexander, the residents, Indians, adapted him as their deity, and named him Shiva, so did the Egyptians, before he reached India, Dionysos set to Egypt for a while, there, the Egyptians adapted him to ''Osiris''
In hinduism 'Talk back' is your act of living and life itself. In kashmiri shivism your life is like a canvas that shiva paint on. You create a beautiful picture out of your life.
The problem in what you say is what you mean by "you?" Are you an ego-consciousness of simply the canvas on which Shiva paints? What I have tried to explain is that in Shivaism, it's the latter that is constantly privileged, and as the West, in its decline, has become spiritually "orientalised," it has adopted some of these ideas in various forms. Which is why a lot of "gurus" today speak about surpassing your Ego, dissolving into the greater universe etc. In ancient Greek tragedy you have the ego-consciousness standing next to Shiva-consciousness in dialogue, and that is unique as far as I can tell.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Ego in dialogue with Shiva, 🤔. Isn't that just tantra?
I am also trying to understand what you mean, that's why I am asking.
@@Captain_Sosuke_Aizen What I mean is reaching a point where both are held in equal pedestals. Both the egoic-consciousness and the "oceanic" Shiva consciousness. Not privileding one for the other.
Just to give you an example, when I sent this video to a friend of mine, who is deep into "New-New Age" spirituality (which definitely privileges the latter), he said "Great video, but what's more interesting is when you realise that both the "actor" (Ego) and the troupe of dancers (Universe) are ONE." And I though.. man, what a clever way your ego has devised for you NOT to understand my point. Because if you insist they are both one, you demote the Ego. The Ego does NOT think that it's one with the universe, and does not WANT to be one. Because becoming one is literally what we call "death." The Ego does not want to die, and hence, it does not want to dissolve into God. The Indian view, in my understanding, is to educate oneself into letting go of this egoic desire, "massaging" the ego into a state of relinquishing its claims on the Self. What I am also saying is that Greeks though differently, and had a respect for the Ego as that which makes us most human. And the Greeks were nothing if not humanists.
At the end of Blade Runner you have the now famous "tears in rain" scene, where the android, having lived its 4 years has just acquired emotions, just when its about to die. It's desire, as it stated very clearly in an earlier scene was "LIFE." But life is not a quantitative phenomenon. One who lives more does not necessarily live better. It's only when mere existence is apprehended as an aesthetic phenomenon that it becomes life proper, even if for an instance before death. That is the essence of Greek tragedy. The android in Blade Runner - in true Greek fashion - gets what he wants but not in the way that it want it. It gets life by becoming able to die (machines do not die, they expire) and then... it dies.
I hope that is clear(er).
@@AncientGreeceRevisited ok got it. Such emphasis on ego is definitely something different.
Σ' ευχαριστώ δάσκαλε.... Thank you teacher ....
Wow.
I thought the point of tragedy was that you cannot escape your fate, no matter how you try.
It's not far. But what we are suggesting is to question "who is that YOU who cannot escape?" Surely it's not the part that has been identified with the divine in nearly all religions of this world. Because that part is actually the author of that destiny. It's the part that think it CAN escape, and thinks it is merely suffering this destiny. The two came in dialogue in the great tragedies like in no other place in history.
Om Namah Shivaya
Of course every ancient civilization of the World had its deep rooted cultural aspects and mythologies with slight differences in ideologies. It's very tragic how the West had neglected their own roots and focused on conquering and colonizing countries and exploiting them vehemently. It became the need of the time (in 1900s) to spread the ancient knowledge against this imperial force. So the East spread what was known to them and close to them: the Eastern Mysticism. The tragic is that the West got overwhelmed!
Yes, and during the 1960s Eastern Mysticism became "the only" mysticism in town ;_)
Dionysus is a very mysterious diety
If we take into account Atlantis, which existed almost twelve thousand years ago, it becomes the oldest known civilization of the world. Then, it's no wonder that Shiva derived from Dionysus, since the oldest findings of the Hindu pantheon are about five to six thousand years old.
Another beautiful sermo.
what is the name of the song playing in the background?
We have our music custom made, written by a very talented musician (soundcloud.com/penny-biniari)
Is that the black sun in your logo at 10:32? Just curious.
Nope. We've been asked before though ...
I feel archaic Greece gods/goddesses, as well as philosophers like Heraclitus and the Homeric tales are just as good as any eastern mysticism. It irritating so many westerners think all of western thought is, is either some Christian theology which is also unique or typical liberal philosophers like Hobbes, Hume, Kant and Hegal. We also have a very cyclic tradition that is just as inspiring and unique.
