Shankara vs Goswamis vs Buddha vs Jesus

[Nrsinghadev 0]

 

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.

 

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.

 

Actually the analogy still stands. I shall attempt to establish the answer to the both quotations simultaneously. The teachings of Buddha and Shankaracharya were both instigated by the Supreme Lord to bring those who abused the authority and prescribed rituals of the Vedas for selfish purposes to a higher understanding.

 

First the Lord Himself came as Lord Buddha to reject the Vedas whilst with His teachings He was still adhering to sattvic principles which were lost and forgotten by the miscreants. By decrying the Vedas, Lord Buddha's teaching were accepted by the miscreants and so they were cheated into piety.

 

Then, to reestablish the authority of the Vedas amongst the masses of miscreants who had now accepted Lord Buddha's teachings, the Supreme Lord asked His dearmost devotee Lord Shiva to make his appearance as Shankaracharya in order to bring the now Buddhistic people a step up to accept the authority of the Vedas again, while still adhering to a largely Buddhistic philosophy but now under the wing of the Vedas. Although Lord Shiva did not like to preach a false doctrine, he nevertheless did so out of love for Sri Krishna, and being His best devotee he understood that whatever he had to do must be neccesary and part of a bigger plan for the greater good of mankind.

 

Shankaracharya's teachings were so influential that they almost completely dispersed any Buddhist philosophy out of India, and today we can still see most of the nations surrounding India are or were Buddhistic while in India they are not the dominating religion. So once the Buddhists were turned into mayavadis, they were being prepared for the next step, the acceptance of a Supreme Lord, a Supreme Person as established by the Vedas.

 

That lost truth was then reintroduced to India by Lord Krishna's most merciful avatara, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who blessed the world by (re)establishing the eternal tattva of acintya bheda abheda. Pancha tattva ki jay!

 

So half-truths and blatant lies were established in order to bring the ignorant from their nightmarish sleeping condition to their waking state. So those teachings that were falsified by the next, that was all authorized by the Supreme Lord and not only that, they were predicted in the shastra as well. Therefore, because the false doctrines were authorized and/or established by the Supreme Lord Himself, the analogy can still be considered to be within context.

 

 

 

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

There is only one eternal truth, one sanatana dharma, and that was established by Supreme Lord Sri Krishna when He first spoke the Bhagavad-Gita which was then propounded by our guru parampara following the disciplic succession. All other religions are simply steps on the ladder, temporary patches applied according to time and circumstance in order to bring the conditioned souls to a higher level of consciousness. Some but not all of them false, most of them containing the basic truths, but incomplete and mixed with fruitive results.

For example, a religion that preaches compassion on the one hand, but on the other hand allows the slaughter of innocent animals for man's sense gratification can never be accepted as complete or eternal truth, because there is a concession that; "all right these people cannot be stopped in their want for sense indulgence, so let their sense gratification be done according to religious principles".

 

So Jesus is considered to be a nitya-mukta jiva by Vaisnavas, in other words an eternally liberated soul. Always enlightened. He descended from the spiritual plane to spread God consciousness amongst the uncultured. Where Jesus preached they were killers of man and animal, and they were cheaters also, so he had to adjust his teachings accordingly. Like Prabhupada said; "they were in the business of killing, otherwise why would God speak the first commandment to Moses: Thou shallt not kill? That means they were already killers."

 

Similarly shankaracharya, who is Lord Shiva, how can he not be enlightened as he is an almost complete manifestation of Lord Krishna?

But to please his worshipable Lord, he preached the false mayavadi doctrine with pain in his sweet heart. Therefore it is not for nothing that before departing this world Shankaracharya spoke the famous words:

 

"bhaja govindam bhaja govindam

govindam bhaja mudha mate

sampraapte sannihite kale

nahi nahi rakshati dukrijnkarane"

 

"Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of Grammar will not save you at the time of your death."

So, truth doesn't change with the times, but people do change with the times, therefore every now and then they need to be shown some direction according to their eligibility to comprehend spiritual teachings.

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.

There is no oneness in all philosophies, there are countless of baseless bogus concocted philosophies going round.

Now to find which teaching establishes for us the actual and factual eternal function of the soul or jaiva dharma.

