Cooperative breeding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_breeding 

Cooperative breeding is a social system characterized by alloparental care: offspring receive care not only from their parents, but also from additional group members, often called helpers. Cooperative breeding encompasses a wide variety of group structures, from a breeding pair with helpers that are offspring from a previous season, to groups with multiple breeding males and females (polygynandry) and helpers that are the adult offspring of some but not all of the breeders in the group, to groups in which helpers sometimes achieve co-breeding status by producing their own offspring as part of the group's brood. Cooperative breeding occurs across taxonomic groups including birds, mammals, fish, and insects.

Costs for helpers include a fitness reduction, increased territory defense, offspring guarding and an increased cost of growth. Benefits for helpers include a reduced chance of predation, increased foraging time, territory inheritance, increased environmental conditions and an inclusive fitness. Inclusive fitness is the sum of all direct and indirect fitness, where direct fitness is defined as the amount of fitness gained through producing offspring. Indirect fitness is defined as the amount of fitness gained through aiding the offspring of related individuals, that is, relatives are able to indirectly pass on their genes through increasing the fitness of related offspring. This is also called kin selection.

For the breeding pair, costs include increased mate guarding and suppression of subordinate mating. Breeders receive benefits as reductions in offspring care and territory maintenance. Their primary benefit is an increased reproductive rate and survival.

Cooperative breeding causes the reproductive success of all sexually mature adults to be skewed towards one mating pair. This means the reproductive fitness of the group is held within a select few breeding members and helpers have little to no reproductive fitness. With this system, breeders gain an increased reproductive fitness, while helpers gain an increased inclusive fitness.

Evolution

Many hypotheses have been presented to explain the evolution of cooperative breeding. The concept behind cooperative breeding is the forfeiting of an individual's reproductive fitness to aid the reproductive success of others. This concept is hard to understand and the evolution of cooperative breeding is important, but difficult to explain. Most hypotheses aim to determine the reason helpers selectively reduce their fitness and take on an alloparental role.

Kin selection is the evolutionary strategy of aiding the reproductive success of related organisms, even at a cost to the own individual's direct fitness. Hamilton's rule (rB−C>0) explains that kin selection will exist if the genetic relatedness (r) of the aided recipient to the aiding individual, times the benefit to the aid recipient (B) is greater than the cost to the aiding individual (C). For example, the chestnut-crowned babbler (Pomatostomus ruficeps) has been found to have high rates of kin selection. Helpers are predominantly found aiding closely related broods over nonrelated broods. Additional species such as Neolamprologus pulcher have shown that kin selection is a dominant driving force for cooperative breeding.

Group augmentation presents a second hypothesis towards the evolution of cooperative breeding. This hypothesis suggests that increasing the size of the group through the addition of helpers aids in individual survival and may increase the helper's future breeding success. Group augmentation is favored if the grouping provides passive benefits for helpers in addition to inclusive fitness. By group augmenting, each individual member reduces their chances of becoming a victim of predation. Additionally, an increase in members reduces each helper's duration as a sentinel (standing upon a high surface to survey for predators) or babysitting (guarding the offspring and den). The reduction in these guarding behaviors enables helpers to forage for longer periods.

Lukas et al. proposed an evolutionary model for cooperative breeding, which linked the coevolution of polytocy, production of multiple offspring, and monotocy, production of single offspring, with the evolution of cooperative breeding. The model is based on the evolution of larger litters forcing the need for helpers to maintain the high reproductive costs, thus leading to cooperative breeding. Lukas et al. suggests polytocy may have encouraged the evolution of cooperative breeding. Their proposed model suggests the transition from monotocy to polytocy is favorable. Additionally, they found the transition from polytocy without cooperative breeding to polytocy with cooperative breeding is highly favorable. This suggests cooperative breeding evolved from noncooperative breeding monotocy to cooperative breeding polytocy.

Today, there is growing support for the theory that cooperative breeding evolved by means of some form of mutualism or reciprocity. Mutualism is a form of symbiosis that is beneficial to both involved organisms. Mutualism has many forms and can occur when the benefits are immediate or deferred, when individuals exchange beneficial behaviors in turn, or when a group of individuals contribute to a common good, where it may be advantageous for all group members to help raise young. When a group raises young together, it may be advantageous because it maintains or increases the size of the group. The greatest amount of research has been invested in reciprocal exchanges of beneficial behavior through the iterated prisoner's dilemma. In this model, two partners can either cooperate and exchange beneficial behavior or they can defect and refuse to help the other individual.

Environmental conditions

Environmental conditions govern whether offspring disperse from their natal group or remain as helpers. Food or territory availability can encourage individuals to disperse and establish new breeding territories, but unfavorable conditions promote offspring to remain at the natal territory and become helpers to obtain an inclusive fitness. Additionally, remaining at the natal territory enables offspring to possibly inherit the breeding role and/or territory of their parents.

A final factor influencing cooperative breeding is sexual dispersal. Sexual dispersal is the movement of one sex, male or female, from the natal territory to establish new breeding grounds. This is highly regulated by the reproductive costs in producing a male versus a female offspring. Maternal investment within female offspring may be considerably higher than male offspring for one species, or vice versa for another. During unfavorable conditions the cheaper sex will be produced at higher ratios.

A second factor affecting the sexual dispersal is the difference in ability of each sex to establish a new breeding territory. Carrion crow (Corvus corone) were found to produce more female offspring in favorable environmental conditions. Female Corvus corone have been found to establish successful breeding territories at a higher rate than males. Male Corvus corone were produced at a higher rate under unfavorable conditions. Males were found to remain at the natal territory and become helpers. Thus, if environmental conditions favor the dispersal of a specific sex it is considered the dispersal sex. If environmental conditions are unfavorable females may produce the philopatric sex, therefore generating more helpers and increasing the occurrence of cooperative breeding.