You are right! And it's not just mysticism, it's philosophy as well. We are so inundated with the Eastern "transcend your ego" "all-is-one" and :"you-are-thou" type of "philosophies" that we forget Hegel's "battle for recognition" or Anaximander's tragic sense of life. The latter are truly Western, one might even say "Indo-European" philosophies. It's astonishing how we have forgotten our own roots.
Hellenism’s sister religion is Hinduism?
Hellenism is not an actual Greek term. You might pick the "Olympian" faith as a better term. In terms of relatedness... well, perhaps not sister but first cousins. We had an interview with Arya Akasha a couple of weeks ago on this topic ...
Hellenism could work, although hellenism refers to a broad thing, it's the whole culturel, way of thinking, living and acting of the hellenes. It's just that in the christian roman empire the word got associated with the old faith, but yeah, both religions are related
@@xiuhcoatl4830 Well, "Hellenism" began to be used in a world that was already thoroughly "hellenised," i.e. the Late Hellenistic Era. In that regard, it was a little like "Americanised" during the late 20th century, a century where everyone was americanised to some degree; so that when someone used that term, they probably meant something more that just "following the capitalist mode of production." More like an "over-Americanisation," if one may use the term. Likewise, in the first Christian centuries, Hellenism referred not to the language and broader culture like you say (I mean, the Gospels were written in Greek after all) but mostly to an adherence to the "old" faith. In that respect Xiuhcoatl is in fact correct, but my objections are that this - and for the reasons mentioned here - was a word for "the other," the pagan, the dogmatic believer stuck in the old ways. Having said that, it's just a word, and as long as it reveals the truths we are after, I have no problem using it either way.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited don’t get stuck on a word. Words after all change meaning over time. So ‘Hellenism’ with the capita H could have indeed become like Hinduism, encompassing a whole way of life, a whole civilization. It’s a pity the Hellenes rejected Hellenism then and went with worshipping a Jewish carpenter from the Galilee. The question is why? Why did the Greeks go with Christianity when the Indians stuck with Hinduism despite centuries of Islamic invasions and Christian colonialism under the British. Why did Hellenism die while Hinduism thrives today and making a come back with Hindutva?
@@nomanor7987 It's a fascinating subject, but remember that Greek culture - like any other - went through a long period of decline before this decline was visible. In fact, the flame that was Greece was extinguished pretty early, perhaps following the Peloponnesian War. What you have following that is a culture that looks identical in every aspect, yet slowly becomes preoccupied with life after death, as if this life is simply not enough. The Orphic cults that were present throughout suddenly become dominant. The works of Hermes Trismegistus (of which we did an episode) are another example. The spiritual road was open to Christianity even before it arrived.
👍
Darklovelight
🍇 🕊️ ☯️
nata in Latin natal means to be born, dance of creation indeed, dance of life and death, circle of passing generations
modern western culture has only idea of linear time either with destruction at end or lack of any end and sense to the road
don't bet on reincarnation reincarnate while living
not loosing yourself and loosing it
that's what natural change is
The moment that you see lampadiofories in your island Naxos in Greece,im sure i was there! In a not Greek philosofical documentary! OMG
🎶
❤😂😢😢😢😢😅 2:30
I seek shiva in a 🍄 ceremony a few times he was laying in his side and laughing
Dionysus is also laughing. Yet, with matters that we mortals may consider deadly serious!
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
💪
Shiva predates Dionysus by several thousand years. Shiva is a major deity in Hinduism, which is one of the world's oldest surviving religions, with roots dating back to the Indus Valley Civilization in the third millennium BCE. Shiva's origins can be traced back to the early Vedic period in India, which began around 1500 BCE.
Dionysus, on the other hand, is a deity from ancient Greek mythology, which emerged around the 8th century BCE, several centuries after the earliest records of Shiva worship in India. Therefore, Shiva predates Dionysus by a significant margin.
The sun is the sun. If a nation worships a sun-god during the last one hundred years while another worships a different one for the last one thousand, that says nothing about the nature of these gods which represent the sun, and everything about those nations themselves. Dionysus was a minor deity while Shiva a great one. and all that means is that the Greeks demoted the aspects of life expressed by Dionysus. And it’s exactly this demotion which leads to the Euripides Bacchae !
