Contradiction (CC and Other Books)

Expressions researched:
"contradict" |"contradicted" |"contradicting" |"contradiction" |"contradiction's" |"contradictions" |"contradictory" |"contradicts"

CC Adi-lila

CC Adi 2.87, Translation:

"You say something contradictory and become angry when this is pointed out. Your explanation has the defect of a misplaced predicate. This is an unconsidered adjustment."

CC Adi 2.112, Purport:

It is not contradictory for a devotee to call the Supreme Lord by any one of the various names of His plenary expansions, because the original Personality of Godhead includes all such categories. Since the plenary expansions exist within the original person, one may call Him by any of these names. In Śrī Caitanya-bhāgavata (CB Madhya-khaṇḍa 6.95) Lord Caitanya says, "I was lying asleep in the ocean of milk, but I was awakened by the call of Nāḍā, Śrī Advaita Prabhu." Here the Lord refers to His form as Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu.

CC Adi 3.73, Purport:

The word pāṣaṇḍa is very significant here. One who compares the Supreme Personality of Godhead to the demigods is known as a pāṣaṇḍa. Pāṣaṇḍas try to bring the Supreme Lord down to a mundane level. Sometimes they create their own imaginary God or accept an ordinary person as God and advertise him as equal to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. They are so foolish that they present someone as the next incarnation of Lord Caitanya or Kṛṣṇa although his activities are all contradictory to those of a genuine incarnation, and thus they fool the innocent public. One who is intelligent and who studies the characteristics of the Supreme Personality of Godhead with reference to the Vedic context cannot be bewildered by the pāṣaṇḍas.

CC Adi 4.127, Translation:

"Just as I am the abode of all mutually contradictory characteristics, so Rādhā’s love is always full of similar contradictions."

CC Adi 4.188, Translation:

The gopīs have no inclination for their own enjoyment, and yet their joy increases. That is indeed a contradiction.

CC Adi 4.189, Translation:

For this contradiction I see only one solution: the joy of the gopīs lies in the joy of their beloved Kṛṣṇa.

CC Adi 4.249, Translation:

"In this way My affectionate feelings for Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī may be understood, but on analysis I find them contradictory."

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

Śaṅkarācārya also says (sūtra 44) that he cannot accept the devotees' idea that Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha are equally as powerful as the absolute Personality of Godhead, full in the six opulences of knowledge, wealth, strength, fame, beauty and renunciation, and free from the flaw of generation at a certain point. Even if They are full expansions, the flaw of generation remains. Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha, being distinct individual persons, cannot be one. Therefore if They are accepted as absolute, full and equal, there would have to be many Personalities of Godhead. But there is no need to accept that there are many Personalities of Godhead, because acceptance of one omnipotent God is sufficient for all purposes. The acceptance of more than one God is contradictory to the conclusion that Lord Vāsudeva, the absolute Personality of Godhead, is one without a second.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

"The Lord is personal although impersonal, He is atomic although great, and He is blackish and has red eyes although He is colorless." By material calculation all this may appear contradictory, but if we understand that the Supreme Personality of Godhead has inconceivable potencies, we can accept these facts as eternally possible in Him. In our present condition we cannot understand the spiritual activities and how they occur, but although they are inconceivable in the material context, we should not disregard such contradictory conceptions.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

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

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

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

Ignorance and the jugglery of words are very common in human society, but they do not help one understand the inconceivable energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If we accept such ignorance and word jugglery, we cannot accept the Supreme Lord's perfection in six opulences. For example, one of the opulences of the Supreme Lord is complete knowledge. Therefore, how could ignorance be conceivable in Him? 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. To a person who is always absorbed in the thought of snakes, a rope always appears to be a snake, and similarly to a person bewildered by material qualities and devoid of knowledge of the Absolute, the Supreme Personality of Godhead appears according to diverse bewildered conclusions.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

"Although the Supreme Personality of Godhead has nothing to do, He nevertheless acts; although He is always unborn, He nevertheless takes birth; although He is time, fearful to everyone, He flees Mathurā in fear of His enemy to take shelter in a fort; and although He is self-sufficient, He marries 16,000 women. These pastimes seem like bewildering contradictions, even to the most intelligent." Had these activities of the Lord not been a reality, sages would not have been puzzled by them. Therefore such activities should never be considered imaginary. Whenever the Lord desires, His inconceivable energy (yogamāyā) serves Him in creating and performing such pastimes.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

In reply to the commentary of Śaṅkarācārya on the forty-fourth aphorism, it may be said that no pure devotees strictly following the principles of the Pañcarātra will ever accept the statement that all the expansions of Viṣṇu are different identities, for this idea is completely false. Even Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya, in his commentary on the forty-second aphorism, has accepted that the Personality of Godhead can automatically expand Himself variously. Therefore his commentary on the forty-second aphorism and his commentary on the forty-fourth aphorism are contradictory. It is a defect of Māyāvāda commentaries that they make one statement in one place and a contradictory statement in another place as a tactic to refute the Bhāgavata school. Thus Māyāvādī commentators do not even follow regulative principles.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

