Argument: Difference between revisions
Visnu Murti (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m (Pywikibot v.2) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
argument | arguments | argument's | argument | arguments | argument's|argumentative|argumentativeness|"Argumentum baculum"|"Argumentum vaculam"|"argumentum ad baculum"|"Argumentum vaculum"|"Argumentum baculam" | ||
[[Category:Statement]] | |||
[[Category:Controversy]] | |||
[[Category:Accepting and Rejecting - Umbrella Category]] | |||
[[Category:All Categories - Vaniquotes]] | |||
Latest revision as of 15:42, 24 June 2017
argument | arguments | argument's|argumentative|argumentativeness|"Argumentum baculum"|"Argumentum vaculam"|"argumentum ad baculum"|"Argumentum vaculum"|"Argumentum baculam"
Subcategories Pages in category
This category has the following 24 subcategories, out of 24 total.
A
C
D
F
G
L
O
R
S
Pages in category "Argument"
The following 301 pages are in this category, out of 301 total.
1
- Argument (BG)
- Argument (CC)
- Argument (Conversations 1967 - 1972)
- Argument (Conversations 1973 - 1974)
- Argument (Conversations 1975)
- Argument (Conversations 1976)
- Argument (Conversations 1977)
- Argument (Lectures, BG)
- Argument (Lectures, Other)
- Argument (Lectures, SB)
- Argument (Letters)
- Argument (Other Books)
- Argument (SB)
A
- A dvija is not an ordinary man but one who has studied Vedic literature from a spiritual master and can discriminate between good and bad. It is supposed that he understands logic and philosophy. Sati put before him (Daksa) sound arguments
- A name that represents an object of this material world may be subjected to arguments and experimental knowledge, but in the absolute world a name and its owner, the fame and the famous, are identical
- A person is called a genius when he can refute any kind of opposing element with newer and newer arguments. In this connection there is a statement in Padyavali which contains the following conversation between Krsna and Radha
- Accepting the argument of the impersonalist, it is to be admitted that the Lord is the creator I and that the Brahma is the created I. Therefore there is a difference between the two "I's," namely the predominator I and the predominated I
- According to Vedic civilization, if you give evidence from the Vedic literature, it is to be accepted. No more argument. Anything which is accepted in the Vedas, vedavata, there is no more argument. This is Indian civilization
- Acintya means that which is beyond this material world, that which our argument, logic and philosophical speculation cannot touch, that which is inconceivable. BG 1972 purports
- After hearing these statements by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the Kazi, his arguments stunned, could not put forward any more words. Thus, after due consideration, the Kazi accepted defeat and spoke as follows
- Ajamila was simply in an unconscious state when the argument was in progress between the Yamadutas and the Visnudutas. The conclusion of the argument was to be a decision regarding who would claim the soul of Ajamila
- All of them (great sages and saintly persons) requested him (Daksa) not to leave, but, infuriated, he left, thinking that the auspicious place was not fit for him. Puffed up by his exalted position, he thought that no one was greater than he in argument
- All the arguments of these foolish scientists, or so-called logicians, that can be, I mean to say, nullified, if you are intelligent
- All the unfaithful rogues of this world can be delivered by this process (chanting the holy name). There is no alternative. This is the essence of the argument
- Although Arjuna was putting forward so many arguments based on knowledge of the principles of religion and moral codes, it appears that he was unable to solve his real problem without the help of the spiritual master, Lord Sri Krsna. BG 1972 purports
- Although one cannot see how his body has changed, we must accept, on the grounds of the authoritative statements of the sastras, that he changes his body. This is to be understood without argument
- Although the body of the living entity is material, it is never false. No one will accept the argument that since a person's material body is false, murder has no repercussions
- Although the use of thoughts and arguments is a most suitable process for inducing an uninitiated person to become a devotee
- Although they (Kasira Mayavadis) have their own arguments, which are not very strong, they have no conception of the variegated activities of the Absolute Truth
- Although they (the brahmanas) heard all the arguments on behalf of Krsna and Balarama, they did not care for them, and they refused to speak to the boys
- Among logicians there are different stages of argument. The presentation of evidence is called japa. BG 1972 purports
- An atheistic argument against the supremacy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead states that if God, the Supreme Person, appears and disappears and sleeps and awakens, then what is the difference between God and the living entity?
