Category:Argue
"argue | argued | argues | arguing | arguer"
- VedaBase query: argue or argued or argues or arguing or arguer not "may argue*"@ 5 not "might argue"@4
Subcategories Pages in category
This category has the following 11 subcategories, out of 11 total.
A
C
N
O
Pages in category "Argue"
The following 188 pages are in this category, out of 188 total.
1
A
- A first-class devotee has firm conviction in the revealed scriptures and is expert in arguing according to the sastras. He is firmly convinced of the science of Krsna consciousness
- A learned man who has thoroughly studied the scriptures cannot hesitate to accept Sri Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If such a man argues about this matter, certainly he must be doing so to agitate the minds of his opponents
- According to the Mahabharata, 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
- Arguing about the conclusion of the scriptures
- Argumentative power is a special gift. Suppose you can argue very nicely, that's all. I cannot. But somebody may come - he's more powerful in arguments - he can defeat you
B
- Because it is said by the Vedas, you have to accept it. This is Vedic knowledge. You cannot argue. There is no scope of argument. Whatever is said, you have to accept. Otherwise how Vedas become authority? You can change in your own way
- Before the demon (Vrkasura) could argue that he had no time to take rest, the Lord informed him about the importance of the body, and the demon was convinced
- Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami, after seeing me, said that you all are learned then why don’t you preach the teaching of Caitanya Mahaprabhu in foreign countries, On this I argued with him, I said we are dependent country, who will listen to us?
- Both the yogis and Sankhyites have faith in the reality, but are arguing about it from the different viewpoints of material and spiritual identities
D
- Devahuti's husband was so expert in the transcendental science that there was nothing for him to argue about
- Devotional service with attachment is natural, and one who has been attracted by it does not argue with those who oppose him, even though others may argue by presenting scriptural injunctions
- Dhruva Maharaja, as a ksatriya, could have argued with his grandfather, Manu, when Manu requested him to stop fighting
- Diti might argue that they would enjoy sex life in a private place, but Kasyapa reminded her that Lord Siva has three eyes, called the sun, moon and fire, and one cannot escape his vigilance any more than one can escape Visnu
H
- He (the Lord) can annihilate everything merely by His will. That is His supremacy. If one argues, "Why does He act in this way?" the answer is that He can do so because He is supreme. No one can question His activities
- He is the master of all planets. This is not accepting blindly. God has given you the power of reason, the power of arguing - but don't argue falsely. If you want to know the transcendental science you must surrender
I
- I am so sorry to learn that there is a sort of conspiracy by some of our God-brothers as not to give me a place at Mayapur. I do not wish to argue on this point
- If it is possible we can do that, but that does not make any difference if I cannot argue with others or if I cannot teach very nicely Bhagavad-gita to others. Simply if I remember this picture (Arjuna hearing BG from Krsna), that is perfection
- If one argues how it is that in one place it is said that the stool of the animal is impure and another place it is said that the cow dung, which is also the stool of an animal, it is pure, so it is contradictory
- If one argues that since cow dung is pure, the stool of a learned brahmana is still more pure, his argument will not be accepted. Cow dung is accepted, and the stool of a highly posted brahmana is rejected
- If we argue, "How is that, that animal stool is impure, even human stool is impure. How cow dung, which is stool of another animal, is pure? It is contrary." But actually, we accept
- If you simply go on arguing, that will also not help you. If you simply read scriptures, that will also not help you. Because there are different scriptures. Bible is different from Vedas, and Vedas is different from Koran
- 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
- In the Bhagavad-gita 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
- In this age, people are prepared to argue that they can understand that which is beyond their limited knowledge and perception through so-called scientific observations and experiments, not knowing that actual truth comes down to man from authorities
- It is incorrect to argue that because energy issues from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He is the actor
- It is sometimes argued that the sons of King Sagara were burned to ashes by the fire emanating from the eyes of Kapila Muni. This statement, however, is not approved by great learned persons
- It may be argued that all householders are not very rich & that one cannot receive great saintly persons or preachers because they are always accompanied by their disciples. If a householder is to receive a saintly person, he has to receive his entourage
- It may be argued that although we have accepted Him (Krsna) as a perfect person, there are many others who do not. Rut one should not think that this acceptance is whimsical; He is accepted as the perfect person on the evidence of many authorities
- It may be argued that because the living entities are born of the material nature they are all equal and independent
