Tattva-viveka
Why does our Guru-Parampara begins with Brahma?
Madeleine Brodd - July 19, 2008 9:15 pm
Haribol!
In BG 4.1 Krishna says:
sri-bhagavan uvaca imam vivasvate yogam
proktavan aham avyayam vivasvan manave praha
manur iksvakave 'bravit
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.
Srila Prabhupada says in this verse:
"The sun is the king of the planets, and the sun-god (at present of the name Vivasvan) rules the sun planet, which is controlling all other planets by supplying heat and light. He is rotating under the order of Krsna, and Lord Krsna originally made Vivasvan His first disciple to understand the science of Bhagavad-gita. The Gita is not, therefore, a speculative treatise for the insignificant mundane scholar but is a standard book of knowledge coming down from time immemorial"
In the Mahabharata (Santi-parva 348.51-52)
treta-yugadau ca tato vivasvan manave dadau
manus ca loka-bhrty-artham sutayeksvakave dadau
iksvakuna ca kathito vyapya lokan avasthitah
"In the beginning of the Treta-yuga [millennium] this science of the relationship with the Supreme was delivered by Vivasvan to Manu. Manu, being the father of mankind, gave it to his son Maharaja Iksvaku, the king of this earth planet and forefather of the Raghu dynasty in which Lord Ramacandra appeared."
My question is, why does our Guru-Parampara starts with Brahma instead of the Sun-God, Vivasvan? 
Radhe Radhe! 
Zvonimir Tosic - July 20, 2008 2:02 am
My question is, why does our Guru-Parampara starts with Brahma instead of the Sun-God, Vivasvan?Radhe Radhe!
You were reading my mind somehow! Amazing.
That's the exact question I wanted to ask as well, and was trying recently to elaborate it with some other material. I've partially started that analysis in another thread, when I talked with Syamu about Varnasrama and when it ceased. Thanks for reminding me to continue to study that very important topic!
Swami - July 20, 2008 3:17 am
At the beginning of chapter four Krsna spoke the science of karma yoga to Vivasan, the subject of chapter three. However, when he spoke to Brahma, as recorded in the Bhagavatam, Brahma-samhita, and Gopala-tapani, he spoke about suddha bhakti, which is what we follow, not the path of karma yoga.
Zvonimir Tosic - July 20, 2008 10:58 am
At the beginning of chapter four Krsna spoke the science of karma yoga to Vivasan, the subject of chapter three. However, when he spoke to Brahma, as recorded in the Bhagavatam, Brahma-samhita, and Gopala-tapani, he spoke about suddha bhakti, which is what we follow, not the path of karma yoga.
Thank you for your brief explanation Swami. However, now I'm even more bemused.
Hope you don't mind if I explicate?
In Bhagavad-gita, p.120, you write in the commentary (3.35):
"Verses thirty through thirty-five are a covert advocacy of bhakti, which, as, BR Sridhara Deva Goswami says, is the eternal superexcellent natural function of the soul. ... This is ultimately what Krishna has in mind for Arjuna, and niskama-karma yoga, in which the fruit of one's work is offered to Krishna, is similar to bhakti ... Covertly, Krishna commands Arjuna to act in accordance with his soul's interest in terms of an eternal loving relationship with him ... In the present verse (3.35) Krishna says that pure devotion is the natural function of the soul ... ".
Then again, in verse 4.4, after revealing that he had told this yoga to Vivasvan, Krishna says: "It is this very same ancient teaching of yoga that I am teaching you today. It is the ultimate secret, but I tell it to you because you are my trusted devotee and friend."
Here Krishna says today, which as I understand, reflects to the whole teaching of yoga which Krishna will explain to Arjuna that day (the whole of Bhagavad-gita, which concludes with surrender to Krishna), and not only the words of few moments ago (niskama-karma). Krishna also says that teaching is the ultimate secret, which corresponds with the commentary from 3.35 and from many commentaries through the Gita, in which you help explain how Krishna secretly reveals his true feelings and true meaning underneath his words.
