Proposition (Books)

Expressions researched:
"proposition" |"propositions"

BG Chapters 1 - 6

BG 2.12, Purport:

The Māyāvādī argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Kṛṣṇa to place a conventional proposition on the body again? Therefore, individuality is maintained on spiritual grounds and is thus confirmed by great ācāryas like Śrī Rāmānuja and others. It is clearly mentioned in many places in the Gītā that this spiritual individuality is understood by those who are devotees of the Lord. Those who are envious of Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no bona fide access to the great literature. The nondevotee's approach to the teachings of the Gītā is something like that of a bee licking on a bottle of honey. One cannot have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle. Similarly, the mysticism of the Bhagavad-gītā can be understood only by devotees, and no one else can taste it, as it is stated in the Fourth Chapter of the book.

BG Chapters 13 - 18

BG 18.73, Purport:

He is bound by his lust and desires, yet he thinks of himself as the master of the world. This is called illusion. When a person is liberated, his illusion is over, and he voluntarily surrenders unto the Supreme to act according to His desires. The last illusion, the last snare of māyā to trap the living entity, is the proposition that he is God. The living entity thinks that he is no longer a conditioned soul, but God. He is so unintelligent that he does not think that if he were God, then how could he be in doubt? That he does not consider. So that is the last snare of illusion. Actually to become free from the illusory energy is to understand Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and agree to act according to His order.

SB Preface and Introduction

SB Introduction:

This dedication on the part of the worker suggests that the Personality of Godhead is a step higher than the impersonal conception of the varṇāśrama system, but still the relation of the living being and the Lord is not distinct in that way. The Lord therefore rejected this proposition and asked Rāmānanda Rāya to go further.

Rāya then suggested renunciation of the varṇāśrama-dharma and acceptance of devotional service. The Lord did not approve of this suggestion also for the reason that all of a sudden one should not renounce his position, for that may not bring in the desired result.

It was further suggested by Rāya that attainment of spiritual realization freed from the material conception of life is the topmost achievement for a living being. The Lord rejected this suggestion also because on the plea of such spiritual realization much havoc has been wrought by unscrupulous persons; therefore all of a sudden this is not possible.

SB Canto 1

SB 1.1.1, Purport:

Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī has even more explicitly explained the subject matter in his Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha. And Brahmā, the original living being, has explained the subject of Śrī Kṛṣṇa substantially in his treatise named Brahma-saṁhitā. In the Sāma-veda Upaniṣad, it is also stated that Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the divine son of Devakī. Therefore, in this prayer, the first proposition holds that Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the primeval Lord, and if any transcendental nomenclature is to be understood as belonging to the Absolute Personality of Godhead, it must be the name indicated by the word Kṛṣṇa, which means the all-attractive. In Bhagavad-gītā, in many places, the Lord asserts Himself to be the original Personality of Godhead, and this is confirmed by Arjuna, and also by great sages like Nārada, Vyāsa, and many others. In the Padma Purāṇa, it is also stated that out of the innumerable names of the Lord, the name of Kṛṣṇa is the principal one.

SB 1.13.44, Purport:

The actual fact is that every living being is an individual part and parcel of the Supreme Being, and his constitutional position is subordinate cooperative service. Either in his conditional material existence or in his liberated position of full knowledge and eternity, the living entity is eternally under the control of the Supreme Lord. But those who are not conversant with factual knowledge put forward many speculative propositions about the real position of the living entity. It is admitted, however, by all schools of philosophy, that the living being is eternal and that the covering body of the five material elements is perishable and temporary. The eternal living entity transmigrates from one material body to another by the law of karma, and material bodies are perishable by their fundamental structures. Therefore there is nothing to be lamented in the case of the soul's being transferred into another body, or the material body's perishing at a certain stage.

SB 1.16.26-30, Purport:

By equality (10), the Lord is equally kind to everyone, as the sun is equal in distributing its rays over everyone. Yet there are many who are unable to take advantage of the sun's rays. Similarly, the Lord says that surrendering unto Him is the guarantee for all protection from Him, but unfortunate persons are unable to accept this proposition, and therefore they suffer from all material miseries. So even though the Lord is equally well-wishing to everyone, the unfortunate living being, due to bad association only, is unable to accept His instructions in toto, and for this the Lord is never to be blamed. He is called the well-wisher for the devotees only. He appears to be partial to His devotees, but factually the matter rests on the living being to accept or reject equal treatment by the Lord.