- It may be argued that in Kali-yuga modern civilization is mainly situated in the cities. A great city, however, is like a great forest. Actually city life is more dangerous than life in the forest
- It may be argued that since Daksa was very learned, wealthy and austere and had descended from a very exalted heritage, how could he be unnecessarily angry towards another
- It may be argued that since Krsna was present on this earth and was visible to everyone, then why isn't He manifest to everyone now? But actually He was not manifest to everyone. BG 1972 purports
- It may be argued that Sukadeva Gosvami is not the only authority of perfect knowledge in transcendence because there are many other sages and their followers
- It may be argued that the waves of a river are incessantly flowing and that they cannot be stopped, but the waves of the river flow toward the sea
- It may be argued that when a man leaves his money earned by sinful activities, he also leaves his sinful activities here with his money
- It may be argued that whereas someone may receive a sadhu with great respect, someone else may not receive a sadhu with such respect. A sadhu, however, is always equipoised toward everyone
- It may be argued why Dronacarya, a rigid brahmana, should be a teacher in military science. But the reply is that a brahmana should become a teacher, regardless of what his department of knowledge is
- It may be then argued in this connection (BG 16.20) that God should not be advertised as all-merciful if He is not merciful to demons. In answer to this question, in the Vedanta-sutra we find that the Supreme Lord has no hatred for anyone. BG 1972 pur
- It might be argued that since Bali Maharaja had now left the scene, how could his faults be judged
J
- Jiva Gosvami argued with him regarding the scriptures and defeated him
- Just like in the law court. You are lawyer. You are arguing. When you quote from a judgment, previous judgment, it is accepted. Similarly, when you give authoritative statement support of your talking, then it is perfect. That is the way
- Just like two lawyers are arguing in the court, but the conclusion is given by the authority, the judge. That one has to accept. So we take authority, Bhagavad-gita or Krsna
K
- King Rahugana argued that the living entity is within the body and that when the body is fatigued the living entity within must therefore be suffering
- Knowledge of the superior nature must simply be accepted without argument. How is it possible to argue about something to which we have no access?
- Knowledge of the superior nature must simply be accepted without argument. How is it possible to argue about something to which we have no access? - CC Intro
L
- Less intelligent students of either of the above schools sometimes argue in favor of their own respective realization
- Lord Krsna in His personal form is here (BG 7.24) speaking before Arjuna, and still, due to ignorance, impersonalists argue that the Supreme Lord ultimately has no form. BG 1972 purports
- Lord Siva's punishment was just like that of a cowherd boy, who keeps a stick to frighten his animals. It is commonly said that to give protection to animals, a stick is needed because animals cannot reason and argue
M
- Maharaja Nanda and other elder members argued that without satisfying the predominating god one cannot derive any good result simply by material activities. This is actually the fact
- Many modern theologians argue about right and wrong without knowing what is actually right. Their arguments are always false and their judgments inconclusive because they have no authorized evidence with which to gain knowledge of You
- Mother Yasoda began to argue within herself, I am an insignificant woman with no connection with the demigods. Why should they take the trouble to put me into devamaya? That also is not possible
- Mother Yasoda began to argue within herself, I am not sleeping, nor am I dreaming. Then maybe this is an illusion created by devamaya. But that is also not possible. What business would the demigods have showing such things to me?
- Mother Yasoda began to argue within herself: Is this a dream, or is it an illusory creation by the external energy? Has this been manifested by my own intelligence, or is it some mystic power of my child (Krsna) - SB 10.8.40
N
- No one can argue about when and how the conditioned soul became desirous of sense enjoyment, but the cause is there
- Nobody should approach a bona fide spiritual master just to argue with him and just to, with a desire that "I shall see what kind of spiritual master." No. This is useless
- Nor do they (pure devotees) falsely think of themselves as one with God, or argue that there is no existence of God separately, or that there is no God at all, or that living beings are themselves God or that when He incarnates He assumes a material body
O
- On a train, people may argue and fight over a seat, but one who knows that he will only be on the train for two or three hours thinks, - Why should I fight? I shall only be here for a short while
- One cannot argue, How is it that Dhruva Maharaja, 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-matrka logic
- One might argue that since you (Bali) have already promised, how can you refuse? O best of the demons, just take from me (Sukracarya) the evidence of the Bahvrca-sruti, which says that a promise is truthful preceded by the word om and untruthful if not
- One might argue, "Since Bali Maharaja promised Vamanadeva only the land occupied by His steps, why did Lord Vamanadeva occupy the sky also?"