They are actually cousin systems that both have roots in a common earlier belief system; I have heard that Dionysus was a god that was introduced later; kind-of like how Aphrodite is assessed to be derived from the Sumerian goddess Innana… and his story involves traveling to India and back.. Could he in actuality be a variation of Shiva adapted to the Greek pantheon and culture (and then demoted)? I think it’s quite possible…
@@michellem7290 I don’t believe Dionysus was a “late-comer,” in fact, the opposite. Dionysus has his roots in the pre-Greek, pre-Indo-European world of the early Bronze Age! There is a myth where Ariadne, princess of Crete, and after helping Theseus conquer the Minotaur, gets abandoned by her hero in an island, where she is “rescued” by Dionysus. It’s as if the two pieces of Cretan mythology: the great mother and her “Ever-dying and Ever-rising god” are reunited at last.
All time is contained in now.
Fucking brilliant
With all respect, there are some massive overgeneralizations here about Shivaism that need to be acknowledged - and I say this as a Tibetan Buddhist who's coming at this from an outer perspective already, and someone who still enjoyed watching this video. The worst of all, however, is the statement "instead of simply relishing in (Shiva's) beauty like the Hindus, (the Greeks) dared to go beyond it." This is a oversimplification of colossal proportions. I would imagine that you're aware there's essentially 3 modes of Hindu metaphysics - dual, semi-dial, and (much like Buddhism) non-dual. On a dual and semi-dual level there might be some truth to this in the sense that people either see divinity as separate, or as a connected factor that they are not fully apart of (and thus worship and find a preference within the divine "other") - but within the non-dual portion, which is a massive part of the Hindu world, it's very much believed that everything is one, and there's tantric practices that are all about joining this oneness - either in a ritually-pure lower kind of way, or in a non action, non ritual higher natural way. These are practices that most certainly do not just "relish" and don't "go beyond," and with all respect, statements like this are, perhaps unintentionally, out of the Colonialist rule book of ignorant denigration and explanation. (Again, I don't think you're purposely trying to do this, though I think this is the situation of what's happening)
Secondly, within a commented response, your argument for the difference and perhaps superiority of the Greek system is that it recognizes that there's an individual that's suffering, even though it's really part of a greater divinity, and that it's unique in appreciating the humanly aspect of ego in step with the divine - but this also is not universally true within Hindu practices - Kashmir Shaivism being a good example which very much does see both as divine and important without "privileging" one over the other per se.
Of course in Dzogchen within Tibetan Buddhism, there's very much the idea that the only way to really appreciate each moment is to recognize that everything is just the play of the nature of the mind (lhundrup), which is also primordially perfect (kadak), which in no way "privileges" a divine other due to the "divine" being empty yet also spontaneously present and the nature of compassion.
There's really a plethora of beliefs within the system. I should also mention that we know virtually nothing about the actual real-life practices of the Dionysian and Orphic cults - and while there's some interesting research about related subjects via Peter Kingsley, to draw any real conclusion on what they practiced is mere speculation and presentism.
But thank you for bringing up an interesting subject.
Thank you for this detailed response. I appreciate the time you took to write it. You are a good writer and I can see that you understand the topic well.
To respond, please acknowledge that this channel is about the Greek rather than Hindu practice, and can therefore do little but generalise on subjects that are **not** the essence. It's impossible for me to know the subtle nuances of the various Hindu practices. But I want to ask you, even if I could, and did, what could the result be? That we cannot utter a single statement about the religions of India as a whole because for every such statement one can find a cult or variance of one that contradicts it? You may find it strange but that is where a lot of the "Hinduism" that write critically about this video would rather leave it, and I'm calling it out as a "passive-aggressive" claim to superiority. "Thou shalt state no principles of our religion because we can find you an exception and call you a fool" kind of a thing.
Now, let's go back to the actual essence of this video, the cults of Dionysus rather than Shiva"
When you wrote:
"... the Greek system is that it recognizes that there's an individual that's suffering, even though it's really part of a greater divinity,"
you hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what we're presenting, and it shows that you really "got" our content.
But there is a subtle difference that might have eluded. That what for the Hindus was "transcendence" - and I believe that I **can** make this claim, that the variety of Hindu practices were transcendent in nature. They aimed to take the ego-consciousness to a level **after** this waking life that we fnd ourselves. So what I'm saying is that this promising potential, whose reality I do not doupt for a moment, is what the ego calls **death**.
