Logic (BG and SB)

Expressions researched:
"logic" |"logician" |"logicians"

Notes from the compiler: VadaBase query: Logic not argument

BG Chapters 7 - 12

BG 10.32, Purport:

rd. Therefore He is the beginning, the middle and the end of all creation.

For advanced education there are various kinds of books of knowledge, such as the four Vedas, their six supplements, the Vedānta-sūtra, books of logic, books of religiosity and the Purāṇas. So all together there are fourteen divisions of books of education. Of these, the book which presents adhyātma-vidyā, spiritual knowledge—in particular, the Vedānta-sūtra—represents Kṛṣṇa.

Among logicians there are different kinds of argument. Supporting one's argument with evidence that also supports the opposing side is called jalpa. Merely trying to defeat one's opponent is called vitaṇḍā. But the actual conclusion is called vāda. This conclusive truth is a representation of Kṛṣṇa.

BG 10.32, Translation:

Of all creations I am the beginning and the end and also the middle, O Arjuna. Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the self, and among logicians I am the conclusive truth.

BG 10.32, Purport:

Among the created manifestations, the first is the creation of the total material elements. As explained before, the cosmic manifestation is created and conducted by Mahā-viṣṇu, Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu and Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, and then again it is annihilated by Lord Śiva. Brahmā is a secondary creator. All these agents of creation, maintenance and annihilation are incarnations of the material qualities of the Supreme Lord. Therefore He is the beginning, the middle and the end of all creation.

For advanced education there are various kinds of books of knowledge, such as the four Vedas, their six supplements, the Vedānta-sūtra, books of logic, books of religiosity and the Purāṇas. So all together there are fourteen divisions of books of education. Of these, the book which presents adhyātma-vidyā, spiritual knowledge—in particular, the Vedānta-sūtra—represents Kṛṣṇa.

Among logicians there are different kinds of argument. Supporting one's argument with evidence that also supports the opposing side is called jalpa. Merely trying to defeat one's opponent is called vitaṇḍā. But the actual conclusion is called vāda. This conclusive truth is a representation of Kṛṣṇa.

BG Chapters 13 - 18

BG 16.1-3, Purport:

The next item is jñāna-yoga-vyavasthiti: being engaged in the cultivation of knowledge. Sannyāsī life is meant for distributing knowledge to the householders and others who have forgotten their real life of spiritual advancement. A sannyāsī is supposed to beg from door to door for his livelihood, but this does not mean that he is a beggar. Humility is also one of the qualifications of a transcendentally situated person, and out of sheer humility the sannyāsī goes from door to door, not exactly for the purpose of begging, but to see the householders and awaken them to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. This is the duty of a sannyāsī. If he is actually advanced and so ordered by his spiritual master, he should preach Kṛṣṇa consciousness with logic and understanding, and if one is not so advanced he should not accept the renounced order of life. But even if one has accepted the renounced order of life without sufficient knowledge, he should engage himself fully in hearing from a bona fide spiritual master to cultivate knowledge. A sannyāsī, or one in the renounced order of life, must be situated in fearlessness, sattva-saṁśuddhi (purity) and jñāna-yoga (knowledge).

BG 18.22, Purport:

The "knowledge" of the common man is always in the mode of darkness or ignorance because every living entity in conditional life is born into the mode of ignorance. One who does not develop knowledge through the authorities or scriptural injunctions has knowledge that is limited to the body. He is not concerned about acting in terms of the directions of scripture. For him God is money, and knowledge means the satisfaction of bodily demands. Such knowledge has no connection with the Absolute Truth. It is more or less like the knowledge of the ordinary animals: the knowledge of eating, sleeping, defending and mating. Such knowledge is described here as the product of the mode of darkness. In other words, knowledge concerning the spirit soul beyond this body is called knowledge in the mode of goodness, knowledge producing many theories and doctrines by dint of mundane logic and mental speculation is the product of the mode of passion, and knowledge concerned only with keeping the body comfortable is said to be in the mode of ignorance.

