Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Philosophers do not agree

Expressions researched:
"did not agree" |"didn't agree" |"do not agree" |"does not agree" |"doesn't agree" |"don't agree" |"philosopher" |"philosophers"

Notes from the compiler: Vedabase query: "does not agree" or "doesn't agree" or do not agree" or "did not agree" or "didn't agree" or "don't agree" and philosophers or philosopher

Srimad-Bhagavatam

SB Canto 4

The atheistic philosophers, who do not agree to accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the original cause of creation, think that the material world moves by the action and reaction of different material elements.
SB 4.11.17, Purport:

My dear Dhruva, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is uncontaminated by the material modes of nature. He is the remote cause of the creation of this material cosmic manifestation. When He gives the impetus, many other causes and effects are produced, and thus the whole universe moves, just as iron moves by the integrated force of a magnet."

How the external energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead works within this material world is explained in this verse. Everything is happening by the energy of the Supreme Lord. The atheistic philosophers, who do not agree to accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the original cause of creation, think that the material world moves by the action and reaction of different material elements. A simple example of the interaction of elements occurs when we mix soda and acid and the movement of effervescence is produced. But one cannot produce life by such interaction of chemicals. There are 8,400,000 different species of life, with different wishes and different actions. How the material force is working cannot be explained just on the basis of chemical reaction. A suitable example in this connection is that of the potter and the potter's wheel. The potter's wheel rotates, and several varieties of earthen pots come out. There are many causes for the earthen pots, but the original cause is the potter, who sets a force on the wheel. That force comes by his superintendence. The same idea is explained in Bhagavad-gītā—behind all material action and reaction there is Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Kṛṣṇa says that everything depends on His energy, and yet He is not everywhere. The pot is produced under certain conditions of action and reaction of material energy, but the potter is not in the pot. In a similar way, the material creation is set up by the Lord, but He remains aloof. As stated in the Vedas, He simply glanced over it, and the agitation of matter immediately began.

SB Canto 5

The Māyāvāda philosophy explains this phenomenal world to be false, but Vaiṣṇava philosophers do not agree. They know that the phenomenal world is a temporary manifestation, but it is not false.
SB 5.10.21, Purport:

This is a discussion on impersonal Māyāvāda philosophy and the practical philosophy of Vaiṣṇavas. The Māyāvāda philosophy explains this phenomenal world to be false, but Vaiṣṇava philosophers do not agree. They know that the phenomenal world is a temporary manifestation, but it is not false. A dream that we see at night is certainly false, but a horrible dream certainly affects the person seeing it. The soul's fatigue is not factual, but as long as one is immersed in the illusory bodily conception, one is affected by such false dreams. When dreaming, it is not possible to avoid the actual facts, and the conditioned soul is forced to suffer due to his dream. A waterpot is made of earth and is temporary. Actually there is no waterpot; there is simply earth. However, as long as the waterpot can contain water, we can use it in that way. It cannot be said to be absolutely false.

SB Canto 8

The Vaiṣṇava philosophers, however, do not agree with the Māyāvāda philosophy. Even if for the sake of argument the material world is accepted as untruth, the living entity entangled in the illusory energy cannot come out of it without the help of the body.
SB 8.19.39, Purport:

This śloka explains that in relation to the material body even the factual truth cannot exist without a touch of untruth. The Māyāvādīs say, brahma satyaṁ jagan mithyā: "The spirit soul is truth, and the external energy is untruth." The Vaiṣṇava philosophers, however, do not agree with the Māyāvāda philosophy. Even if for the sake of argument the material world is accepted as untruth, the living entity entangled in the illusory energy cannot come out of it without the help of the body. Without the help of the body, one cannot follow a system of religion, nor can one speculate on philosophical perfection. Therefore, the flower and fruit (puṣpa-phalam) have to be obtained as a result of the body. Without the help of the body, that fruit cannot be gained. The Vaiṣṇava philosophy therefore recommends yukta-vairāgya. It is not that all attention should be diverted for the maintenance of the body, but at the same time one's bodily maintenance should not be neglected.