Now this al may sound just find to the modern reader of this post. But I claim that this is exactly because what you criticised initially **actually** happened in Europe and the US, way before this channel was born: that is, an over-generalized understanding of eastern matephysics, but people like Allan Watts and even Osho! Whenever one listens to them, they may come out believing that death is a good thing to be awaited, and that "life is game" where - when you die - you get another life of your choosing! And it's exactly THIS "understanding" that we are countering in this video, where - in its cultural decline - the West is welcoming death as a restful sleep. We need to go back to the Greek tragedies and dare to see them for what they are still presenting us.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited My response to that would be to say that: by creating a gigantic and pompous overgeneralizations such as ""instead of simply relishing in (Shiva's) beauty like the Hindus, (the Greeks) dared to go beyond it," one is already basing a chunk of their argument on a false strawman fallacy to the point of rendering the rest of their work highly questionable and as a potentially invalid source. The fact of the matter is, practice that "go beyond" are not rare hidden facets of the religions - they're also major denominations. There's certainty nothing wrong with exploring the exciting takes on what the Greeks may have believed, and creating avenues of contrast; however, basing theories that are explicitly stated in a way that incorrectly put down another mode of belief - especially when those statements are not correct in and of themselves - is not typically a great way to make an argument. If you're not aware of the subtle nuances of another religions practices (or perhaps widespread nuances), perhaps jumping into inflammatory comparisons stated in a factual way is not the best route. There's certainly nothing wrong with stating "I'm not a scholar on Hindu practices, but as far as I know," and then making a comparison - in doing that, you're not setting yourself up for the equitable criticism you're receiving. Frankly, I believe you know better than to say "I'm calling it out as a 'passive-aggressive' claim to superiority." That's like someone saying "unlike Greek Myth, Christianity doesn't just just let their practitioners believe that there's only an unhappy hell afterlife; unlike the Greek's, Christianity actually goes beyond, and gives you a promise of heaven." And then anyone with more than a basic knowledge of Greek myth would automatically think "what are you talking about? There's the Eleusinian Mysteries with a better afterlife, the Bacchic mysteries with a better afterlife, etc." And then having the person respond "I can't be responsible for knowing the subtle nuances of the religion; frankly I think this is just a call to superiority to not criticize your religion and to try to call me a fool for a rare exception."
The rest of your argument is certainly a fine and interesting for one to debate, although I would also disagree. Again I'm not a Hindu to begin with, so I can't really argue their points in any definitive matter, though I think there's a large emphasis on certain aspects that place the importance on life right now without glorifying Death. From a Vajrayana Buddhist point of view, we already have Buddhahood now, we just need to realize it; though Death is not a glamorized thing, because the belief is that it's already here in every moment.
You you have any interest in the subject, you may want to look more into Hindu/Buddhist Tantrism (which not not about sex as it's depicted in the West, but is about becoming and or/realizing that you already are the deity). In particular, Shaktism, which is the principle mode of practice in Bengal. Kashmir Shivaism is also another fascinating tantric subject, in addition to Advaita Vedanta, which is a non dual for of Buddhism.
@@SatiricSatyr Without wanting to enflame you ever more. When I say "instead of simply relishing in (Shiva's) beauty like the Hindus," - is that not what is advertised at the very least by modern gurus? Is that not what Sadhguru (Jagadish Vasudev) is basing his teachings? Isn't this unification with the One central to Hinduism? Besides the nuances which - as I wrote - are impossible to capture in a 10 minutes video - isn't this transcendence of the Ego central to Hinduism? If you tell me that "no it's not" then I got it all wrong. If you tell me "yes, but..." I would agree without you having to complete that phrase. Because it's obvious that what we attempted is getting the broad strokes.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited I think a lot of this simply comes down to use of language, and individual definition. I don't equate the act of "relishing in" with the act of "unification." Relishing, to me, implies a more passive and simplistic mode of action that appreciates dually from a distance with a perspective of the deity being superior and other (and in fact, within the classification of tantric practices, is identified as a very low level practice). "Unification" implies an action of engaging in practices where one is, and becomes something (that something being the deity, or the nature of the deity itself). From my perspective, the word choice is dooming your argument, and may unintentionally be coming off as condescending - thus the dissenting comments. Again, with all respect, the subcontinent of India is literally the size of Europe, and while I don't think you actually think that there's only 1 form of Hinduism or that Sadhguru encapsulates the majority or the main stream belief system (he doesn't; frankly I also think your understanding of his practices are based on incomplete beliefs), I fear that statements like that may unintentionally come across as a kind of Western-centric pan-eastern white-washed oversimplification. It's not that you or anyone else is expected to have intense knowledge of any of this or an interest in it - it's a matter of having the cultural humility not to overgeneralize and create (what I would consider) inflammatory comparisons phased not as opinions, but as objective truths, where one party is presented as having a deeper belief, when in reality the argument is based of a spiritual stereotype and does not represent the blatant complexity of actual practice. Ie: "(the Greeks, unlike the Indians), dared to go beyond it."