So, Krishna says this teaching of yoga has been lost through time. But its secret -- bhakti -- has been lost then as well, and thus he has appeared again, to reveal that secret to Arjuna because Arujna is his beloved friend and can understand the secret meaning of his words. Only Krishna can reveal that secret again, not even his emissary. Not even Brahma. This is very important moment in Bhagavad-gita, I believe. It's like a transcendental crossroad, in which past, present and future meet together. (The mention of Vivasvan is also very enthralling from another perspective too).
If Krishna has explained only karma yoga to Vivasvan long ago, and not the secret knowledge behind it, it looks and sounds so unlike Krishna to me. That would oppose his own words in this verse and the heart of your commentary as well. So that's why I'm bewildered.
Madan Gopal Das - July 20, 2008 11:29 am
If Krishna has explained only karma yoga to Vivasvan long ago, and not the secret knowledge behind it, it looks and sounds so unlike Krishna to me. That would oppose his own words in this verse and the heart of your commentary as well.
I think rather than focus on the word TODAY in verse 3, you should focus on the word bhakto. As Guru Maharaj explains in his commentary, this is the first time that mention of bhakti has been made in the Gita. To me, it makes sense that Krsna has spoken about karma yoga up to this point, and now he is describing the history of that teaching.
Vivasvan and Arjuna have different qualifications. Krsna is itching to tell more and therefore mention of bhakti is made here. Krsna is saying that in general this is the system of passing on yoga teaching; parampara. Specifically, this teaching of karma yoga was passed down in this particular parampara, via Vivasvan. But, bhakto si me sakha ceti; I will explain it (and more!) to you Arjuna, because you are my devotee and friend. Yes, the teaching of bhakti is also lost at times, just as there are times when there is a shortage of people qualified to hear about it. People (demigods included) are on different rungs of the yoga ladder. This verse points out Arjuna's supreme qualification, above even that of the mighty Vivasvan.
Another point is that in parampara of Vivasvan we have Manu, the father of mankind. Manu is also the source of the dharma sastra's and that parampara lends itself to the karma-kanda of the Veda. Then Iksvaku, king of the earth down to Rama. You can see the dharma, karma focus of this lineage...
Madeleine Brodd - July 20, 2008 12:06 pm
Thank you for the answers.
I will think about this
Zvonimir Tosic - July 20, 2008 11:42 pm
Another point is that in parampara of Vivasvan we have Manu, the father of mankind. Manu is also the source of the dharma sastra's and that parampara lends itself to the karma-kanda of the Veda. Then Iksvaku, king of the earth down to Rama. You can see the dharma, karma focus of this lineage...
Thank you for your view Madan-Gopal, I really appreciate it.
However, I'm still puzzled by Krishna's words, "It is the ultimate secret ...". If Krishna is referring only to karma-yoga he told to Vivasvan, and if it reflects karma-marga lineage you talk about, why call that the "ultimate secret"? In all honesty, why would bhagavan use superlatives in his sentences to describe something like karma-yoga and karma-marga?
I concur, the mention of bhakti is vital and Krishna reveals what are the qualifications required to understand his words.
But Krishna also says "my friend". Sakha ceti.
Now, I believe, with this "secret wake up call" to Arjuna, Krishna tells him to open ears and listen carefully (as they used to do before as friends), and reflect upon the words he just told him .. and also to listen carefully from that moment on, and then again think behind the meaning of all the words. Arjuna will understand them because he's his devotee, but more importantly -- his friend. Not many devotees are granted to be Krishna's sakhas. But because they're friends, they know each other's nuances, jokes, body language, covert language, et cetera.
Krishna is the supreme master of double talk and covert language, as Swami has revealed wonderfully in his 'Aesthetic Vedanta' and 'Gopala Tapani Upanishad'. In the midst of the battlefield he will reveal something quite extraordinary which only a handful will fully understand.