Other Books by Srila Prabhupada

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

According to the Mahābhārata, there is no point in arguing about the Absolute Truth because there are so many different Vedic scriptures and philosophical understandings that no one philosopher can agree with another.
Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 21:

Unfortunate people become enamored of these atheistic philosophers and consequently can never understand the real nature of the Absolute Truth. It is far better to follow in the footsteps of great souls (mahājanas). According to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, there are twelve mahājanas, or great souls, and these are: (1) Brahmā, (2) Lord Śiva, (3) Nārada, (4) Vaivasvata Manu, (5) Kapila (not the atheist, but the original Kapila), (6) the Kumāras, (7) Prahlāda, (8) Bhīṣma, (9) Janaka, (10) Bali, (11) Śukadeva Gosvāmī and (12) Yamarāja. According to the Mahābhārata, there is no point in arguing about the Absolute Truth because there are so many different Vedic scriptures and philosophical understandings that no one philosopher can agree with another. Since everyone is trying to present his own point of view and reject others, it is very difficult to understand the necessity for religious principles. Therefore it is better to follow in the footsteps of the great mahājanas, great souls; then one can achieve the desired success. Lord Caitanya's teachings are just like nectar, and they hold whatever is needed. The best way is to take to this path and follow it.

Lectures

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

There are some philosophers. They do not agree to accept that God comes as incarnation. They do not believe in this theory. They say that "Why God shall come to this rotten world?" That is their vision.
Lecture on BG 4.7-9 -- New York, July 22, 1966:

"My dear Arjuna, the reason, the mission for which I appear is now explained, that I come here to establish the real constitutional position of the living entity. That is My mission. Now, when I come with some mission there are some activities. There are some activities." So there are some philosophers. They do not agree to accept that God comes as incarnation. They do not believe in this theory. They say that "Why God shall come to this rotten world?" That is their vision.

But here, from the Bhagavad-gītā, we understand that God comes. We shall always remember that we are reading Bhagavad-gītā, and whatever is spoken in the Bhagavad-gītā, we have to, at least, we have to accept that. Otherwise, there is no question of reading this Bhagavad-gītā. Here the Lord says that "I am, I am present here as incarnation, and this is My mission." And as He comes with a mission, there are some activities.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Nobody says that the living entity has come in this material world for līlā. At least, the Vaiṣṇava philosophers do not agree that. It is contradictory.
Lecture on SB 3.26.4 -- Bombay, December 16, 1974:

So Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, as He says that sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā... (BG 4.6). Sambhavāmy ātma-māyayā. Kṛṣṇa and the living entities, both of them are the same quality, but when the living entities come in this material world, he is forced by the prakṛti, by the material nature. But when Kṛṣṇa comes, He is not forced, but by His free will, yadṛcchayā upagatām... Yadṛcchayaivopagatām abhyapadyata līlayā.

Sometimes the Māyāvādī philosophers, they also take the living entities within this material world as līlā. That is not līlā. Līlā refers to the pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Never... Nobody says that the living entity has come in this material world for līlā. At least, the Vaiṣṇava philosophers do not agree that. It is contradictory. Kṛṣṇa said that "When I come..."

yadā yadā hi dharmasya
glānir bhavati bhārata
abhyutthānam adharmasya...
(BG 4.7)

We should not accept Kṛṣṇa's coming within this material world and our coming in this material world as the same process. Kṛṣṇa comes as He is. He does not change. And because He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, almighty, even if He comes within this material world, the material qualities do not affect Him. That is īśanam, īśanam.

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

By simple studying, without surrendering yourself to the spiritual master, you'll find all these contradictions and you'll be bewildered. To our limited knowledge, sometimes they appear different. And you won't find a philosopher who does not agree, who does not disagree with our philosophers.
The Nectar of Devotion -- Vrndavana, October 27, 1972:

You may be very great logician, but somebody may come who is greater logician than you, and he defeats you. That is going on. Tarko apratiṣṭha śrutayo vibhinnām. Now, if you read the Vedas, you'll find some contradiction. Not contradiction. But to the neophyte, it appears to be contradiction. Just like we have cited the example that animal stool is impure, but cow dung is pure. So by logic you can say that "Cow dung is also the stool of an animal. How it becomes pure?" But in Vedas you'll find such things. Therefore by simple studying, without surrendering yourself to the spiritual master, you'll find all these contradictions and you'll be bewildered. Śrutayo vibhinnā. They are not vibhinnā. But to our limited knowledge, sometimes they appear as vibhinnam, different. Śrutayo vibhinnaṁ nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And you won't find a philosopher who does not agree, who does not disagree with our philosophers.

Philosophy Discussions

Those who do not agree to accept that everything has a purpose, just like so many rascal philosopher, there is no purpose of life, chance, they are rascals.
Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Prabhupāda: Essence is spiritual, that's it. But my imperfect vision makes it material.

