Guest guest Posted May 12, 2005 Report Share Posted May 12, 2005 I find it interesting that in the ISKCON disciplic line as put forth in their gita publication Suka the son of Vyasa is noticeably absent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 This is possible because it states first: "This Bhagavat-Gita As It Is is received through this disciplic succesion:" Since Sukadeva Gosvami spoke the Srimad Bhagavatam, He may possibly fall unto a parallel parampara: "In tracing the descending current of revealed truth through the ages, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura de-emphasized the traditional diksa-patra or diksa guru parampara, that in most cases was being abused, and stressed what he called the Bhagavata or siksa-guru parampara. The Bhagavata parampara conception is drawn from the Bhagavatam, the essence of which Krishna spoke to Brahma and was then passed from Brahma through Narada to Vyasa. Sukadeva Goswami who is said to have undergone no diksa samskara received the essence of Bhagavatam from Vyasa and passed it along to Pariksit Maharaja, Suta Goswami and others who were not his direct diksa disciples." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 "This Bhagavat-Gita As It Is is received through this disciplic succesion:" I know about that.. this is where the question arose from, Shankara's original commentary on Bhagavad Geeta is still available and his parampara includes Sukadeva Goswami. From everything that is said about him (Sukadeva Goswami) I thought that coming through him would be most authoritative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pankaja_Dasa Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 Before Sankara there was Buddisum. Before Buddisum there was many Vaishnavas. Shankara bought back us to our Vedic Roots, to him we are ever thankful for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2005 Report Share Posted May 17, 2005 Yes I agree that Shankara was widely responsible for the restablishment of Vedanta but that was not really my point. Personally I consider Buddhism to be part of the same culture. I don't look at it as Buddha deluding atheists by sending them deeper into darkness. Rather he brought religion to the atheists, this is a fantastic leela, showing that the truth is the truth from any standpoint, there is no way to get away from it. He showed that you don't have to accept anything because someone says so. The implications of this for religion is monumental considering that a lot of people today abandon religion because they can't accept things just because someone says so. My real question regarded the authority of the Geeta through Shankara since that is the one that would have come through Sukadeva Gosvami. Consequently in Shankara's Geeta in one of the opening verses he differ's from the ISKCON translation. The well known tranlation of that part is that the Kaurava army is perfectly protected by Beeshma while the Pandava army is inadequately protected by Bhima. Shankara has it the other way around. With the Pandava army being perfectly protected by Bhima and Beeshma being weak. This verse is still translated like this even to this century, by such men as Paramhansa Yogananda, well I guess it would be last century now. From my knowledge a case can be made for both translations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.