SB Preface and Introduction

SB Introduction:

The Lord thus spoke on the Vedānta-sūtra and defied all the propaganda of the Māyāvāda school.* The Bhaṭṭācārya tried to defend himself and his Māyāvāda school by jugglery of logic and grammar, but the Lord defeated him by His forceful arguments. He affirmed that we are all related with the Personality of Godhead eternally and that devotional service is our eternal function in exchanging the dealings of our relations. The result of such exchanges is to attain premā, or love of Godhead. When love of Godhead is attained, love for all other beings automatically follows because the Lord is the sum total of all living beings.

The Lord said that but for these three items—namely, eternal relation with God, exchange of dealings with Him and the attainment of love for Him—all that is instructed in the Vedas is superfluous and that any other explanation of the Vedas is concocted.

SB Introduction:

Then the Bhaṭṭācārya desired to listen to the explanation of this śloka. The Lord first of all asked Bhaṭṭācārya to explain it, and after that He would explain it. The Bhaṭṭācārya then explained the śloka in a scholarly way with special reference to logic. He explained the śloka in nine different ways chiefly based on logic because he was the most renowned scholar of logic of the time.

The Lord, after hearing the Bhaṭṭācārya, thanked him for the scholarly presentation of the śloka, and then, at the request of the Bhaṭṭācārya, the Lord explained the śloka in sixty-four different ways without touching the nine explanations given by the Bhaṭṭācārya.

SB Canto 1

SB 1.17.18, Purport:

There are many theoretical philosophers in the world who put forward their own theories of cause and effect especially about the cause of suffering and its effect on different living beings. Generally there are six great philosophers: Kaṇāda, the author of Vaiśeṣika philosophy; Gautama, the author of logic; Patañjali, the author of mystic yoga; Kapila, the author of Sāṅkhya philosophy; Jaimini, the author of Karma-mīmāṁsā; and Vyāsadeva, the author of Vedānta-darśana.

Although the bull, or the personality of religion, and the cow, the personality of the earth, knew perfectly well that the personality of Kali was the direct cause of their sufferings, still, as devotees of the Lord, they knew well also that without the sanction of the Lord no one could inflict trouble upon them. According to the Padma Purāṇa, our present trouble is due to the fructifying of seedling sins, but even those seedling sins also gradually fade away by execution of pure devotional service. Thus even if the devotees see the mischief-mongers, they do not accuse them for the sufferings inflicted. They take it for granted that the mischief-monger is made to act by some indirect cause, and therefore they tolerate the sufferings, thinking them to be God-given in small doses, for otherwise the sufferings should have been greater.

SB 1.18.19, Purport:

The dvija-bandhu, or the less intelligent, uncultured men born of higher castes, put forward many arguments against the lower-caste men becoming brāhmaṇas in this life. They argue that birth in a family of śūdras or less than śūdras is made possible by one's previous sinful acts and that one therefore has to complete the terms of disadvantages due to lower birth. And to answer these false logicians, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam asserts that one who chants the holy name of the Lord under the direction of a pure devotee can at once get free from the disadvantages due to a lower-caste birth. A pure devotee of the Lord does not commit any offense while chanting the holy name of the Lord. There are ten different offenses in the chanting of the holy name of the Lord. To chant the holy name under the direction of a pure devotee is offenseless chanting.

SB Canto 2

SB 2.1.8, Purport:

Bhagavad-gītā is the sound incarnation of the Lord because it is spoken by the Supreme Lord, and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the sound representative of the Lord because it was spoken by the incarnation of the Lord about the activities of the Lord. As stated in the beginning of this book, it is the essence of the Vedic desire tree and the natural commentation on the Brahma-sūtras, the topmost philosophical thesis on the subject matter of Brahman. Vyāsadeva appeared at the end of Dvāpara-yuga as the son of Satyavatī, and therefore the word dvāpara-ādau, or "the beginning of Dvāpara-yuga," in this context means just prior to the beginning of the Kali-yuga. The logic of this statement, according to Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī, is comparable to that of calling the upper portion of the tree the beginning. The root of the tree is the beginning of the tree, but in common knowledge the upper portion of the tree is first seen. In that way the end of the tree is accepted as its beginning.