Śrīpāda Rāmānujācārya has also refuted the arguments of Śaṅkara in his own commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra, which is known as the Śrī-bhāṣya: “Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya has tried to equate the Pañcarātras with the philosophy of the atheist Kapila, and thus he has tried to prove that the Pañcarātras contradict the Vedic injunctions. The Pañcarātras state that the personality of jīva called Saṅkarṣaṇa has emerged from Vāsudeva, the supreme cause of all causes, that Pradyumna, the mind, has come from Saṅkarṣaṇa, and that Aniruddha, the ego, has come from Pradyumna. But one cannot say that the living entity (jīva) takes birth or is created, for such a statement is against the injunction of the Vedas. As stated in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad (2.18), living entities, as individual spiritual souls, can have neither birth nor death. All Vedic literature declares that the living entities are eternal. Therefore when it is said that Saṅkarṣaṇa is jīva, this indicates that He is the predominating Deity of the living entities. Similarly, Pradyumna is the predominating Deity of the mind, and Aniruddha is the predominating Deity of the ego.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

"Saṅkarṣaṇa, 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. Therefore these members of the quadruple manifestation are never to be considered ordinary living beings. Each of Them is a plenary expansion of the Absolute Godhead, and thus each is identical with the Supreme Lord in knowledge, opulence, energy, influence, prowess and potencies. The evidence of the Pañcarātras cannot be neglected. Only untrained persons who have not genuinely studied the Pañcarātras think that the Pañcarātras contradict the śrutis regarding the birth or beginning of the living entity."

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

It is to be accepted that Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha are as good as Lord Vāsudeva, for They all have inconceivable power and can accept transcendental forms like Vāsudeva. Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha are never born, but They can manifest Themselves in various incarnations before the eyes of pure devotees. This is the conclusion of all Vedic literature. That the Lord can manifest Himself before His devotees by His inconceivable power is not against the teaching of the Pañcarātras. Since Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha are, respectively, the predominating Deities of all living entities, the total mind and the total ego, the designation of Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha as "jīva," "mind" and "ego" is never contradictory to the statements of the scriptures. These terms identify these Deities, just as the terms "sky" and "light" sometimes identify the Absolute Brahman.

CC Adi 6.14-15, Purport:

"If one tries to nullify the conclusions of the Vedas by accepting an unauthorized scripture or so-called scripture, it will be very hard for him to come to the right conclusion about the Absolute Truth. The system for adjusting two contradictory scriptures is to refer to the Vedas, for references from the Vedas are accepted as final judgments. When we refer to a particular scripture, it must be authorized, and for this authority it must strictly follow the Vedic injunctions. If someone presents an alternative doctrine he himself has manufactured, that doctrine will prove itself useless, for any doctrine that tries to prove that Vedic evidence is meaningless immediately proves itself meaningless."

CC Adi 12.35, Purport:

To describe a man as an incarnation of God, or Nārāyaṇa, and at the same time present him as poverty-stricken is contradictory, and it is the greatest offense. The Māyāvādī philosophers, engaged in the missionary work of spoiling the Vedic culture by preaching that everyone is God, describe a poverty-stricken man as daridra-nārāyaṇa, or "poor Nārāyaṇa." Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu never accepted such foolish and unauthorized ideas. He strictly warned, māyāvādi-bhāṣya śunile haya sarva-nāśa: (CC Madhya 6.169) "Anyone who follows the principles of Māyāvāda philosophy is certainly doomed." Such a fool needs to be reformed by punishment.

Although it is contradictory to say that the Supreme Personality of Godhead or His incarnation is poverty-stricken, we find in the revealed scriptures that when the Lord incarnated as Vāmana, He begged some land from Mahārāja Bali.

CC Adi 12.49, Purport:

Kamalākānta Viśvāsa, out of his ignorance, asked the King of Jagannātha Purī, Mahārāja Pratāparudra, to liquidate the three-hundred-rupee debt of Advaita Ācārya, but at the same time he established Advaita Ācārya as an incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This is contradictory. An incarnation of the Supreme Godhead cannot be indebted to anyone in this material world. Caitanya Mahāprabhu is never satisfied by such a contradiction, which is technically called rasābhāsa, or overlapping of one humor (rasa) with another. This is the same type of idea as the contradiction that Nārāyaṇa is poverty-stricken (daridra-nārāyaṇa).

CC Adi 15.14, Purport:

Nevertheless, we see that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu Himself accepted sannyāsa and approved of the sannyāsa of His elder brother, Viśvarūpa. It is clearly said here, bhāla haila,—viśvarūpa sannyāsa karila pitṛ-kula, mātṛ-kula,—dui uddhārila. Therefore, should it be thought that Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu made statements that are contradictory? No, actually He did not. It is recommended that one accept sannyāsa to dedicate his life for the service of the Lord, and everyone must take that kind of sannyāsa, for by accepting such sannyāsa one renders the best service to both his paternal and maternal families. But one should not accept the sannyāsa order of the Māyāvāda school, which has practically no meaning. We find many Māyāvādī sannyāsīs simply loitering in the street thinking themselves Brahman or Nārāyaṇa and spending all day and night begging so they can fill their hungry bellies.