Śyāmasundara: His idea, too, is that everything has a purpose, the whole universe is rational.

Prabhupāda: Certainly, certainly. Those who do not agree to accept this, just like so many rascal philosopher, there is no purpose of life, chance, they are rascals.

Śyāmasundara: But his idea is that to understand this reality or this truth is that one must examine all relationships of everything to each other.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That we are teaching. That original is Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa's expansion in energy is everything. Parasya brāhmaṇaḥ śaktiḥ. Just like heat and light; practically whole physical existence is heat and light. So heat and light, there is a fire wherefrom the heat and light comes. Similarly two energies, heat and light, the spiritual and material, they are emanating from the fire, Kṛṣṇa, and everything is made of heat and light, material (indistinct). So one who has got to see, one has got the eyes to see, that is the spiritual, he can see it. And when he hasn't got the eyes to see, he thinks material.

Conversations and Morning Walks

1974 Conversations and Morning Walks

A philosopher is not a philosopher or muni if he does not agree with others. He must disagree, then he becomes.
Room Conversation with Christian Priest -- June 9, 1974, Paris:

We don't see how many millions of followers. No. We want to see the quality man. He says yes. So Śaṅkarācārya says "Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead," Rāmānujācārya says "the Supreme Personality of Godhead," Madhvācārya says "Supreme," Caitanya says "Supreme," then we accept. That's all. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ. Simply by argument we cannot understand the truth. Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā. And if you simply consult Vedic literature, that is also not possible. There are different statements. Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā, nāsāv munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. A muni, a saintly person, a philosopher is not a philosopher or muni if he does not agree with others. He must disagree, then he becomes. So that is also not the way. Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām: it is very confidential.

1975 Conversations and Morning Walks

Ou must say what Kṛṣṇa says, if you take Bhagavad-gītā. But if you have got a different views, then you write your own book. Present, as many others philosophers are doing. I don't agree with you. You don't agree with me. That's all right. You cannot become a big philosopher unless you have got a different views.
Room Conversation with Dr. Copeland, Professor of Modern Indian History -- May 20, 1975, Melbourne:

Prabhupāda: No, you do not do that. You do not do that. You will see Dr. Radhakrishnan says. When this, he is making comment on it, he said, "It is not to Kṛṣṇa." Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto māṁ namaskuru, and Dr. Radha..., he says "not to Kṛṣṇa." How he is misleading people! He is a great scholar, and he says "It is not to Kṛṣṇa, to the person." Just see. This dishonesty is going on. What right he has got to say like that? Did He, did He, Kṛṣṇa, left His Bhagavad-gītā to be interpreted by a rascal, "Not to Kṛṣṇa"? This is rascaldom. You cannot say. You must say what Kṛṣṇa says, if you take Bhagavad-gītā. But if you have got a different views, then you write your own book. Present, as many others philosophers are doing. I don't agree with you. You don't agree with me. That's all right. Nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. You cannot become a big philosopher unless you have got a different views. That is the way. If I don't defy you, then I am not a big philosopher.

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks

A philosopher is not a philosopher if he does not agree with others, if he does not agree other philosophers. So in this way, you are perplexed. Therefore it is advised, we should accept the authority, and then we shall be benefited.
Evening Darsana -- July 7, 1976, Washington, D.C.:

Prabhupāda: So we take authority, the Bhagavad-gītā or Kṛṣṇa. He is accepted authority by all the ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and in the śāstra also, Vyāsadeva, Nārada, Devala, Asita. So our authority is confirmed. So if we take conclusion from the authority, then we benefit. Otherwise, with our limited knowledge, if we go on arguing, then we cannot understand the conclusion. That is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā. By argument we cannot come to the conclusion. I can argue, and you can argue, but you may argue more than me. Another person can argue more than you. In this way, you do not come to the conclusion. And śrutayo vibhinnā. So far scriptures are concerned, there are also different scriptures. Nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And a philosopher is not a philosopher if he does not agree with others, if he does not agree other philosophers. So in this way, you are perplexed. Therefore it is advised, mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). We should accept the authority, and then we shall be benefited. So the authorities are mentioned in the śāstra, who are authorities.

Page Title:Philosophers do not agree
Compiler:Labangalatika, Matea
Created:02 of Feb, 2009
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=3, CC=0, OB=1, Lec=4, Con=3, Let=0
No. of Quotes:11