I don't really see how the details of how "transcending ego" is defined has to do with that statement, or how an implied limitation of transcending ego means that they dare not "go beyond" just relishing in Shiva's beauty. Perhaps an argument better defined in other words. The point of mainstream Hindu dharmic practices typically puts an emphasis on their definition of "dharma" - the importance of daily life, and seeing your personality and daily life as the deity itself; thus the emphasis not being on death, but the innate compassion of phenomena. Thus to go back to an argument in your past response 1) I would agree that Hindu practices are "transcendent" in nature - but that phrase has no inherit meaning as it's definition changes all over the sub-schools and different religions. 2) I would disagree very strongly that even mainstream Hinduism is taking ego consciousness "after this waking life" to the moment of Death, considering there's such an emphasis on the now, and experiencing oneness within the moment. The practices you're describing seem more like the practices of ascetics (which I should add, are the kind of gurus hippies tended to gravitate to - ascetics, who while are a beautiful addition, do not actually even represent the mainstream). If anything your points might be a stronger argument towards the great Theravada Buddhists than Hindu's as a whole.
Thank you for the dialogue though.
@@SatiricSatyr If it's down to the word "relish" then we are splitting hairs, it's a miscommunication rather than a disagreement. The word was used because this "unification" that you mentioned as active participation is not aesthetically neutral, at least from what's been reported by those who had the experience. It's a state or ecstacy, of pleasure beyond hedonic sensations of the flesh, it's a "+" rather than a "-".
There is a very interesting case of a woman neuroscientist who suffered a stroke that rendered half her brain inactive for a short period of time, while she retained consciousness. Her name is Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, and she wrote a book detailing her experiences. Her interpretation is that as her Left hemisphere shut down she was unable to keep the boundaries that separated her from everything else. The result was a state of ecstacy that went beyond words, and much like Sadhguru's one. There, she "relished" in this one-ness so much that she totally forgot her state of emergency, until her brain - or half of it - came back "online" and started sounding the alarm. The state of one-ness is described by so many mystics as a state of "just being", not being "for" or "towards" something. Hence I found the word "relish" to be useful.
And apart form that, our episode is, of course, Western-centric, as Sadhguru's view is Eastern-centric. Impartiality is an impossibility. The only thing we can do is know which point we are looking at things from.
Report good
6:54 this reminds me of a prayer that we used to do... Which said that "life is a gift, death is compassion"
Although I found nothing spiritually uplifting about what thespis did - it is something that everyone does
Everyone blames and cries and thinks everything is unfair
Nothing extraordinary about it
Religion was made because people didn't want to be miserable all the time - and the way of thespis is just someone so lost in their own that they fail to see everything beyond
"The everything beyond" is anything but misery
To someone who has risen above good and bad, comfort and discomfort, pleasure and pain - to that someone, life wouldn't look like a tragedy
- a pretty average and random hindu here who has just started exploring her own religion ( so a beginner hehe 😉)
What is extraordinary about what Thespis did, is that he did it in the middle of his ecstasy. Religion may SEEM like it was invented to sooth life’s inherent pain, but whoever has experience this ecstasy I speak of, whether through sudden enlightenment, years of patient meditation, or, like yours truly, through chemical means, knows that life’s pain does not simply go away like with some sedative, but is truly seen as the minor, and almost comical “growing pains” towards an eternity of bliss which is at store for the mystic. The catch however is that you, the ego that is going towards death is not the subject of this experience, but rather an ephemeral mask to be cast away. To pull yourself out of this bliss and back into your consciousness proclaiming “I choose to remain mortal, and therefore a Man” is truly astonishing, proven by the fact that it was NOT done in any other culture … I hope that I have you a better sense of why this fear of Thespis was not as mundane as you made it sound ;-)
You perverted my God. I still respect your work.
Which God? And how did we pervert it?
This video made me think about the Divine Liturgy. I can see the parallels and symbolism, but the meaning eludes me. Jonathan Pageau has interesting content about Orthodox symbolism and the movement towards Re-Enchantment. Check it out if you’re interested.
Yes, plenty of connections to be drawn there. Have a look at our older episode "The God that Bled" for further connections (ruclips.net/video/c7A3KqNLOSc/видео.html)
Ends with the same notion of iconoclasm particular to West / Abrahmic world view that they can talk back to eternity. Nor they understand Shiva nor Dionysus
Dionysus is to experience it. Experience is the key
Agreed
I love the quote " the moment you think you have a understood Shiva, is the moment you have misunderstood everything" 😊
It's amusing to me; this whole hippie movement, the whole idea behind it, was a Dionysian rejection of the perceived Apollonionism of the fifties.