- One must give up this world and go back home, back to the Personality of Godhead. Materialists may argue, "If this material world and its affairs are impossible to understand, how can we reject it?" The answer is provided by the word prabudhapabadham
- 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
- Others may continue merely arguing about whether the Absolute Truth has form or not, but when a devotee, by the grace of the Lord, sees the Lord personally, he becomes spiritually ecstatic
- Our method, Vedic method, is as soon as we speak something, we immediately give evidence from the Vedas. Then it is perfect. There is no question of arguing
P
- Please hear the pastimes of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu with faith and confidence. Do not argue, for arguments will produce a contrary result
- Prahlada Maharaja is a vivid example of a pure devotee. Someone might argue that since Prahlada Maharaja, even though very old, was attached to his family, and specifically to his grandson Bali Maharaja, how could he be an ideal example?
- Prajapati Daksa argued that although the renounced order is recommended for liberation, one cannot attain liberation unless one fulfills his obligations to the demigods, the saints and his father
- Priyavrata might argue that Lord Brahma was requesting him to accept family life and the responsibility for ruling a kingdom, although Narada Muni had advised him not to enter household life and be entangled in material affairs
S
- Sankara has falsely argued that if the transformation of energy is accepted, the Supreme Absolute Truth cannot remain immutable. But this is not true
- Sankara says that he does not attempt to argue that portion of the devotees’ understanding, but he must protest the idea that Sankarsana is produced from Vasudeva, Pradyumna is produced from Sankarsana, and Aniruddha is produced from Pradyumna
- Servant's business is to surrender, not to argue with the master or to claim that "I am equal with you." These are all fanatic, mad proposal
- Should you desire to argue with me, then my only request to you will be that for all such arguments we must be always very sincere and serious
- Since the devotee considers the word "form" (akara) the common factor for both, he offers his respectful obeisances to the form, although others may go on arguing about whether the Absolute has a form or not
- Since the material world is compared herein to a forest, it may be argued that in Kali-yuga modern civilization is mainly situated in the cities. A great city, however, is like a great forest. Actually city life is more dangerous than life in the forest
- Sisya means under the order, regulation. A person cannot disobey the order of guru. Then he is sisya. If he argues, he's not sisya
- Some may argue, why not relish the transcendental lila of the Lord as exhibited in the land of Mathura and Vrndavana, which are sweeter than anything in the world
- Some Mayavadi scholars argue that Srimad-Bhagavatam was not compiled by Sri Vyasadeva. And some of them suggest that this book is a modern creation written by someone named Vopadeva
- Some Mayavadi scholars argue that Srimad-Bhagavatam was not compiled by Srila Vyasadeva, and some suggest that the book is a modern creation written by someone named Vopadeva
- Some of the followers of the Vedas are attached to karma-kanda, the fruitive activities of the Vedas, in order to be promoted to a higher standard of life. Others argue that this is not the purpose of the Vedas
- Some of the sages and brahmanas were arguing, and some of them were chanting the Vedic mantras, so the entire atmosphere was surcharged with transcendental sound vibration
- Some of them argue that the Supreme Lord can never descend upon this material world, but they are unable to give any tangible reasons as to why not. BG 1972 purports
- Some people argue that Arjuna was talking with Krsna because Krsna was present before him, whereas in my case, Krsna is not present. So how can I get directions? But that is not a fact. Krsna is present by His words - the Bhagavad-gita
- Some people argue that if everyone thought of Krsna in that way, the whole universe would be vacated because everyone would go back home, back to Godhead
- Some people argue that if we do not eat meat we will be undernourished, but we can see that the students of this Krsna consciousness movement have given up meat and are very healthy
- Some scholars argue that because Narayana has four hands whereas Sri Krsna has only two, Narayana is the original Personality of Godhead and Krsna is His incarnation. Such unintelligent scholars do not understand the features of the Absolute
- Some scholars argue that simply by following the principles of varna and asrama one can gradually rise up to the perfections reached by practicing devotional service, but this argument is not accepted by the great authorities
- Somebody is, argue, that "This is written by some scholar or some learned person." No, Veda is not like that. Veda is coming directly from Narayana, and Narayana means God. God was existing before the creation
- Sometimes atheists argue that since God is invisible to their eyes, they do not believe in God. For them the Supreme Lord is describing a method by which one can see God in His impersonal form