Costs

Breeders

Breeder costs consist of prenatal care, postnatal care and maintenance of breeding status. Prenatal care is the amount of maternal investment during fetus gestation and postnatal care is the investment following birth. Examples of prenatal care are fetal, placentae, uterus and mammary tissue development. Postnatal examples are lactation, food provisions and guarding behavior.

Dominant males and females exhibit suppressive behaviors towards subordinates to maintain their breeding status. These suppressive acts are dependent upon the sex ratio of helpers. Therefore, the costs will be altered depending upon the helpers. For example, if there are more male helpers as compared to females, then the dominant male will suppress subordinate males and experience a higher cost. The opposite is true for females. Breeders will even suppress subordinates from mating with other subordinates.

Helpers

The cost to helpers varies depending upon presence or absence of related offspring. The presence of offspring has been found to increase the helper's cost by the helper contributing to guard behaviors. Guarding behaviors, such as babysitting, can cause individuals to experience weight loss on an exponential scale depending upon the duration of the activity. Other activities, such as sentinel behavior and bipedal surveillance, cause helpers to have reduced foraging intervals inhibiting their weight gains. The reduced foraging behavior and increased weight loss reduces their chance to breed successfully, but increases their inclusive fitness by increasing the survival of related offspring.

Helpers contribute depending upon the cost. The act of helping requires an allocation of energy towards actually performing the behavior. Prolonged allocation of energy may greatly impact a helper's growth. In banded mongoose (Mungos mungo) juvenile male helpers contribute far less than females. This is due to a difference in the age of sexual maturity. Female banded mongooses reach sexual maturity at one year of age, but males reach sexual maturity at two years of age. The difference in age causes the prolonged energy allocation to be detrimental to a specific sex.

Male juvenile Mungos mungo may reduce helping behaviors until sexual maturity is reached. Similarly, if there is a lack of food due to environmental conditions, such as reduced rainfall, the degree of helper input may be reduced greatly within juveniles. Adults may maintain their full activity because they are sexually mature.

Additionally, the costs of being a helper can be more detrimental to one sex. For example, territorial defense costs are generally male dependent and lactation is female dependent. Meerkats (Suricata suricatta) have exhibited male territory defense strategies, where male helpers will fend off intruding males to prevent such intruders from mating with subordinates or dominant females. Additionally, subordinate female pregnant helpers are sometimes exiled from the group by a dominant female. This eviction causes the subordinate female to have an abortion, which frees up resources such as lactation and energy that can be used to help the dominant female and her pups.

Rarely, a female helper or breeder will defend the territory while males are present. This suggests specific helping costs, such as territory defense, is rooted to one sex.

Benefits

Breeders

Cooperative breeding reduces the costs of many maternal investments for breeding members. Helpers aid the breeding females with provisioning, lactation stress, guarding of offspring and prenatal investment. Increasing the number of helpers enables a breeding female or male to maintain a healthier physique, higher fitness, increased lifespan and brood size.

Female helpers can aid in lactation, but all helpers, male or female, can aid in food provisioning. Helper food provisioning reduces the need for the dominant breeding pair to return to the den, thus allowing them to forage for longer periods. The dominant female and male will adjust their care input, or food provisioning, depending on the degree of activity of the helpers.

The presence of helpers allows the breeding female to reduce her prenatal investment in the offspring, which may lead to altricial births; altricial is the production of young which are dependent upon adult aid to survive. This enables the breeding female to retain energy to be used within a new breeding attempt. Overall, the addition of helpers to a breeding pair encourages multiple reproductions per year, and increases the rate of successful reproduction.

Male breeders can benefit directly from reproducing with subordinate females and aiding in raising the young. This allows the male to obtain a “repayment investment” within these subordinate offspring. These offspring have a higher chance to become helpers once sexual maturity is reached. Thus, paying into their care will increase the dominant male's overall fitness in the future. This act ensures the dominant male subordinate helpers for future reproduction.

Helpers

Helpers primarily benefit from an inclusive fitness. Helpers maintain an inclusive fitness while aiding related breeders and offspring. This type of kinship may lead to inheritance of quality foraging and breeding territories, which will increase the future fitness of helpers. Additional, helpers experience an increased chance of being helped if they were once a helper.

Helpers may also benefit from group interactions, such as huddling for thermodynamic benefits. These interactions provide necessary elements to survive. They may also benefit from the increased group interaction on the level of cognitive concern for one another increasing their overall life span and survival.

Finally, helpers may derive inclusive fitness benefits from influencing the extra-pair behaviour of their parents. For example, by preventing their mothers from engaging in extra-pair matings, they can help their biological fathers protect their paternity and so increase their relatedness to future members of the cooperatively breeding group.

Biological examples

Birds

Approximately eight percent of bird species are known to regularly engage in cooperative breeding, mainly among the Coraciiformes, Piciformes, basal Passeri and Sylvioidea. Only a small fraction of these, for instance the Australian mudnesters, Australo-Papuan babblers and ground hornbills, are however absolutely obligately cooperative and cannot fledge young without helpers.

The benefits of cooperative breeding in birds have been well-documented. One example is the azure-winged magpie (Cyanopica cyanus), in which studies found that the offspring's cell-mediated immune response was positively correlated with increase in the number of helpers at the nest. Studies on cooperative breeding in birds have also shown that high levels of cooperative breeding are strongly associated with low annual adult mortality and small clutch sizes, though it remains unclear whether cooperative breeding is a cause or consequence. It was originally suggested that cooperative breeding developed among bird species with low mortality rates as a consequence of “overcrowding” and thus fewer opportunities to claim territory and breed. However, many observers today believe cooperative breeding arose because of the need for helpers to rear young in the extremely infertile and unpredictable environments of Australia and sub-Saharan Africa under the rare favourable conditions.