CC Adi 16.54, Purport:

The third fault is that of viruddha-mati, or contradictory conception, in the words bhavānī-bhartuḥ. The word bhavānī refers to the wife of Bhava, Lord Śiva. But since Bhavānī is already known as the wife of Lord Śiva, to add the word bhartā, "husband," thus forming a compound meaning "the husband of the wife of Lord Śiva," is contradictory, for thus it appears as if the wife of Lord Śiva had another husband.

CC Adi 16.62, Translation:

"Here is another great fault. You have arranged the word 'bhavānī-bhartṛ' to your great satisfaction, but this betrays the fault of contradiction."

CC Adi 16.64, Translation:

It is contradictory to hear that Lord Śiva's wife has another husband. The use of such words in literature creates the fault called viruddha-mati-kṛt.

CC Adi 16.65, Translation:

"If someone says, 'Place this charity in the hand of the husband of the wife of the brāhmaṇa,' when we hear these contradictory words we immediately understand that the brāhmaṇa's wife has another husband."

CC Adi 16.78, Translation:

"The use of the words 'lakṣmīr iva' ('like Lakṣmī') manifests the ornament of meaning called upamā (analogy). There is also the further ornament of meaning called virodhābhāsa, or a contradictory indication."

CC Adi 16.79, Translation:

Everyone knows that lotus flowers grow in the water of the Ganges. But to say that the Ganges takes birth from a lotus flower seems extremely contradictory.

CC Adi 16.80, Translation:

"The existence of mother Ganges begins from the lotus feet of the Lord. Although this statement that water comes from a lotus flower is a contradiction, in connection with Lord Viṣṇu it is a great wonder."

CC Adi 16.81, Translation and Purport:

"In this birth of the Ganges by the inconceivable potency of the Lord, there is no contradiction although it appears contradictory."

The central point of all Vaiṣṇava philosophy is to accept the inconceivable potency of Lord Viṣṇu. What sometimes appears contradictory from a material viewpoint is understandable in connection with the Supreme Personality of Godhead because He can perform contradictory activities by dint of His inconceivable potencies. Modern scientists are puzzled. They cannot even explain how such a large quantity of chemicals has formed the atmosphere. Scientists explain that water is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen, but when asked where such a large quantity of hydrogen and oxygen came from and how they combined to manufacture the great oceans and seas, they cannot answer because they are atheists who will not accept that everything comes from life. Their thesis is that life comes from matter.

CC Adi 16.81, Purport:

Unfortunately, atheistic science will not accept that matter comes from life. Scientists insist upon their most illogical and foolish theory that life comes from matter, although this is quite impossible. They cannot prove in their laboratories that matter can produce life, yet there are thousands and thousands of examples illustrating that matter comes from life. Therefore in Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī says that as soon as one accepts the inconceivable potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, no great philosopher or scientist can put forward any thesis to contradict the Lord's power. This is expressed in the following Sanskrit verse.

CC Adi 16.82, Translation:

"Everyone knows that lotus flowers grow in the water but water never grows from a lotus. All such contradictions, however, are wonderfully possible in Kṛṣṇa: the great river Ganges has grown from His lotus feet."

CC Adi 17 Summary:

The same Absolute Truth who enjoys as Kṛṣṇa, Śyāmasundara, who plays His flute and dances with the gopīs, sometimes takes birth in a brāhmaṇa family and plays the part of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, accepting the renounced order of life. It appears contradictory that the same Kṛṣṇa accepted the ecstasy of the gopīs, and of course this is very difficult for an ordinary person to understand. But if we accept the inconceivable energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, we can understand that everything is possible. There is no need of mundane arguments in this connection, because mundane arguments are meaningless in regard to inconceivable potency.

CC Adi 17.169, Purport:

The śāstras of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran. Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore although they have their arguments and reasonings, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy deem these scriptures unacceptable.

CC Adi 17.304, Purport:

Kṛṣṇa's accepting the part of the gopīs is certainly contradictory according to any mundane calculations, but the Lord, by His inconceivable character, may act like the gopīs and feel separation from Kṛṣṇa, although He is Kṛṣṇa Himself. Such a contradiction can be reconciled only in the Supreme Personality of Godhead because He has energy that is inconceivable (acintya), which can make possible that which is impossible to do (aghaṭa-ghaṭana-patīyasī). Such contradictions are very difficult to understand unless a devotee strictly follows the Vaiṣṇava philosophy under the direction of the Gosvāmīs.

CC Adi 17.305, Translation:

One cannot understand the contradictions in Lord Caitanya's character by putting forward mundane logic and arguments. Consequently one should not maintain doubts in this connection. One should simply try to understand the inconceivable energy of Kṛṣṇa; otherwise one cannot understand how such contradictions are possible.

CC Madhya-lila

CC Madhya 2.63, Translation:

Because of the various kinds of ecstasy, contradictory states of mind occurred, and this resulted in a great fight between different types of ecstasy. Anxiety, impotence, humility, anger and impatience were all like soldiers fighting, and the madness of love of Godhead was the cause.

