Shankara vs Goswamis vs Buddha vs Jesus

[I_love_krishna_]

Wasn't shankara enlightened and weren't Goswamis enlightened and weren't buddha and Jesus enlightened? then why are their teachings different?

 

 

[Guest guest]

they all got enlightened in a different way and each one of them are teaching their respective methods of getting enlightened /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

Whenever a representative comes, they teach what the people, in that place, need, in order to get them back onto the path in the right direction. For example. On the basis of the vedas allowing animal sacrifice, under very rigid and strict conditions, some people in India were engaging in animal slaughter just for the sense gratification of their eating. Knowing that such activities would lead the people to a lower birth, Lord Bhudda came and preached "forget about the vedas, just become nonviolent". In this way he was putting them back onto the right path, as much as they were able to.

[Guest guest]

What makes you think they are all enlightened?

[Govindaram]

Hare Krishna

 

I believe the teaching are the same, its how we percieve them, even Lord Chaitanya said the qu'ran teaches Bhakti Yoga.

[livingentity]

place and circumstance.

[I_love_krishna_]

By the books that we read, I perceived them to be enlightened entities.

 

I do have a question, how can truth change by Time and circumstance as it has been said.

 

Doesn't Krishna himself say " Truth is one" in bhagavath gita... I will try to find the verse.

 

He does say that he is the truth and every one in the end must reach him , if that is the case, then why do we see so much difference in the teachings of Sri Krishna Chaitanya and Adi Shankaracharya?

 

If they are all telling the truth, why is it that the truth in them is so different that people quarrel over them.

 

I think that it is the ignorance in us which does not see the oneness in all philosphies.. unless some one here proves that one philosophy is absolute and the others are just results of various types of delusion.

 

[gHari]

Consider the golf ball, the tennis ball, the bowling ball, and the cannon ball. Each is rolling in its own direction at different speeds. The heavier the ball, the more difficult it is to change its direction. Each is going in the wrong direction, yet somehow we must get them all moving in the right direction.

 

Without too much effort we can place a spin on the golf ball so it will come into the correct alignment. The tennis ball will take a little more force to create a greater spin. The bowling ball which is way out of line will need a few adjustments to get it on track since it is so heavy and so off target. The cannon ball is even more out of whack moving almost in the opposite direction to the desired goal, and it is much harder to direct toward the target because of its obstinate resistant weight. Many forceful adjustments will be required for this. The small force applied to the golf ball would be virtually ineffective on the cannon ball or even the bowling ball.

 

All spheres eventually will reach the target; some with a little loving twist, some with many rough cranks and fine finesses.

 

[AncientMariner]

 

 

 

"Without too much effort we can place spin on the golf ball so it will come into correct alignment."

 

Have you ever tried to hit a golf ball? It doesn't matter how much spin I put on it I still can't get it to come into correct alignment. LoL just kidding

[AncientMariner]

 

 

 

If the Earth is a bowling bowl that is offline going down the lane then this is not a job for the Buddha or Jesus or any other avatar. This is a job for Earl Anthony. Just kidding. Please don't get mad at me I'm only joking.

[Guest guest]

"I do have a question, how can truth change by Time and circumstance as it has been said? "

 

"to eat" is as "absolute" a very good thing, but it can be also very bad if i have now ended to respect a complete feast for srila prabhupada's appearance... it could be letal for my health

 

the goal of krsna is to see us to make a spiritual advancement... if he sees that we use vedas for killing animals, he comes and he say that vedas are wrong and he built an "atheistic" religion where the absolute truth is to discover that we are nothing

 

it is like a necessary RESET

 

next comes shankaracharya saying that the absolute truth is not the void... the absolute truth is the spirit, who is impersonal but real and existing

 

all this is the start of a long journey ended in 1500 with chaitanya mahaprabhu with the "acynthia beda abeda" tattva

 

so, for buddah, the time, place and circumstance was rigth to preach atheism... and it has demostrated to be a good thing when chaitanya has come

[Gauracandra]

Most religions have many common points dealing with how to be a good person. There is a really good article called "Stages and Varieties of Faith" by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur that explains very nicely why these religions are similar and dissimilar.

[Gauracandra]

http://www.indiadivine.org/bhaktivinoda-thakur-stages-faith1.htm

[Guest guest]

That's a good question.

 

Just as a teacher in school teaches one thing to a 3rd grade student and the same teacher teaches a differnet thing to 8th grade students. Similarly, according to the capacity of the audience, these enlightened personalities teach different things, according to time, place and circumstance.