- Any living being acting as the incarnation of Lord Visnu is thus empowered by Lord Visnu to preach the bhakti cult. Such a person can act like Him and defeat demons by arguments and preach the bhakti cult exactly according to the principles of sastra
- Anything transcendental to material nature is called inconceivable, whereas arguments are all mundane. Since mundane arguments cannot touch transcendental subject matters, one should not try to understand transcendental subjects through mundane arguments
- Anyway, for persons who have a natural taste for understanding books like the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam, devotional service is easier than for those who are simply accustomed to mental speculation and argumentative processes
- Argument is allowed but not in a challenging spirit. With a spirit to rightly understand
- Argumentative attitude is against the Vedic principles, and it is very difficult for one who adopts it to understand that the holy name of Krsna is as good as Krsna Himself
- 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
- Arguments may be put forward as to why we have been put under the influence of this material energy by the supreme will of the Lord
- Arjuna did not accept Krsna blindly. He knew, but for our sake he gave so many arguments. At last, he accepted. So we have to follow Arjuna
- As long as there is a demand for sense satisfaction, there is no chance for pacification; on the contrary, by unnecessary dry speculative arguments, the whole matter becomes distorted, and thus the Lord moves still further away from our understanding
- As such, the argument of the Mayavadi philosophers that this world is false is not accepted by the Vaisnava philosophers
- Ascertain the cause of distress by argumentation
- Astikyam means completely convinced of God and his relationship with God. That is called astikyam. Or full faith in the statement of the Vedas. Whatever Veda says, that's right. Yes. No argument
- Asvatthama was the representative of Dronacarya, and therefore killing Asvatthama would be like killing Dronacarya. That was the argument of Draupadi against the killing of Asvatthama
- At that time the young brahmana said, "My dear gentlemen, please hear. Just to gain victory in an argument, this man is lying"
- At the present moment this argument is put forward even by so-called svamis and yogis who publicly say that because we have senses we must satisfy them by sense gratification
B
- Bali Maharaja had the opportunity to contribute everything he possessed to the lotus feet of Lord Vamanadeva, but Sukracarya was putting forward a material argument to hamper this process of devotional service
- Because cow dung and conch shells are considered pure by the Vedas, they are accepted as pure by the followers of the Vedas, without argument
- Because He (God) is all-powerful, He is not subject to the conditioned soul's arguments regarding His existence or nonexistence. He is pleased to protect His devotees by killing their enemies. He enjoys both the killing and the protecting
- 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
- Because there is so much word jugglery in logic, one can never come to the real conclusion about the Absolute Truth by argument. The followers of the Vedic principles understand this
- Bhagavad-gita gives you full information so that you can accept God with your reason, with your argument, with your knowledge. It is not blind following
- Bhagavad-gita is the science of Krsna, and if we study it scrutinizingly with all of our argument, sense and philosophical knowledge, we will come to know that science. It is not that we are to submit ourselves blindly
- Bhagavata said that tarko 'pratisthah srutayo vibhinna - Simply by argument you cannot establish what is Absolute Truth, and if you consult different scriptures, you will find difference of opinion, or difference of procedures, rituals
- Brahmananda Bharati admitted that when there is an argument between the spiritual master and the disciple, the spiritual master is naturally victorious, although the disciple may put forward a strong argument
- Brahmananda Bharati drew Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya’s attention because he wanted him to judge the argument. He then stated that Brahman, the Supreme Lord, is all-pervading. This is confirmed by Lord Krsna in the Bhagavad-gita - BG 13.3
- Brahmananda Bharati reversed the argument and took the position of a devotee, stating that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna. This means that the Lord was voluntarily defeated out of affection for His devotee
- Buddha philosophy, they do not recognize the soul. They, according to them, that the combination of matter at a certain stage produces consciousness. But that philosophy, that argument, can be refuted
- By argument you cannot come to the conclusion. By simply reading scriptures you cannot come to the conclusion. By following the philosophers you cannot come to the conclusion. Therefore the truth is very confidential. Dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam
- By associating with you just for a moment, I am now freed from all argument, false prestige and lack of discrimination, which are the roots of entanglement in the material world. Now I am free from all these problems
C
- Caitanya Mahaprabhu presented himself in this way: I’m very much afraid of the illogical arguments of the Mayavadi philosophers. Therefore I think I have no authority regarding their explanations of the Vedanta-sutra
- Chand Kazi agreed to talk with Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu on the strength of the scriptures. According to the Vedic scripture, if one can support his position by quoting from the Vedas, his argument is perfect
- Christian philosophers who do not believe in the law of karma put forward the argument that it is absurd to say one must accept the results of past deeds of which he has no consciousness
- Creator must be sentient. Without brain, without creative power, how there can be creation? Where is your argument? No. That is not. These are false arguments. Therefore Vyasadeva gives you information that He (God) is sentient, in full knowledge
E
- Especially in this present age, Kali-yuga, people are already poverty-stricken, and physical killing is too much for them. They should be killed by argument, reasoning, and scientific spiritual understanding
- 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
- Every day, Vallabha Bhatta would come to the place of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to engage in unnecessary arguments with Advaita Acarya and other great personalities, such as Svarupa Damodara
F
- For a detailed refutation of Sankaracarya’s arguments attempting to prove Sankarsana an ordinary living being, one may refer to Srimat Sudarsanacarya’s commentary on the Sri-bhasya, which is known as the Sruta-prakasika
- Froggish philosophers support their arguments by a false and laborious jugglery of words, which is a gift of the same illusory energy of the Lord