I believe that's Vraja bhakti. Arjuna knows all about that wonderful mastery of Govinda and thus they make a dream team. No one excels Govinda in art of covert communication and no one there is better apt to understand the true meaning of his words than Arjuna, because he's Krishna's friend.
Despite all this, I think that mention of Vivasvan is important from another perspective. He and his son play an important role in the course of Bhagavad-gita, both in the past and present. Krishna has mentioned him for a good reason.
Swami - July 21, 2008 3:14 am
As I have written in my commentary to 4.3. "By using the words rahasyam and uttamam, Krsna indicates that karma-yoga, as he is teaching it, culminates in bhakti, the supreme secret." So it is covertly about bhakti, whereas he directly speaks about uttama-bhakti to Brahma.
At any rate, Krsna spoke to both Brahma and Vivasan, but as Caitanya Mahaprabhu he appeared in the lineage coming from Brhama. Therefore we are in that lineage. How could it be otherwise?
Zvonimir Tosic - July 23, 2008 12:50 pm
As I have written in my commentary to 4.3. "By using the words rahasyam and uttamam, Krsna indicates that karma-yoga, as he is teaching it, culminates in bhakti, the supreme secret." So it is covertly about bhakti, whereas he directly speaks about uttama-bhakti to Brahma.
At any rate, Krsna spoke to both Brahma and Vivasan, but as Caitanya Mahaprabhu he appeared in the lineage coming from Brhama. Therefore we are in that lineage. How could it be otherwise?
Thank you.
Krishna's mention of broken parampara in Bhagavad-gita imposes few more questions. As we could see in this thread, the traditional view has already attributed Krishna - Vivasvan - Iksvaku - Manu as, ultimately, karma marga sampradaya.
The origins of spiritual sampradayas have been moved further back in (Vedic) history, in the dawn of creation. So we have traditional Krishna - Brahma sampradaya, Rudra sampradaya, and others.
Now, the problems and questions.
A RIGHTFUL CHALLENGE TO TRADITIONAL VIEW
Why Krishna mentions the break in parampara? Why was that so important to him to mention and (as it seems) no one took it seriously enough to actually re-evaluate the worldview at that point and re-start the numbering from there: Krishna - (Arjuna) - (Sanjaya) - ...? After all, the Krishna's discourse in Bhagavad-gita is spiritual in nature, and if he has come to establish the principles of religion and re-new the parampara (now I ask myself, which one and what was Krishna actually saying there?), why there's no official Krishna - (Arjuna) - ... parampara?
Someone today can undeniably challenge traditional view on sampradayas because tradition cannot be proven by any mean. The beginnings of each tradition are rooted deep in the past, where we find many realities intermingled: fact, fantasy, lore.
GOD, WHERE ARE THE MIRACLES?
Perhaps we can find analogies in Judeo-Christian tradition. Many wonderful things have happened before Christ: Abraham lived for centuries, Noah has survived the great flood in his ark and saved the whole animal and botanical kingdom, Moses has split the sea. There was a miracle at every corner. Yet after Christ -- "after the word has become flesh" -- nothing similar ever happened.
Now lets go back and compare this with Krishna's advent. After Krishna, what's left of the world full of celestial wonders and amazing Vedic folklore? Where's Brahma, Indra, Rudra, Gandharvas? Similarly, where's wondrous Moses and his magical cane today? Can't he come and split the Red Sea again and, say, let the poor Ethiopians cross into the rich Arabian countries to feed their starving children? Aren't they God forsaken, in dire need as well?
Suddenly, the world has become different. It has changed overnight. I cannot but compare the two traditions and find those striking similarities that reflect some new perspectives on both. Christ says he didn't come to break up with tradition, but rather to "continue it" from there. To open up new eyes? Was he actually saying to people: "Leave your lore to the past -- I don't want to disturb that half-real, half-imaginary part of your life, but I will rather support you -- upon whatever you got now -- in observing the reality as it actually is."