Mammals

Across all mammalian species, less than 1% exhibit cooperative breeding strategies. Phylogenetic analysis shows evidence of fourteen discrete evolutionary transitions to cooperative breeding within the class Mammalia. These lineages are nine genera of rodents (Cryptomys, Heterocephalus, Microtus, Meriones, Rhabdomys, Castor, Atherurus and two in Peromyscus), four genera in Carnivora (Alopex, Canis, Lycaon, and in mongooses), and one genus of primates (Callitrichidae). Cooperative breeding in mammals is not limited to these stated lineages, rather they are significant evolutionary events that provide the framework for understanding the origins and evolutionary pressures of cooperative breeding. All of these evolutionary transitions have occurred in lineages that had a socially monogamous or solitary breeding system, suggesting that strong kinship ties are an essential factor in the evolutionary history of cooperative breeding.  Additionally, polytocy, or the birth of multiple offspring per birthing episode, is a highly correlated evolutionary determinant of cooperative breeding in mammals.  These two factors, social monogamy and polytocy, are not evolutionary associated, suggesting that they are independent mechanisms leading to the evolution of cooperative breeding in mammals. The global distribution of mammals with cooperative breeding systems is widespread across various climatic regions, but evidence shows that the initial transitions to cooperative breeding are associated to species in regions of high aridity.

Meerkats

An older female watches over pups while alpha female is away.

Meerkats become reproductively active at one year of age and can have up to four litters per year. However, usually it is the alpha pair that reserves the right to mate and will usually kill any young that is not their own. While the alpha female is away from the group, females that have never reproduced lactate and hunt in order to feed the pups, as well as watch, protect, and defend them from predators. Although it was previously thought that a meerkat's contribution to a pup's diet depended on the degree of relatedness, it has been found that helpers vary in the number of food items they give to pups. This variation in food offering is due to variation in foraging success, sex, and age. Research has additionally found that the level of help is not correlated to the kinship of the litters they are rearing.

Canids

Cooperative breeding has been described in several canid species including red wolves, Arctic foxes and Ethiopian wolves.

Cooperative breeding increases the rate of reproduction in females and decreases the litter size.

Primates

Cooperative breeding entails one or more individuals, usually females, acting as "helpers" to one or a few dominant female breeders, usually helpers' kin. This sociosexual system is rare in primates, so far demonstrated among Neotropical callitricids, including marmosets and tamarins. Cooperative breeding requires "repression" of helpers' reproduction, by pheromones emitted by a breeder, by coercion, or by self-restraint. Sarah Blaffer Hrdy believes that cooperative breeding is an ancestral trait in humans, a controversial proposition. In most non-human primates, the reproductive success and survival of offspring is highly dependent to the mother's ability to produce food resources.  Therefore, one component of cooperative breeding is the delegation of offspring holding, which allows the mother to forage without the added costs of holding her offspring. Additionally, in primate species with cooperative breeding systems, females have shorter interbirth intervals. Female grey mouse lemurs (Microcebus murinus) form social groups and cooperatively breed with closely related female kin. The females benefit from sharing limited nesting spaces and increased nest defense but do not exhibit food provisioning behaviors as they are solitary foragers.

Humans

Direct expression of cooperative breeding includes facultative parental care, including alloparenting, and extended post-menopausal lifespan in females, which forms the basis of the Grandmother Hypothesis. Cooperative breeding in humans is theorized as the optimal solution to high energetic costs of survival due to nature of human diet, which involved high-quality foods often in need of processing and cooking. Additionally, food provisioning in cooperate breeding societies may explain the relatively short period of weaning in humans, typically two to three years, when compared to non-human apes who wean their offspring for upwards of six years.

Human offspring do not fall neatly into the dichotomous categorization of precocial versus altricial, and instead Portmann proposes they are "secondarily altricial" at birth due to the underdevelopment of neurological and cognitive capabilities. Therefore, human offspring are highly dependent on caregiver investment, a necessity that serves as the precursor for theories on the development of pair-bonding, alloparenting, and cooperative breeding. The evolution of cooperative breeding in early Homo species also promoted other pro-social behaviors such as social learning, increased social tolerance, and shared intentionality especially in food acquisition. Additionally, pro-social behaviors in cooperative breeding in humans had a by-product effect of enhancing cognitive capabilities, especially in social tasks involving coordination.

Human mothers tend to have overlapping, dependent offspring due to shorter interbirth intervals, high fertility rates, and low infant mortality rates, thus imposing high energetic costs. Unlike other species with cooperative breeding systems, human female "helpers" do not incur the cost of reproductive suppression at the benefit of a single, dominant breeding mother. Instead, cooperative breeding is highly prevalent among grandparents, and juveniles, who are generally not competing for mating opportunities. This intergenerational flow of resources supports the theory of mutualism as an evolutionary pathway to cooperative breeding in humans.

Guru–shishya tradition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru%E2%80%93shishya_tradition

The traditional guru–disciple relationship. Watercolour, Punjab Hills, India, 1740.

The guru–shishya tradition, or parampara ("lineage"), denotes a succession of teachers and disciples in Indian-origin religions such as Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism (including Tibetan and Zen traditions). Each parampara belongs to a specific sampradaya, and may have its own gurukulas for teaching, which might be based at akharas, gompas, mathas, viharas or temples. It is the tradition of spiritual relationship and mentoring where teachings are transmitted from a guru, teacher, (Sanskrit: गुरु) or lama, to a śiṣya (Sanskrit: शिष्य, disciple), shramana (seeker), or chela (follower), after the formal diksha (initiation). Such knowledge, whether agamic, spiritual, scriptural, architectural, musical, arts or martial arts, is imparted through the developing relationship between the guru and the disciple.

It is considered that this relationship, based on the genuineness of the guru and the respect, commitment, devotion and obedience of the student, is the best way for subtle or advanced knowledge to be conveyed. The student eventually masters the knowledge that the guru embodies.

Etymology

Guru–shishya means "succession from guru to disciple".