- Sometimes caste brahmanas argue that unless one changes his body he cannot be accepted as a brahmana, for since the present body is obtained as a result of past actions, one who has in the past acted as a brahmana takes birth in a brahmana family
- Sometimes foolish people argue that since Krsna is not present at the moment, one cannot take direct instructions from Him
- Sometimes it is argued that karma and jnana require a mixture of bhakti in order to be successfully executed, and sometimes it is argued that bhakti also requires karma and jnana for its successful termination
- Sometimes it is argued that mostly devotees are not very much educated. It doesn't matter. This external, academic education has no value for spiritual advancement
- Sometimes it is argued that people do not know who is a spiritual master and that finding a spiritual master from whom to get enlightenment in regard to the destination of life is very difficult
- Sometimes scientists argue that matter and spirit are one, with no difference between them. Factually, in a higher sense, there is no difference between matter and spirit
- Sometimes the atheists argue, How can a flower stem sprout from the navel of Garbhodakasayi Visnu? They consider all the statements of the sastras to be stories
- Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati says that Krsna is obtainable for the faithful, but for those who are accustomed to argue, Krsna is far, far away. Similarly, these talks between Ramananda Raya and Caitanya can be understood by a person who has firm faith
- Sridhara Swami said in his verse, "Let the mystic yogis engage in their meditational service, and let the different sects engage in unnecessary arguing as to which is the best"
- Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has commented that because the words "bow" and "arrow" are used in this verse (SB 7.15.42), one might argue that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the living entity have become enemies
- Struck with wonder at observing the wonderful boarlike form in the sky, Brahma, with great brahmanas like Marici, as well as the Kumaras and Manu, began to argue in various ways
T
- That which is acintya cannot be ascertained by argument. People generally argue, but our process is not to argue but to accept the Vedic knowledge as it is
- That which is beyond our power of conception is called acintya, inconceivable. It is useless to argue or speculate about the inconceivable. If something is truly inconceivable, it is not subject to speculation or experimentation - CC Intro
- That which is beyond our power of conception is called acintya, inconceivable. It is useless to argue or speculate about what is inconceivable. If it is truly inconceivable, it is not subject to speculation or experimentation
- The 1st accusation (of 3 sahajiyas level accusations against Srila Jiva Gosvami) concerns a materialist who was very proud of his reputation as a great Sanskrit scholar and approached Sri Rupa and Sanatana to argue with them about the revealed scriptures
- The Buddhists argue that the world is false, but this is not valid. The world is temporary, but it is not false. As long as we have the body, we must suffer the pleasures and pains of the body, even though we are not the body
- The common man cannot argue about what is beyond the sky or beyond the universe; he must accept the versions of the Vedas as they are understood by the authorized disciplic succession
- The couple was imitating some discussion they heard upon the Vedanta philosophy, and thus were seemingly arguing upon various philosophical points
- The cow-shaped earthly planet submitted that she not only was a woman, but was innocent and sinless as well. Thus she argued that she should not be killed
- The devotees are not at all interested in arguing with the nondevotees to nullify their theories. Rather than wasting time, they always engage themselves in the transcendental loving service of the Lord in full Krsna consciousness
- The difference between the believers and the faithless is that the devotees accept the incidents mentioned in the Vedic literatures to be true, whereas the demons simply argue and label all these historical incidents mythology
- The example of a player and his playthings should not be misunderstood. One may argue that since the Lord is bound to award the reactionary results of our own actions, the example of a player cannot be applied. But it is not so
- The impersonalist argues on the strength of the Vedic version given in the Svetasvatara Upanisad: Anyone who can know Him (Transcendence) also becomes transcendental, but those who do not know Him suffer the miseries of the material world. BG 1972 pur
- The impersonalist argues on the strength of the Vedic version given in the Svetasvatara Upanisad: Beyond Brahma there is the Transcendence who has no material form and is free from all material contaminations. BG 1972 purports
- The impersonalist argues on the strength of the Vedic version given in the Svetasvatara Upanisad: In the material world Brahma, the primeval living entity, is understood to be the supreme amongst the demigods, human beings and lower animals. BG 1972 pur
- The impersonalist, as soon as they see some personalist, they begin to attack by arguments. So those who are not very highly developed, they avoid. But those who are conversant, they argue, so on