SB 2.3.20, Purport:

The purified senses are engaged not in sense gratification but in the service of the Lord in toto. The Lord is the Supreme with all senses, and the servitor, who is part and parcel of the Lord, also has the same senses. Service to the Lord is the completely purified use of the senses, as described in the Bhagavad-gītā. The Lord imparted instructions with full senses, and Arjuna received them with full senses, and thus there was a perfect exchange of sensible and logical understanding between the master and the disciple. Spiritual understanding is nothing like an electrical charge from the master to the disciple, as foolishly claimed by some propaganda-mongers. Everything is full of sense and logic, and the exchange of views between the master and disciple is possible only when the reception is submissive and real. In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta it is said that one should receive the teaching of Lord Caitanya with intellect and full senses so that one can logically understand the great mission.

SB 2.4.3-4, Purport:

"Religion, economic development and sense gratification are celebrated as three means of attaining the path of salvation. Of these, īkṣā trayī especially, i.e., knowledge of the self, knowledge of fruitive acts and logic and also politics and economics, are different means of livelihood. All these are different subjects of Vedic education, and therefore I consider them temporary engagements. On the other hand, surrendering unto the Supreme Lord Viṣṇu is a factual gain in life, and I consider it the ultimate truth." (SB 7.6.26)

The whole matter is concluded in the Bhagavad-gītā (2.41) as vyavasāyātmikā buddhiḥ, or the absolute path of perfection. Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, a great Vaiṣṇava scholar, defines this as bhagavad-arcanā-rūpaika-niṣkāma-karmabhir viśuddha-cittaḥ—accepting transcendental loving service to the Lord as the prime duty, free from fruitive reaction.

SB 2.5.10, Purport:

"The frog in the well" logic illustrates that a frog residing in the atmosphere and boundary of a well cannot imagine the length and breadth of the gigantic ocean. Such a frog, when informed of the gigantic length and breadth of the ocean, first of all does not believe that there is such an ocean, and if someone assures him that factually there is such a thing, the frog then begins to measure it by imagination by means of pumping its belly as far as possible, with the result that the tiny abdomen of the frog bursts and the poor frog dies without any experience of the actual ocean. Similarly, the material scientists also want to challenge the inconceivable potency of the Lord by measuring Him with their froglike brains and their scientific achievements, but at the end they simply die unsuccessfully, like the frog.

SB 2.6.39, Purport:

The impersonalist gives stress to the impersonal form or feature of the Lord and does not believe in the original personality of the Lord, but the Vaiṣṇavas accept the original form of the Lord, of whom the impersonal form is merely one of the features. The impersonal and personal conceptions of the Lord are existing simultaneously, and this fact is clearly described both in the Bhagavad-gītā and in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and also in other Vedic scriptures. Inconceivable to human intelligence, the idea must simply be accepted on the authority of the scriptures, and it can only be practically realized by the progress of devotional service unto the Lord, and never by mental speculation or inductive logic. The impersonalists depend more or less on inductive logic, and therefore they always remain in darkness about the original Personality of Godhead Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Their conception of Kṛṣṇa is not clear, although everything is clearly mentioned in all the Vedic scriptures. A poor fund of knowledge cannot comprehend the existence of an original personal form of the Lord when He is expanded in everything. This imperfectness is due, more or less, to the material conception that a substance distributed widely in parts can no longer exist in the original form.

SB 2.10.45, Purport:

When the Lord throws His transcendental glance over the material nature, then only can the material nature act, as a father contacts the mother, who is then able to conceive a child. Although it appears to the layman that the mother gives birth to the child, the experienced man knows that the father gives birth to the child. The material nature therefore produces the moving and standing manifestations of the material world after being contacted by the supreme father, and not independently. Considering material nature to be the cause of creation, maintenance, etc., is called "the logic of nipples on the neck of a goat." The Caitanya-caritāmṛta by Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī describes this logic of ajā-gala-stana-nyāya as follows (as explained by His Divine Grace Śrī Śrīmad Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Mahārāja): "The material nature, as the material cause, is known as pradhāna, and as efficient cause is known as māyā. But since it is inert matter, it is not the remote cause of creation."

SB 2.10.45, Purport:

One must know that each and every one of them is effective simply because of being empowered by the quality of the original fire. Therefore all of them, namely the material nature, the cosmic manifestation and the living entities, are but different energies of the Lord (fire). Therefore those who accept the material nature as the cosmic manifestation's original cause (prakṛti, the cause of creation according to Sāṅkhya philosophy) are not correct in their conclusion. The material nature has no separate existence without the Lord. Therefore, setting aside the Supreme Lord as the cause of all causes is the logic of ajā-gala-stana-nyāya, or trying to milk the nipples on the neck of a goat. The nipples on the neck of a goat may seem like sources of milk, but to try to get milk from such nipples will be foolish.