Paramparā (Sanskrit: परम्परा, paramparā) literally means an uninterrupted row or series, order, succession, continuation, mediation, tradition. In the traditional residential form of education, the shishya remains with his or her guru as a family member and gets the education as a true learner.

History

See also: Hindu philosophy, Buddhist philosophy, Jain philosophy, and Sikhism philosophy

In the early oral traditions of the Upanishads, the guru–shishya relationship had evolved into a fundamental component of Hinduism. The term "Upanishad" derives from the Sanskrit words "upa" (near), "ni" (down) and "ṣad" (to sit) — so it means "sitting down near" a spiritual teacher to receive instruction. The relationship between Krishna and Arjuna in the Mahabharata, and between Rama and Hanuman in the Ramayana, are examples of Bhakti. In the Upanishads, gurus and disciples appear in a variety of settings (e.g. a husband answering questions about immortality; a teenage boy being taught by Yama, Hinduism's Lord of Death). Sometimes the sages are women, and the instructions may be sought by kings.

In the Vedas, the knowledge of Brahman (brahmavidya) is communicated from guru to shishya by oral lore.

Arrangements

Sampradaya, Parampara, Gurukula and Akhara

Main articles: Sampradaya and Akhara

Traditionally the word used for a succession of teachers and disciples in ancient Indian culture is parampara (paramparā in IAST). In the parampara system, knowledge (in any field) is believed to be passed down through successive generations. The Sanskrit word figuratively means "an uninterrupted series or succession". Sometimes defined as "the passing down of Vedic knowledge", it is believed to be always entrusted to the ācāryas. An established parampara is often called sampradāya, or school of thought. For example, in Vaishnavism a number of sampradayas are developed following a single teacher, or an acharya. While some argue for freedom of interpretation others maintain that "Although an ācārya speaks according to the time and circumstance in which he appears, he upholds the original conclusion, or siddhānta, of the Vedic literature." This parampara ensures continuity of sampradaya, transmission of dharma, knowledge and skills.

Akhara is a place of practice with facilities for boarding, lodging and training, both in the context of Indian martial artists or a Sampradaya monastery for religious renunciates. For example, in the context of the Dashanami Sampradaya sect, the word denotes both martial arts and religious monastic aspects of the trident wielding martial regiment of renunciate sadhus.

Common characteristics of the guru–shishya relationship

Within the broad spectrum of the Indian religions, the guru–shishya relationship can be found in numerous variant forms including tantra. Some common elements in this relationship include:

• The establishment of a teacher/student relationship.

• Diksha (formal initiation): A formal recognition of this relationship, generally in a structured initiation ceremony where the guru accepts the initiate as a shishya and also accepts responsibility for the spiritual well-being and progress of the new shishya.

• Shiksha (transmission of knowledge): Sometimes this initiation process will include the conveying of specific esoteric wisdom and/or meditation techniques.

• Gurudakshina, where the shishya gives a gift to the guru as a token of gratitude, often the only monetary or otherwise fee that the student ever gives. Such tokens can be as simple as a piece of fruit or as serious as a thumb, as in the case of Ekalavya and his guru Dronacharya.

• Guru gotra, refers to the practice of adopting the name of guru or the parampara as one's gotra (surnaem) instead of gotra at birth. The disciples of same guru, especially in the same cohort, are referred to as guru bhrata (brother by virtue of having same guru) or guru bhagini (sister by virtue of having same guru).

In some paramparas there is never more than one active master at the same time in the same guruparamaparya (lineage), while other paramparas might allow multiple simultaneous gurus at a time.

Titles of gurus

Gurunath is a form of salutation to revere the guru as god.

In paramapara, not only is the immediate guru revered, the three preceding gurus are also worshipped or revered. These are known variously as the kala-guru or as the "four gurus" and are designated as follows:

• Guru: Refer to the immediate guru.

• Parama-guru: Refer to the founding guru of the specific parampara, e.g. for the Śankaracharyas this is Adi Śankara.

• Parātpara-guru: Refer to guru who is the source of knowledge for sampradaya or tradition, e.g. for the Śankaracharya's this is Vedavyāsa.

• Parameṣṭhi-guru: Refer to the highest guru, who has the power to bestow mokṣa, e.g. for the Śankaracharya's this is usually depicted as Lord Śiva, being the highest guru.

Psychological aspects of relationship

Rob Preece, in The Wisdom of Imperfection, writes that while the teacher/disciple relationship can be an invaluable and fruitful experience, the process of relating to spiritual teachers also has its hazards.

As other authors had done before him, Preece mentions the notion of transference to explain the manner in which the guru/disciple relationship develops from a more Western psychological perspective. He writes, "In its simplest sense transference occurs when unconsciously a person endows another with an attribute that actually is projected from within themselves". Preece further states that when we transfer an inner quality onto another person we may be giving that person a power over us as a consequence of the projection, carrying the potential for great insight and inspiration, but also the potential for great danger. "In giving this power over to someone else they have a certain hold and influence over us it is hard to resist, while we become enthralled or spellbound by the power of the archetype".

Guru–shishya relationship by sampradaya

There is a variation in the level of authority that may be granted to the guru. The highest is that found in bhakti yoga, and the lowest is in the pranayama forms of yoga, such as the Sankara Saranam movement. Between these two there are many variations in degree and form of authority.

Advaita Vedanta sampradaya

Main article: Advaita Guru Paramparā

Advaita Vedānta requires anyone seeking to study Advaita Vedānta to do so from a guru (teacher). The guru must have the following qualities:

1. Śrotriya — must be learned in the Vedic scriptures and sampradaya
2. Brahmanişţha — figuratively meaning "established in Brahman"; must have realised the oneness of Brahman in everything and in himself.

The seeker must serve the guru and submit his questions with all humility so that doubt may be removed. According to Advaita, the seeker will be able to attain liberation from the cycle of births and deaths (moksha).