I am an American, so it is framed wholly differently here, as if the ideas behind the esoteric concepts were new and funky, but in reality, these young people were being psychically pulled to the roots of their pagan ancestors. It was never anything new to the European consciousness of America, it had just been folded under layers and layers of Cubist/Abrahamist conditioning.
The old gods are still with us, the old psychic imprints, just waiting to come screaming back out into the modern era again. Drugs, and their removal of conditioning, the Bacchant nature of them, the divine madness, must be re-embraced if we are to survive the consumption of the curse of Abraham.
You are right, what came into America as new, was actually pretty old... But there *was* a difference. And a very important one. And that is that, you need to take those Eastern religions into their own, proper context to understand them fully. What some of their mystics say might give you the impression that we are all aspects of the One, the Divine, God, and therefore, in a certain sense... equal. But the societies that were build on top of those religions, and here I am talking about the myriad of cultures and kingdoms in the sub-continent of India, were everything *but* egalitarian. They were hierarchal, patriarchal, authoritarian, like most ancient societies in fact. This was no "mistake", and to call it a "misinterpretation" is to imply that we in the West can know their cultures better than they do. It's that we in the West never took this "normative" part of Eastern religions seriously. We wanted only the transcendent part, the one that talks about "one-ness". Philosophers like Allan Watts, and for all their beauty, did much to reinforce this mis-representation of Eastern religions as they came pouring into the West. Lost were the arranged marriages that form the backbone of social continuity in the caste-based system of India. Lost were the patriarchal respect inside of families and towards leaders and kings that were seen as father figures of their people. But without those, what ended up dominating in the West was a purely Dionysiac cult that could only lead to self-destruction.
Nope. Not buying it. Being "one of the hippies that traveled to India". Dionysus never "stood up to Shiva". Why would he ever need to? They are vastly different deities with some overlap in function. The hippies were not "the lost generation", they impacted world culture in innumerable ways.
Where I'm standing, Dioysus is a demigod in Greek mythology and an archetype of Jungian psychology. Shiva is a living God CURRENTLY worshipped in Hinduism. The idea that Dionysus has "outdone" Shive is ludicrous....
The mysteries of Shiva are VAST. It is NOT a quick study. The idea of putting HIM in competition with Dionysus is silly. If anything, they both would have a great affinity with each other.
I think you missed the point of this video entirely. It is not Dionysus who "stands up to Shiva" but the Ego that dares to stand in the center of the dance, to break away from the sacred trance of acceptance and say "I am here!". Shiva is the dance, as well as the dancers, and he is identified with Dionysus in this capacity alone. That is Alain Danielou's point also, in his book "Gods of Love and Ecstasy." What we tried to convey is that in Greece alone, someone broke from the dance and re-asserted himself as an individual AGAINST the eternal flow of energy that is symbolised (albeit in different ways) by those two gods.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Aaahhh! I totally missed the point. Thank you for taking the time to clarify. I'm going to watch it again keeping all this in mind. :-)
Dinosys can't be compared to shiva. First like all greek gods, his stories have been distorted by centuries of Judeo-Christian rewriting of it's popular tales and then even if we believe about all his stories...he doesn't compare to the might and indescribable glory of lord Shiva. Lord shiva is self manifest , dinosys was born.
To give you a description of his power, once in great rage, lord shiva cut off a lock of his matted hair.
From that lock of hair, when it touched ground , emerged a being more brilliant and effulgent than a million suns and with a energy like that of universal fire.
It's said that when he arrived on earth, the entire earth trembled , there were tsunamis all over the world and earthquakes and the meteor shower started happening at a rapid pace. His chariot was said to be pulled by millions of celestial lions.
He was so mighty that his head touched the skies. He was a burning inferno million times over. A god born only for war.
His name was "Veerbhadra".
Same was the case of "Kartikeya" - he was born from the very semen of lord shiva - the only son of lord Shiva born through his semen. Lord Shiva had spent billions of years in ascetic practices before even the creation of material world began..his powers are beyond our comprehension.
All that these differences may say, is that the same ASPECT of reality that is represented by Dionysus-Shiva was demoted in Greece while held in absolute reverence in India.
Bacchus was the Thracian pagan god, the Greek philosophy didn't came from mysticism but the influence from Mesopotamia and Egypt. Greece was more akin to middle easterners than Germans or Gauls or Nordic people, not only in thought but culture too. It's no surprise that barbarians or goths never took any interest in Greek philosophy like Arabs did. Even in the Christianity phase Europe's theology owes much to Plato and Idealism while the real gem, Aristotle was cherished by Muslims.
