Arguer

Expressions researched:
"arguer" |"arguers"

SB Canto 1

The Vedic system of acquiring knowledge is the deductive process. The Vedic knowledge is received perfectly by disciplic succession from authorities.The very same system is accepted universally as truth, but only the false arguer speaks against it.

SB 1.9.18, Purport: The Vedic system of acquiring knowledge is the deductive process. The Vedic knowledge is received perfectly by disciplic succession from authorities. Such knowledge is never dogmatic, as ill conceived by less intelligent persons. The mother is the authority to verify the identity of the father. She is the authority for such confidential knowledge. Therefore, authority is not dogmatic. In the Bhagavad-gītā this truth is confirmed in the Fourth Chapter (Bg. 4.2), and the perfect system of learning is to receive it from authority. The very same system is accepted universally as truth, but only the false arguer speaks against it. For example, modern spacecraft fly in the sky, and when scientists say that they travel to the other side of the moon, men believe these stories blindly because they have accepted the modern scientists as authorities. The authorities speak, and the people in general believe them. But in the case of Vedic truths, they have been taught not to believe. Even if they accept them they give a different interpretation. Each and every man wants a direct perception of Vedic knowledge, but foolishly they deny it. This means that the misguided man can believe one authority, the scientist, but will reject the authority of the Vedas. The result is that people have degenerated.

SB Canto 6

The Lord has a potency called avidyā, the illusory energy, which induces the false arguer to think himself perfect and which induces the illusory energy to bewilder the conditioned soul.

SB 6.4 Summary: "The Supreme Brahman is the cause of all causes because He originally existed before the creation. He is the original cause of everything, both material and spiritual, and His existence is independent. However, the Lord has a potency called avidyā, the illusory energy, which induces the false arguer to think himself perfect and which induces the illusory energy to bewilder the conditioned soul. That Supreme Brahman, the Supersoul, is very affectionate to His devotees. To bestow mercy upon them, He discloses His form, name, attributes and qualities to be worshiped within this material world.

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

If you want to establish religious truth, you cannot establish it by your logic and argument. It is not possible because I may be a very perfect religious man, but I may not be a very good arguer; another strong man who can argue very strongly, who knows logic very nicely, he can defeat me.

Lecture on BG 3.21-25 -- New York, May 30, 1966: It has been described in the Bhāgavata that tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. If you want to establish religious truth, you cannot establish it by your logic and argument. It is not possible because I may be a very perfect religious man, but I may not be a very good arguer; another strong man who can argue very strongly, who knows logic very nicely, he can defeat me. He can make my all conclusion null and void. So therefore, simply by argument or logical conclusion one cannot reach to the truth, to the religious truth. It is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Śrutayaḥ means revealed scriptures. Revealed scriptures. Just like in the world there are many revealed scriptures. There are Vedas, Purāṇas, the Bible, the Koran, and there are so many religious scriptures also. And if you go on reading them, although the aim is one, still, you will find some discrepancy from one to another. Śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Vibhinnāḥ means they are diverse. They are diverse. Śrutayo vibhinnā nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And so far philosophers are concerned, one philosopher tries to defeat another philosopher. That is the philosophical way. So nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām. Therefore this truth of religion is very confidential. Nihitaṁ guhāyām. Guhāyām means it is very confidential.

"In the spiritual matter, you cannot argue." Your argument will be failure because you may be very good arguer, but I may come. I can cut all your arguments.

Lecture on BG 9.26-27 -- New York, December 16, 1966: So the Vedic literature teaches us that tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ: "In the spiritual matter, you cannot argue." Your argument will be failure because you may be very good arguer, but I may come. I can cut all your arguments. And somebody else comes—he cuts all my arguments. It is a question of logic. So there are many logical experts. So by arguments we cannot reach the Supreme Truth. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Not by purchasing books from the market and reading it. No. That also will not help you. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. If you purchase Bhagavad-gītā, you purchase Bible, you purchase Koran, or... So many, there are, literatures. They are also authorized. That's all right. But you cannot learn them by your own study. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet [MU 1.2.12]. One must go and learn it from the spiritual master, exactly you purchase some scientific book, medical science, or engineering and study at home. Oh, you will never be acknowledged as a medical practitioner. You have to admit yourself into the, that disciplic succession, medical college. You have to attend lectures. Then, when you pass degree, then you will be admitted.

If you want to understand the reality by your arguments, reasoning power, that is not possible. Because I may be very nice arguer, but another person may be better arguer, he can defeat me.

Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973: So Kṛṣṇa says that, ṛṣibhir bahudhā gītam. Because everyone is trying to be superior. Nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnā, that every philosopher must give his own opinion and it must be refuted by another. Therefore śāstra says that in this way you cannot ascertain what is the reality. Tarko 'pratiṣṭha. If you want to understand the reality by your arguments, reasoning power, that is not possible. Because I may be very nice arguer, but another person may be better arguer, he can defeat me. And that is going on. Therefore simply by arguments, you cannot reach the Absolute Truth. That is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭha. And if you simply depend on the śruti, śrutayo vibhinnaḥ. The Vedic literatures are different: Sāma, Yajur, Ṛg, Artharva. And not only that, other scriptures there are. So Śrutayor vibhinnāḥ nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnā, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihito guhāyām. To understand religious principle, it is very difficult.

If you want to understand the reality by your arguments, reasoning power, that is not possible. Because I may be very nice arguer, but another person may be better arguer, he can defeat me.

Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973: So Kṛṣṇa says that, ṛṣibhir bahudhā gītam. Because everyone is trying to be superior. Nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnā, that every philosopher must give his own opinion and it must be refuted by another. Therefore śāstra says that in this way you cannot ascertain what is the reality. Tarko 'pratiṣṭha. If you want to understand the reality by your arguments, reasoning power, that is not possible. Because I may be very nice arguer, but another person may be better arguer, he can defeat me. And that is going on. Therefore simply by arguments, you cannot reach the Absolute Truth. That is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭha. And if you simply depend on the śruti, śrutayo vibhinnaḥ. The Vedic literatures are different: Sāma, Yajur, Ṛg, Artharva. And not only that, other scriptures there are. So Śrutayor vibhinnāḥ nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnā, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihito guhāyām. To understand religious principle, it is very difficult.

If you want to understand the reality by your arguments, reasoning power, that is not possible. Because I may be very nice arguer, but another person may be better arguer, he can defeat me.

Lecture on BG 13.8-12 -- Bombay, September 30, 1973: So Kṛṣṇa says that, ṛṣibhir bahudhā gītam. Because everyone is trying to be superior. Nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnā, that every philosopher must give his own opinion and it must be refuted by another. Therefore śāstra says that in this way you cannot ascertain what is the reality. Tarko 'pratiṣṭha. If you want to understand the reality by your arguments, reasoning power, that is not possible. Because I may be very nice arguer, but another person may be better arguer, he can defeat me. And that is going on. Therefore simply by arguments, you cannot reach the Absolute Truth. That is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭha. And if you simply depend on the śruti, śrutayo vibhinnaḥ. The Vedic literatures are different: Sāma, Yajur, Ṛg, Artharva. And not only that, other scriptures there are. So Śrutayor vibhinnāḥ nāsau ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnā, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihito guhāyām. To understand religious principle, it is very difficult.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

"Simply by arguing you cannot come to the right conclusion." You may be very good arguer, but another arguer may defeat you by his argument.

Lecture on SB 7.5.22-30 -- London, September 8, 1971: Prahlāda Mahārāja at the age of five years only he was a great devotee. Prahlāda Mahārāja is one of the mahājanas, great authorities of this line, devotional line. (aside:) You can take your seats. To understand God and to understand our relationship with God, it is not to be done by mental speculation. It is not possible. God is not so cheap thing that one can understand by mental speculation. In the present age people are very much fond of mental speculation. In the śāstra it is said, tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ: [Cc. Madhya 17.186] "Simply by arguing you cannot come to the right conclusion." You may be very good arguer, but another arguer may defeat you by his argument. So in this way, simply by dry arguments it is not possible to come to the conclusion.

Festival Lectures

If you want to enter into the spiritual world, you cannot get through simply by arguments. Because there is no limit of argument. I place my argument in one way. Another man, who is better arguer, he places his argument in a different way.

His Divine Grace Srila Sac-cid-ananda Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Appearance Day, Lecture -- London, September 3, 1971: If you want to enter into the spiritual world, you cannot get through simply by arguments. Because there is no limit of argument. I place my argument in one way. Another man, who is better arguer, he places his argument in a different way. So if you simply go on arguing, it is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. It will never help you. Argument. Śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. If you think that "I shall read scriptures and I shall understand God," no, that is also not possible. Śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Scriptures are also different. Because scriptures are made according to time, circumstances, people. Just like Bible.

You cannot come to the right conclusion simply by argument. You may be very good arguer; another comes better arguer than you.

Pandal Lecture -- Delhi, November 20, 1971: Our process is mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ [Cc. Madhya 17.186]. We have to follow the footsteps of great personalities. That is our method. We don't manufacture our own way of living. We simply follow the great personalities. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. You cannot come to the right conclusion simply by argument. You may be very good arguer; another comes better arguer than you. So simply by argument, you cannot come to the conclusion. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā.

General Lectures

You cannot come to the right conclusion simply by argument. You may be very good arguer; another comes better arguer than you.

Pandal Lecture -- Delhi, November 20, 1971: Our process is mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ [Cc. Madhya 17.186]. We have to follow the footsteps of great personalities. That is our method. We don't manufacture our own way of living. We simply follow the great personalities. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. You cannot come to the right conclusion simply by argument. You may be very good arguer; another comes better arguer than you. So simply by argument, you cannot come to the conclusion. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā.

there were two arguers: one said that the crow sat down on the fruit and it was so light it fell down, and the other said no, the crow was trying to sit down on the fruit but in the meantime the fruit fell and he could not sit.

Philosophy Discussions

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: Just like the example of the rock falling in the water. He would say that the water separating and the rock falling are two separate acts. Neither one affects the other.

Prabhupāda: This is nonsense. This argument is called in Sanskrit kaka-tal-nyāya. There was a tal tree, and one crow came, and immediately the fruit fell down. And there were two arguers: one said that the crow sat down on the fruit and it was so light it fell down, and the other said no, the crow was trying to sit down on the fruit but in the meantime the fruit fell and he could not sit. It is like that. It may be coincidence, the crow was just trying to sit on the fruit and the fruit fell. But these people's answer is no, the crow first sat down, then is was fallen. Another says no, the fruit has fallen down; therefore the crow could not sit. So this kind of argument has no value. According (indistinct), the water separated and the stone fell—they are nonsensical. Our argument is strong: that if Kṛṣṇa desires, the stone can float on the water, despite the law of gravitation. The law of gravitation is not working. So many huge planets are floating. How they are floating? The law of gravitation is working here. The stone falls down and (indistinct) goes down in the water. But that is one of the ingredients of the planet. But the planet itself is floating in the air. Where is the law of gravitation? Therefore Kṛṣṇa's desire. The cause is Kṛṣṇa's desire. Kṛṣṇa wanted, "Let it be floating." Or He has made some arrangement. By law of gravitation every planet should have gone down, and there is Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and broke His head, because he is lying down in the Garbhodakaśāyī... So all the planets fall on Him and He is dead. But no. By His order they are all floated. That is Kṛṣṇa. Is that all right? Or still more?