Importance of Sampradaya and Parampara

[Guest guest]

I have posted the below information on another thread, however did not recieve any replies as it was a bit of a divergence on the original topic. I'm interested to see what people think about Sampradaya, as I understand it is quite important to some sects of Hinduism.

 

---------------------------

 

I've been hearing alot that "authorative" or more genuine Hinduism comes from some one in a Sampradaya with a long parampara behind it.

 

So can someone here give be some examples of 'true' Hinduism from a Parampara since Vedic times? It seems alot of these Sampradaya's are still quite recent. Is there any that is 5000 years old or older? Is there an 'original' Samradaya of Hinduism?

 

There are gurus who came from one master who extablish their own sect in their own name and maybe after a while their parmapara differs from the original Sampradaya where the guru came from.

 

So Tulsidas has no parampara before him? Does Vivekananda? Does Aurobindo? What happened to Sage Vyas' sampradaya? Or even Valmiki's? It a guru has no parampara does this make his words less unauthorative?

[maadhav]

<< So Tulsidas has no parampara before him? Does Vivekananda? Does Aurobindo? >>

 

it is better when one is in an bonafide parampara.

krishna recommends it. however, there are some exceptions.

mahabharata shows that it is posisble to learn without a guru in a parmpara, but it is not recommended as the best way. Tulasidas was not in a parampara, but he was a devitee/discpile of hanumanji. now if hanumanji favors him, who are we to not love tulasidas? his greatest conribution was that he gave ramayana directly to the common village people in their own vernacular language. he broke the monopoly of the barhmanans (who knew sanskrit) to tell what ramayana teaches.

 

vivekananda had a guru -ramakrishna- but he did not accept a guru parampara. instead he had several gurus, one after another. by his own direct experience he realized that all the different vedic paths lead to same god, sooner or later.

he even practice islam (bud did not do jihad) and found it a good path also. (so, any muslims who does not follow islam as he did, must not live in india.)

 

aurobindo loved the motherland devbhoomi and its vedic culture first. he learned/realized god through the vedas and some literature of past gurus. he is a greatest yogi of our times, but his writings are very difficult to understand for common people. sometimes his sentences are half or a page long and with difficult and uncommon words.

unless one reaches to some height of progress, one cannot understand his message.

 

<< What happened to Sage Vyas' sampradaya? Or even Valmiki's? >>

 

we have sampradayas that carry their message.

BTW, valmiki did not inaugarate any sampradaya.

 

<< It a guru has no parampara does this make his words less unauthorative? >>

 

yes, and no.

yes, because that sets a wrong example that there is no need for a guru. consequently many gurus spring up without a parampara and cause total chaos.

 

no, because it is possible to get realization without being in a parmpara. some do, and if you can find one genuine realized peson like that, then you can benefit from his/her assocaition. a right thing to do is that any one who realizes god independent of any sampradya, should pick a guru even after realization, to be a part of a parampara.

this then will set an example for common people.

 

just as one can learn mathematics or physics without going to a teacher, even though it would be very difficult, one can realize god too without going to a living guru in a parampara. it is wise to accept a guru, soooner or later.

 

hope it helps.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Maadhav,

 

Thanks for replying.

"he even practice islam (bud did not do jihad) and found it a good path also. (so, any muslims who does not follow islam as he did, must not live in india.)"

 

Yeah I heard that he practiced Islam for a little while, but it was the Sufi form of Islam, not orthodox Islam. Sufism is more open than orthodox Islam and has some spiritual practices resembling kirtan and ecstatic dancing like in Hinduism. Ramakrishna I don't think read the Koran as he was semi-literate. But, the argument is that as he realised God before (through Hinduism) whatever path he followed afterwards would still lead to God. He went into Samadhi at any time he wished, so whether while practicing Sufism or not, he could still make contact with God as he already attained that state through Hinduism. Even the Ramakrishna Mission say this, which implies that other religions can be realised only through the backdrop of Hinduism, not the fanatic verses of their scripture.

 

"aurobindo loved the motherland devbhoomi and its vedic culture first. he learned/realized god through the vedas and some literature of past gurus. he is a greatest yogi of our times, but his writings are very difficult to understand for common people."

