Is disciplic succession a scriptural injunction?

[Kulapavana 0]

Is maintaining a disciplic succession one of the major scriptural injunctions in the Vaishnava tradition?

 

Bhagavad Gita:

4.1 "The Blessed Lord said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Iksvaku.

 

4.2 "This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost. "

[Guest guest]

If the Gita is available to you today then there exists an unbroken chain from you to the author. Some of the links in this chain are books but there is no rule forbidding that.

 

Logically there is no link from Arjuna to to anyone who is alive today establishing that oral succession was never true in the case of the Gita.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

If the Gita is available to you today then there exists an unbroken chain from you to the author. Some of the links in this chain are books but there is no rule forbidding that.

 

Logically there is no link from Arjuna to to anyone who is alive today establishing that oral succession was never true in the case of the Gita.

 

that is the object of my inquiry. is maintaining a succession a scriptural injunction? succession is always understood as a sequence. can you stop a succession with a book?

 

you are mistaken in thinking that Arjuna was the only person who received the Gita at Kurukshetra. read it again. how do you think we got a copy? who wrote it down? that line goes through Vyasadeva as well.

[Beggar 0]

 

Is maintaining a disciplic succession one of the major scriptural injunctions in the Vaishnava tradition?

 

Bhagavad Gita:

4.1 "The Blessed Lord said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Iksvaku.

 

4.2 "This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost. "

This is actually the parampara or chain of disciplic succession of karma yoga, which is what Krsna was teaching Arjuna in the fourth chapter of Bhagavad Gita. The parampara of bhakti yoga begins with Krsna then Lord Brahma to Narada Muni to Srila Vyasadeva and so on. All forms of yoga, which is like a ladder going up to bhakti, are coming from Krsna as we can see from the Bhagavad Gita. Therefore the principle of disciplic succession described in chapter four applies also to bhakti yoga.

[Guruvani 0]

 

that is the object of my inquiry. is maintaining a succession a scriptural injunction? succession is always understood as a sequence. can you stop a succession with a book?

 

 

Who is saying that you can stop a succession with a book?

 

As far as the ritvik system goes, it is not conducted on the basis of a book, but on empowered disciples.

 

Then again, we can turn your question around and ask...

:can a succession start with a book?

 

Books are never said to stop a succession, rather to perpetuate the succession.

 

Why are you asking if a book can stop a succession?

 

Do you think that a succession is a physical contact succession?

 

A siksha guru succession can pass through books, but it is obvious that a diksha succession cannot.

 

But, since the Gaudiya parampara is primarily a "siksha guru" succession according to all the recent acharyas, then maybe a succession can start with a book.

[Guest guest]

 

who wrote it down? that line goes through Vyasadeva as well.

 

That is what I mean. It is not necessary that one receives direct oral instruction from a physical master. By the time the gita is written down it has already passed through other people like Sanjaya and others. If oral transmission was considered necessary then the Gita would never have been written down.

 

In general, oral transmission of the gita from Arjuna or anyone else is not seen as a requirement. It is only necessary that one adheres to the interpretation of the tradition one belongs to. That is the real intent of oral transmission.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

This is actually the parampara or chain of disciplic succession of karma yoga, which is what Krsna was teaching Arjuna in the fourth chapter of Bhagavad Gita. The parampara of bhakti yoga begins with Krsna then Lord Brahma to Narada Muni to Srila Vyasadeva and so on. All forms of yoga, which is like a ladder going up to bhakti, are coming from Krsna as we can see from the Bhagavad Gita. Therefore the principle of disciplic succession described in chapter four applies also to bhakti yoga.

 

so the entire Gita is about karma yoga? if that succession above is all about karma yoga alone why is Krsna re-establishing that succession with his very close and dear devotee? why do you think Vivasvan was a karma-yogi and not a bhakta?

 

if anything, it is karma-yoga that perhaps can be passed down in a book form as a sufficient media to ensure proper continuity, but not bhakti yoga.

 

are there more shastric verses that speak about disciplic succession as a requirement for the transfer of knowledge?

 

there are verses in the Puranas that speak about Vyasadeva and the various disciplic succession lines he started through his disciples as each one of them was entrusted with a particular section of the Vedic literature.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

In general, oral transmission of the gita from Arjuna or anyone else is not seen as a requirement. It is only necessary that one adheres to the interpretation of the tradition one belongs to. That is the real intent of oral transmission.

 

wrong again. who else, besides Arjuna, HEARD the Gita being spoken? it was very much an oral transmission when it got to Vyasa.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Who is saying that you can stop a succession with a book?

 

some try to do exactly that: stop a succession with a book.

 

but let us stay focused:

 

Is maintaining a disciplic succession one of the major scriptural injunctions in the Vaishnava tradition?

yes or no, hopefully with some shastric basis to justify our position.