It is that dharma which stands the test of time, so when we read genesis from the bible we can establish that it did not stand the test of time. When we read of a God who is full of wrath and always active in chastising mankind, we can understand that this is not God's superior mood and it makes Him attached to this material world.

When we read a scripture or teaching where it is said there is no God, everything is void, it begets the statement "nothing cannot be the cause of something, something is the cause of something".

When a philosophy states that there is something beyond the material, some supreme energy, but it becomes subject to it's own illusory energies, then that supreme energy loses it's supreme position due to it's becoming deluded by it's own energy. Therefore it was not the supreme energy to begin with. Therefore the philosophy is false.

How to establish then which Vedic God is superior?

Srila Vyasadeva was Krishna's literary manifestation who compiled the whole Vedic literature with exception of the Ramayana. Vyasadeva, however could find no satisfaction even after writing the four principle vedas, puranas, upanishads and the Mahabharata. Only when on instruction of His gurudev Narada Muni He wrote the Srimad Bhagavatam did Vyasadeva become satisfied. What then does the Bhagavatam establish that satisfied Vyasadev? It established the principle of Bhakti yoga for Supreme Lord Krishna.

 

Srimad Bhagavatam canto 1 chapter 3 verse 28 states:

 

 

 

"ete cāḿśa- kalah pumsah

kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam

indrāri-vyākulaḿ lokaḿ

mṛḍayanti yuge yuge"

 

 

"All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists."

 

In the preceding verses the principal other incarnations of Supreme Lord Sri Krishna are mentioned but in the above verse Krishna is clearly being stated as the origin of all. The bhagavatam is considered the spotless purana because it's only goal, unlike other purana's, is to bring one to Krishna Bhakti. It is not contaminated by any other purposes.

 

The Lord later descended Himself as the Pancha Tattva, Sri Krishna Chaitanya, prabhu Nityananda, Sri Advaita Acharaya, Sri Gadadhara & Srivas Pandit to distribute the most confidential and most rare and difficult to obtain Krishna prema freely without discrimination as predicted by shastra and in that way establishing the yuga dharma of the current age of Kali.

 

 

Brhan-naradiya Purana (3.8.126):

"Harer nama Harer nama Harer namaiva kevalam, Kalau nasty eva nasty eva nasty eva gatir anyatha"

 

Prabhupada comments:

 

"Kalau means "in this age." Nasty eva, nasty eva, nasty eva - three times nasty eva. Eva means "certainly," and nasti means "not.Certainly not, certainly not, certainly not," What is that "certainly not" ? One cannot realize oneself by karma. That is the first "certainly not." One cannot realize oneself by jnana. That is the second "certainly not." One cannot realize oneself by yoga. Certainly not. Kalau. Kalau means "in this age." Kalau nasty eva nasty eva nasty eva gatir anyatha. In this age one certainly cannot achieve success by any of these three methods. Then what is the recommended process ? Harer nama harer nama harer namaiva kevalam. Simply chant the Hare Krsna mantra. Kevalam means "only." Simply chant Hare Krsna. It is the easiest and most sublime process. This is recommended, practical, and authorized. So take it. Accept it in any condition of life. Chant. There is no expenditure, there is no loss. We are not chanting a secret. No. It is open. And by chanting you will cleanse your heart."

So this chanting of Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, ,Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare is the process for this age.

Although the process of this yuga dharma is not eternal, the dharma it establishes IS eternal. That is it is the eternal function of the jiva soul, to be a loving servant or Sri Sri Radha Krishna.

 

 

When you find that God who is not personally busy performing some function pertaining to this material world but Who discharges these function to His countless manifestations, Who is a slave to His devotee yet remains his superior, Who is always eternally engaged in loving amorous pastimes, Who in His eternal abode is beyond being worshiped as Supreme Lord but Who is seen as his friend, child or lover, Who is everywhere at once but Who simultaneously always remains in Goloka Vrindavan enjoying various sweet pastimes, that God is the Supreme God. That God is nandananda Sri Krishna. All the rest are His parts and parcels, there is nothing outside of Krishna.

Haribol!