- The impersonalists argue that Krsna Himself has been transformed into many and that therefore everything is Krsna and worship of anything is worship of Him
- The impersonalists argue that there is no use in worshiping the Lord when everything is nothing but the Lord Himself
- The impersonalists argue that this is fallacious because it is sometimes found that matter is produced from spirit soul and sometimes that spirit soul is produced from matter
- The import of this verse has stopped you from arguing. Now listen to another verse of Srimad-Bhagavatam
- The Kumaras confirm: "You are the ultimate Absolute Truth." The impersonalist may argue that since the Supreme Personality of Godhead was so nicely decorated, He was therefore not the Absolute Truth
- The Lord has a potency called avidya, the illusory energy, which induces the false arguer to think himself perfect and which induces the illusory energy to bewilder the conditioned soul
- The materialist will argue that life in the tree and life in the man cannot be compared because the tree cannot enjoy life by eating palatable dishes or by enjoying sexual intercourse
- The materialistic man of the modern age will argue that life, or part of it, is never meant for discussion of theosophical or theological arguments
- The Mayavadi argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse (BG 2.12) is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned. BG 1972 purports
- The Mayavadi philosophers are very fond of Vedanta, & they misinterpret it in their own way. Instead of understanding their own position, they criticized Caitanya as an unauthorized sannyasi, arguing that He was a sentimentalist, not a bona fide sannyasi
- The offenses in Deity worship are: (l) to address someone loudly before the Deity, (m) to talk nonsense before the Deity, (n) to cry before the Deity, (o) to argue before the Deity, (p) to chastise someone before the Deity
- The other day one professor came to see me from Khabudvipa(?). He was very submissive, but still, he would argue like this, that "Whatever Krsna is making me to do, I am doing." So I told him, "Krsna is asking you to surrender. Why don't you surrender?"
- The planet earth argues that there is no doubt that one who creates can also annihilate by his sweet will. The planet earth questions why she should be killed when the Lord is prepared to give protection to everyone
- The pseudo transcendentalists and the pure devotees cannot be compared, nor can one argue that a person can invent his own way of worship
- The queens might argue, If our husband was protected by the Supreme Personality of Godhead when in the womb, why has he not been given protection now
- The second-class devotee has been defined by the following symptoms: he is not very expert in arguing on the strength of revealed scripture, but he has firm faith in the objective
- The supreme will is the ultimate judgment; no one can argue upon this. A pure devotee therefore submits in all circumstances to the supreme will of the Lord, accepting it as all-auspicious
- The transcendental pastimes of Lord Sri Krsna are not newly accepted, as argued by some less intelligent persons
- The Vedic knowledge is also received in that way (by the authority). The common man cannot argue about what is beyond the sky or beyond the universe; he must accept the versions of the Vedas as they are understood by the authorized disciplic succession
- The whole world is going to hell and everyone is suffering. In light of this, how can we argue amongst one another and neglect our responsibility for reclaiming these fallen souls for going Back to Home, Back to Godhead
- The word acintya (inconceivable) is very significant in this connection. God's energy is beyond our conception, beyond our thinking jurisdiction, and is therefore called inconceivable (acintya). Who can argue this point? BG 1972 purports
- The word vastu-nisthayoh, which is used, indicates that both the yogis and Sankhyites have faith in the reality, but are arguing about it from the different viewpoints of material and spiritual identities. Parabrahman, or brhat, is the common point
- There are many people who argue over the sastras, but for a devotee such discussions are but tumultuous roaring. By the influence of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, all these problems disappear
- There are so many universities, educational institution, big, big professors, scientists, all rascals. All rascals, we declare. Let them come and argue with us. All rascals
- There is no point in arguing that a materialistic man can be happy. No materialistic creature - be he the great Brahma or an insignificant ant - can be happy
- There is no use of interpretation. Interpretation is required when you cannot understand one statement. In the law court if one statement is ambiguous then two parties argue on it. "I think it is this," "I think
- They (dvija-bandhu, or the less intelligent) argue that birth in a family of sudras or less than sudras is made possible by one's previous sinful acts and that one therefore has to complete the terms of disadvantages due to lower birth
- This is another instance of an argumentative presentation of ecstatic love
- This is Vedic knowledge. You cannot argue. There is no scope of argument. Whatever is said, you have to accept. Otherwise how Vedas become authority?