SB Canto 3

SB 3.29.1-2, Purport:

There are two classes of men. Some consider themselves intellectually advanced and simply speculate and meditate, and others are sentimental and have no philosophical basis for their propositions. Neither of these can achieve the highest goal of life-or, if they do, it will take them many, many years. Vedic literature therefore suggests that there are three elements-namely the Supreme Lord, the living entity and their eternal relationship-and the goal of life is to follow the principles of bhakti, or devotional service, and ultimately attain to the planet of the Supreme Lord in full devotion and love as an eternal servitor of the Lord.

SB 3.30.3, Purport:

In another part of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the acceptance of the body as oneself, the acceptance of others as kinsmen in relationship to this body and the acceptance of the land of one's birth as worshipable are declared to be the products of an animal civilization. When, however, one is enlightened in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he can use these for the service of the Lord. That is a very suitable proposition. Everything has a relationship with Kṛṣṇa. When all economic development and material advancement are utilized to advance the cause of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, a new phase of progressive life arises.

SB Canto 4

SB 4.8.37, Purport:

Thus he wanted help from Nāradajī to achieve that position. Dhruva Mahārāja wanted a position greater than that of Brahmā. This was practically an impossible proposition, but by pleasing the Supreme Personality of Godhead a devotee can achieve even the impossible.

One particular point mentioned here is that Dhruva Mahārāja wanted to occupy an exalted position not by hook or by crook, but by honest means. This indicates that if Kṛṣṇa offered him such a position, then he would accept it. That is the nature of a devotee. He may desire material gain, but he accepts it only if Kṛṣṇa offers it. Dhruva Mahārāja was sorry to refuse the instruction of Nārada Muni; therefore he requested him to be merciful to him by showing a path by which he could fulfill his mind's desires.

SB 4.21.27, Purport:

At the present moment, although the so-called brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras have lost their original culture, they claim to be brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras by birthright. Yet they have rejected the proposition that such social and spiritual orders are especially meant for worship of Lord Viṣṇu. The dangerous Māyāvāda theory set forth by Śaṅkarācārya—that God is impersonal—does not tally with the injunctions of the Vedas. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu therefore described the Māyāvādī philosophers as the greatest offenders against the Personality of Godhead. According to the Vedic system, one who does not abide by the orders of the Vedas is called a nāstika, or atheist. When Lord Buddha preached his theory of nonviolence, he was obliged to deny the authority of the Vedas, and for this reason he was considered by the followers of the Vedas to be a nāstika.

SB Canto 5

SB 5.1.5, Purport:

Śrī Śukadeva Gosvāmī accepted both of the King's propositions—that a person who is advanced in Kṛṣṇa consciousness cannot embrace materialistic life again and that one who has embraced materialistic life cannot take up Kṛṣṇa consciousness at any stage of his existence. Although accepting both these statements, Śukadeva Gosvāmī qualified them by saying that a person who has once absorbed his mind in the glories of the Supreme Personality of Godhead may sometimes be influenced by impediments, but he still does not give up his exalted devotional position.

According to Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, there are two kinds of impediments to devotional service. The first is an offense at the lotus feet of a Vaiṣṇava. This is called vaiṣṇava-aparādha. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu warned His devotees not to commit vaiṣṇava-aparādha, which He described as the mad elephant offense. When a mad elephant enters a beautiful garden, it destroys everything, leaving a barren field.

SB 5.10.6, Purport:

Jaḍa Bharata was completely liberated. He did not even care when the dacoits attempted to kill his body; he knew that he certainly was not the body. Even if the body were killed, he would not have cared, for he was thoroughly convinced of the proposition found in Bhagavad-gītā (2.20): na hanyate hanyamāne śarīre. He knew that he could not be killed even if his body were killed. Although he did not protest, the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His agent could not tolerate the injustice of the dacoits; therefore he was saved by the mercy of Kṛṣṇa, and the dacoits were killed. In this case, while carrying the palanquin, he also knew that he was not the body. This body was very strong and stout, in sound condition and quite competent to carry the palanquin. Due to his being freed from the bodily conception, the sarcastic words of the King did not at all affect him. The body is created according to one's karma, and material nature supplies the ingredients for the development of a certain type of body.