SB Canto 3

SB 3.1.25, Purport:

Vidura was older than Uddhava, like a father, and therefore when the two met, Uddhava bowed down before Vidura, and Vidura embraced him because Uddhava was younger, like a son. Vidura's brother Pāṇḍu was Lord Kṛṣṇa's uncle, and Uddhava was a cousin to Lord Kṛṣṇa. According to social custom, therefore, Vidura was to be respected by Uddhava on the level of his father. Uddhava was a great scholar in logic, and he was known to be a son or disciple of Bṛhaspati, the greatly learned priest and spiritual master of the demigods. Vidura asked Uddhava about the welfare of his relatives, although he already knew that they were no longer in the world. This inquiry appears to be very queer, but Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī states that the news was shocking to Vidura, who therefore inquired again due to great curiosity. Thus his inquiry was psychological and not practical.

SB 3.4.29, Purport:

This inconceivable performance of the internal potency of the Lord is described in Bhagavad-gītā (7.25): nāhaṁ prakāśaḥ sarvasya yoga-māyā-samāvṛtaḥ. The Lord reserves the right of not being exposed to everyone. In the Padma Purāṇa it is said, ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi na bhaved grāhyam indriyaiḥ (CC Madhya 17.136). The name and form of the Lord cannot be perceived by the material senses, but when He appears within the vision of the mundane people He assumes the form of the virāṭ-rūpa. This is an additional material exhibition of form and is supported by the logic of a subject and its adjectives. In grammar, when an adjective is taken away from the subject, the subject it modifies does not change. Similarly, when the Lord quits His virāṭ-rūpa, His eternal form does not change, although there is no material difference between Himself and any one of His innumerable forms. In the Fifth Canto it will be seen how the Lord is worshiped in different planets in His different forms, even now, and how He is worshiped in different temples of this earth also.

SB 3.7.9, Translation:

Śrī Maitreya said: Certain conditioned souls put forward the theory that the Supreme Brahman, or the Personality of Godhead, is overcome by illusion, or māyā, and at the same time they maintain that He is unconditioned. This is against all logic.

SB 3.31.48, Purport:

It is sometimes misunderstood that if one has to associate with persons engaged in devotional service, he will not be able to solve the economic problem. To answer this argument, it is described here that one has to associate with liberated persons not directly, physically, but by understanding, through philosophy and logic, the problems of life. It is stated here, samyag-darśanayā buddhyā: one has to see perfectly, and by intelligence and yogic practice one has to renounce this world. That renunciation can be achieved by the process recommended in the Second Chapter of the First Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

SB Canto 4

SB 4.4.12, Purport:

King Dakṣa is addressed here by his daughter Satī as dvija, twice-born. Twice-born refers to the higher classes of men, namely the brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas. In other words, a dvija is not an ordinary man but one who has studied the Vedic literature from a spiritual master and can discriminate between good and bad. Therefore it is supposed that he understands logic and philosophy. Satī, Dakṣa's daughter, put before him sound arguments. There are some highly qualified persons who accept only the good qualities of others. Just as a bee is always interested in the honey in the flower and does not consider the thorns and colors, highly qualified persons, who are uncommon, accept only the good qualities of others, not considering their bad qualities, whereas the common man can judge what are good qualities and what are bad qualities.

SB 4.8.79, Purport:

One cannot argue, "How is it that Dhruva Mahārāja, who was prevented from getting up on the lap of his father, could press down the whole earth?" This argument is not very much appreciated by the learned, for it is an example of nagna-mātṛkā logic. By this logic one would think that because his mother in her childhood was naked, she should remain naked even when she is grown up. The stepmother of Dhruva Mahārāja might have been thinking in a similar way: since she had refused to allow him to get up on the lap of his father, how could Dhruva perform such wonderful activities as pressing down the whole earth? She must have been very surprised when she learned that Dhruva Mahārāja, by concentrating constantly on the Supreme Personality of Godhead within his heart, could press down the entire earth, like an elephant who presses down the boat on which it is loaded.