[Guest guest]

 

wrong again. who else, besides Arjuna, HEARD the Gita being spoken? it was very much an oral transmission when it got to Vyasa.

 

The gita open as as dialogue where sanjaya describes the war to the blind man including the Gita. Still oral at this time but after Vyasa it was written down by someone and since then it has been kept in written form. No rule in the Gita dictates that the Gita should be learnt orally only. Such rules come from elsewhere. From a shiksha angle, there is no succession existing today insisting on oral transmission. Who shows a shiksha line from arjuna or anyone else? Madhva does not mention anywhere that he learnt the gita from vyasa orally.

 

Diksha is a different story altogether and in my opinion a waste of time to discuss as no consensus can be reached.

[suchandra 1]

 

some try to do exactly that: stop a succession with a book.

 

but let us stay focused:

 

Is maintaining a disciplic succession one of the major scriptural injunctions in the Vaishnava tradition?

yes or no, hopefully with some shastric basis to justify our position.

 

Yes, Krishna says YES - although it sometimes gets interrupted and has to be reconnected! But that's the procedure of passing on vedic knowledge and was installed by Lord Krishna Himself.

 

evam parampara-praptam

imam rajarsayo viduh

sa kaleneha mahata

yogo nastah parantapa

 

"This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost."

 

Bhagavad-gita 4:2

[Guest guest]

If I am correct, Madhva wrote his Gita commentary before he met Vyasa. SO there was no shiksha relatonship for the Gita in that case. Gaudiyas do not adopt Madhva's views anyway which implies there is no shiksha relationship between the two. In conclusion, Madhva nor the Gauidyas nor anyone else on the planet have a shiksha relationship with Vyasa/Arjuna/Sanjaya/Dhiritarashtra/Krishna.

 

That should settle the Shiksha issue. Now you can debate the dhikhsa issue.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

No rule in the Gita dictates that the Gita should be learnt orally only. Such rules come from elsewhere. From a shiksha angle, there is no succession existing today insisting on oral transmission.

 

the point of the thread is not in insisting that the knowledge is to be trasferred orally only. warious non-oral means can be adopted when available for transfer of knowledge. it is about parampara.

 

perhaps we should discuss what the disciplic succession really is. is it a mere transfer of knowledge, or something quite a bit more than that.

[Beggar 0]

 

so the entire Gita is about karma yoga? if that succession above is all about karma yoga alone why is Krsna re-establishing that succession with his very close and dear devotee? why do you think Vivasvan was a karma-yogi and not a bhakta?

 

 

 

so the entire Gita is about karma yoga?

I didn't say that, but the topic of the fourth chapter is certainly karma yoga.

 

 

if that succession above is all about karma yoga alone why is Krsna re-establishing that succession with his very close and dear devotee?

Because Sri Krsna is teaching Arjuna about selfless action as a foundation for the subject "action in Krsna Consciousness". Remember Krsna has placed Arjuna in illusion so He can speak Bhagavad Gita which is really for the benefit of the conditioned souls. Arjuna is already a great and confidential devotee of the Lord so he is never really bewildered. The topics of the Gita gradually become more and more confidential culminating in:

 

 

 

man-mana bhava mad-bhakto

mad-yaji mam namaskuru

mam evaisyasi satyam te

pratijane priyo 'si me

 

TRANSLATION

 

Always think of Me and become My devotee. Worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.

 

PURPORT

 

The most confidential part of knowledge is that one should become a pure devotee of Krsna and always think of Him and act for Him. One should not become an official meditator. Life should be so molded that one will always have the chance to think of Krsna. One should always act in such a way that all his daily activities are in connection with Krsna. He should arrange his life in such a way that throughout the twenty-four hours he cannot but think of Krsna. And the Lord's promise is that anyone who is in such pure Krsna consciousness will certainly return to the abode of Krsna, where he will be engaged in the association of Krsna face to face. This most confidential part of knowledge is spoken to Arjuna because he is the dear friend of Krsna. Everyone who follows the path of Arjuna can become a dear friend to Krsna and obtain the same perfection as Arjuna.

These words stress that one should concentrate his mind upon Krsna--the very form with two hands carrying a flute, the bluish boy with a beautiful face and peacock feathers in His hair. There are descriptions of Krsna found in the Brahma-samhita and other literatures. One should fix his mind on this original form of Godhead, Krsna. He should not even divert his attention to other forms of the Lord. The Lord has multi-forms as Visnu, Narayana, Rama, Varaha, etc., but a devotee should concentrate his mind on the form that was present before Arjuna. Concentration of the mind on the form of Krsna constitutes the most confidential part of knowledge, and this is disclosed to Arjuna because Arjuna is the most dear friend of Krsna's.

