Endeavors of the acaryas: Difference between revisions
Visnu Murti (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
SharmisthaK (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div id="compilation"> | |||
<div id="facts"> | |||
{{terms|"endeavors of the acaryas"}} | {{terms|"endeavors of the acaryas"}} | ||
| Line 19: | Line 21: | ||
[[Category:Endeavor]] | [[Category:Endeavor]] | ||
[[Category:Acarya]] | [[Category:Acarya - Devotees of God]] | ||
</div> | |||
== Srimad-Bhagavatam = | <div class="section" id="Srimad-Bhagavatam" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam"><h2>Srimad-Bhagavatam</h2></div> | ||
=== SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13 | <div class="sub_section" id="SB_Canto_10.1_to_10.13" text="SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13"><h3>SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13</h3></div> | ||
<div class="quote" book="SB" link="SB 10.2.35" link_text="SB 10.2.35, Purport"> | |||
<div class="heading">Even big academic scholars, not considering the endeavors of the ācāryas who have recommended devotional service in many elaborate commentaries and notes, think that Kṛṣṇa is fictitious</div> | |||
< | <div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:SB 10.2.35|SB 10.2.35, Purport]]:''' Because foolish mudhas do not awaken their spiritual nature, they do not understand Krsna or Rama (avajananti mam mudha manusim tanum asritam [Bg. 9.11]). Even big academic scholars, not considering the endeavors of the acaryas who have recommended devotional service in many elaborate commentaries and notes, think that Krsna is fictitious. This is due to a lack of transcendental knowledge and a failure to awaken Krsna consciousness. One should have the common sense to ask why, if Krsna or Rama were fictitious, stalwart scholars like Sridhara Svami, Rupa Gosvami, Sanatana Gosvami, Viraraghava, Vijayadhvaja, Vallabhacarya and many other recognized acaryas would have spent so much time to write about Krsna in notes and commentaries on Srimad-Bhagavatam.</div> | ||
</div> | |||
</div> | |||
Latest revision as of 09:26, 17 April 2020
Srimad-Bhagavatam
SB Canto 10.1 to 10.13
Even big academic scholars, not considering the endeavors of the ācāryas who have recommended devotional service in many elaborate commentaries and notes, think that Kṛṣṇa is fictitious
SB 10.2.35, Purport: Because foolish mudhas do not awaken their spiritual nature, they do not understand Krsna or Rama (avajananti mam mudha manusim tanum asritam [Bg. 9.11]). Even big academic scholars, not considering the endeavors of the acaryas who have recommended devotional service in many elaborate commentaries and notes, think that Krsna is fictitious. This is due to a lack of transcendental knowledge and a failure to awaken Krsna consciousness. One should have the common sense to ask why, if Krsna or Rama were fictitious, stalwart scholars like Sridhara Svami, Rupa Gosvami, Sanatana Gosvami, Viraraghava, Vijayadhvaja, Vallabhacarya and many other recognized acaryas would have spent so much time to write about Krsna in notes and commentaries on Srimad-Bhagavatam.