SB 4.22.62, Purport:

When Lord Caitanya talked to Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya, the Lord honored him as the incarnation of Bṛhaspati. Bṛhaspati is the chief priest of the heavenly kingdom, and he is a follower of the philosophy known as brahma-vada, or Māyāvāda. Bṛhaspati is also a great logician. It appears from this statement that Mahārāja Pṛthu, although a great devotee constantly engaged in the loving service of the Lord, could defeat all kinds of impersonalists and Māyāvādīs by his profound knowledge of Vedic scriptures. We should learn from Mahārāja Pṛthu that a Vaiṣṇava, or devotee, must not only be fixed in the service of the Lord, but, if required, must be prepared to argue with the impersonalist Māyāvādīs with all logic and philosophy and defeat their contention that the Absolute Truth is impersonal.

SB 4.30.46, Translation and Purport:

After seeing that all the trees on the surface of the earth were being turned to ashes, Lord Brahmā immediately came to the sons of King Barhiṣmān and pacified them with words of logic.

Whenever there is some uncommon occurrence on any planet, Lord Brahmā, being in charge of the whole universe, immediately comes to control the situation. Lord Brahmā also came when Hiraṇyakaśipu underwent severe penances and austerities and made the whole universe tremble. A responsible man in any establishment is always alert to keep peace and harmony within the establishment. Similarly, Lord Brahmā is also allowed to keep peace and harmony within this universe. He consequently pacified the sons of King Barhiṣmān with good logic.

SB Canto 5

SB 5.8.16, Purport:

Bharata Mahārāja was very noble and exalted, and therefore when the deer was absent from him he thought himself unworthy to give it protection. Due to his attachment for the animal, he thought that the animal was as noble and exalted as he himself was. According to the logic of ātmavan manyate jagat, everyone thinks of others according to his own position. Therefore Mahārāja Bharata felt that the deer had left him due to his negligence and that due to the animal's noble heart, it would again return.

SB 5.18.4, Translation:

O unborn one, learned Vedic scholars who are advanced in spiritual knowledge certainly know that this material world is perishable, as do other logicians and philosophers. In trance they realize the factual position of this world, and they preach the truth as well. Yet even they are sometimes bewildered by Your illusory energy. This is Your own wonderful pastime. Therefore, I can understand that Your illusory energy is very wonderful, and I offer my respectful obeisances unto You.

SB Canto 6

SB 6.2.1, Translation:

Śukadeva Gosvāmī said: My dear King, the servants of Lord Viṣṇu are always very expert in logic and arguments. After hearing the statements of the Yamadūtas, they replied as follows.

SB 6.18.56, Translation:

O King, who are respectful to everyone, Indra understood Diti's purpose, and thus he contrived to fulfill his own interests. Following the logic that self-preservation is the first law of nature, he wanted to break Diti's promise. Thus he engaged himself in the service of Diti, his aunt, who was residing in an āśrama.

SB Canto 7

SB 7.5.16, Purport:

In political affairs, when a person disobediently agitates against the government, four principles are used to suppress him—legal orders, pacification, the offer of a post, or, finally, weapons. When there are no other arguments, he is punished. In logic, this is called argumentum ad baculum. When the two seminal brāhmaṇas Ṣaṇḍa and Amarka failed to extract from Prahlāda Mahārāja the cause for his having opinions different from those of his father, they called for a stick with which to chastise him to satisfy their master, Hiraṇyakaśipu. Because Prahlāda had become a devotee, they considered him to be contaminated by bad intelligence and to be the worst descendant in the family of demons. As it is said, where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise. In a society or family in which everyone is a demon, for someone to become a Vaiṣṇava is certainly folly. Thus Prahlāda Mahārāja was charged with bad intelligence because he was among demons, including his teachers, who were supposedly brāhmaṇas.