- This part of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's pastimes is most confidential. One can derive benefit quickly only by faith; otherwise, by arguing one will always remain far away
- Those who consider DS to Sri Krsna to be something like material emotional affairs may argue that in the revealed scriptures, sacrifice, charity, austerity, knowledge, mystic powers and similar other processes of transcendental realization are recommended
V
- Vedic knowledge means you cannot argue. You can argue, but that argument is not to defeat. That argument is for understanding
- Vedic literature teaches us that tarko 'pratisthah: "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
W
- We can argue, a good argument, logic, that you won’t find life by combination of these material elements. That is not possible. Therefore a sane man must consider that life does not belong to these eight elements. This is dead matter. There is no life
- We can go on arguing for days together, but there is no decision. That is friendly talk. But when there is talk between a master and disciple, there is no question of arguing. The disciple has to accept what is ordered by the master
- We must have a guru where exact knowledge is coming, without any mistake. Because we cannot argue. So we must find out such guru, where perfect knowledge is coming
- We should always remember this (SB 10.2.39) distinction between the Lord and the ordinary living entity and not uselessly argue that the Lord cannot come
- Whatever you say, that's all right. Now, we are seeing the other party; if somebody there, "It is like this," that's all right. I'm not going to test it. So what is the use of arguing?
- When I was in Calcutta, many Naxalite and Communist youths used to see me. They were arguing with me, but I defeated them smilingly. They left after offering me their respects
- When Krsna says, This is superior, and this is inferior, we accept what He says. It is not that we argue, Why is this superior and that inferior? If one argues, for him the knowledge is lost
- When learned sages and brahmanas assemble to chant Vedic mantras, some of them also engage in arguing about the conclusion of the scriptures
- When mother Yasoda saw this wonderful manifestation within the mouth of her child, she began to argue within herself about whether it was a dream. Then she considered, I am not dreaming, because my eyes are open. I am actually seeing what is happening
- When one thinks that there is a possibility of arguing about transcendence, he is called an agnostic, and when he thinks that there is a possibility to criticize transcendence, he is called an atheist
- When the man began to argue with her, the woman said that she was not looking beautiful because she was separated from the ingredients of her beauty
- When there is a discussion about the Absolute Truth, there are always various pros and cons. The purpose of such arguments is to come to the right conclusion. Such an argument is generally known as neti neti (“not this, not that”)
- While the priests of the Bhrgu dynasty and their disciples talked and argued in various ways, the SPG, Vamanadeva, holding in His hands the rod, the umbrella and a waterpot full of water, entered the arena of the asvamedha sacrifice
- While we are preaching, opposing elements sometimes argue, "If all living entities were delivered by the Krsna consciousness movement, what would happen then? The universe would be devoid of living entities"
- Whoever argues about this is a great fool. He intentionally and personally brings a thunderbolt down upon his head
- With one's limited senses, one cannot argue about that which is inconceivable. Therefore the inconceivable is called acintya, that which is beyond cintya, our thoughts and arguments
Y
- You can argue that "It is stool of an animal. How it becomes pure?" So Vedic knowledge means don't argue. You have to accept it
- You cannot argue that, - One place you say that this stool is impure, and another place you say this (cow dung) is pure. This is contradiction
- You cannot argue, - It is stool of an animal. In one place you have condemned that if you touch the stool of an animal, you have to take bath thrice, and now you say cow dung, which is also stool of an animal, it is pure. Where is your argument
- You cannot come to the right conclusion simply by arguing. You may be a very good logician and you can argue very nicely, but another man, he may be a greater logician than you. He can nullify all your arguments
- You have to accept that axiomatic truth. It is not dogmatic. It is not dogmatic in this sense: because our predecessor acarya, they accepted. What you are that you are arguing
- You know all the conclusions of the scriptures very well. You create these logical arguments just to agitate me
- You may be very good logician, you can argue very nice, but another logician may come and defeat you. That is going on
- You must be satisfied by the authoritative statement of the spiritual master. You cannot argue. That is the principle of authority