Perhaps Krishna is saying a very similar thing in Bhagavad-gita, when he remarks about resurrection of confidential knowledge, and building upon "ancient parampara". A new vision, through new eyes? "My dear Arjuna, I know that people's lives are permeated with facts and fantasy, and I didn't come to disturb that, because facts and fantasy are important parts of human existence*. However, I rather want to build on all those beliefs -- on whatever you got now, on whatever that makes you human -- and give you the reality as it really is. I'm the missing link. Here, now. Surrender to me."
DEMIGODS AMONG US
Unlike in mythology, miracles today are performed by many ordinary men, who fight against the odds and perform many incredible deeds. They fight disease, ignorance, they fight for freedom, explore beauty and art. They reach new heights. With God's help only, and, .. you see, who knows .. if the history is not carefully recorded any more, but narrated by some new Homers, in few millennia people may again talk about new demigods, who walked the Earth.
Those demigods .. may well be some of you.
- - -
* Without any ability for imagination, we cannot explore life's possibilities, cannot grasp the complexity of the world and, ultimately, understand God.
Syamasundara - July 24, 2008 5:37 am
:Raised Eyebrow: :Big Grin:
However, I rather want to build on all those beliefs -- on whatever you got now, on whatever that makes you human -- and give you the reality as it really is. I'm the missing link. Here, now. Surrender to me."
Beliefs? Human?? What about the second chapter?
Swami - July 24, 2008 12:38 pm
A RIGHTFUL CHALLENGE TO TRADITIONAL VIEW
Why Krishna mentions the break in parampara? Why was that so important to him to mention and (as it seems) no one took it seriously enough to actually re-evaluate the worldview at that point and re-start the numbering from there: Krishna - (Arjuna) - (Sanjaya) - ...? After all, the Krishna's discourse in Bhagavad-gita is spiritual in nature, and if he has come to establish the principles of religion and re-new the parampara (now I ask myself, which one and what was Krishna actually saying there?), why there's no official Krishna - (Arjuna) - ... parampara?
Someone today can undeniably challenge traditional view on sampradayas because tradition cannot be proven by any mean. The beginnings of each tradition are rooted deep in the past, where we find many realities intermingled: fact, fantasy, lore.
Krsna mentions the "break" because he has appeared to reestablish dharma. He is speaking to his friend Arjuna, but he is not initiating him and asking him to carry on the lineage by initiating others. At that time Vyasa was present and he was the current link in the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya sampradaya. Krsna is only speaking about the nature of the parampara, giving siksa. He is not restarting the lineage per se. Everyone took his presence in the world seriously! He reestablished dharma and in doing so cast light on the importance of hearing from Narada, Vyasa, etc.
As for the idea that the parampara began with Krsna speaking to Brahma, it is true that this cannot be verified historically, but neither can the speaking of the Gita be verified by Western historical standards. The entire battle of Kuruksetra is as much lore to some as is Brahma, etc. However, Caitanya Mahaprabhu's presence is historically verifiable and thus in one sense we start our parampara with him. He has been identified with Sri Krsna in scripture, and we take his word on the past.
Regarding the intermingling of fact, fantasy, and lore, I think what we find in scripture is a factual blueprint that has been embellished for the sake of making important spiritual points. Poetic license—"based on a true story." You have an entire subcontinent believing in the puranic "history" compiled by the legendary Vyasa. Then you have Western scholarship searching for the so called real authors of the Puranas, etc., seeking to date the texts and so on. With all of this research no one author has ever emerged as a candidate for all these texts. Their origins remain mysterious save and except for vague notions as to the dates they were written. How could the author(s) of such moving texts, best sellers that had the subcontinent in their grip and continue to inform and transform people today, remain so well hidden? The texts themselves point to subtle and spiritual realities not observable to the material eye. Mythological but meaningful and not merely imaginative. Some measure of objective truth is found therein and it is used to tell a story, the story of reality. Mind you, this is a story in which the veracity of perceived objective reality is brought into question.
No miracles you say? Look again.