 

 

Wasn't shankara enlightened and weren't Goswamis enlightened and weren't buddha and Jesus enlightened? then why are their teachings different?

[Guest guest]

 

That's a good question.

 

Just as a teacher in school teaches one thing to a 3rd grade student and the same teacher teaches a differnet thing to 8th grade students. Similarly, according to the capacity of the audience, these enlightened personalities teach different things, according to time, place and circumstance.

 

This would be valid only if the teacher defined the time period (start and end), place ( boundary) and the specific circumstances under which his/her teachings are valid. Do you any teacher who did this? I don't. No teacher has posed time or space boundaries or circumstantial conditions limiting the scope of his or her teachings. These are lame excuses provided by some who seek to supplant an existing teaching with a new one.

 

Truth by definition is the same for a 3rd grader and a graduate student. You have to accept that different teachers taught different things and if there is any truth to any of these teachings, then only one of them can be correct.

[Beggar]

 

T

Truth by definition is the same for a 3rd grader and a graduate student. You have to accept that different teachers taught different things and if there is any truth to any of these teachings, then only one of them can be correct.

True/false, black/white...You don't accept gradation - shades of gray? Sridhar Maharaja gives an analogy: If your teaching young students about astronomy first you tell them that the Earth is revolving around the Sun. Then when they understand that in the next installment you tell them that the Moon is orbiting the Earth. Then when your sure that they understand these things you tell them that the Sun is revolving around the Universe. Not everything is necessarily revealed in one installment. So the same is true for certain religious teachers in that they may only teach what their students can digest. Those indigestable concepts may be ommited. But does that mean that the ommisions are not truths? Consequently although truth may be one, the lessons of the 3rd grader and the graduate student are not the same. That's just common sense.

[Guest guest]

 

True/false, black/white...You don't accept gradation - shades of gray? Sridhar Maharaja gives an analogy: If your teaching young students about astronomy first you tell them that the Earth is revolving around the Sun. Then when they understand that in the next installment you tell them that the Moon is orbiting the Earth. Then when your sure that they understand these things you tell them that the Sun is revolving around the Universe. Not everything is necessarily revealed in one installment. So the same is true for certain religious teachers in that they may only teach what their students can digest. Those indigestable concepts may be ommited. But does that mean that the ommisions are not truths? Consequently although truth may be one, the lessons of the 3rd grader and the graduate student are not the same. That's just common sense.

 

You are correct, but your analogy is out of context. In your example, truth is revealed in parts but note that no part falsifies another part that was revealed earlier.

 

Now compare this with the actual topic. Shankara positing theism falsifies the atheistic Buddhist position. Dvaita positing permanent dualism falsifies Advaita. By definition, this is not how truth works.

[Beggar]

 

You are correct, but your analogy is out of context. In your example, truth is revealed in parts but note that no part falsifies another part that was revealed earlier.

 

Now compare this with the actual topic. Shankara positing theism falsifies the atheistic Buddhist position. Dvaita positing permanent dualism falsifies Advaita. By definition, this is not how truth works.

Srila Sridhar Maharaja would quote Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur that, "religion means proper adjustment". Your comment is an example of improper adjustment and will therefore not lead you to suddha bhakti. Not everything the acaryas say can be understood with the intellect. In the Ramananda Samvad of Caitanya Caritamrta, the first thing that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu accepted was that one should give up trying to figure everything out with the intellect and simply hear submissively from a saintly devotee.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

You are correct, but your analogy is out of context. In your example, truth is revealed in parts but note that no part falsifies another part that was revealed earlier.

 

Now compare this with the actual topic. Shankara positing theism falsifies the atheistic Buddhist position. Dvaita positing permanent dualism falsifies Advaita. By definition, this is not how truth works.

 

How about this example:

 

When studying physics, one usually starts with Newtonian mechanics. Newton's physics is relatively straightforward. F=ma, P=mv, etc.

 

However, when one progresses to quantum mechanics (which, admittedly, apply at a different scale (which, in and of itself is instructional)), Newton's laws do not apply in the same way or at all.

 

Yet, "reality" is accomodating both of these principles.

 

In the case of Shankara, et. al., Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has harmonized all with His Acintya Beda-bed conception.

 

Is light a particle or a wave? The answer is that it is both.

 

Gauranga!!!

[Guest guest]

 

How about this example:

 

When studying physics, one usually starts with Newtonian mechanics. Newton's physics is relatively straightforward. F=ma, P=mv, etc.