SB 5.19.23, Purport:

One who has taken birth in the land of Bhārata-varṣa has a full opportunity to study the direct instructions given by Kṛṣṇa in Bhagavad-gītā and thus finally decide what to do in his human form of life. One should certainly give up all other propositions and surrender to Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa will then immediately take charge and relieve one of the results of past sinful life (ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ (BG 18.66)). Therefore one should take to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, as Kṛṣṇa Himself recommends. Man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru: (BG 18.65) "Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer Me obeisances." This is very easy, even for a child. Why not take this path? One should try to follow the instructions of Kṛṣṇa exactly and thus become fully eligible to be promoted to the kingdom of God (tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti so'rjuna (BG 4.9)).

SB Canto 8

SB 8.2.33, Purport:

In Bhagavad-gītā the Lord clearly says, mṛtyuḥ sarva-haraś cāham: (BG 10.34) "I am all-devouring death." Thus mṛtyu, or death, is the representative who takes everything away from the living entity who has accepted a material body. No one can say, "I do not fear death." This is a false proposition. Everyone fears death. However, one who seeks shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead can be saved from death. One may argue, "Does the devotee not die?" The answer is that a devotee certainly must give up his body, for the body is material. The difference is, however, that for one who surrenders to Kṛṣṇa fully and who is protected by Kṛṣṇa, the present body is his last; he will not again receive a material body to be subjected to death. This is assured in Bhagavad-gītā (4.9). Tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma naiti mām eti so'rjuna: a devotee, after giving up his body, does not accept a material body, but returns home, back to Godhead. We are always in danger because at any moment death can take place.

SB 8.18.5, Purport:

Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī Ṭhākura, an expert astrologer, explains the word nakṣatra-tārādyāḥ. The word nakṣatra means "the stars," the word tāra in this context refers to the planets, and ādyāḥ means "the first one specifically mentioned." Among the planets, the first is Sūrya, the sun, not the moon. Therefore, according to the Vedic version, the modern astronomer's proposition that the moon is nearest to the earth should not be accepted. The chronological order in which people all over the world refer to the days of the week—Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday—corresponds to the Vedic order of the planets and thus circumstantiates the Vedic version. Apart from this, when the Lord appeared the planets and stars became situated very auspiciously, according to astrological calculations, to celebrate the birth of the Lord.

SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13

SB 10.1.54, Purport:

Kaṁsa feared Devakī's existence because after her eighth pregnancy she would give birth to a son who would kill him. Vasudeva, therefore, to assure his brother-in-law the utmost safety, promised to bring him all the sons. He would not wait for the eighth son, but from the very beginning would deliver to the hands of Kaṁsa all the sons to which Devakī would give birth. This was the most liberal proposition offered by Vasudeva to Kaṁsa.

SB 10.10.38, Purport:

This is to be learned from expert devotees like Nārada, Svayambhū and Śambhu. This is the process. We cannot manufacture our own way of understanding the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for it is not that everything one manufactures or concocts will lead to understanding God. Such a proposition—yata mata, tata patha—is foolish. Kṛṣṇa says, bhaktyāham ekayā grāhyaḥ: "Only by executing the activities of bhakti can one understand Me." (SB 11.14.21) This is called ānukūlyena kṛṣṇānuśīlanam (CC Madhya 19.167), remaining engaged favorably in the service of the Lord.