H
- Having described Govinda in terms of His Brahman and Paramatma features, now the author of Sri Caitanya-caritamrta advances his argument to prove that Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is the identical personality
- He (King Janaka) and his subjects fought to teach people in general that violence is also necessary in a situation where good arguments fail. BG 1972 purports
- He (son of the elderly brahmana) was saying (to his father) - If you make the background like that (not lying directly but like a diplomat), I shall know how to fill in the argument and defeat him (the young brahmana) by word jugglery
- He who does not know scriptural argument very well but who has firm faith is called an intermediate or second-class devotee
- His (Krsna's) urine is also good. That is a different thing. If this is an argument that, "Because Krsna is good, He should not pass urine and stool," that is no argument
- His left leg was placed on his right thigh, and his left hand was placed on his left thigh. In his right hand he held rudraksa beads. This sitting posture is called virasana. He sat in the virasana posture, and his finger was in the mode of argument
- How could He (the Supreme Brahman) be covered by the material energy? If that were possible, material energy would be greater than the Supreme Brahman. Even these simple arguments, however, cannot be understood by the Mayavadi philosophers
I
- I am busy, and I have to remember Krsna? Sometimes this argument is put forward. But that argument is not strong
- I cannot establish it (right path) by my imperfect arguments. I cannot consult even the scriptures. Neither I can take real instruction from different philosophers. Then what is the way of having the real thing
- I had some argument with my Spiritual Master, and at the end I was defeated. But at that time, because I was already married, I could not take His words very seriously
- I have read with great interest your article especially the one which is named as "CHALAR PATHE." It is not only very amusing but also instructive. Simple dry philosophical arguments will not be appealing now a days to people in general
- I replied Him at that time, who would care for the message of Lord Caitanya while we are a subject nation? In this way, I had some argument with my Spiritual Master, and at the end I was defeated
- 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 one simply adheres to mundane arguments and therefore does not accept this, he will boil in the hell of Kumbhipaka. For him there is no deliverance
- If somebody asks, "Oh, you are so nice girl, why you are passing stool and urine?" is that any argument? I am just speaking on the argument's sake
- If the creation eternally exists, there is no question of dissolution or annihilation. This argument is not very strong because by practical experience we see that material things have a beginning, a middle and an end
- If you argue, "How it (Cow dung) has become pure? It is an animal stool," but the Vedas, because the knowledge is perfect, that even in argument we cannot prove how animal stool becomes pure, but it is pure
- If you change your body, then you forget. But Krsna remembers. That means Krsna does not change His body. That is another argument
- If you go away, people will say against your reputation: 'Oh, Arjuna has become a coward. He has fled away from the fighting.' So it is better to die than to have bad reputation." That is another argument
- If you simply say, 'I do not remember,' I shall take care of the rest. By argument, I shall defeat the young brahmana
- If you want to become pure by your arguments and logic, that is not possible. I may be defeated by another strong man who is stronger in argument than me, so this is not the way of becoming purified
- If you want to reach to the ultimate conclusion simply by arguments and speculation, that is not possible
- Impersonalist Mayavadis, who have no relationship with Krsna, who cannot take to devotional service, and who simply engage in material arguments to understand Brahman, regard devotional service to Krsna as karma-kanda, or fruitive activities
- In 1922 when I (Prabhupada) saw my Guru Maharaja and when I was convinced about his argument and mode of presentation, I was so much struck with wonder. I could understand that "Here is the proper person who can give real religious idea"
- In answer to this argument, Rupa Gosvami says that the followers of Buddha cannot be accepted as devotees
- In order to refute such meaningless arguments (that Srimad-Bhagavatam was not compiled by Sri Vyasadeva), Sri Sridhara Svami points out that there is reference to the Bhagavatam in many of the oldest Puranas
- In order to understand the real meaning of the Vedanta-sutra, I (Lord Caitanya) never followed the explanation of the Sankara-sampradaya or Mayavadi sannyasis. I'm very much afraid of the illogical arguments of the Mayavadi philosophers
- 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 refuting this argument (that material nature produces varieties of manifestations. Thus matter is the cause), we may say that an animal of the same species as the cow - namely, the bull - also eats straw like the cow but does not produce milk
- In reply to this argument (matter produces material things on its own), the same proposition of the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad-that different kinds of living creatures are put into different kinds of bodies by the management of a superior power-is repeated
- In the age of Kali such symptoms (illicit sex, indulgence in meat-eating, intoxication and gambling) are predestined. If so, then why was there preparation for fighting out such symptoms? Such arguments are offered by lazy and unfortunate men
- In the beginning there was void and in the middle it is manifested. Then again it is void. So void to void, where there is lamentation? This is the argument Krsna is giving. Both ways you cannot lament
- In the Mahabharata Udyama-parva it is warned that things which are inconceivable should not be subjected to arguments
- In the Vedic injunction it is said that tarkah apratistha - What should be our real understanding, that we cannot establish simply by arguments
- In this way their arguments appear in various forms, but the poetry of the Bhagavatam expertly refutes them all
- In truth, not whimsically, not sentimentally; with sound philosophy, knowledge, argument, you try to understand Bhagavad-gita as it is, then after giving up this body, undoubtedly you go back to Krsna
- Intelligent persons, avoiding useless argument and speculation, should accept what is stated in scriptures like the Vedas, Gita, and Srimad-Bhagavatam and follow the principles they set down. This will lead one to understanding (God). BG 1972 purports
- Is that any good argument that, "Because we are very good, we shall not pass stool and urine"? Or "Because you are very good, therefore your urine and stool also will be very good"? Is that any argument?