[Beggar 0]

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

Once after Srila Sridhar Maharaja had been in the Gaudiya Math for several years an old college friend who had the standard Bengali beliefs of the day (early 1930's) came to visit him. The so-called friend told, "you have been wearing these red rags for so many years now, and what have you learned?" Srila Sridhar Maharaja replied, "I have learned that everything Rama Krsna and Vivekananda have taught is wrong". Then Sridhar Maharaja told, "My friend was mortified and immediately left." Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur declared totalitarian war against Maya or illusion and all other religious conceptions.

[shvu 1]

If I understand correctly, the time and circumstance argument used by Chaitanya followers states that all teachings come with an expiry date.

 

1. Buddhism's expiry date was set to the time of Shankara. This means Buddhism had a lifespan of (800 AD - 600 BC) = 1400 years

 

2. Advaita's expiry date was set to the time of Madhvacharya. Lifespan = 1300 AD - 800 AD = 500 years

 

3. Madhvacharya's impure Bhakti system was set to expire at the time of Chaitanya. Lifespan = 1600 AD - 1300 Ad = 300 years approx.

 

The question is, what is the expiry date of the Chaitanya system? I am guessing it has no expiry date - just like groceries sold in Indian stores in the US! In other words, all religions are bound by the limitations of time and circumstances, but Gaudiya Vaishnavism has no bounds. of course, this is a belief held by GVs only, but even there it is surprising that one can actually believe in such ideas.

 

Anyway, to each his own. As long as you are having fun, everything is fine in my opinion.

 

Cheers

[brajeshwara das 0]

 

If I understand correctly, the time and circumstance argument used by Chaitanya followers states that all teachings come with an expiry date.

 

1. Buddhism's expiry date was set to the time of Shankara. This means Buddhism had a lifespan of (800 AD - 600 BC) = 1400 years

 

2. Advaita's expiry date was set to the time of Madhvacharya. Lifespan = 1300 AD - 800 AD = 500 years

 

3. Madhvacharya's impure Bhakti system was set to expire at the time of Chaitanya. Lifespan = 1600 AD - 1300 Ad = 300 years approx.

 

The question is, what is the expiry date of the Chaitanya system? I am guessing it has no expiry date - just like groceries sold in Indian stores in the US! In other words, all religions are bound by the limitations of time and circumstances, but Gaudiya Vaishnavism has no bounds. of course, this is a belief held by GVs only, but even there it is surprising that one can actually believe in such ideas.

 

Anyway, to each his own. As long as you are having fun, everything is fine in my opinion.

 

Cheers

 

I think it is more complicated than that. For example, in my life Jesus was first because I needed to get a general theistic platform, being born in a western family. Then Buddhism got me to stop eating meat. A general 'oneness' conception came later where I tried to see divinity in all things. Later Gaudiya Vaisnavism came where Divinity got definition, full-fledged theism, real eternal personality for me and God. So time, place and circumstance just for me alone played out in one lifetime. Sorry I'm not so clear but I'm rushed... hope it makes sense.

[brajeshwara das 0]

Divine Mercy is there for us no matter our position, tailor-made for our particular spiritual maturity.

[Beggar 0]

Dear Mister Shvu, I've never heard that these systems such as Buddhism and the Madhva line have an "expiration date". But one system did build on another and Srila Sridhar Maharaja called this, "subjective evolution of consciousness". So don't think of it that one system expires and another supplants it but rather there is thesis then the antithesis and the friction between them leads to a synthesis. Reality is not stagnant but rather dynamic. Sometimes a simplistic format of Caitanya deva's concepts will be preached to simple folks. So sometimes one is forced to look deeper into the subject matter and approach the great spiritual philosophers such as Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur and Srila Sridhar Maharaja.

[bija 0]

 

The question is, what is the expiry date of the Chaitanya system? I am guessing it has no expiry date - just like groceries sold in Indian stores in the US! quote by shvu

....or the packets of spices in bija's kitchen cupboard.

 

I had the rare occurence of a couple of visitors in my little hermits cave last week. To keep up with the rare chance of giving hospitality...I said...

 

'would anyone like a banana fruit smoothie?'

 

'Oh yes was the reply...do you have nutmeg?'

 

'Yes ofcourse I have nutmeg!'

 

I handed the pack of nutmeg (to grace the top of the exquisite smoothies), to my grateful guests.

 

To my surprise there was a turning of the nose and a cringe of their faces:

 

'But the expiriy date on the spice is March 2006!'

 

'Oh don't worry about that I replied...spice never goes off.'