Śruti sampradaya

Main article: Śrauta

The guru–shishya tradition plays an important part in the Shruti tradition of Vaidika dharma. The Hindus believe that the Vedas have been handed down through the ages from guru to shishya. The Vedas themselves prescribe for a young brahmachari to be sent to a Gurukul where the Guru (referred to also as acharya) teaches the pupil the Vedas and Vedangas. The pupil is also taught the Prayoga to perform yajnas. The term of stay varies (Manu Smriti says the term may be 12 years, 36 years or 48 years). After the stay at the Gurukul the brahmachari returns home after performing a ceremony called samavartana.

The word Śrauta is derived from the word Śruti meaning that which is heard. The Śrauta tradition is a purely oral handing down of the Vedas, but many modern Vedic scholars make use of books as a teaching tool.

Shaktipat sampradaya

Main article: Shaktipat

The guru passes his knowledge to his disciples by virtue of the fact that his purified consciousness enters into the selves of his disciples and communicates its particular characteristic. In this process the disciple is made part of the spiritual family (kula) - a family which is not based on blood relations but on people of the same knowledge.

Bhakti yoga

The best known form of the guru–shishya relationship is that of bhakti. Bhakti (devotion) means surrender to God or guru. Bhakti extends from the simplest expression of devotion to the ego-destroying principle of prapatti, which is total surrender. The bhakti form of the guru–shishya relationship generally incorporates three primary beliefs or practices:

1. Devotion to the guru as a divine figure or Avatar.
2. The belief that such a guru has transmitted, or will impart moksha, diksha or shaktipat to the (successful) shishya.
3. The belief that if the shishya's act of focusing their bhakti upon the guru is sufficiently strong and worthy, then some form of spiritual merit will be gained by the shishya.

Prapatti sampradaya

In the ego-destroying principle of prapatti (Sanskrit, "Throwing oneself down"), the level of the submission of the will of the shishya to the will of God or the guru is sometimes extreme, and is often coupled with an attitude of personal helplessness, self-effacement and resignation. This doctrine is perhaps best expressed in the teachings of the four Samayacharya saints, who shared a profound and mystical love of Siva expressed by:

• Deep humility and self-effacement, admission of sin and weakness;
• Total surrender to God as the only true refuge; and
• A relationship of lover and beloved known as bridal mysticism, in which the devotee is the bride and Siva the bridegroom.

In its most extreme form it sometimes includes:

• The assignment of all or many of the material possessions of the shishya to the guru.
• The strict and unconditional adherence by the shishya to all of the commands of the guru. An example is the legend that Karna silently bore the pain of a wasp stinging his thigh so as not to disturb his guru Parashurama.
• A system of various titles of implied superiority or deification which the guru assumes, and often requires the shishya to use whenever addressing the guru.
• The requirement that the shishya engage in various forms of physical demonstrations of affection towards the guru, such as bowing, kissing the hands or feet of the guru, and sometimes agreeing to various physical punishments as may sometimes be ordered by the guru.
• Sometimes the authority of the guru will extend to all aspects of the shishya's life, including sexuality, livelihood, social life, etc.

Often a guru will assert that he or she is capable of leading a shishya directly to the highest possible state of spirituality or consciousness, sometimes referred to within Hinduism as moksha. In the bhakti guru–shishya relationship the guru is often believed to have supernatural powers, leading to the deification of the guru.

Buddhism sampradaya

In the Pali Buddhist tradition, magae the Bhikkus are also known as Sekhas (SN XLVIII.53 Sekha Sutta).

In the Theravada Buddhist tradition, the teacher is a valued and honoured mentor worthy of great respect and a source of inspiration on the path to Enlightenment. In the Tibetan tradition, however, the teacher is viewed as the very root of spiritual realization and the basis of the entire path. Without the teacher, it is asserted, there can be no experience or insight. The guru is seen as Buddha. In Tibetan texts, emphasis is placed upon praising the virtues of the guru. Tantric teachings include generating visualisations of the guru and making offerings praising the guru. The guru becomes known as the vajra (figuratively "diamond") guru, the one who is the source of initiation into the tantric deity. The disciple is asked to enter into a series of vows and commitments that ensure the maintenance of the spiritual link with the understanding that to break this link is a serious downfall.

In Vajrayana (tantric Buddhism) as the guru is perceived as the way itself. The guru is not an individual who initiates a person, but the person's own Buddha-nature reflected in the personality of the guru. In return, the disciple is expected to show great devotion to his or her guru, who he or she regards as one who possesses the qualities of a Bodhisattva. A guru is regarded as one which has not only mastered the words of the tradition, but one that with which the student has an intense personal relationship; thus, devotion is seen as the proper attitude toward the guru.

The Dalai Lama, speaking of the importance of the guru, said: "Rely on the teachings to evaluate a guru: Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism." He also observed that the term 'living Buddha' is a translation of the Chinese words huo fuo.

Order and service

See also: Hukamnama and Dakshina

In Indic religions namely Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism selfless service to Guru, accepting and following all his/her orders carries very significant and valued part of relationship of Shishya (disciple) with his/her Guru. Orders of Guru are referred as Guru Agya/Adnya/Hukam, Service of Guru is referred as Guru Seva. In Sikhism, the scripture Adi granth is considered to be last Guru hence the book is worshiped as like human Guru.

Various sampradayas (denominations) and their parampara (lineage) are as follows:

• Hindu denominations, Hindu reform movements and Hindu gurus
• Buddhist denominations and Buddhism parampara
• Jain denominations and Tirthankara parampara
• Sikhism denominations and Sikh gurus

Pseudepigrapha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha 

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

Pseudepigrapha (also anglicized as "pseudepigraph" or "pseudepigraphs") are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed author is not the true author, or a work whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past. The name of the author to whom the work is falsely attributed is often prefixed with the particle "pseudo-", such as for example "pseudo-Aristotle" or "pseudo-Dionysius": these terms refer to the anonymous authors of works falsely attributed to Aristotle and Dionysius the Areopagite, respectively.