CC Adi-lila

CC Adi 3.34, Purport:

Some so-called Vaiṣṇavas say that the renounced order of life was not accepted in the Vaiṣṇava sampradāya, or disciplic succession, until Lord Caitanya. This is not a very intelligent proposition. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu took the sannyāsa order from Śrīpāda Keśava Bhāratī, who belonged to the Śaṅkara sect, which approves of only ten names for sannyāsīs. Long before the advent of Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, however, the sannyāsa order existed in the Vaiṣṇava line of Viṣṇu Svāmī. In the Viṣṇu Svāmī Vaiṣṇava sampradāya, there are ten different kinds of sannyāsa names and 108 different names for sannyāsīs who accept the tri-daṇḍa, the triple staff of sannyāsa. This is approved by the Vedic rules. Therefore Vaiṣṇava sannyāsa was existent even before the appearance of Śaṅkarācārya, although those who know nothing about Vaiṣṇava sannyāsa unnecessarily declare that there is no sannyāsa in the Vaiṣṇava sampradāya.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

“Because You are unlimited in Your six opulences, no one can count Your transcendental qualities. Philosophers and other thoughtful persons are overwhelmed by the contradictory manifestations of the physical world and the propositions of logical arguments and judgments. Because they are bewildered by word jugglery and disturbed by the different calculations of the scriptures, their theories cannot touch You, who are the ruler and controller of everyone and whose glories are beyond conception.

“Your inconceivable potency keeps You unattached to the mundane qualities. Surpassing all conceptions of material contemplation, Your pure transcendental knowledge keeps You beyond all speculative processes. By Your inconceivable potency, there is nothing contradictory in You.

CC Adi 6.14-15, Purport:

“Sometimes material scientists give the example that milk turns into curd automatically and that distilled water pouring from the clouds falls down to earth, produces different kinds of trees, and enters different kinds of flowers and fruits with different fragrances and tastes. Therefore, they say, matter produces varieties of material things on its own. In reply to this argument, the same proposition of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad—that different kinds of living creatures are put into different kinds of bodies by the management of a superior power—is repeated. Under superior superintendence, various souls, according to their past activities, are given the chance to take a particular type of body, such as that of a tree, animal, bird or beast, and thus their different tendencies develop under these circumstances. The Bhagavad-gītā (13.22) also further affirms:

CC Adi 7.99, Purport:

The Māyāvādīs say that the ultimate source of everything is impersonal, and in this way they deny the existence of God. Saying that there is no God is direct denial of God, and saying that God exists but has no head, legs or hands and cannot speak, hear or eat is a negative way of denying His existence. A person who cannot see is called blind, one who cannot walk is called lame, one who has no hands is called helpless, one who cannot speak is called dumb, and one who cannot hear is called deaf. The Māyāvādīs' proposition that God has no legs, no eyes, no ears and no hands is an indirect way of insulting Him by defining Him as blind, deaf, dumb, lame, helpless, etc. Therefore although they present themselves as great Vedāntists, they are factually māyayāpahṛta-jñāna; in other words, they seem to be very learned scholars, but the essence of their knowledge has been taken away.

CC Adi 10.113, Purport:

This immediately brought the body to life, and Ṭhākura Sāraṅga dāsa accepted him as his disciple. This disciple later became famous as Ṭhākura Murāri, and his name is always associated with that of Śrī Sāraṅga. His disciplic succession still inhabits the village of Śar. There is a temple at Māmagāchi that is said to have been started by Sāraṅga Ṭhākura. Not long ago, a new temple building was erected in front of a bakula tree there, and it is now being managed by the members of the Gauḍīya Maṭha. It is said that the management of the temple is now far better than before. In the Gaura-gaṇoddeśa-dīpikā (172) it is stated that Sāraṅga Ṭhākura was formerly a gopī named Nāndīmukhī. Some devotees say that he was formerly Prahlāda Mahārāja, but Śrī Kavi-karṇapūra says that his father, Śivānanda Sena, does not accept this proposition.”

CC Madhya-lila

CC Madhya 3.6, Purport:

They simply think of merging into the existence of Brahman because of their disgust with material existence. The ācāryas who advocate the daiva-varṇāśrama (the social order of cātur-varṇyam mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā) do not accept the proposition of āsura-varṇāśrama, which maintains that the social order of varṇa is indicated by birth.

The most intimate devotee of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, namely Gadādhara Paṇḍita, accepted tridaṇḍa-sannyāsa and also accepted Mādhava Upādhyāya as his tridaṇḍi-sannyāsī disciple. It is said that from this Mādhavācārya the sampradāya known in western India as the Vallabhācārya sampradāya has begun. Śrīla Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Gosvāmī, who is known as a smṛty-ācārya in the Gauḍīya-Vaiṣṇava-sampradāya, later accepted the tridaṇḍa-sannyāsa order from Tridaṇḍipāda Prabodhānanda Sarasvatī.