In the Roman Empire, it's true, the line between East and West ran through the Ionian Sea (between Greece and Italy). Yet, there is something non-eastern in Greece that we are trying to explore. This video shows an example of what that might be ...
The Dionysus stuff in this video is interesting, but the parts discussing Śaiva beliefs have about as much insight and nuance as a wikipedia article.
I have actually found Wikipedia to be quite insightful, at times :-)
The whole point of this presentation, being a Greek channel, was Dionysus. So I’m glad we hit a never on that front.
Not to offend but wikipedia is not a good source to learn anything about india
dear Ancient Greek revised, I am into seeing the second video after the Dyonisos one. See? Again, some little lacune. Ecstasy is the opposite of anaestetic. Anaestetic all senses down. Ecstasy, all senses wide open. So not out of the body experience but connetion, being part of the whole, phisically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, but also the moment of the chaos, fermentation, bliions of new yeastes and bacteria that trasform into angels share through trippe definelty shit... ans being having some shit is good, all conttext. No shit no good crop. What goeas around comemes around in perfect harmony. The Joy aspect is related to the 21st of June Summer soltice energy point, North. That is the point where we can try to take off and reach the next level. Maximum speed, lowest acceleration, tending to decelerate till 21 of September harvest. Summer Fire. Autumn Metal, the cut, the beginning of the chaos. Or Chaos at 21 of March, Spring time, Wood. The Courage also. The trasformation and the use of the Winter immobility to reverse and create a new accelerating status quo. Organic Growth Chaos/Organic Fermentation chaos. On that regard I would ask you if you had considered that Dyonisos was the last God to enter the Olympo. Did you know the Gods have been added to Ancient Greek civilization little by little? Not all in one block. The More they knew, the more they add. Want to hear the voice of Dyonisos by St John? 15... I am the Truth Vineyard... Take away if you obbey to my commandment with... if you listen to my need... ask and it will be given... Dyonisos is the opposite of war. He is a good of Peace and Aboundance. No need for war. Why? I don't know if you were aware of all this elements about Dyonisos, but I would really reconsider your knowledge comes from fantasy. Interesting really interestning work though. Really. Another little thing about missing a few points about Greek times is that they had different words to describe things that now we use just one. Like here in Ireland we have 15 20 different way to cal rain. Shower, drizzle, etc, on another way we have 5 to ten way to call the sun... Greek peaople have different way to call love: 7 I think, aound that, and... erotical love different than friend love or love for a god, an idea, funny people the Greek, and eventually they didnt have time just as we know it today. They called time, exerienced by peoples talk, in 2 way, chronos, past present future, kairos, the right moment, later traslated interpreted by latis as karpe diem. Eternity concept a bit different in Dyonisos way...
Thank you for your loooong message ;-) A few things I can say: Ecstasy is NOT the opposite of anaesthetic, at least not grammatically. Both are Greek words that are currently in use, so I should know. Ecstasy comes from ec (εξ) meaning "out" and stasis (στάσης) meaning "to stand" *, so "to stand outside," which is really fitting for the experience. Whether you gain connection is not in contrast with this word, as the idea is that once you stand outside of your Ego-Consciousness, you find yourself as "One with the Universe." The word anaesthetic comes from "aesthesis" which is "sensation" or feeling.
Lastly, what we tried to convey is that this "joy of being one" is ONE aspect of reality. We have to understand that the "Hinduisation" of Western Spirituality has left us in a state where we cannot appreciate the tragic sense that the Greeks tried to impart on us. Death is tragic, and no amount of seeing life as a flow of energy is ever going to sooth your pain for losing a loved one. Dionysus is the flow, our Ego is the individual existence of beings. We must not forsake one in favour of the other.
* (think of it as the Spanish "estar" rather than "ser", it's the "to be somewhere" rather than "to be someone")
He didn't subscribe to Buddism Aldous Huxley was a writer. Timothy Leary actually instigated the massive use of LSD.
Aldous was a strong influence for Jim Morrison, but he is not a God. Neither is Timothy, or Gerrery. They all got really fucked up, and made their mark.
I don't know what exactly you are pointing to. Aldous Huxley wrote "The Doors of Perception" describing his experience with Psilocybin, and included some of his insights in perhaps his most famous work "Brave New World." Never did we say that "he was God" (whatever that could ever mean!)
To rage against God is to be man!
A satan.