In biblical studies, the term pseudepigrapha can refer to an assorted collection of Jewish religious works thought to be written c. 300 BC to 300 AD. They are distinguished by Protestants from the deuterocanonical books (Catholic and Orthodox) or Apocrypha (Protestant), the books that appear in extant copies of the Septuagint in the fourth century or later and the Vulgate, but not in the Hebrew Bible or in Protestant Bibles. The Catholic Church distinguishes only between the deuterocanonical and all other books; the latter are called biblical apocrypha, which in Catholic usage includes the pseudepigrapha. In addition, two books considered canonical in the Orthodox Tewahedo churches, the Book of Enoch and Book of Jubilees, are categorized as pseudepigrapha from the point of view of Chalcedonian Christianity.

In addition to the sets of generally agreed to be non-canonical works, scholars will also apply the term to canonical works who make a direct claim of authorship, yet this authorship is doubted. For example, the Book of Daniel is considered by some to have been written in the 2nd century BC, 400 years after the prophet Daniel lived, and thus the work is pseudepigraphic. A New Testament example might be the book of 2 Peter, considered by some to be written approximately 80 years after Saint Peter's death. Early Christians, such as Origen, harbored doubts as to the authenticity of the book's authorship.

The term has also been used by some Muslims to describe hadiths; who claim that most hadiths are fabrications created in the 8th and 9th century AD, and falsely attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Etymology

The word pseudepigrapha (from the Greek: ψευδής, pseudḗs, "false" and ἐπιγραφή, epigraphḗ, "name" or "inscription" or "ascription"; thus when taken together it means "false superscription or title"; see the related epigraphy) is the plural of "pseudepigraphon" (sometimes Latinized as "pseudepigraphum").

Classical and biblical studies

There have probably been pseudepigrapha almost from the invention of full writing. For example, ancient Greek authors often refer to texts which claimed to be by Orpheus or his pupil Musaeus of Athens but which attributions were generally disregarded. Already in Antiquity the collection known as the "Homeric Hymns" was recognized as pseudepigraphical, that is, not actually written by Homer. The only surviving Ancient Roman book on cooking is pseudepigraphically attributed to a famous gourmet, Apicius, even though it is not clear who actually assembled the recipes.

Literary studies

In secular literary studies, when works of antiquity have been demonstrated not to have been written by the authors to whom they have traditionally been ascribed, some writers apply the prefix pseudo- to their names. Thus the encyclopedic compilation of Greek myth called the Bibliotheca is often now attributed, not to Apollodorus of Athens, but to "pseudo-Apollodorus" and the Catasterismi, recounting the translations of mythic figure into asterisms and constellations, not to the serious astronomer Eratosthenes, but to a "pseudo-Eratosthenes". The prefix may be abbreviated, as in "ps-Apollodorus" or "ps-Eratosthenes".

Old Testament and intertestamental studies

See also: Apocrypha and Biblical apocrypha

In biblical studies, pseudepigrapha refers particularly to works which purport to be written by noted authorities in either the Old and New Testaments or by persons involved in Jewish or Christian religious study or history. These works can also be written about biblical matters, often in such a way that they appear to be as authoritative as works which have been included in the many versions of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Eusebius indicates this usage dates back at least to Serapion of Antioch, whom Eusebius records as having said: "But those writings which are falsely inscribed with their name (ta pseudepigrapha), we as experienced persons reject...."

Many such works were also referred to as Apocrypha, which originally connoted "secret writings", those that were rejected for liturgical public reading. An example of a text that is both apocryphal and pseudepigraphical is the Odes of Solomon. It is considered pseudepigraphical because it was not actually written by Solomon but instead is a collection of early Christian (first to second century) hymns and poems, originally written not in Hebrew, and apocryphal because they were not accepted in either the Tanakh or the New Testament.

Protestants have also applied the word Apocrypha to texts found in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scriptures which were not found in Hebrew manuscripts. Catholics call those "deuterocanonical books". Accordingly, there arose in some Protestant biblical scholarship an extended use of the term pseudepigrapha for works that appeared as though they ought to be part of the biblical canon, because of the authorship ascribed to them, but which stood outside both the biblical canons recognized by Protestants and Catholics. These works were also outside the particular set of books that Roman Catholics called deuterocanonical and to which Protestants had generally applied the term Apocryphal. Accordingly, the term pseudepigraphical, as now used often among both Protestants and Roman Catholics (allegedly for the clarity it brings to the discussion), may make it difficult to discuss questions of pseudepigraphical authorship of canonical books dispassionately with a lay audience. To confuse the matter even more, Eastern Orthodox Christians accept books as canonical that Roman Catholics and most Protestant denominations consider pseudepigraphical or at best of much less authority. There exist also churches that reject some of the books that Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants accept. The same is true of some Jewish religious movements. Many works that are "apocryphal" are otherwise considered genuine.

There is a tendency not to use the word pseudepigrapha when describing works later than about 300 CE when referring to biblical matters. But the late-appearing Gospel of Barnabas, Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, the Pseudo-Apuleius (author of a fifth-century herbal ascribed to Apuleius), and the author traditionally referred to as the "Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite", are classic examples of pseudepigraphy. In the fifth century the moralist Salvian published Contra avaritiam ("Against avarice") under the name of Timothy; the letter in which he explained to his former pupil, Bishop Salonius, his motives for so doing survives. There is also a category of modern pseudepigrapha.

Examples of books labeled Old Testament pseudepigrapha from the Protestant point of view are the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees (both of which are canonical in Orthodox Tewahedo Christianity and the Beta Israel branch of Judaism); the Life of Adam and Eve and "Pseudo-Philo".