- It is due to the impregnation of the material nature by the supreme father that the living entities are present. Therefore the argument that the individual living entities are not parts and parcels of the Supreme cannot stand
- It is not a question of being Christian, Muslim or Hindu. One should be purely religious and freed from all these material designations. In this way one can learn the art of devotional service. This argument appeals to all intelligent men
K
- Kesava Kasmiri first wanted to bluff Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu by saying that since He was not an advanced student in literary style, He could not review a verse full of metaphors and literary ornaments. This argument has some basis in fact
- 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
- Krama also means 'power,' 'trembling,' 'a systematic method,' 'argument' and 'a forcible attack by stepping forward.' Thus Vamana caused the three worlds to tremble
- Krishna appreciates very much when His devotee becomes attached to Him in this way. Yes, the cooperative spirit of working together without any argument is especially prominent in Mayapur, more than other places in India
- Krsna is everywhere; why not in the temple? What is that argument? He is here also. But according to my capacity I can see temple, Krsna, very easily. So Krsna says, man-mana bhava mad-bhaktah. You come daily to the temple and see Him and think of Him
- Krsna puts forward this argument that before this manifested form of life there was void, and after this manifested life, there will be void, according to the void philosophy. Then where is the cause of lamentation? There is no cause of lamentation
- Krsna said, "Even if you are pauper, you try; you'll get everything." But I thought, "Without money, how this can be done?" That was difference of opinion with Krsna, argument
L
- Let me (mother Yasoda) surrender unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead and offer my obeisances unto Him, who is beyond the conception of human speculation, the mind, activities, words and arguments - SB 10.8.41
- Literature that is a useless waste of time - in other words, literature without spiritual benefit - should be rejected. One should not become a professional teacher as a means of earning one's livelihood, nor should one indulge in arguments
- Lord Krsna nullified this argument (of Nanda Maharaja), saying that the demigods give results only to persons who have executed their prescribed duties
- Lord Siva put forward the argument that even if Sati proposed to go alone, without her husband, still she would not be received well because she was his wife. There was every chance of a catastrophe, even if she wanted to go alone
M
- Materialists sometimes give the argument that as straw eaten by a cow produces milk automatically, so material nature, under different circumstances, produces varieties of manifestations. Thus originally matter is the cause
- Maya may put so many doubts and worthless arguments into our minds, but if we continue the chanting, the curing process will go on
- Mayavadi philosophers who are serious about attaining benediction should engage in the devotional service of Krsna, but instead they take pleasure in useless argument only
- Mistaken thoughts and arguments can overcome a person when he forgets the inconceivable energies of the Supreme Lord. Even in the material world there are many examples
N
- Neither you can understand the real truth simply by going through different scriptures, nor you can understand the real truth simply by your logical force or argument
- No argument that "Such stool is impure. Even my spiritual master's stool is also impure. How is that that animal cow dung is pure?" But because it is in the Vedas it is said pure, you have to accept
- No one can attain the Absolute Truth by argument
- No, argument you can go on, but if you want to know the truth it will not be attained by argument, because argument is also within your thinking power - thinking, feeling, willing
- No, no. That is not the standard, that you do not like somebody, therefore he is not liked by others. That is not very good argument. That is applicable everywhere
- Nonbelievers in the existence of the soul are called atheists by followers of Vedic wisdom. Yet even if for argument's sake we accept the atheistic theory, there is still no cause for lamentation
- Nonbelievers in the existence of the soul are called atheists by followers of Vedic wisdom. Yet even if, for argument's sake, we accept the atheistic theory, there is still no cause for lamentation. BG 1972 purports
O
- O Narada, O great sage, the great thinkers can know Him when completely freed from all material hankerings and when sheltered under undisturbed conditions of the senses. Otherwise, by untenable arguments, all is distorted, and the Lord disappears
- On the strength of this argument, Mayavadi philosophers try to establish that although this cosmic manifestation is certainly an emanation from the Absolute Truth, the cosmic manifestation does not necessarily have truth in it
- 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 has to acquire pure knowledge from the authorized scriptures. So-called speculative arguments about the Absolute Truth are therefore useless
- One may put forward the argument, "If the King's (Citraketu's) son was his enemy, how could the King have so much affection for him?"
- One may put forward the argument, "Why are the demigods worshiped?" The answer is given here that demigods are worshiped by less intelligent men. The demigods themselves accept sacrifices for the ultimate satisfaction of the Supreme Personality of Godhead
- One may put forward the argument, "Why did Dhruva Maharaja take a benediction from a demigod?" The answer is that for a Vaisnava there is no objection to taking a benediction from a demigod if it is favorable for advancing Krsna consciousness
- One philosopher may be a better logician than another, and one philosophical argument may counteract another, but this process goes on and on. It is simply a useless waste of time. Even if we approach Vedic scriptures, there are difficulties
- One should act accordingly (to the injunctions of the Vedas), without argument. That is called following the principles of sastra, or scripture. BG 1972 purports
- 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
- One should not conclude that because He (the Lord) is spread all over He has lost His personal existence. To refute such arguments, the Lord says - I am everywhere, and everything is in Me, but still I am aloof
- One should not fail to hear such arguments (regarding Absolute Truth), for only by such knowledge can one perfectly know Krsna
- One who is properly trained and initiated by a bona fide spiritual master immediately becomes a brahmana. Sometimes those born in brahmana families protest this, but they have no strong arguments against this principle
- One who wants to understand God through philosophy, science, argument, logic, so to supply them material, we have got immense literature, Vedic literature. So one of them is mentioned here, Krsna-sandarbha, what is Krsna
P
- Philosophy is there, direct, you should do like this, that's all. You do it and get the results. You go to purchase something, the price is fixed, you pay the price and take it. Where is argument?