CC Madhya 2.63, Purport:

In the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu it is stated that when similar ecstasies from separate causes meet, they are called svarūpa-sandhi. When opposing elements meet, whether they arise from a common cause or different causes, their conjunction is called bhinna-rūpa-sandhi, the meeting of contradictory ecstasies. The simultaneous joining of different ecstasies—fear and happiness, regret and happiness—is called meeting (sandhi). The word śābalya refers to different types of ecstatic symptoms combined together, like pride, despondency, humility, remembrance, doubt, impatience caused by insult, fear, disappointment, patience and eagerness. The friction that occurs when these combine is called śābalya.

CC Madhya 2.66, Purport:

The word unmāda is explained in the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu as extreme joy, misfortune and bewilderment in the heart due to separation. Symptoms of unmāda are laughing like a madman, dancing, singing, performing ineffectual activities, talking nonsense, running, shouting and sometimes working in contradictory ways. The word praṇaya is explained thus: When there is a possibility of receiving direct honor but it is avoided, that love is called praṇaya. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, in his Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi, explains the word māna thus: When the lover feels novel sweetness by exchanging hearty loving words but wishes to hide his feelings by crooked means, māna is experienced.

CC Madhya 2.86, Translation:

In this Caitanya-caritāmṛta there is no contradictory conclusion, nor is anyone else's opinion accepted. I have written this book to describe the simple substance as I have heard it from superiors. If I become involved in someone's likes and dislikes, I cannot possibly write the simple truth.

CC Madhya 5.77-78, Purport:

As the Supersoul within the heart of all living entities, Kṛṣṇa knows everyone's desire, everyone's request and everyone's prayer. Although all these may be contradictory, the Lord has to create a situation in which everyone will be pleased. This is an instance of a marriage negotiation between an elderly brāhmaṇa and a youthful one. The elderly brāhmaṇa was certainly willing to give his daughter in charity to the young brāhmaṇa, but his son and relatives became impediments to this transaction. The elderly brāhmaṇa considered how to get out of this situation and still offer his daughter to the young brāhmaṇa. His son, an atheist and a very cunning fellow, was thinking of how to stop the marriage. The father and son were thinking in a contradictory way, yet Kṛṣṇa created a situation wherein they agreed. They both agreed that if the Gopāla Deity would come and serve as a witness, the daughter would be given to the young brāhmaṇa.

CC Madhya 6.136, Purport:

According to Vedic principles, bones and dung are generally considered very impure. If one touches a bone or stool, he must take a bath immediately. That is the Vedic injunction. Yet the Vedas also enjoin that a conchshell, although the bone of an animal, and cow dung, although the stool of an animal, are very much sanctified. Even though such statements appear contradictory, on the basis of the Vedic version we still accept the fact that conchshells and cow dung are pure and sanctified.

CC Madhya 6.171, Purport:

According to the commentary of Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, the purpose of the janmādy asya verse in the Vedānta-sūtra is to establish that the cosmic manifestation is the result of the transformation of the potencies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Supreme Lord is the master of innumerable eternal energies, which are unlimited. Sometimes these energies are manifested, and sometimes they are not. In any case, all energies are under His control; therefore He is the original energetic, the abode of all energies. A common brain in the conditioned state cannot conceive of how these inconceivable energies abide in the Supreme Personality of Godhead, how He exists in His innumerable forms as the master of both spiritual and material energies, how He is the master of both manifest and potential powers, and how contradictory potencies can abide in Him. As long as the living entity is within this material world, in the condition of illusion, he cannot understand the activities of the inconceivable energies of the Lord. Thus the Lord's energies, though factual, are simply beyond the power of the common brain to understand.

CC Madhya 7.73, Translation:

"The hearts of those above common behavior are sometimes harder than a thunderbolt and sometimes softer than a flower. How can one accommodate such contradictions in great personalities?"

CC Madhya 8.193, Purport:

The spiritual senses are beyond the material senses. A materialist can think only of the negation of material variety; he cannot understand spiritual variety. He thinks that spiritual variety simply contradicts material variety and is a negation or void, but such conceptions cannot even reach the precincts of spiritual realization. The wonderful activities of the gross body and subtle mind are always imperfect. They are below the degree of spiritual understanding and are ephemeral. The spiritual mellow is eternally wonderful and is described as pūrṇa, śuddha, nitya-mukta—that is, complete, perfectly pure and eternally liberated from all material conceptions. When we are unable to fulfill our material desires, there is certainly sorrow and confusion. This may be described as vivarta. But in spiritual life there is no sorrow, inebriety or imperfection. Śrīla Rāmānanda Rāya was expert in realizing the spiritual activities of Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī and Kṛṣṇa, and Rāmānanda's spiritual experience was placed before Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu as he inquired whether the Lord approved his realization of spiritual truth.