The term pseudepigrapha is also commonly used to describe numerous works of Jewish religious literature written from about 300 BCE to 300 CE. Not all of these works are actually pseudepigraphical. It also refers to books of the New Testament canon whose authorship is misrepresented. Such works include the following:

• 3 Maccabees
• 4 Maccabees
• Assumption of Moses
• Ethiopic Book of Enoch (1 Enoch)
• Slavonic Second Book of Enoch
• Book of Jubilees
• 3 Baruch
• Letter of Aristeas
• Life of Adam and Eve
• Ascension of Isaiah
• Psalms of Solomon
• Sibylline Oracles
• 2 Baruch
• Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
• 4 Ezra

Various canonical works accepted as scripture have since been reexamined and considered by modern scholars in the 19th century onward as likely cases of pseudepigraphica. The Book of Daniel directly claims to be written by the prophet Daniel, yet there are strong reasons to believe it was not written until centuries after Daniel's death, such as references to the book only appearing in the 2nd century BCE and onward. The book is an apocalypse wherein Daniel offers a series of predictions of the future, and is meant to reassure the Jews of the period that the tyrant Antiochus IV Epiphanes would soon be overthrown. By backdating the book to the 6th century BCE and providing a series of correct prophecies as to the history of the past 400 years, the authorship claim of Daniel would have strengthened a later author's predictions of the coming fall of the Seleucid Empire.

New Testament studies

Some Christian scholars maintain that nothing known to be pseudepigraphical was admitted to the New Testament canon. However, many biblical scholars, such as Bart D. Ehrman, hold that only seven of Paul's epistles are convincingly genuine. All of the other 20 books in the New Testament appear to many scholars to be written by unknown people who were not the well-known biblical figures to whom the early Christian leaders originally attributed authorship. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes,

The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles, which however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred texts. The Canon of Muratori, Clement of Alexandria, and St. Irenaeus bear distinct witness to the existence of those headings in the latter part of the second century of our era. Indeed, the manner in which Clement (Strom. I, xxi), and St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III, xi, 7) employ them implies that, at that early date, our present titles to the gospels had been in current use for some considerable time. Hence, it may be inferred that they were prefixed to the evangelical narratives as early as the first part of that same century. That however, they do not go back to the first century of the Christian era, or at least that they are not original, is a position generally held at the present day. It is felt that since they are similar for the four Gospels, although the same Gospels were composed at some interval from each other, those titles were not framed and consequently not prefixed to each individual narrative, before the collection of the four Gospels was actually made. Besides as well pointed out by Prof. Bacon, "the historical books of the New Testament differ from its apocalyptic and epistolary literature, as those of the Old Testament differ from its prophecy, in being invariably anonymous, and for the same reason. Prophecies, whether in the earlier or in the later sense, and letters, to have authority, must be referable to some individual; the greater his name, the better. But history was regarded as common possession. Its facts spoke for themselves. Only as the springs of common recollection began to dwindle, and marked differences to appear between the well-informed and accurate Gospels and the untrustworthy ... become worth while for the Christian teacher or apologist to specify whether the given representation of the current tradition was 'according to' this or that special compiler, and to state his qualifications". It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.

The earliest and best manuscripts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all written anonymously. Furthermore, the books of Acts, Hebrews, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John were also written anonymously.

Pauline epistles

Main article: Pauline epistles

There are thirteen letters in the New Testament which are attributed to Paul and are still considered by Christians to carry Paul's authority. These letters are part of the Christian Bible and are foundational for the Christian Church. Therefore, those letters which some think to be pseudepigraphic are not considered any less valuable to Christians. Some of these epistles are termed as "disputed" or "pseudepigraphical" letters because they do not appear to have been written by Paul. They instead appear to have come from followers writing in Paul's name, often using material from his surviving letters. Some choose to believe that these followers may have had access to letters written by Paul that no longer survive, although this theory still depends on someone other than Paul writing these books. Some theologians prefer to simply distinguish between "undisputed" and "disputed" letters, thus avoiding the term "pseudepigraphical".

Authorship of 6 out of the 13 canonical epistles of Paul has been questioned by both Christian and non-Christian biblical scholars. These include the Epistle to the Ephesians, Epistle to the Colossians, Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, First Epistle to Timothy, Second Epistle to Timothy, and Epistle to Titus. These six books are referred to as "deutero-Pauline letters", meaning "secondary" standing in the corpus of Paul's writings. They internally claim to have been written by Paul, but some biblical scholars present strong evidence that they could not have been written by Paul. Those known as the "Pastoral Epistles" (Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) are all so similar that they are thought to be written by the same unknown author in Paul's name.

Catholic epistles

Main article: Catholic epistles

There are seven letters in the New Testament which are attributed to several apostles, such as Saint Peter, John the Apostle, and Jesus's brothers James and Jude.

Three of the seven letters are anonymous. These three have traditionally been attributed to John the Apostle, the son of Zebedee and one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. Consequently, these letters have been labelled the Johannine epistles, despite the fact that none of the epistles mentions any author. Most modern scholars believe the author is not John the Apostle, but there is no scholarly consensus for any particular historical figure. (see: Authorship of the Johannine works).

Two of the letters claim to have been written by Simon Peter, one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. Therefore, they have traditionally been called the Petrine epistles. However, most modern scholars agree the second epistle was probably not written by Peter, because it appears to have been written in the early 2nd century, long after Peter had died. Yet, opinions on the first epistle are more divided; many scholars do think this letter is authentic. (see: Authorship of the Petrine epistles)

In one epistle, the author only calls himself James (Ἰάκωβος Iákobos). It is not known which James this is supposed to be. There are several different traditional Christian interpretations of other New Testament texts which mention a James, brother of Jesus. However, most modern scholars tend to reject this line of reasoning, since the author himself does not indicate any familial relationship with Jesus. A similar problem presents itself with the Epistle of Jude (Ἰούδας Ioudas): the writer names himself a brother of James (ἀδελφὸς δὲ Ἰακώβου adelphos de Iakóbou), but it is not clear which James is meant. According to some Christian traditions, this is the same James as the author of the Epistle of James, who was allegedly a brother of Jesus; and so, this Jude should also be a brother of Jesus, despite the fact he does not indicate any such thing in his text.