- Prostrating himself at the feet of his readers, the author of Sri Caitanya-caritamrta (Krsnadasa Kaviraja Gosvami) entreats them in all humility to hear with rapt attention these conclusive arguments regarding the Absolute Truth
R
- Real ego is "I am servant of Krsna." So there is no necessity of giving up egotism or egoism, but it must be real. At the present moment we are falsely thinking, "I am this body," every one of us. There is no argument
- Refuted all arguments in the conclusions of "Krishna is the incarnation of Vishnu in the ocean of milk" "Krishna is the incarnation of Vasudeva the first plenary expansion of Narayana in Vaikuntha." "Krishna is the pastimeous Form of Narayana" etc
- Rupa prays to his spiritual master, Sanatana Gosvami, for the protection of Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu - the Ocean of the Pure Nectar of Devotional Service - from the argumentative logicians who unnecessarily meddle in the science of service to the Lord
S
- Sankaracarya gives the example of a rope being mistaken for a snake, and sometimes the example of mistaking an oyster shell for gold is cited, but surely such arguments are ways of cheating
- Sankaracarya wanted to support his impersonalism through the aphorisms of the Vedanta philosophy. Actually, however, he failed to do so because he could not put forward strong arguments
- 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 argument (about Samba's release) was not settled, Balarama showed His power in such a way that all of Hastinapura trembled and would have been vanquished as if by a great earthquake
- Siva kindly describes the details of the Lord's bodily features. Thus the impersonalists' argument that the Lord has no form cannot be accepted under any circumstance
- Some misled people put forward the argument that since Caitanya appeared as Radha and Krsna combined, there is no necessity of worshiping Radha & Krsna. Such differentiation by so-called devotees of Lord Caitanya is considered disruptive by pure devotees
- 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
- Sometimes the Mayavadi philosophers push forward the argument that if this material world is truth, then why are householders advised to give up their connection with this material world and take sannyasa
- Sometimes they put forward this argument that "You are also eating vegetables. They have got life. Why you object that nonvegetarians who are eating four legged animals...?"
- Sometimes we refer to the Vedanti philosophers as Vidantis, those who have no teeth. The statements of the Sankara philosophy, which are the teeth of the Mayavadi philosopher, are always broken by the strong arguments of Vaisnava philosophers
- Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu continued, “‘Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a great sage'"
- Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu thus posed Himself as a disciple and accepted Brahmananda Bharati as His spiritual master. He then said, "The disciple is certainly defeated in an argument with the spiritual master"
- Srila Rupa Gosvami has refuted this argument about the hair incarnation, and his refutation is supported by Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s commentaries
- Sripada Ramanujacarya has refuted the arguments of Sankara in his own commentary on the Vedanta-sutra, which is known as the Sri-bhasya
- Such philosophers (impersonalists) push forward the argument that although cow dung is dead matter, sometimes it is found that scorpions come out of cow dung. Similarly, dead matter like nails and hair comes out of the living body
- Supporting one's argument with evidence that also supports the opposing side is called jalpa. Merely trying to defeat one's opponent is called vitanda
T
- Take Krsna consciousness diligently, put your arguments, logic, understanding, and you will find it is sublime. That is the basic principle of my movement
- Tapana Misra and Candrasekhara are understood to be kanistha-adhikaris because they could not refute the arguments of the sannyasis in Benares. They appealed to Caitanya to take action, for they felt that they could not tolerate such criticism
- That is the process of Vedic injunction: you have to accept without argument. Just like for practical life I will say some examples, that cow dung. In India cow dung is accepted as very pure
- 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
- The activities of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu are undoubtedly uncommon, especially His talking like a madman. Therefore, one who hears of these pastimes should not put forward mundane arguments. He should simply hear the pastimes with full faith
- The answer to that argument is that Sati was not vilifying but defending. If possible she should have cut out Daksa's tongue because he blasphemed Lord Siva
- The argument may be put forward, How can something the size of a thumb be accommodated within the heart of an ant? The answer is that this thumb measurement of the Supersoul is imagined in proportion to the body of the living entity
- The argument of the atheist that one cannot be punished for one's misdeeds unless proved before a qualified justice is refuted herein (SB 1.17.20), for we accept the perpetual witness and constant companion of the living being
- The argument offered by Sati is that a person who vilifies a great personality is the lowest of all creatures
- The argument that the scorpion comes from cow dung, meaning that a living entity comes from matter, is also unsound
- The argument that unless one has proper knowledge one cannot be freed from material miseries is undoubtedly true. But because the lotus feet of the Lord are full of transcendental knowledge, acceptance of His lotus feet completes that necessity
- The argument will go on. You put some argument; I put some argument. That is not the process. Srutayo vibhinna. Scriptures, in different countries, different circumstances, different scriptures, they're also different
- The atheistic Sankhyaite philosophers will of course offer their arguments that the material cosmic manifestation is due to prakrti and purusa - material nature and the living entity, or the material cause and the effective cause
- The author requests every reader to hear these talks with faith and without argument. By studying them in this way, one will be able to understand the confidential truth of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu
- The Bhagavad-gita says that out of many thousands of human beings, one may try to make perfection of his life. Man is an animal, but he has one special prerogative, rational thought. What is that rational thought? Reasoning power, argument
- The Bhagavatam says: dharmam hi saksad-bhagavat-pranitam - the path of religion is directly enunciated by the Lord. Therefore, mental speculation or dry arguments cannot help one progress in spiritual life. BG 1972 purports
- The body of a child is like a tumor, and if a tumor is operated upon and thrown away, no sin is involved. The same argument could be put forward in regard to the King and his queens
- The brahmanas in India are sometimes very much against my movement because I train and accept brahmanas from Europe and America. But we do not care about their arguments, nor will any other reasonable man
