Refute: Difference between revisions
Visnu Murti (talk | contribs) (New page: refutation | refutations | refute | refuted | refutes | refuting) |
(Pywikibot v.2) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
refutation | refutations | refute | refuted | refutes | refuting | refutation | refutations | refute | refuted | refutes | refuting | ||
[[Category:Disprove]] | |||
[[Category:Real, False, and Truth - Umbrella Category]] | |||
[[Category:All Categories - Vaniquotes]] | |||
Latest revision as of 17:45, 6 July 2017
refutation | refutations | refute | refuted | refutes | refuting
Pages in category "Refute"
The following 62 pages are in this category, out of 62 total.
1
A
- 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
- An intelligent opponent will present reasonable rebuttals, but an ignorant friend may bring about disaster with his floundering
- Astikyam means faith in God, faith in scripture. That is called astikyam. According to Vedic version, astikyam means faith in the Vedas. Nobody can refute the Vedas. That is called faith: no argument
- Asuric tendency means to refute the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All the asuras... Just like Ravana. Ravana is described as raksasa, asura. What was his fault? His fault was that he did not care for Rama
B
- Being envious of the scriptures and the SP of Godhead, he (a demoniac person) puts forward false arguments against the existence of God and refutes the scriptural authority. He thinks himself independant and powerful in every action. BG 1972 purports
- 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 various hints and refutations, Lord Caitanya, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, corrected Vallabha Bhatta exactly as Krsna had cut down the false pride of Indra
F
- Foolish propaganda by atheists that temples were constructed only in later days is refuted here (in SB 3.1.23) because Vidura visited these temples at least five thousand years ago, & the temples of Visnu were in existence long before Vidura visited them
- 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
I
- If one accepts the existence of God, one certainly cannot establish the theory of monism. For this reason Sankaracarya refuted all kinds of Vedic literature that establishes the supremacy of the Personality of Godhead
- If one accepts the Personality of Godhead, the philosophy that maintains that God and the living entity are one cannot be established. Therefore Sankaracarya argued against and refuted all kinds of revealed scriptures
- In my commentary on Srimad-Bhagavatam, he said, "I have refuted the explanations of Sridhara Svami. I cannot accept his explanations"
- 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 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 the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krsna refutes the atheist Kapila's Sankhya philosophy and its contention that the unmanifested soul is nonexistent. In the Gita (7.4) Krsna also establishes that the material ingredients are all under His control and supervision
- In the Koran there are descriptions of fruitive activity, speculative knowledge, mystic power and union with the Supreme, but ultimately all this is refuted and the Lord's personal feature established, along with His devotional service
- In the Laghu-bhagavatamrta Srila Rupa Gosvami has refuted the idea that Krsna is an incarnation of Narayana
- In the second chapter of the Vedanta-sutra’s second khanda, Acarya Vedavyasa has refuted the conception that the living beings were ever born (natma sruter nityatvac ca tabhyah). Because there is no creation for the living entities, they must be eternal
- In this way their arguments appear in various forms, but the poetry of the Bhagavatam expertly refutes them all
- In Vaikuntha there is no difference between the tree and the animal or the animal and the man. Here the word murtimat indicates that everything has a spiritual form. Formlessness, as conceived by the impersonalists, is refuted in this verse
- In various ways, Sankaracarya has tried to refute the Vedic literature
- It is a defect of Mayavada commentaries that they make one statement in one place and a contradictory statement in another place as a tactic to refute the Bhagavata school
- It is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita that the actual knowledge of the conditioned soul is now covered by nescience. Thus the theory that a living being is absolute impersonal Brahman is refuted herein
- It is typical of mundane philosophers to want to establish their own opinions and refute those of others
M
- Malicious editors and scholars who attempt to misrepresent the Pancaratra-sastras to refute their regulations are most abominable
- Mayavadi commentators make one statement in one place and a contradictory statement in another place as a tactic to refute the Bhagavata school. Thus Mayavadi commentators do not even follow regulative principles
O
- Of the philosophers mentioned, none really cares for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the cause of all causes. They are always busy refuting the philosophical theories of others and establishing their own
- 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
- Other section number C, in which you have mentioned that there is no American to conduct this service, may be refuted on the ground that I have got so many American disciples, and why they will not conduct; so this position is not very sound in my opinion
- Our so-called religion is unique in the world, simply because we stand solidly on philosophy, and because we are strong in that way, no one can refute or defeat us, so we are wiping out sentimental religion wherever we penetrate
S
- Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha have all the potent features of the absolute Personality of Godhead, according to the revealed scriptures, which contain undeniable facts that no one can refute
- Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, "The Koran certainly establishes impersonalism, but at the end it refutes that impersonalism and establishes the personal God"
- Srila Rupa Gosvami has refuted the charges directed against the devotees by Sripada Sankaracarya regarding their explanation of the quadruple forms Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha
- 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
T
- 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
- 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 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 five philosophers mentioned above (in purport to CC Madhya 25.56) do not accept Lord Visnu as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but they are very busy refuting the philosophies of other schools
- The impersonal feature stressed by the less intelligent impersonalist school is refuted by pointing out that the predominator "I" is the Absolute Truth and that He is a person. The predominated "I," Brahma, is also a person, but he is not the Absolute
- The impersonal interpretation of the mundane wranglers is completely refuted in this verse because it is clearly stated here that the Supreme Lord has His qualities, form, pastimes and everything that a person has
- The impersonalist's explanation of the word aham in the four verses of the original Bhagavatam - aham evasam evagre etc. - is refuted here (in SB 3.7.37). The Lord and His eternal associates remain after the dissolution
- The Mayavadis are confused as to whether refuting the existence of consciousness or accepting it will give them contentment
- The modern scientist shares this view that the material nature is the ultimate cause of all the manifestations of the material world. This view is refuted by all Vedic literature
- The philosophy of monism is an adjustment of the Buddhist philosophy of voidism. In a mock fight with Sri Advaita Acarya, Sri Nityananda Prabhu was refuting this type of monistic philosophy
- The Supreme Brahman is beyond mental speculation, He is self-manifest, existing in His own bliss, and He is beyond the material energy. He is known by the crest jewels of the Vedas by refutation of irrelevant knowledge - SB 10.13.57
- The truth is that only those who have been blessed by the Lord can fathom the spiritual science dealing with God. Dr. Radhakrishnan's book irrefutably proves this
- 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
- There are persons who advocate accepting any process and who say that whatever process one accepts will lead to the same goal, but that is refuted in this verse - SB 10.2.32
- This is refuted in this sloka by Srila Vyasadeva: "Since the complete whole or the Absolute Truth is the source of everything, nothing can be independent of the body of the Absolute Truth"
W
- Whatever conclusions Vallabha Bhatta eagerly presented were refuted by personalities like Advaita Acarya
- 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