 

'It is just a best before date.'

 

 

Anyway, to each his own. As long as you are having fun, everything is fine in my opinion. quote by shvu

bija the glee gaudiya...would have to agree. You know what I mean?

[Guest guest]

Evidence from Sastra?

 

 

or

 

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

[Guest guest]

 

Evidence from Sastra?

 

Kurma Purana 3.4.49 explicitly says says Sai Baba is none other than Krishna himself. This is known during his time.

 

Skanda Purana says Swami Narayan is Narayana himself. This was known during his time too.

 

Markandeya Purana 8.3.1 and Vayu Purana 12.3.29 caution people against hidden avatars for whom scriptural references miraculously pop up after they are dead. Chaitanya is referred to here as he is called a hidden avatar by his followers and an Upanishad was written about him a 100 years ago.

[Beggar 0]

Well I just read the last post and then took a nap. Woke up 10 min. later and had become an atheist. Had a cup of tea (or me) and suddenly was transformed into an agnostic. Wait a minute, am I halluncinating or did I get a 666 tatoo last night?

 

Preacher Gets '666' Tattoo, Calls Self Antichrist

 

(CBS) DORAL, Fla. More than 12 members of a Doral, Fla.-based church showed up at a tattoo parlor to get the number 666 tattooed on themselves as a show of faith to preacher Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda who is now sporting a '666' tattoo of his own.

 

"I am Jesus Christ, man," Miranda said in front of Miami CBS station WFOR-TV's news cameras. “The Second Coming of Christ."

 

In September 2006, the founder of the Growing in Grace Ministry was billing himself as the Second Coming of Christ. However, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is now claiming that he's the Antichrist.

 

At a recent gathering at the church's headquarters Miranda rolled up his sleeves and showed off the mark of the Antichrist. He had tattoos of three S's on one arm and the number 666 -- which is considered by many to be the Devil’s number -- on the other.

 

WFOR-TV asked his daughter and follower, Joann de Jesus, if it was the sign of the Devil, she said, 'no.'

 

"Jesus of Nazareth, when he died on the cross he killed the Devil," she said while getting her '666' tattoo done.

 

But Miranda, who preaches that the Devil and sin do not exist, isn't necessarily declaring himself the Devil.

 

Daniel Alvarez, professor of religion at Florida International University, thinks Miranda may be playing on the ambiguity of the term "Antichrist," which can mean "taking the place of Christ." In other words, because Miranda claims to be the Second Coming of Christ, he rejects the continued worship of the old Christ: Jesus of Nazareth.

 

WFOR-TV captured the preacher declaring the following on-camera during an applause-filled worship service: "Anyone who doesn’t believe in me will be miserable."

 

Critics say this is yet another publicity ploy by the flamboyant preacher known to sport Rolex watches and drive fancy cars paid for by generous donations from followers around the world. At least one former member feels the number 666 fits Miranda to a "T."

 

"He's the Devil,” former church member Regina Albarracin said.

 

She knows Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda says the Devil doesn't exist, but “it’s him,” she said.

 

Thousands of church members worldwide are expected to get similar '666' tattoos.

[Guest guest]

ROFL!

 

 

Well I just read the last post and then took a nap. Woke up 10 min. later and had become an atheist. Had a cup of tea (or me) and suddenly was transformed into an agnostic. Wait a minute, am I halluncinating or did I get a 666 tatoo last night?

 

Preacher Gets '666' Tattoo, Calls Self Antichrist

 

(CBS) DORAL, Fla. More than 12 members of a Doral, Fla.-based church showed up at a tattoo parlor to get the number 666 tattooed on themselves as a show of faith to preacher Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda who is now sporting a '666' tattoo of his own.

 

"I am Jesus Christ, man," Miranda said in front of Miami CBS station WFOR-TV's news cameras. “The Second Coming of Christ."

 

In September 2006, the founder of the Growing in Grace Ministry was billing himself as the Second Coming of Christ. However, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is now claiming that he's the Antichrist.

 

At a recent gathering at the church's headquarters Miranda rolled up his sleeves and showed off the mark of the Antichrist. He had tattoos of three S's on one arm and the number 666 -- which is considered by many to be the Devil’s number -- on the other.