- The Buddhist philosophy depends on argument, but there can be no argument if one simply depends on "I am." There must be a "you," or another person also
- The Buddhist theory that the intelligence or consciousness takes place at a certain point of material mixture... But that may be an argument, but actually it is not a fact
- The Buddhists contend that at a certain stage the combination of matter produces consciousness, but this argument is refuted by the fact that although we may have all the constituents of matter at our disposal, we cannot produce consciousness from them
- The Buddhists maintain that the principle "I am" is the ultimate truth, but this excludes the individuality of "I" and "you." If there is no "I" and "you," or individuality, there is no possibility of argument
- The conception of the Paramatma is an invincible answer to these fallacious arguments - if death is complete forgetfulness, why should a person be punished for his past misdeeds
- The devotee in the first or uppermost class is described as follows. He is very expert in the study of relevant scriptures, and he is also expert in putting forward arguments in terms of those scriptures
- The dvija-bandhu, or the less intelligent, uncultured men born of higher castes, put forward many arguments against the lower-caste men becoming brahmanas in this life
- The example given by the Mayavadi philosophers that inanimate matter like nails and hair comes from the living body is not a very sound argument. Nails and hair are undoubtedly inanimate, but they come not from the animate living being
- The froggish philosophers who put forward the argument that the Supreme Lord is overpowered by the material mode of goodness are themselves illusioned by the same material energy, although they think of themselves as liberated souls
- The general argument of the common man is that since the Lord is not visible to our eyes, how can one either surrender unto Him or render transcendental loving service unto Him
- 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 inductive process is that, "Why shall I accept man is mortal? I may not have seen a person who is immortal." So that argument can be given
- 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 may argue that the individuality spoken of by Krsna is not spiritual, but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Krsna's individuality? BG 1972 purports
- The Mayavadi philosopher says that "I am God, but I have forgotten myself, that I am God." So how God can forget? Here it is the evidence. How God can forget? If you forget, then you are not God, immediately. There is no other argument
- The Mayavadi philosopher sometimes puts forward the argument of the snake and the rope. In the dark of evening, a curled-up rope is sometimes, due to ignorance, taken for a snake
- The Mayavadi philosophers have presented their arguments in such attractive, flowery language that hearing Mayavada philosophy may sometimes change the mind of even a maha-bhagavata, or very advanced devotee
- The natural inclination to devotional service is also based on scriptural injunction, and one who has attachment for such devotional service is not required to give it up simply on the strength of scriptural argument
- The neophyte's faith can be changed by someone else with strong arguments or by an opposite decision
- The order of the father or the order of the spiritual master must be carried out without hesitation, with an immediate yes. There should be no argument. That is real service to the father and to the spiritual master
- The original point is that tarko apratisthah. We cannot realize the Supreme Truth simply by argument or logical presentation or philosophical speculation. No
- The other conclusion, of course, is that this cosmic manifestation is caused by an inexplicable unmanifested void. This argument is meaningless
- The personified Vedas continued, "The view of the personalists is that the material world, although very temporary, is nevertheless not false but factual. Such transcendentalists have different arguments to establish the validity of their philosophies"
- The philosophy of the Buddha, the argumentative presentations of the jnanis, the yoga systems of Patanjali and Gautama, and the systems of philosophers like Kanada, Kapila and Dattatreya are dangerous creatures in the ocean of nescience
- The process is that we must approach to a perfect person and take his instruction as it is. Then our knowledge is perfect. Without any argument. We accept Vedic knowledge like that
- The Puranas accepted by the Vaisnavas are also considered Vedic evidence. Indeed, whatever is contained in that literature should be taken without argument as the ultimate conclusion
- The purport of this description is that the second-class devotee has firm faith in the procedure of devotional service unto Krsna, but he may sometimes fail to offer arguments and decisions on the strength of revealed scripture to an opposing party
- The qualification of a spiritual master is that he must have realized the conclusion of the scriptures by deliberation and arguments and thus be able to convince others of these conclusions
- The question, does Lord Rama or Lord Caitanya forget, is like saying, does God come under Maya, or forgetfulness. You must fully understand this before you can successfully debate with the Mayavad arguments
- The rope-and-the-snake argument is generally offered by the Mayavadi philosophers. These words, which represent vivarta-vada, are specifically mentioned herein - in SB 4.22.38
- The scriptures of the Buddhist cult are chiefly based on argument and logic, and they contain nine chief principles. Because Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu defeated the Buddhists in their argument, they could not establish their cult
- The Skanda Purana confirms, acintyah khalu ye bhava na tams tarkena yojayet: Matters inconceivable to a common man should not be a subject for argument
- The statements of the Sankara philosophy, which are the teeth of the Mayavadi philosopher, are always broken by the strong arguments of Vaisnava philosophers such as the great acaryas, especially Ramanujacarya
- The thirty-three vyabhicari-bhavas, bodily symptoms manifest in ecstatic love, are as follows: (18) vrida, shame; (19) avahittha, concealment; (20) smrti, remembrance; (21) vitarka, argument and (22) cinta, contemplation
- The ultimate goal of Visnu can be attained only by this chant and by devotional service, and not by mental speculation or argument. BG 1972 purports
- The Vedic literatures indicate that you have to follow the footprints of great personalities, devotees. Tarko apratisthah. If you want to understand the Absolute Truth by your argument and logic, oh, it is not possible
- The whole idea is that we are in this material world. That is miserable. Under the spell of illusion, we are thinking we are very happy. They do not know what is actually happiness. What is happiness? But there is no argument for these rascals
- The word vitanda indicates that a debater, not touching the main point or establishing his own point, simply tries to refute the other person's argument
- Their argument is that prakrti-purusa. Just like young man, young woman meets by chance, and the woman becomes pregnant. So this pregnancy is by chance. That is the argument, is it not?