SB 7.5.37, Purport:

The material world is such that a nondevotee father becomes an enemy of a devotee son. Having determined to kill even his son, Hiraṇyakaśipu gave the example of amputating a part of one's body that has become septic and therefore injurious to the rest of the body. The same example, of course, may also be applied to nondevotees. Cāṇakya Paṇḍita advises, tyaja durjana-saṁsargaṁ bhaja sādhu-samāgamam. Devotees actually serious about advancing in spiritual life should give up the company of nondevotees and always keep company with devotees. To be too attached to material existence is ignorance because material existence is temporary and miserable. Therefore devotees who are determined to perform tapasya (penances and austerities) to realize the self, and who are determined to become advanced in spiritual consciousness, must give up the company of atheistic nondevotees. Prahlāda Mahārāja maintained an attitude of noncooperation with the philosophy of his father, Hiraṇyakaśipu, yet he was tolerant and humble. Hiraṇyakaśipu, however, being a nondevotee, was so polluted that he was even prepared to kill his own son. He justified this by putting forward the logic of amputation.

SB 7.6.26, Translation:

Religion, economic development and sense gratification—these are described in the Vedas as tri-varga, or three ways to salvation. Within these three categories are education and self-realization; ritualistic ceremonies performed according to Vedic injunction; logic; the science of law and order; and the various means of earning one's livelihood. These are the external subject matters of study in the Vedas, and therefore I consider them material. However, I consider surrender to the lotus feet of Lord Viṣṇu to be transcendental.

SB 7.6.28, Translation:

Prahlāda Mahārāja continued: I received this knowledge from the great saint Nārada Muni, who is always engaged in devotional service. This knowledge, which is called bhāgavata-dharma, is fully scientific. It is based on logic and philosophy and is free from all material contamination.

SB 7.13.7, Purport:

A person desiring to advance in spiritual understanding should be extremely careful to avoid reading ordinary literature. The world is full of ordinary literature that creates unnecessary agitation in the mind. Such literature, including newspapers, dramas, novels and magazines, is factually not meant for advancement in spiritual knowledge. Indeed, it has been described as a place of enjoyment for crows (tad vāyasaṁ tīrtham). Anyone advancing in spiritual knowledge must reject such literature. Furthermore, one should not concern oneself with the conclusions of various logicians or philosophers. Of course, those who preach sometimes need to argue with the contentions of opponents, but as much as possible one should avoid an argumentative attitude. In this connection, Śrīla Madhvācārya says:

SB Canto 8

SB 8.6.20, Translation and Purport:

O demigods, fulfilling one's own interests is so important that one may even have to make a truce with one's enemies. For the sake of one's self-interest, one has to act according to the logic of the snake and the mouse.

A snake and a mouse were once caught in a basket. Now, since the mouse is food for the snake, this was a good opportunity for the snake. However, since both of them were caught in the basket, even if the snake ate the mouse, the snake would not be able to get out. Therefore, the snake thought it wise to make a truce with the mouse and ask the mouse to make a hole in the basket so that both of them could get out. The snake's intention was that after the mouse made the hole, the snake would eat the mouse and escape from the basket through the hole. This is called the logic of the snake and the mouse.

SB 8.9.19, Purport:

It is said, sarpaḥ krūraḥ khalaḥ krūraḥ sarpāt krūrataraḥ khalaḥ: "The snake is very crooked and envious, and so also is a person like a demon." Mantrauṣadhi-vaśaḥ sarpaḥ khalaḥ kena nivāryate: "One can bring a snake under control with mantras, herbs and drugs, but an envious and crooked person cannot be brought under control by any means." Considering this logic, the Supreme Personality of Godhead thought it unwise to distribute nectar to the demons.

SB 8.21.2-3, Translation:

Among the great personalities who came to worship the lotus feet of the Lord were those who had attained perfection in self-control and regulative principles, as well as experts in logic, history, general education and the Vedic literature known as kalpe (dealing with old historical incidents). Others were experts in the Vedic corollaries like Brahma-saṁhitā, all the other knowledge of the Vedas (Sāma, Yajur, Ṛg and Atharva), and also the supplementary Vedic knowledge (Āyur-veda, Dhanur-veda, etc.). Others were those who had been freed of the reactions to fruitive activities by transcendental knowledge awakened by practice of yoga. And still others were those who had attained residence in Brahmaloka not by ordinary karma but by advanced Vedic knowledge. After devotedly worshiping the upraised lotus feet of the Supreme Lord with oblations of water, Lord Brahmā, who was born of the lotus emanating from Lord Viṣṇu's navel, offered prayers to the Lord.