 

WFOR-TV asked his daughter and follower, Joann de Jesus, if it was the sign of the Devil, she said, 'no.'

 

"Jesus of Nazareth, when he died on the cross he killed the Devil," she said while getting her '666' tattoo done.

 

But Miranda, who preaches that the Devil and sin do not exist, isn't necessarily declaring himself the Devil.

 

Daniel Alvarez, professor of religion at Florida International University, thinks Miranda may be playing on the ambiguity of the term "Antichrist," which can mean "taking the place of Christ." In other words, because Miranda claims to be the Second Coming of Christ, he rejects the continued worship of the old Christ: Jesus of Nazareth.

 

WFOR-TV captured the preacher declaring the following on-camera during an applause-filled worship service: "Anyone who doesn’t believe in me will be miserable."

 

Critics say this is yet another publicity ploy by the flamboyant preacher known to sport Rolex watches and drive fancy cars paid for by generous donations from followers around the world. At least one former member feels the number 666 fits Miranda to a "T."

 

"He's the Devil,” former church member Regina Albarracin said.

 

She knows Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda says the Devil doesn't exist, but “it’s him,” she said.

 

Thousands of church members worldwide are expected to get similar '666' tattoos.

[Guest guest]

Seems like you've been misled by someone. The Kurma Purana definitely doesn't explicitly say Sai Baba is none other than Krishna himself.

 

Please provide the verse 3.4.49 so that we can examine in detail to see if this is true or not.

 

As regards Lord Caitanya, why do you call Him hidden? Many Sastras quite openly declare him to be Krishna Himself.

 

 

Kurma Purana 3.4.49 explicitly says says Sai Baba is none other than Krishna himself. This is known during his time.

 

Skanda Purana says Swami Narayan is Narayana himself. This was known during his time too.

 

Markandeya Purana 8.3.1 and Vayu Purana 12.3.29 caution people against hidden avatars for whom scriptural references miraculously pop up after they are dead. Chaitanya is referred to here as he is called a hidden avatar by his followers and an Upanishad was written about him a 100 years ago.

[Beggar 0]

Did the Srimad-Bhagavatam (Bhagavat-Puran), the foremost of all Vedic literatures predict the appearance of Lord Chaitanya Maraprabhu?

** In the seventh canto of the Srimad-Bhagavatam, Prahlad Maharaj directly hints at the hidden nature of the Supreme Lord's appearance. Because the Supreme Lord is also called Tri-Yuga, or one who appears in only three yugas (satya, dvapara, treta), He is sometimes said to appear in a concealed form, in the age of Kali.

 

channah kalau yad abhavas tri-yugo'tha sa tvam

 

 

(Srimad Bhagavatam 7.9.38)

Are there any more direct references in the Simad Bhagavatam, than the above reference?

** In the Tenth Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam, chapter eight, Gargamuni the family priest of Nanda Maharaja, explains that the young boy Sri Krishna has three colors - white, red and yellow - when He appears in His transcendental form in different ages. In the current incarnation of Krishna, He has appeared ...as black.

 

 

asan varnas trayo hy asya grhnatotnvyugam tanuh

suklo raktas tatha pita idanim krmatam gatah

 

(Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.8.13)

Srila Krishna das Kaviraj Goswami, the celebrated author of the Sri Chaitanya-charitamrta, explains that the three colors of white, red and yellow are the three bodily colors which the Supreme Lord assumes in the ages of Satya, Treta and Kali respectively.

 

sukla rakta pita-varna ei tina dyuti

satya-treta-kali-kale dharena sri-pati

 

The Bhagavatam explains in the conversation between Karabhajan Muni and King Nimi, that in the Dvapara-Yuga, the Supreme Lord, the Personality of Godhead appears in a blackish form [dvapare bhagavan syamah]. He has a yellow dress and carries His own weapons [pita-vasa-nija-ayudhah]. He is beautified with the mark of Srivatsa and the Kaustubha jewel [sri vatsa-adibhih ankais ca laksanaih]. This is the actual description of His characteristics [upalaksitah].

The great sage continues his instruction to King Nimi by saying that people in general in the age of Dvapar-Yuga worshiped the Lord of the Universe [iti dvapara urvisam stuvanti jagad isvaram]. In the age of Kali, they worshipped the Supreme Person by the regulation of the scriptures [tantra vidhana].