@@hermanhale9258 We were made in
"His" image.
Why does he speak at though he has knowledge of India 😐 brother don’t even know they used shiva to build the archetype of Dionysus 🤔 talking about Europe as the old world when it’s just a baby compared to Indian thought and democracy
Maybe for the greeks of the time it was a new thing to see the similarities in their gods and hindu gods. Remember worshiping of the same deities took on different forms and names as civilizations spread, and empires conquered each other.
You have interesting thoughts but a shallow understanding of Shiva, and a very western judgemental approach towards the Hindus. The spritiuality, for you, hasn't sunk in yet. The more you will read, the more you will realise that you are trying to create a one-upmanship with a whole culture and a people who don't look at you or the Greek culture as a competitor, but actually have a great fondness for it,.
I understand your concerns, but perhaps it would help if you made your comments a little more specific to points that I may have missed …
Dionysus is not Shiva they’re the complete opposites of each other especially when it comes to their values ethics morals and temperament. Specifically what triggers your temper.
Dionysus is the embodiment of all the worst qualities associated with the Demiurge.
Brahma can be considered the Demiurge Yaldalboath, an Old Testament God.
Shiva is superior to brahma as indicated by the stories involving the pillar of light and the removal of Brahmas fifth head. This is reinforced by the significance and importance placed on Shiva who replaced Brahma, as a figure of worship.
At best Dionysos is one of the Asura or Deva
Associated with archons created by the demiurge
The real Hindu connection involves the sacred tree involving Buddha
And DIO Nasu
What Christianity considers Satanism is just the demonize ation of Middle Eastern Gnosticism,
As well as the beliefs tied to the Tocharian
Celts
Hindu
Assyrian
Scythian
As Rudra Shiva is the horn god of the hunt
There are many stories explaining his was association with the bull or the musical instrument of the Horn
Which puts him in line with Cernunnos
What’s in front of CERN?
No god IS any other. The question is “what aspects of reality do they embody?” On this a count there ARE many similarities between the two, as they represent the ecstatic flow of “one-ness.” Both Shiva and Dionysus have traits that are markedly different to those of the “Indo-European” gods of old. They are “wild”, “unruly”, even a little crazy. They are followed by chaotic spirits. They defy contradictions and thrive in mischief. Contrast this image to Zeus and you’ll understand where I’m going with this.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited I hate listening to people arrogantly impose modern paradigms onto the past... What do you know of actual history? The Tocharian of the Tarim Basin?
Pleasd explan in DETAIL how these two opposites are similar?
Who is Zagreus?
@@AncientGreeceRevisited How is Shiva who is beyond Brahma's comprehension similar to the Deva/Asura, INDRA'S half breed clone?
Dio is a Nephilim at best
Explain the hierarchy.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Now if you want to compare Dio superficially to a Budha, maybe... Dio Nasu... Sacred tree plus the Selinus / Bacchus connections.
Or go babylonian with
Baal El
Duma
Tammuz
Dummuzi
With ties to Ashera Ishtar Inanna Peresphone?
Sure.
Dio is the embodiment of the Demiurge, Old testament God Yaldalboath
Shiva is an aspect of the New testament god.
Shiva is like MARDUK
Mithra, Mars, Dionysus, Narshima, Mahees, Metatron, Apadamak. Jesus Christ the lion of Judah all lion men and much much more you people know nothing.
So Shiva is the origin of Dionysus, correct?
I don’t think we ever said that! They are gods that have their being in a common revelation.
the arrogance of Thespis is entertaining to say at the most but of no spiritual significance whatsoever. It ignores the fact that the individual exists within the eternal. To complain about an inevitable fact is indeed a tragedy, just like child cries out to their parents for attention. So as you rightly said, to go into ecstasy and stand beyond our limitations is the way. We could say that human lowest qualities are tragic and human highest qualities are ecstatic. The difference between the Hindus and the Greeks it is that the Hindus propounded methods (Yoga) which can transform the human consciousness towards ecstatic frequencies.
Yet, this ecstatic fullness is a state where the ego dissolves. The Greeks must have known about this, but their uniqueness is to dare stand at this razors edge, where the ego faces its ultimate dissolution in holy terror but does not give in without speaking out its mind. If that has no spiritual significance for you... I don’t know what does :-)
@@AncientGreeceRevisited absolutely, I was too harsh earlier. The spiritual has place for everything in existence. Now that I rethink about it. In India the equivalent would be the tantric practices. They have to do more with being at this razor edge and "downloading" into the physical realm.
Great channel brother! Keep stimulating the subtleness of life