Other pseudepigrapha

The Gospel of Peter and the attribution to Paul of the Epistle to the Laodiceans are both examples of pseudepigrapha that were not included in the New Testament canon. They are often referred to as New Testament apocrypha. Further examples of New Testament pseudepigrapha include the Gospel of Barnabas and the Gospel of Judas, which begins by presenting itself as "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot".

The Vision of Ezra is an ancient apocryphal text purportedly written by the biblical scribe Ezra. The earliest surviving manuscripts, composed in Latin, date to the 11th century AD, although textual peculiarities strongly suggest that the text was originally written in Greek. Like the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra, the work is clearly Christian, and features several apostles being seen in heaven. However, the text is significantly shorter than the Apocalypse.

The Donation of Constantine is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the 4th-century emperor Constantine the Great supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. Composed probably in the 8th century, it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy. Lorenzo Valla, an Italian Catholic priest and Renaissance humanist, is credited with first exposing the forgery with solid philological arguments in 1439–1440, although the document's authenticity had been repeatedly contested since 1001.

The Privilegium maius ('greater privilege') was a document composed in 1358 or 1359 – but purporting to be much older. Its text elevated the Duchy of Austria into an Archduchy of Austria, thus greatly increasing the prestige of Rudolf IV of Austria (1358–65) of the House of Habsburg.

In Russian history, in 1561 Muscovites supposedly received a letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople which asserted the right of Ivan the Terrible to claim the title of Tsar. This, too, turned out to be false. While earlier Russian Monarchs had on some occasions used the title "Tsar", Ivan the Terrible previously known as "Grand Prince of all the Russias" was the first to be formally crowned as Tsar of All Rus (Russian: Царь Всея Руси). This was related to Russia's growing ambitions to become an Orthodox "Third Rome", after the Fall of Constantinople – for which the supposed approval by the Patriarch added weight.

The Anaphorae of Mar Nestorius, employed in the Eastern Churches, is attributed to Nestorius but its earliest manuscripts are in Syriac which question it's Greek-authorship.

Authorship and pseudepigraphy: levels of authenticity

Scholars have identified seven levels of authenticity which they have organized in a hierarchy ranging from literal authorship, meaning written in the author's own hand, to outright forgery:

1. Literal authorship. A church leader writes a letter in his own hand.
2. Dictation. A church leader dictates a letter almost word for word to an amanuensis.
3. Delegated authorship. A church leader describes the basic content of an intended letter to a disciple or to an amanuensis.
4. Posthumous authorship. A church leader dies, and his disciples finish a letter that he had intended to write, sending it posthumously in his name.
5. Apprentice authorship. A church leader dies, and disciples who had been authorized to speak for him while he was alive continue to do so by writing letters in his name years or decades after his death.
6. Honorable pseudepigraphy. A church leader dies, and admirers seek to honor him by writing letters in his name as a tribute to his influence and in a sincere belief that they are responsible bearers of his tradition.
7. Forgery. A church leader obtains sufficient prominence that, either before or after his death, people seek to exploit his legacy by forging letters in his name, presenting him as a supporter of their own ideas.

The Zohar

The Zohar (Hebrew: זֹהַר, lit. Splendor or Radiance), foundational work in the literature of Jewish mystical thought known as Kabbalah, first appeared in Spain in the 13th century, and was published by a Jewish writer named Moses de León. De León ascribed the work to Shimon bar Yochai ("Rashbi"), a rabbi of the 2nd century during the Roman persecution who, according to Jewish legend, hid in a cave for thirteen years studying the Torah and was inspired by the Prophet Elijah to write the Zohar. This accords with the traditional claim by adherents that Kabbalah is the concealed part of the Oral Torah. Modern academic analysis of the Zohar, such as that by the 20th century religious historian Gershom Scholem, has theorized that de León was the actual author, as textual analysis points to a Medieval Spanish Jewish writer rather than one living in Roman-ruled Palestine.

Ovid

Conrad Celtes, a noted German humanist scholar and poet of the German Renaissance, collected numerous Greek and Latin manuscripts in his function as librarian of the Imperial Library in Vienna. In a 1504 letter to the Venetian publisher Aldus Manutius Celtes claimed to have discovered the missing books of Ovid's Fasti. However, it turned out that the purported Ovid verses had actually been composed by an 11th-century monk and were known to the Empire of Nicaea according to William of Rubruck. Even so, many contemporary scholars believed Celtes and continued to write about the existence of the missing books until well into the 17th century.

As literary device

Pseudepigraphy has been employed as a metafictional technique. Authors who have made notable use of this device include James Hogg (The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner), Thomas Carlyle (Sartor Resartus), Jorge Luis Borges ("An Examination of the Works of Herbert Quain"; "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote"), Vladimir Nabokov (Pale Fire), Stanislaw Lem (A Perfect Vacuum; Imaginary Magnitude) Roberto Bolaño (Nazi Literature in the Americas) and Stefan Heym (The Lenz Papers).

Edgar Rice Burroughs also presented many of his works – including the most well-known, the Tarzan books – as pseudepigrapha, prefacing each book with a detailed introduction presenting the supposed actual author, with Burroughs himself pretending to be no more than the literary editor. J.R.R. Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings presents that story and The Hobbit as translated from the fictional Red Book of Westmarch written by characters within the novels. The twelve books of The Flashman Papers series by George MacDonald Fraser similarly pretend to be transcriptions of the papers left by an "illustrious Victorian soldier", each volume prefaced by a long semi-scholarly Explanatory Note stating that "additional packets of Flashman's papers have been found and are here presented to the public". A similar device was used by Ian Fleming in The Spy Who Loved Me and by various other writers of popular fiction.