 

krishna varnam tvisakrmam sangopangastra parsadam

yajnaih sankirtana prayair yajanti hi sumedhasah

 

(Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.5.32)

"In the age of Kali, intelligent persons perform congregational chanting to worship the incarnation of Godhead who constantly sings the holy name of Krishna. Although His complexion is not blackish, He is Krishna Himself. He is accompanied by His associates, servants, weapons and confidential companions."

How does this verse refer to the advent of Lord Chaitanya, since his name is not directly mentioned there?

** Just as the symptoms and characteristics of the various previous incarnations are mentioned in the scriptures, similarly the symptoms of the appearance of Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu are described.

 

Krishna-varnam indicates that He belongs to the category of Krishna. Krishna varnam also means one who constantly repeats and sings the name of Krishna. The main business of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was the chanting of the holy name of Krishna. Thus the words Krishna varnam and Krishna Chaitanya are equivalent.

 

Srila Krishna das Kaviraj Goswami has elucidated the two meanings of the words Krishna varnam by stating:

 

krishna ei dui varna sadayanra mukhe

athava krmake h'nho varne nija sukhe

 

Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu always sings the two syllables Krish & na [Krishna ei dui varna sada yanra mukhe], or He always relishes great transcendental pleasure while describing Lord Krishna [athava krmake tinho varne nija-sukhe].

Is there any hint or explanation of His bodily characteristics?

His bodily complexion is not black [tvisa akrishnam]. Lord Chaitanya appeared in a very light, golden like complexion. His complexion was yellow [akrma-varane kahe pita-varana]. Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is very beautiful.

 

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is often described as Gaurasundara. Gaura means fair and Sundar means beautiful. Sometimes He is also called Gauranga or one who has a very fair complexion.

<hr> Thus it is clearly established from the various Vedic Literatures and also by the various writings of the great Acaryas, that Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself, whose appearance and birthplace were predicted and whose activities were also foretold.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

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

My apologies, dear Sir. I assumed a greater familiarity with Physics than you demonstrate. Allow me to elaborate.

 

Newton is not "wrong" at any particular point in *time*. Rather, at speeds approaching that of light and at the atomic and subatomic (read: very small) scales, his laws do not apply (read: they do not accurately predict what will happen in a given system). At speeds approaching that of light, relativistic effects are seen, while at the subatomic level, quantum effects are seen.

 

So, we use Newtonian physics today each time we launch a satelite into orbit, etc. Newton's laws apply from specks of dust up to gas giants and beyond.

 

Your view of physics and spirituality are rather simplistic.

 

Also, you completely neglected to address my point about the dual nature of light. There are experiments that can demonstrate the wave nature of light, and, conversely, there are experiments that demonstrate the particle nature of light. There is no question of time here.

 

 

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.

So, from my comments above, I hope you can see that you are not applying my logic in the quote above, but completely miss the point.

 

In the infinite mercy of the Divine, so many options (all of which hold some validity, at least in a given frame of reference) have been presented. Many of my Buddhist friends simply have no taste for worshipping a personal God. So, God, in His/Her mercy has sent Buddha to give them a moral/spiritual conception that is to their taste. Otherwise, they might simply be run-of-the-mill atheists.

 

Similarly, God has sent Sai Baba to delight those who are impressed by minor mystic siddhis like making ashes or Rolex's appear from thin air.

 

Same for all the other faiths you mention. God is so great, that all these conceptions can be accomodated *simultaneously* (and inconceivably).

 

Some would claim that one of these faiths is "higher" than the others, but, I would remind the reader that "higher" is a relative conception. It can be said that, when the moon is behind the Earth relative to me, that I am "higher" than the moon.

 

So, rather, what is the criteria for the Vaishnava? Is it not *sweetness*? To the Vaishnava, chanting the names of the Lord and meditating on His/Her Divine Pastimes is the sweetest form of worship.

 

For the Christian, meditating on the agony of their Lord may be the sweetest. While Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu had His own agony of separation, Vaishnavas do not typically worship Mahaprabhu in that form (like Christians do with Christ on the cross). Rather, Mahaprabhu is pictured in his householder pastimes or his sankirttan pastimes. It's a question of taste.

 

So, no need to see things as black and white. God is Infinite.

 

Govinda!!!