CC Madhya 10.114, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura says that if something impedes the execution of devotional service, it should be understood to be impure. Pure devotees of the Lord do not accept impure principles. Impure devotees accept rasābhāsa, or overlapping, contradictory mellows, and other principles opposed to the bhakti path. The followers of such impure principles are never accepted as pure devotees. There are many parties following the path of rasābhāsa, and the followers are sometimes adored by ordinary men. Those who adopt the conclusions of rasābhāsa and bhakti-siddhānta-viruddha are never accepted as devotees of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. Svarūpa Dāmodara Gosvāmī never approved such followers as Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavas, nor did he allow them even to meet the Supreme Lord, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

CC Madhya 11.145, Translation:

Śrīvāsa then replied to the Lord, "Why are You speaking in a contradictory way? Rather, we four brothers have been purchased by Your mercy."

CC Madhya 12.68, Purport:

This states that if one's mother was naked in her childhood, she should continue to remain naked, even though she has become the mother of so many children. If a person is actually blessed by the mercy of the Lord, he can immediately become a topmost devotee of the Lord. The logic of nagna-mātṛkā states that if a person is not elevated on such and such a date, he cannot become an exalted devotee overnight, as it were. This particular instance offers evidence to contradict that theory. On the previous day, the boy was simply an ordinary prince, and the next day he was counted as one of the topmost devotees of the Lord. This was all made possible by the causeless mercy of the Lord. The Lord is omnipotent—all-powerful or almighty—and He can act as He likes.

CC Madhya 19.144, Purport:

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is giving clear instructions on how the living entities live under different conditions. There are trees, plants and stones that cannot move, but still they must be considered living entities, or spiritual sparks. The soul is present in bodies like those of trees, plants and stones. They are all living entities. Among moving living entities such as birds, aquatics and animals, the same spiritual spark is there. As stated herein, there are living entities that can fly, swim and walk. We must also conclude that there are living entities that can move within fire and ether. Living entities have different material bodies composed of earth, water, air, fire and ether. The words tāra madhye mean "within this universe." The entire material universe is composed of five material elements. It is not true that living entities reside only within this planet and not within others. Such a conclusion is completely contradictory to the Vedas.

CC Madhya 20.92, Translation:

"It is contradictory to practice mādhukarī and at the same time wear a valuable blanket. One loses his spiritual strength by doing this, and one will also become an object of jokes."

CC Madhya 24.272, Purport:

In this verse the word sādhu-varya means "the best of gentlemen." At the present moment there are many so-called gentlemen who are expert in killing animals and birds. Nonetheless, these so-called gentlemen profess a type of religion that strictly prohibits killing. According to Nārada Muni and Vedic culture, animal-killers are not even gentlemen, to say nothing of being religious men. A religious person, a devotee of the Lord, must be nonviolent. Such is the nature of a religious person. It is contradictory to be violent and at the same time call oneself a religious person. Such hypocrisy is not approved by Nārada Muni and the disciplic succession.

CC Antya-lila

CC Antya 3.136, Purport:

The Vedic civilization recommends that one give charity to brāhmaṇas and sannyāsīs, not to the so-called daridra-nārāyaṇas. Nārāyaṇa cannot be daridra, nor can daridra be Nārāyaṇa, for these are contradictory terms. Atheistic men invent such concoctions and preach them to fools, but charity should actually be given to brāhmaṇas and sannyāsīs because whatever money they get they spend for Kṛṣṇa.

CC Antya 5.97, Purport:

“A mellow temporarily appearing transcendental but contradicting mellows previously stated and lacking some of a mellow's necessities is called rasābhāsa, an overlapping mellow, by advanced devotees who know how to taste transcendental mellows. Such mellows are called uparasa (submellows), anurasa (imitation transcendental mellows) and aparasa (opposing transcendental mellows). Thus the overlapping of transcendental mellows is described as being first grade, second grade or third grade.

CC Antya 12.33, Translation:

One of Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu's characteristics is His contradictory nature. When He becomes angry and kicks someone, it is actually for his benefit.

CC Antya 13.13, Translation:

Svarūpa Dāmodara said to the Lord, "I cannot contradict Your supreme will, my Lord, but if You do not accept the bedding, Jagadānanda Paṇḍita will feel great unhappiness."

CC Antya 18.98, Translation:

"The blue lotuses are friends of the sun-god, and though they all live together, the blue lotuses plunder the cakravākas. The red lotuses, however, blossom at night and are therefore strangers or enemies to the cakravākas. Yet in Kṛṣṇa's pastimes the red lotuses, which are the hands of the gopīs, protect their cakravāka breasts. This is a metaphor of contradiction."

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 2:

"Where is your valuable blanket?" the Lord immediately inquired. Sanātana informed Him about the exchange, and the Lord loved him for this and thanked him. "You are intelligent enough, and you have now exhausted all your attraction for material wealth." In other words, the Lord accepts a person for devotional service only when he is completely free from all material possessions. The Lord then told Sanātana: "It would not look good for you to be a mendicant and beg from door to door with such a valuable blanket on your body. It is contradictory, and people would look on it with abhorrence."