 

However, when one progresses to quantum mechanics (which, admittedly, apply at a different scale (which, in and of itself is instructional)), Newton's laws do not apply in the same way or at all.

 

Yet, "reality" is accomodating both of these principles.

 

In the case of Shankara, et. al., Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has harmonized all with His Acintya Beda-bed conception.

 

Is light a particle or a wave? The answer is that it is both.

 

Gauranga!!!

 

When Newton's laws do not apply, then he is wrong. It is very simple.

 

We will apply your logic to the context and see how it holds. Buddha's atheistic teachings were correct for his time as there was no God existing during his time. But a thousand years later, during the time of Shankara, God came into existence and so Shankara was right for his time. But God was formless during the time of Shankara and there was no duality. 400 years later, by the time of Madhva, God had attained a form and duality was permanent and this God was a Vaishnava God. Therefore all 3 were correct for their times and circumstances. This is what your logic leads to.

 

Anyway, since Chaitanya is over 400 years old, by your time and circumstance logic, his ideas are obsolete now. You should be going for something or someone that came up recently like Osho or SaiBaba or Scientology. Otherwise, you have to also take the trouble to explain how a 400 year old idea is valid for today's time while a 20-30 year old idea is not and this is somehow in line with the time and circumstance logic.

[Guest guest]

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaja would quote Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur that, "religion means proper adjustment". Your comment is an example of improper adjustment and will therefore not lead you to suddha bhakti. Not everything the acaryas say can be understood with the intellect. In the Ramananda Samvad of Caitanya Caritamrta, the first thing that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu accepted was that one should give up trying to figure everything out with the intellect and simply hear submissively from a saintly devotee.

 

How seriously do you believe in what you write? Will you set aside your intellect and listen submissively from a saintly devotee who belongs to the Ramakrishna Ashrama? Now you will define a saintly devotee as one who comes in the line of Chaitanya and so there can be no saintly devotees who are not Gaudiyas.

 

And what has this got to do with the time and circumstance argument anyway? By using this lame argument to push your belief over other older beliefs, you are opening the door to eliminate yourself by your own logic. A more recent belief like Sai Baba or Swami Narayan can oust Chaitanya by your logic.

[brajeshwara das]

 

How seriously do you believe in what you write? Will you set aside your intellect and listen submissively from a saintly devotee who belongs to the Ramakrishna Ashrama? Now you will define a saintly devotee as one who comes in the line of Chaitanya and so there can be no saintly devotees who are not Gaudiyas.

 

And what has this got to do with the time and circumstance argument anyway? By using this lame argument to push your belief over other older beliefs, you are opening the door to eliminate yourself by your own logic. A more recent belief like Sai Baba or Swami Narayan can oust Chaitanya by your logic.

 

Time place and circumstance doesn't mean always progressing forward with more perfect philosophies. If some group of humans aren't so evolved but it is 5000 years later, we may get some simplified form of worship from the Lord that we can actually do. It depends on the capacity to receive, not arbitrary timelines. Even now, there may be those that Lord Buddha can speak to, Lord Jesus can speak to, Lord Chaitanya etc. so time, place and circumstance is dynamic. Also what may have been seen as atheistic actually wasn't, like followers of Gautama Buddha (not the Buddha mentioned in the Vedas BTW) later drew philosophical conclusions never originating from the real Buddha. Sankaracharya preached Oneness but later famously wrote 'Bhaja Govindam'. Partial knowledge may be taught but a more full understanding may later be revealed in a higher course of study.

 

The basic truth of the 'time place and circumstance' involves the decending of the Lord's mercy in a way that can be readily received by the jiva souls. Just as moisture may come down as rain in one place, snow in another, a coating of fog in another, but happening simultaneously, so my understanding is the Lord's mercy works in this way too.

[Guest guest]

 

And what has this got to do with the time and circumstance argument anyway? By using this lame argument to push your belief over other older beliefs, you are opening the door to eliminate yourself by your own logic. A more recent belief like Sai Baba or Swami Narayan can oust Chaitanya by your logic.

 

Sai Baba is bogus, Swami Narayan is not Narayana and Caitanya Mahaprabhu is directly Krsna Himself.

[Guest guest]

 

Sai Baba is bogus, Swami Narayan is not Narayana and Caitanya Mahaprabhu is directly Krsna Himself.

 

or

 

Chaitanya is bogus; Swami Narayan is Narayana himself and Sai Baba is none other than Krishna.

[brajeshwara das]

People should be respectful of other's faiths, even if you don't share them. Otherwise all communication stops and all we are left with is quarreling.