CC Madhya 6.189, Translation:

Sārvabhauma Bhaṭṭācārya then began to explain the ātmārāma verse, and according to the principles of logic, he put forward various propositions.

CC Madhya 11.99, Purport:

Rascals propose that anyone can invent his own religious process, and this proposition is condemned herein. If one actually wants to become religious, he must take up the chanting of the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra. The real meaning of religion is stated in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (6.3.19–22):

dharmaṁ tu sākṣād-bhagavat-praṇītaṁ

na vai vidur ṛṣayo nāpi devāḥ

na siddha-mukhyā asurā manuṣyāh

kutaś ca vidyādhara-cāraṇādayaḥ

svayambhūr nāradaḥ śambhuḥ kumāraḥ kapilo manuḥ

prahlādo janako bhīṣmo balir vaiyāsakir vayam

dvādaśaite vijānīmo dharmaṁ bhāgavataṁ bhaṭāḥ

guhyaṁ viśuddhaṁ durbodhaṁ yaṁ jñātvāmṛtam aśnute

etāvān eva loke ’smin puṁsāṁ dharmaḥ paraḥ smṛtaḥ

bhakti-yogo bhagavati tan-nāma-grahaṇādibhiḥ

The purport of these verses is that dharma, or religion, cannot be manufactured by a human being. Religion is the law or code of the Lord. Consequently religion cannot be manufactured even by great saintly persons, demigods or siddha-mukhyas, and what to speak of asuras, human beings, Vidyādharas, Cāraṇas, and so on.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter Prologue:

This body is yours, and I must obey your orders. Permit me to go to Vṛndāvana for my spiritual attainments." The mother, in consultation with Advaita and others, asked her son to reside in Purī (the town of Jagannātha) so that she might obtain his information now and then. Mahāprabhu agreed to that proposition and in a few days left Śāntipura for Orissa. His biographers have described the journey of Kṛṣṇa Caitanya (that was the name he got after his sannyāsa) from Śāntipura to Purī in great detail. He traveled along the side of the Bhāgīrathī as far as Chatrabhoga, situated now in Thānā Mathurāpura, Diamond Harbour, 24 Parganas. There he took a boat and went as far as Prayāga-ghāṭa in the Midnapura District. Thence he walked through Balasore and Cuttack to Purī, seeing the temple of Bhūvaneśvara on his way. Upon his arrival at Purī he saw Jagannātha in the temple and resided with Sārvabhauma at the request of the latter. Sārvabhauma was a gigantic paṇḍita of the day. His readings knew no bounds.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 2:

However, l'm afraid of the Nawab. What will he do when he hears that you are free? l'll have to explain everything to him. How can I accept such a proposal?" Sanātana then invented a story which the jailkeeper might submit to the Nawab—as to how he had escaped—and he raised his offer to ten thousand coins. Greedy to get the money, the jailkeeper agreed to the proposition and let him go. In the meantime, Rūpa Gosvāmī, with his younger brother Śrī Vallabha, had started for Vṛndāvana to meet Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

Sanātana then proceeded to go to see the Lord. He did not travel on the open road but went through the jungles until he arrived at a place in Bihar called Pātaḍā. There he rested in a hotel, but the hotelkeeper was informed by an astrologer employed there that Sanātana Gosvāmī had some gold coins with him. The hotelkeeper, desiring to get the money, spoke to Sanātana with seeming respect.

Nectar of Devotion

Nectar of Devotion 5:

Anyone who is a pure Vaiṣṇava is situated transcendentally, and therefore the highest qualification in the material world, namely to be in the mode of goodness, has already been achieved by such a person. Our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement in the Western world is based on the above-mentioned proposition of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Prabhupāda, our spiritual master. On his authority, we are claiming members from all sections of the Western countries. The so-called brāhmaṇas claim that one who is not born into a brāhmaṇa family cannot receive the sacred thread and cannot become a high-grade Vaiṣṇava. But we do not accept such a theory, because it is not supported by Rūpa Gosvāmī nor by the strength of the various scriptures.