 

Aurobindo did some great commentaries on the Vedas, Upanishads and Gita and was really a modern day Sage. While meditating in Prison he obtained a vision of Krishna. I've tried reading his commentaries, but they are quite difficult to follow as you say, hopefully someone in the Aurobindo Ashram may take the time to re-write his commentaries in simpler language.

 

This was done for other Hindu groups such as Swaminarayan, whose 'Vachanamritam' was re-written by monks of his order for common people to understand.

[maadhav]

thanks.

 

i agree what you said.

 

<< This was done for other Hindu groups such as Swaminarayan, whose 'Vachanamritam' was re-written by monks of his order for common people to understand. >>

 

all swaminarayam litrature is in old gujarati.

some part like shikshapatri (only some 220 verses) is in sanskrit.

 

the original language (old gujarati) of sahajananda swami is very sweet and full of love for the listeners.

it has loving flavor of the local culuture of kathiawar ( saurashtra) now a part of gujarat. this sweeetness is very difficult to translate in any language. I tried to read its english translation, but did not like it for that reason.

 

most of sahajananda's followers were vilalge people, illeterate, some vilalge heads, some merchants, some skileld workers like carpenters, hardy any scholars.

therefore sahajanand spoke in a way that all can understand him. this is in complete contrast to aurobindo, who did not have an audience in mind when he wrote it (yes he wrot ea lot, and hardly lectured). he simply put his own realization in enghish words.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I've been hearing alot that "authorative" or more genuine Hinduism comes from some one in a Sampradaya with a long parampara behind it.

-a religion is legitimated and created by god, and it is necessary that the consciousness is transmitted by master to disciple. In this way, being the true master the transparent medium to hear the god's words, if a practitioneer of religious culture it is inside a parampara', it is like that he can communicate with god himself

 

bhagavd gita:

Chapter 4. Transcendental Knowledge

 

TEXT 34

 

tad viddhi pranipatena

pariprasnena sevaya

upadeksyanti te jnanam

jnaninas tattva-darsinah

 

SYNONYMS

tat--that knowledge of different sacrifices; viddhi--try to understand; pranipatena--by approaching a spiritual master; pariprasnena--by submissive inquiries; sevaya--by the rendering of service; upadeksyanti--initiate; te--unto you; jnanam--knowledge; jnaninah--the self-realized; tattva--truth; darsinah--the seers.

 

TRANSLATION

Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.

.

.

So can someone here give be some examples of 'true' Hinduism from a Parampara since Vedic times?

-madhva gaudya vaishnava parampara

 

There are gurus who came from one master who extablish their own sect in their own name and maybe after a while their parmapara differs from the original Sampradaya where the guru came from.

-so it is up to the disciples or other pratictioneers if these differences are external and due to the necessary variety and freedom of the spiritual orthodox approach or they are simply deviations

 

It a guru has no parampara does this make his words less unauthorative?

-of course, we came in this world because we are envious of god, because we are not humble to recognise His supremacy. So the first step to revive our relationship is to admit that we cannot quit this material world by our own effort. We need the grace and mercy of god to do it. But being our senses blinded by material energy we cannot relationate directly with god, so we need a master who sees god, lives in connection with god and he can give god to us. But wich kind of master he is if he do not give the example to be a good disciple?

So the rule is that a master have to demonstrate to be a perfect disciple, a master being an uttama adhikari, humble, feels himself not qualified to teach anything to anyone.. so he teachs only by the order of his own spiritual master.

So a master who is not a disciple fails at least two times: he does not gives example on how to be a disciple (one can say "if you were not able to listen from a master, how can you coherently say to me to learn by you?"), and feeling himself a master (because he's doing it by his will, not by order) he shows no humility, so how can he revive his original spiritual consciousness and how can he teach others to do it?.... when one feels himself a guru, he's automatically the lowest of men

 

so being a teacher not being a pupil is a great contraddiction

 

if someone claims to be a "do it yourself" guru he's a fake, if he has not learned the truth he cannot teach it to anyone... it works in material world, it works in spiritual matters who are infinitely more difficult to approach

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Maadhav, I was referring to the English translation of Vachanamritam that was re-written for English speaking public, not the Gujarati version.

 

As for Aurobindo, probably the reason his language was hard to grasp is that he was very poetic in delivery and that he had studied at Cambridge University, which affected his English.