Paramparaa (was Satyanarayana das [final, and then] other things)

[Guest guest]

achintya, "dark_knight_9" <dark_knight_9>

wrote:

 

> > As for parampara, that means "unbroken disciplic

> > succession," emphasis on *unbroken.*

>

> It is interesting that that you do not include within your

> definition, the implicit understanding of remaining true to the

> predecessor aachaaryas' teachings. <<

>

> The definition of parampara according to any authoritative Sanskrit

> dictionary is: "an uninterrupted row or series, order,

> succession,

> continuation."

 

It is interesting that you continually evade the point about

paramparaa being necessary to preserve the divine teachings. I find

this very telling, as far as your defense of Satyanarayana and these

alternative "Gaudiiya" paramparaas is concerned. Obviously,

preserving the essence does not seem to be a priority in your view,

as this is now the second chance you have had to define the concept

of paramparaa as you have understood it, and the only thing that you

have factored into it so far is a literal succession without any

mention of philosophical loyalty or preservation of any points of

doctrine.

 

As any Sanskrit scholar worth his title (and even many who aren't)

can tell you, the translation of Sanskrit is more than just literal

recollection according to Monier-Williams or Apte's Sanskrit-English

dictionaries. I'm sure you aren't naive enough to believe that the

literal English meaning of any word is the length and breadth of that

word's meaning. For a fuller and more true meaning of word, we need

only consult the shaastras themselves, and/or a practicing aachaarya

like Srila Prabhupada. What does shaastra have to say

about "paramparaa?" Just look and see:

 

eva.m paramparaapraaptamida.m raajarShayo viduH |

sa kaaleneha mahataa yogo naShTaH parantapa || giitaa 4.2 ||

 

evam - thus; paramparaa - by disciplic succession; praaptam -

received; imam - this science; raaja-R^iShayaH - the saintly kings;

viduH - understood; saH - that knowledge; kaalena - in the course of

time; iha - in this world; mahataa - great; yogaH - the science of

one's relationship with the Supreme; naShTaH - scattered; parantapa -

O Arjuna, subduer of the enemies.

 

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-giitaa 4.2)

 

Here we have a very explicit description of the concept of paramparaa

and exactly what it entails. If it were merely a chain of succeeding

spiritual gurus, then there would have been no need for describing

the passing down of divine knowledge via it.

 

Hence, your theory that:

 

> If there is anything else meant by parampara, then it is

> implicit. Not explicit.

 

....is wrong. We have it on the authority of Lord Krishna Himself that

the paramparaa exists to pass down divine knowledge. It is not merely

an unbroken chain.

 

It is not surprising that those who have developed their own ideas on

such things as varnaashrama dharma, diiksha, etc independent of

shaastra would try to gloss over this fact, and try to emphasize

paramparaa as merely a succession of spiritual leaders rather than

emphasizing the intellectual loyalty of the leaders to their

predecessors. Obviously, when the latter cannot be guaranteed, the

only way to appear legitimate is to deemphasize it.

 

Srila Prabhupada's paramparaa has an unbroken connection to Lord

Krishna as described in BG As It Is. But you may not accept it

because not all of the connections are formalized by the diiksha

ceremony. Still, if we accept your quoted definition of diiksha, then

there should be no problem believing that it is a proper diiksha

paramparaa due to the fact that divine knowledge and upliftment has

been passed on (the true essence of diiksha). But your friends

Satyanarayana et. al. will still not find this sufficient, because

for them the formal process of ceremony is required to call it

diiksha; only you will quote the correct definition of diiksha, but

this has not been historically accepted by them. If it had been, then

we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

Just for fun, I decided to check out the

> definition of parampara by the online Sanskrit lexicon, based on

the

> Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary.

 

I find that Sanskrit-English dictionaries are at best useful as a

starting point for understanding some Sanskrit concepts. I do not use

them over the teachings of practicing aachaaryas.

 

On the other hand, those who are foolish enough to reject Srila

Prabhupada's teachings on any point in favor of those of a meat-

eating, proselytizing Christian certainly deserve to be misled.

 

In his purport to BG 1.43, Srila Prabhupada comments as follows on

Arjuna's statement about hearing in disciplic succession:

 

"Arjuna bases his argument not on his own personal experience, but on

what he has heard from the authorities. That is the way of receiving

real knowledge. One cannot reach the real point of factual knowledge

without being helped by the right person who is already established

in that knowledge."

 

Note how Srila Prabhupada (a practicing Vaishnava) emphasizes the

transmission of knowledge, while Monier-Williams only emphasizes only

the chain of teachers. This is a typical case of how the non-

practicing, dry academic can only appreciate the superficial meaning

of something, while a devotee who lives the culture can give a fuller

explanation of the concept.

 

> Remaining faithful to the predecessor Acharyas' teachings is a

> given

> and does not need to be stated.

 

Of course, when one is bluffing, one prefers that his bluff not be

called. Not all that glitters is gold, but when you want to know if

it's the real thing, you look for the qualities by which the real

thing is known, and not merely the jeweler's guarantee.

 

Through nit-picking and misleading word analysis (i.e. picking Monier-

Williams over Prabhupada), knocking down strawmen (i.e. accusing me

of rejecting diiksha as you defined it), double talk (i.e. rejecting

that paramparaas can be connected by shiksha, but then quoting a

meaning of diiksha that actually allows for this), you have

successfully managed to divert this discussion away from the merits

of Satyanarayana's teachings, and the teachings of these other so-

called Gaudiiya paramparaas who reject Srila Prabhupada as a bona

fide representative of Lord Chaitanya. No doubt this is because you

anticipate the outcome as I do - that any defense of these "orthodox"

Gaudiiyas will fall apart when you compare their elitist and casteist

views with the simpler, more sublime, and transcendental teachings of

Lord Chaitanya.

 

Again, not all that glitters is gold.

 

yours,

 

- K