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 12:

When Uddhava was questioning Kṛṣṇa about the rules and regulations according to Vedic injunctions, he asked, "Why is it that the Vedic hymns encourage one in material enjoyment, while at the same time the Vedic instructions also free one from all illusion and encourage one toward liberation?" The Vedic rules are said to be ordained by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but apparently there are contradictions, and Uddhava was anxious to know how one could resolve these contradictions. In reply, Lord Kṛṣṇa cited the verse mentioned above (SB 11.20.31), informing him of the superexcellence of devotional service: "For one who is already engaged in devotional service to Me and whose mind is fixed on Me, it is neither practical nor necessary to cultivate knowledge and renunciation."

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 23:

In other words, from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam we can know the substance as well as the relativities in their true sense and perspective. The substance is the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and the relativities are the different forms of energy which emanate from Him. Since the living entities are also His energies, there is nothing really different from the substance. At the same time, the energies are different from the substance. This conception is not self-contradictory. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam explicitly deals with this simultaneously-one-and-different philosophy—a philosophy also found in the Vedānta-sūtra, which begins with the janmādy asya sūtra.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 24:

The stool and bone of any living entity are considered to be impure according to the Vedic literature, yet the same Vedic literature asserts that cow dung and conch shells are very pure. Apparently these statements are contradictory, but 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. If we try to understand the statements by indirect interpretation, creating some hypothesis, then we challenge the evidential authority of the Vedic statements. In other words, Vedic statements cannot be accepted according to our imperfect interpretations; they must be accepted as they are. If they are not accepted in this way, there is no authority in the Vedic statements.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 25:

According to the verse beginning apāṇi-pādo javano grahītā (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 3.19), although Brahman has no material hands and legs, He nonetheless walks in a very stately way and accepts everything that is offered to Him. This suggests that He has transcendental limbs and is therefore not impersonal. One who does not understand the Vedic principles simply stresses the impersonal, material features of the Supreme Absolute Truth and thus unceremoniously calls the Absolute Truth impersonal. The impersonalist, Māyāvādī philosophers want to establish the Absolute Truth as impersonal, but this contradicts the Vedic literature. Although the Vedic literature confirms the fact that the Supreme Absolute Truth has multiple energies, the Māyāvādī impersonalists still try to establish that the Absolute Truth has no energy. The fact remains, however, that the Absolute Truth is full of energy and is a person as well. It is not possible to establish Him as impersonal.

Nectar of Devotion

Nectar of Devotion 1:

The highest perfection of mystic power is called kāmāvasāyitā. This is also magic, but whereas the prākāmya power acts to create wonderful effects within the scope of nature, kāmāvasāyitā permits one to contradict nature—in other words, to do the impossible. Of course, one can derive great amounts of temporary happiness by achieving such yogic materialistic perfections.

Nectar of Devotion 22:

Regarding Kṛṣṇa's complete independence and lordship, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam says that although Kāliya was a great offender, Kṛṣṇa still favored him by marking his head with His lotus feet, whereas Lord Brahmā, although having prayed to Kṛṣṇa with so many wonderful verses, still could not attract Him.

This contradictory treatment by Kṛṣṇa is just befitting His position, because in all the Vedic literature He is described as the complete independent. In the beginning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam the Lord is described as svarāṭ, which means "completely independent." That is the position of the Supreme Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth is not only sentient, but is also completely independent.

Nectar of Devotion 23:

Kṛṣṇa's personality is analyzed as dhīrodātta, dhīra-lalita, dhīra-praśānta and dhīroddhata. If one asks how a personality can be beheld in four quite opposing ways, the answer is that the Lord is the reservoir of all transcendental qualities and activities. Therefore, His different aspects can be analyzed according to the exhibition of His limitless variety of pastimes, and as such there is no contradiction.

Nectar of Devotion 23:

Once, while fighting with a demon who was appearing as a deer, Kṛṣṇa challenged him in this way: "I have come before you as a great elephant named Kṛṣṇa. You must leave the battlefield, accepting defeat, or else there is death awaiting you." This challenging spirit of Kṛṣṇa's is not contradictory to His sublime character; because He is the Supreme Being, everything is possible in His character.

There is a nice statement in the Kūrma Purāṇa about these contradictory traits of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is stated there that the Supreme Person is neither very fat nor very thin; He is always transcendental to material qualities, and yet His bodily luster is blackish. His eyes are reddish, He is all-powerful, and He is equipped with all different kinds of opulences. Contradictory traits in Kṛṣṇa's person are not at all surprising; one should not consider the characteristics of Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, to be actually contradictory. One should try to understand the traits of Kṛṣṇa from authorities and try to understand how these characteristics are employed by the supreme will of the Lord.

Nectar of Devotion 32:

When noncontradictory symptoms of ecstatic love are distinctly manifest, any contradictory symptoms create a sense of abomination. Contradictory ecstatic love is called selfish. That ecstatic love which can adjust all contradictory or noncontradictory symptoms is called direct selfless love. These selfless symptoms can again be divided into five groups: neutrality, servitude, fraternity, parenthood and conjugal love. Such ecstatic love assumes a particular mode in contact with different objects of love.