BG 18.65, The Bhagavad Gita As It Is, by Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (1972 Edition)

 

 

 

 

[Kulapavana 0]

 

If I am correct, Madhva wrote his Gita commentary before he met Vyasa. SO there was no shiksha relatonship for the Gita in that case. Gaudiyas do not adopt Madhva's views anyway which implies there is no shiksha relationship between the two. In conclusion, Madhva nor the Gauidyas nor anyone else on the planet have a shiksha relationship with Vyasa/Arjuna/Sanjaya/Dhiritarashtra/Krishna.

 

 

according to the contemporary biography (Sri Madhva Vijaya), Madhvacarya met Vyasa twice. whether some Gaudiyas belive it or not is hardly relevant. Madhvas dont believe a lot of Gaudiya stories either but it is clear Prabhupada believed in the direct transfer of knowledge between Vyasa and Madhva in Badarikashram.

 

btw: the topic is not limited to GV perspectives alone. there are 4 recognized Vaishnava sampradayas, and they are all disciplic successions.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

but it is clear Prabhupada believed in the direct transfer of knowledge between Vyasa and Madhva in Badarikashram.

 

In the poem "Sri Guru-Parampara" by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami Prabhupada writes, "madhva kohe vyasa-das". "Vyasa trasmitted this knowledge to Madvacarya". He knows this from Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Gaurakishora das Babaji. Srila Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada was taught this by his gurudeva.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

A siksha guru succession can pass through books.

Can you give sastric evidence of this? Can you find a quote of Srila Sridhar Maharaja telling this?

[Kulapavana 0]

A side note:

 

4.2 "This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost. "

 

ask yourself a question:

 

How did that succession get broken? were there no books available?

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

How did that succession get broken? were there no books available?

Yes, there were no books available. But can a succession be broken even if there are books? What if one misinterprets and misunderstands the books?

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Yes, there were no books available. But can a succession be broken even if there are books? What if one misinterprets and misunderstands the books?

 

and how do you know there were no books? you mean the greatest civilisation on earth did not have a written language? there were no letters being sent and no books written at all? I suggest you read the Bhagavatam again because written language is a very old invention.

 

your second point is a lot better. yes, books can be misinterpreted and their pages torn out or lost. that is why you need living Bhagavatams.

[Guest guest]

 

wrong again. who else, besides Arjuna, HEARD the Gita being spoken? it was very much an oral transmission when it got to Vyasa.

 

Sanjaya heard the Gita, and not in the way that a newspaper reporter "on the spot" records a conversation between some princes.

 

It was mystic revelation in his heart. The gita we have is perhaps not the EXACT WORDS spoken by Krishna to Arjuna, but rather Sanjaya's vision of what was said.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

The gita we have is perhaps not the EXACT WORDS spoken by Krishna to Arjuna, but rather Sanjaya's vision of what was said.

A good plug for individuality rather than "groupthink" where all the posters are hoping that everyone will see everything the exact way they do. Oh How disappointing it is when they do not! Or for that matter the illusion that during Prabhupada's time Gaudiya Vaisnavism was somehow united. Only the Popes of Christiandom with their armies could pull it off, and even then at what price? This is what the GBC tried to do. Are the Anti-GBCites really just a reflection of what they oppose?

[Guruvani 0]

 

Can you give sastric evidence of this? Can you find a quote of Srila Sridhar Maharaja telling this?

 

not at this moment, but I will look into it when I get time.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Sanjaya heard the Gita, and not in the way that a newspaper reporter "on the spot" records a conversation between some princes.

 

It was mystic revelation in his heart. The gita we have is perhaps not the EXACT WORDS spoken by Krishna to Arjuna, but rather Sanjaya's vision of what was said.

 

"Sanjaya said: Thus have I heard the conversation of two great souls, Krsna and Arjuna. And so wonderful is that message that my hair is standing on end.

By the mercy of Vyasa, I have heard these most confidential talks directly from the master of all mysticism, Krsna, who was speaking personally to Arjuna. "

 

BG 18.74-75.

 

if we take these words to be true, Sanjaya heard the conversation as Krsna intended all of us to hear. otherwise, why the charade of placing Arjuna in illusion to speak the Gita in the first place?

 

and if you doubt these words, why would you trust the rest of the book?

 

anyway, we are getting distracted.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Or for that matter the illusion that during Prabhupada's time Gaudiya Vaisnavism was somehow united. Only the Popes of Christiandom with their armies could pull it off, and even then at what price? This is what the GBC tried to do. Are the Anti-GBCites really just a reflection of what they oppose?

 

actually the Popes allowed a lot more intellectual and theological freedom than Iskcon ever did. that tolerance was one of the unifying factors, but the military might was helpful as well

 

as to the anti-gbc/ritvik crowd - yes it is a mirror reflection of the same attitudes.