- Then another person, who may be a greater logician, will nullify these conclusions and establish another thesis. In this way the path of argument will never be safe or conclusive
- There are also some thinkers who believe that no one can ascertain the cause of distress by argumentation, nor know it by imagination, nor express it by words. O sage amongst kings, judge for yourself by thinking over all this with your own intelligence
- There are many arguments about the existence of this material world, but the Vaisnava philosophical conclusion is the best
- There are many mistakes and illusions in your scriptures. Their compilers, not knowing the essence of knowledge, gave orders that were against reason and argument
- There are so many religions, Buddhist religion, so many. So there may be some difference of opinion. Srutayor vibhinna. Vibhinna means different. Now, you cannot realize the Absolute Truth simply by your mundane arguments and by your logical strength
- There are some less intelligent arguments that matter develops the power of seeing and moving as a certain organic development, but such an argument cannot be accepted
- There are still two I's, even accepting the argument of the impersonalist. But we must note carefully that these two I's are accepted in the Vedic literature (Kathopanisad) in the sense of quality
- There are three ways of dealing with such insults. If someone is heard blaspheming by words, one should be so expert that he can defeat the opposing party by argument
- There was arguing and fighting between the two brahmanas, and they came before me (King Nrga) and charged that I had taken back a cow I had previously given in charity
- These arguments (that God cannot incarnate Himself or that He has to accept a material body) are nullified if we accept the existence of the Lord's inconceivable potencies
- These talks (between Ramananda Raya and Sri Caitanya in the chapter 8 of CC Madhya) cannot be understood by whimsical people. Transcendental topics remain far, far away from those engaged in mundane arguments
- They (the Karma-mimamsa philosophers) put forward the argument that if anyone works nicely, the result is sure to come
- They (the lowest class of men (adhama)) give the argument of ghatakasa-patakasa, in which the body is compared to a pot with the sky within and the sky without
- They put argument that "You are vegetarian, and you are also killing vegetable life." Of course, we are killing. But we are not killing vegetables. First of all, vegetables are not killed. If I take a fruit from the tree, the tree is not killed
- They support their arguments by a false and laborious jugglery of words, which is a gift of the same illusory energy of the Lord. But the poor froggish philosophers, due to a false sense of knowledge, cannot understand the situation
- Things which are beyond our conception, that cannot be established simply by argument, logic, so-called science and philosophy, that is not possible
- Things which are inconceivable, do not try to understand by argument. Acintyah khalu ye bhava na tams tarkena yojayet. So our process, this Krsna consciousness movement, is to take knowledge from the authority
- This (CC Madhya 9.195) is the process of spiritual understanding. Acintya khalu ye bhava na tams tarkena yojayet - We should not try to understand things beyond our material conception by argument and counterargument
- This argument (that bodily desginations like pain and pleasure are felt by the soul) put forward by Maharaja Rahugana is correct from the practical point of view, but it arises from an attachment to the bodily conception
- This is an instance of an argumentative suggestion in ecstatic love
- This is the argument. You are so rascal that you cannot admit your rascaldom. Just like this moon planet expedition. But I, sixteen years before, I told that these are rascals. Therefore I am right
- This is the astra. By argument, by philosophy, by entreating, by flattering, Lord Caitanya's associates are giving Krsna consciousness
- 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 is very nice argument, that in the jungle there are carnivorous animals, but they don't maintain slaughterhouse. Neither they attack unless they are hungry
- This KC, it is not a blind faith, it is based on reason, it is based on argument, it is based on philosophy, it is based on authority. So the faith required. If I purposely draw my faith without any reason, without any philosophy, then I am unfortunate
- Those who advocate acceptance of this material world as false are generally known by the maxim brahma satyam jagan mithya. They put forward the argument that everything in the material world is prepared from matter
- Those who are preachers in ISKCON will certainly meet many people who believe in intellectual arguments. Most of these people do not believe in the authority of the Vedas. Nevertheless, they accept intellectual speculation and argument
- To become disciple means no more argument. When we talk friendly there is argument, counterargument. But when there is order from guru there is no more argument
- To support this statement there are many authoritative assertions by the learned scholars of bygone ages. According to their general opinion, a person may become governed by certain convictions derived by his own arguments and decisions
V
- Vedic instructions and sensible arguments establish that the Lord’s maintaining the cosmic manifestation and simultaneously being indifferent to the activities of its maintenance cannot be contradictory, because of His inconceivable energies
- 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
- Vidura is hearing the great sage Maitreya refute these arguments (that the Lord and the living entities are on the same level). The Lord is described in this verse (SB 3.7.2) as cin-matra, or completely spiritual
W
- We cannot have the knowledge of the Absolute Truth simply by argument or simply by philosophy or simply by big brain or speaking power. No, no. All these things will not do. Simply we have to follow the great authority