Nectar of Devotion 9:

Here it is clearly said, "When I come to confess my sinful activities I become ashamed." So if a person is not ashamed of his sinful activities and continues to commit the same sinful activities with the knowledge that the Lord will excuse him, that is a most nonsensical proposition. Such an idea is not accepted in any part of the Vedic literature. It is a fact that by chanting the holy name of the Lord one becomes washed clean of all sinful activities from his past life. But that does not mean that after being washed off, one should again begin sinful activities and expect to be washed again. These are nonsensical propositions and are not admitted in devotional service. Someone may think, "For a whole week I may commit sinful activities, and for one day I will go to the temple or church and admit my sinful activities so that I can become washed off and again begin my sinning." This is most nonsensical and offensive and is not acceptable to the author of Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu.

Easy Journey to Other Planets

Easy Journey to Other Planets 1:

In this statement, the following propositions are put forward:

1. There is an antimaterial atom or particle which is made up of the antiqualities of material atoms.

2. There is another world besides this material world of which we have only limited experience.

3. The antimaterial and material worlds may clash at a certain period and may annihilate one another.

Out of these three items, we, the students of theistic science, can fully agree with items 1 and 2, but we can agree with item 3 only within the limited scientific definition of antimatter. The difficulty lies in the fact that the scientists' conception of antimatter extends only to another variety of material energy, whereas the real antimatter must be entirely antimaterial.

Easy Journey to Other Planets 1:

Matter as it is constituted is subjected to annihilation, but antimatter—if it is to be free from all material symptoms—must also be free from annihilation, by its very nature. If matter is destructible or separable, antimatter must be indestructible and inseparable. We shall try to discuss these propositions from the angle of authentic scriptural vision.

The most widely recognized scriptures in the world are the Vedas. The Vedas have been divided into four parts: Sāma, Yajur, Ṛg and Atharva. The subject matter of the Vedas is very difficult for a man of ordinary understanding. For elucidation, the four Vedas are explained in the historical epic called the Mahābhārata and in eighteen Purāṇas. The Rāmāyaṇa is also a historical epic which contains all the necessary information from the Vedas. So the four Vedas, the original Rāmāyaṇa by Vālmīki, the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas are classified as Vedic literatures.

Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead

Krsna Book 60:

That was not very rightly done. Therefore, since it is better late than never, I advise you that you may now select one of the great kṣatriya princes and accept him as your life's companion, and you may reject Me.”

Kṛṣṇa was proposing that Rukmiṇī divorce Him at a time when Rukmiṇī already had many grown-up children. Therefore Kṛṣṇa's whole proposition appeared to be something unexpected because according to the Vedic culture there was no such thing as separation of husband and wife by divorce. Nor was it possible for Rukmiṇī to choose a new husband at her advanced age, when she had many married sons. To Rukmiṇī every one of Kṛṣṇa's proposals appeared crazy, and she was surprised that Kṛṣṇa could say such things. Simple as she was, her anxiety was increasing more and more at the thought of separation from Kṛṣṇa.

Renunciation Through Wisdom

Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.5:

The scriptures have clearly indicated that the ecstasy of devotional service to the Supreme Lord is far superior to the bliss of impersonal liberation, brahmānanda. Indeed, the happiness of merging into the Lord's existence (sāyujya-mukti) is like a puddle of water in a calf's hoofprint compared with the ocean of bliss derived from devotional service. The devotee never prays for the jñānī's sāyujya-mukti, for it is an impossible proposition. By sāyujya-mukti the impersonalists mean relinquishing one's identity, or individuality. This is nothing less than spiritual suicide. In this regard, I reproduce Dr. Radhakrishnan's comment on the Bible:

The doctrine of the Incarnation agitated the Christian world a great deal. Arioes maintained that the Son is not the equal of the Father but created by Him. The view that they are not distinct but only different aspects of one Being is the theory of Sabellius. The former emphasized the distinctness of the Father and the Son and the latter their oneness. The view that finally prevailed was that the Father and the Son were equal and of the same substance; they were, however, distinct persons.