SB Canto 9

SB 9.21.6, Purport:

"The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brāhmaṇa, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater (outcaste)." A paṇḍita, or learned person, perceives the presence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in every living being. Therefore, although it has now become fashionable to give preference to the so-called daridra-nārāyaṇa, or "poor Nārāyaṇa," Rantideva had no reason to give preference to any one person. The idea that because Nārāyaṇa is present in the heart of one who is daridra, or poor, the poor man should be called daridra-nārāyaṇa is a wrong conception. By such logic, because the Lord is present within the hearts of the dogs and hogs, the dogs and hogs would also be Nārāyaṇa. One should not mistakenly think that Rantideva subscribed to this view. Rather, he saw everyone as part of the Supreme Personality of Godhead (hari-sambandhi-vastunaḥ). It is not that everyone is the Supreme Godhead. Such a theory, which is propounded by the Māyāvāda philosophy, is always misleading, and Rantideva would never have accepted it.

SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13

SB 10.1 Summary:

Chapter Eighty-seven contains fifty verses, describing the prayers offered to Nārāyaṇa by the Vedas. Chapter Eighty-eight contains forty verses. This chapter describes how Vaiṣṇavas become transcendental by worshiping Lord Viṣṇu and then return home, back to Godhead. By worship of demigods, one may get material power, but this chapter describes how an ordinary living being in the material world can be favored by Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, and it establishes Lord Viṣṇu's supremacy above Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva. Chapter Eighty-nine contains sixty-five verses, disclosing who is the best among the material deities. Although Viṣṇu is among the three deities-Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara-He is transcendental and supreme. In this chapter we also find a description of how Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna went to Mahākāla-pura to deliver the son of a Dvārakā brāhmaṇa and how Arjuna was astonished. Chapter Ninety contains fifty verses. This chapter summarizes Kṛṣṇa's līlās and presents the logic of madhureṇa samāpayet, establishing that everything ends well in transcendental bliss.

SB 10.3.20, Purport:

In this verse, the three colors mentioned-śukla, rakta and kṛṣṇa—are not to be understood literally, in terms of what we experience with our senses, but rather as representatives of sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa and tamo-guṇa. After all, sometimes we see that a duck is white, although it is in tamo-guṇa, the mode of ignorance. Illustrating the logic called bakāndha-nyāya, the duck is such a fool that it runs after the testicles of a bull, thinking them to be a hanging fish that can be taken when it drops. Thus the duck is always in darkness. Vyāsadeva, however, the compiler of the Vedic literature, is blackish, but this does not mean that he is in tamo-guṇa; rather, he is in the highest position of sattva-guṇa, beyond the material modes of nature. Sometimes these colors (śukla-raktas tathā pītaḥ) are used to designate the brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras. Lord Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu is celebrated as possessing a blackish color, Lord Śiva is whitish, and Lord Brahmā is reddish, but according to Śrīla Sanātana Gosvāmī in the Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī-ṭīkā, this exhibition of colors is not what is referred to here.

SB Cantos 10.14 to 12 (Translations Only)

SB 11.7.20, Translation:

An intelligent person, expert in perceiving the world around him and in applying sound logic, can achieve real benefit through his own intelligence. Thus sometimes one acts as one's own instructing spiritual master.

SB 11.18.30, Translation:

A devotee should never engage in the fruitive rituals mentioned in the karma-kāṇḍa section of the Vedas, nor should he become atheistic, acting or speaking in opposition to Vedic injunctions. Similarly, he should never speak like a mere logician or skeptic or take any side whatsoever in useless arguments.

SB 11.20.24, Translation:

Through the various disciplinary regulations and the purificatory procedures of the yoga system, through logic and spiritual education or through worship and adoration of Me, one should constantly engage his mind in remembering the Personality of Godhead, the goal of yoga. No other means should be employed for this purpose.

SB 11.22.25, Translation:

Thus great philosophers have analyzed the material elements in many different ways. All of their proposals are reasonable, since they are all presented with ample logic. Indeed, such philosophical brilliance is expected of the truly learned.

SB 11.28.23, Translation:

Thus clearly understanding by discriminating logic the unique position of the Absolute Truth, one should expertly refute one's misidentification with matter and cut to pieces all doubts about the identity of the self. Becoming satisfied in the soul's natural ecstasy, one should desist from all lusty engagements of the material senses.