Nectar of Devotion 33:

One old devotee said, "My dear Lord, when we are away from You we become so anxious to see You again, and there is great misery in our lives. But then when we do see You, there immediately comes the fear of separation. Under the circumstances, both when we see You and when we do not see You, we are subjected to different kinds of tribulation." This is an instance of a contradictory mixture of ecstatic love for Kṛṣṇa. Such ecstatic love is palatable, and expert critics have compared such ecstatic love to a mixture of curd, sugar candy and a little black pepper. The combined taste is very palatable.

Nectar of Devotion 50:

The purpose of the above analysis is to show that in the mixture of various mellows, or reciprocations of ecstatic love between Kṛṣṇa and the devotees, if the result is not pure there will be incompatibility. According to the opinion of stalwart devotees like Rūpa Gosvāmī, as soon as there are contradictory feelings, the result is incompatible.

Once an ordinary female devotee addressed Kṛṣṇa, "My dear boy, I know that my body is just a composition of flesh and blood and can never be enjoyable to You. But still, I have been so attracted by Your beauty that I wish that You accept me as Your conjugal lover." In this statement there is incompatibility caused by a mixture of ghastliness and conjugal love in devotional service.

Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī warns devotees to not commit such incompatibilities in their writings or in their dealings. The presence of such contradictory feelings is called rasābhāsa. When there is rasābhāsa in any book of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, no learned scholar or devotee will accept it.

Nectar of Devotion 50:

Great sages meditate upon Kṛṣṇa after being relieved from all material transactions, and with great difficulty they try to situate Kṛṣṇa in their hearts. And opposed to this, this young girl is trying to withdraw her mind from Kṛṣṇa so that she can apply it in the material activities of sense gratification. What a regrettable thing it is that this girl is trying to drive away from her heart the same Kṛṣṇa who is sought after by great sages through severe austerities and perseverance!" Although in this statement there are contradictory mellows of ecstatic devotion, the result is not incompatible, because the conjugal love is so elevated that it is defeating all other varieties of mellows. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī comments in this connection that such a loving state of mind is not possible for all. It is possible only in the case of the gopīs of Vṛndāvana.

There are many other instances of contradictory mellows where there is no perverted experience of rasābhāsa. Once some minor demigod of the heavenly planets remarked, "Kṛṣṇa, whose joking words were once the source of so much laughter for the residents of Vraja, has now been attacked by the serpent king, Kāliya, and He has become the object of everyone's overwhelming lamentation!" In this instance there is a mixture of laughter and compassion, but there is no incompatibility, because by both of these rasas the loving affection for Kṛṣṇa is increased.

Nectar of Devotion 50:

A brahmānandī (impersonalist) expressed his desire as follows: "When shall I be able to see that supreme absolute Personality of Godhead who is eternal bliss and knowledge and whose chest has become smeared with red kuṅkuma powder by touching the breast of Rukmiṇī?" Here there is a mixture of conjugal love and neutrality. Although this is a contradiction of mellows, there is no incompatibility, because even a brahmānandī will become attracted to Kṛṣṇa.

Nectar of Instruction

Nectar of Instruction 8, Purport:

Since the mind may be one's enemy or one's friend, one has to train the mind to become his friend. The Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is especially meant for training the mind to be always engaged in Kṛṣṇa's business. The mind contains hundreds and thousands of impressions, not only of this life but also of many, many lives of the past. These impressions sometimes come in contact with one another and produce contradictory pictures. In this way the mind's function can become dangerous for a conditioned soul. Students of psychology are aware of the mind's various psychological changes.

Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead

Krsna Book 2:

The appearance of Kṛṣṇa is the answer to all imaginative iconography of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Everyone imagines the form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead according to his mode of material nature. In the Brahma-saṁhitā it is said that the Lord is the oldest person. Therefore a section of religionists imagine that God must be very old, and therefore they depict a form of the Lord like a very old man. But in the same Brahma-saṁhitā, that is contradicted: although He is the oldest of all living entities, He has His eternal form as a fresh youth. The exact words used in this connection in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam are vijñānam ajñāna-bhidāpamārjanam. Vijñānam means transcendental knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Vijñānam is also experienced knowledge. Transcendental knowledge has to be accepted by the descending process of disciplic succession, as Brahmā presents the knowledge of Kṛṣṇa in the Brahma-saṁhitā.

Krsna Book 3:

"My Lord, Your appearance, existence and disappearance are beyond the influence of the material qualities. Because Your Lordship is the Supreme Brahman and the controller of everything, there is nothing inconceivable or contradictory in You. As You have said, material nature works under Your superintendence, just like a government officer working under the orders of the chief executive. The influence of subordinate activities cannot affect You. Since You are the Supreme Brahman, everything is existing within You, and since all the activities of material nature are controlled by Your Lordship, none of these activities affect You."