- We have not the slightest intention of confronting a world-famous philosopher like Dr. Radhakrishnan with arguments, yet on the brahmacari's repeated request we have to scrutinize the text and point out the discrepancies
- We have to see through the authorized books the description which is beyond our perception. Acintyah khalu ye bhava na tams tarkena yojayet (Mahabharata, Bhisma-parva 5.22). Tarkena, by argument, which is beyond your sense perception. So many things
- We may be imperfect, but Krsna is perfect. Therefore, whatever Krsna says, if we accept it and if we . . . Not accept blindly, but you can employ your logic and argument and try to understand, then your knowledge is perfect
- We say that the words of sastra should be taken as they are, without change, since they are beyond our arguments
- What did you go to take shelter of another? That means you condemned Vaisnavism that is not good of you. The same thing because one man is bad as soon as I condemned Christianism you're argument is bad
- Whatever arguments he put forward, the Lord refuted them all. Finally the person became stunned and could not speak
- When an advanced devotee comes to the point of eternal love for Krsna, no one can deviate him from that position, neither by argument nor by sastric evidence
- When Arjuna was little disturbed... Because this battle was arranged between two parties of cousin-brothers... And when Arjuna saw the other party, all his relatives, family members, so he hesitated to fight, and there was some argument
- When Lord Balarama came to rescue him (Samba), there was an argument about Samba's release
- When one does not touch the direct meaning but tries to divert attention by misinterpretation, he engages in chala. The word nigraha also means always trying to refute the arguments of the other party
- When that person tried to establish the impersonal Brahman conception of the Absolute Truth on the basis of the Koran, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu refuted his argument
- When the cult of Caitanya is spread all over the world, should those who embrace it not be accepted as Vaisnavas, brahmanas & sannyasis? These foolish arguments are sometimes raised by envious rascals, but Krsna conscious devotees do not care about them
- When the Muslims support their position with quotations from the Koran, their arguments are also authorized
- When the pot breaks, the sky inside becomes one with the sky outside, and so the impersonalists say that the living being becomes one with God. This is their argument, but Madhvacarya says that such an argument is put forward by the lowest class of men
- When there are no other arguments, he (the person that disobediently agitates against the government) is punished. In logic, this is called argumentum ad baculum
- Whenever there is an argument between a devotee and a nondevotee, the pure, strong devotee comes out victorious. The word pandya comes from the word panda, meaning "knowledge." Unless one is highly learned, he cannot conquer nondevotional conceptions
- Why they should accept Bhagavata? We are not accepting Bible, so why they should accept Bhagavata? That is no argument. You must present the Vedic knowledge in such a way that they will be obliged to accept: "Yes, it is right."
- 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
- Without brain, without creative power, how there can be creation? Where is your argument? No. That is not. These are false arguments. Therefore Vyasadeva gives you information that He (Krsna) is sentient, in full knowledge
- Would Krsna ever attack His own grandfather, Ugrasena, or His teacher, Sandipani Muni? These were some of the arguments by Arjuna to Krsna. BG 1972 purports
Y
- Yes, you may take up such debate, but not any quarrel or argument should take place. It is good to have such debate, and to know the various arguments which the Mayavad philosophers put forth, and to know how to fully defeat each one
- Yet one should not conclude that because He is spread all over He has lost His personal existence. To refute such argument the Lord says, "I am everywhere, and everything is in Me, but still I am aloof." BG 1972 purports
- You apply your arguments and you will find, "Yes. I was a child." So that body is no longer existing; I am existing. Therefore the conclusion is, we must conclude logically, that body may be finished but I will exist. That is the eternality of the soul
- You are going to preach; you must understand. Discuss everything very nicely. Be convinced on your own argument and philosophy. Then you can preach
- You are scientist, devotee, and ksatriya. As ksatriya you'll force: (laughing) "You must believe this, or I will kill you." (laughter) And as scientist, the convincing argument... And as devotee, Krsna will help you. That's all
- 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 cannot expect any good argument from the rascals and fools. Where is the logic? Their logic is to beat them with shoes
- You cannot realize the Absolute Truth simply by your mundane arguments and by your logical strength, neither you can catch up the right thing by reading different scriptures
- You cannot say: "Why the government has made me uneducated?" Government is giving facility to everyone, "Come on." And is that argument, "Why government has made me criminal?" You have made yourself criminal
- You cannot understand transcendental subject matter simply by dry speculation and argument. You cannot understand. Neither by reading Vedic literature. The conclusion is that you have to follow those who are authorities
- You have killed the demons and Your enemy, and why You are inducing me to kill my guru and my grandfather?" This is his argument. - They, my grandfather, my teacher, may chastise me, but how I can pierce with arrows their body?
- Your service is to Krsna, so it is not expected that everyone should be induced by your argument. You cannot expect. One day, two day, but we have to do our work. That's all