Krsna Book 16:

The Nāgapatnīs were astonished that, although Kāliya had the body of a serpent as the result of grievous sinful activities, at the same time he was in contact with the Lord to the extent that the Lord's lotus feet were touching his hoods. Certainly this was not the ordinary result of pious activities. These two contradictory facts astonished them. Thus they continued to pray: “O dear Lord, we are simply astonished to see that he is so fortunate as to have the dust of Your lotus feet on his head. This is a fortune sought after by great saintly persons.

Krsna Book 43:

Kṛṣṇa immediately understood the purpose of Cāṇūra's statements, and He prepared to wrestle with him. But according to the time and circumstances, He spoke as follows: "You are a subject of the King of the Bhojas, and you live in the jungle. We are also indirectly his subjects, and We try to please him as far as possible. This offer of wrestling is a great favor of his, but the fact is that We are simply boys. We sometimes play in the forest of Vṛndāvana with Our friends who are Our own age. We think that to combat persons of equal age and strength is good for Us, but to fight great wrestlers like you would not be good for the audience. It would contradict their religious principles." Kṛṣṇa thus indicated that the celebrated, strong wrestlers should not challenge Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma to fight.

Krsna Book 49:

Dhṛtarāṣṭra could realize two opposing factors acting before him. He could understand that Kṛṣṇa was there to remove all the unnecessary burdens of the world. His sons were an unnecessary burden, and so he expected that they would be killed. At the same time, he could not rid himself of his unlawful affection for his sons. Understanding these two contradictory factors, he offered his respectful obeisances to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. "The contradictory ways of material existence are very difficult to understand; they can be taken only as the inconceivable execution of the plan of the Supreme, who by His inconceivable energy creates this material world and enters into it and sets into motion the three modes of nature. When everything is created, He enters into each and every living entity and into the smallest atom. No one can understand the incalculable plans of the Supreme Lord."

Krsna Book 60:

"You have described Yourself as penniless, but this condition is not poverty. Since there is nothing in existence but You, You do not need to possess anything—You Yourself are everything. Unlike others, You do not require to purchase anything extraneously. With You all contrary things can be adjusted because You are absolute. You do not possess anything, but no one is richer than You. In the material world, no one can be rich without possessing. Since Your Lordship is absolute, You can adjust the contradiction of possessing nothing but at the same time being the richest. In the Vedas it is stated that although You have no material hands and legs, You accept everything offered in devotion by the devotees. You have no material eyes and ears, but still You can see and hear everything everywhere."

Krsna Book 60:

"My dear all-powerful son of Vasudeva, Your statement that You have taken shelter within the water of the ocean out of fear of all the great princes is quite unsuitable, for my experience with You contradicts this. I have actually seen that You kidnapped me forcibly in the presence of all these princes. At the time of my marriage ceremony, simply by giving a jerk to the string of Your bow, You very easily drove the others away and kindly gave me shelter at Your lotus feet. I still remember vividly how You kidnapped me in the same way that a lion forcibly takes its share of hunted booty, driving away all small animals within the twinkling of an eye."

Krsna Book 87:

One class of philosophers, known as Mīmāṁsakas, represented by sages such as Jaimini, have concluded that everyone should engage in pious activities or prescribed duties and that such activities will lead one to the highest perfection. But this is contradicted in the Ninth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gītā, where Lord Kṛṣṇa says that by pious activities one may be elevated to the heavenly planets, but that as soon as one's accumulation of pious activities is used up, one has to leave the enjoyment of a higher standard of material prosperity in the heavenly planets and immediately come down again to these lower planets, where the duration of life is very short and where the standard of material happiness is of a lower grade.

Krsna Book 88:

Mahārāja Parīkṣit's question is very intelligent. The two classes of devotees, namely the devotees of Lord Śiva and the devotees of Lord Viṣṇu, are always in disagreement. Even today in India these two classes of devotees still criticize each other, and especially in South India the followers of Rāmānujācārya and the followers of Śaṅkarācārya hold occasional meetings for understanding the Vedic conclusion. Generally, the followers of Rāmānujācārya come out victorious in such meetings. So Parīkṣit Mahārāja wanted to clarify the situation by asking this question of Śukadeva Gosvāmī. That Lord Śiva lives as a poor man although his devotees appear very opulent, whereas Lord Kṛṣṇa, or Lord Viṣṇu, is always opulent and yet His devotees appear poverty-stricken, is a situation which appears contradictory and puzzling to a discriminating person.

Renunciation Through Wisdom

Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.2:

After writing this and thus accepting the real purport of the Gītā, how can Dr. Radhakrishnan later state that Lord Kṛṣṇa's body and soul are different? Such an idea must be a result of his materialistic education. What a strange monism he propounds, in which the Absolute Truth, the nondual Supreme Being, is supposedly separate from His inner existence! Can Dr. Radhakrishnan explain these obvious flaws in his philosophy? When the Supreme Lord Himself is present in everyone's heart as the omniscient Supersoul, then who else can sit in His heart? In the Gītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself speaks about His transcendental qualities, making statements that Dr. Radhakrishnan, armed with his material erudition, has made but a feeble attempt to contradict. Through such foolishness Dr. Radhakrishnan has made a show of spreading education, but in fact he has preached untruth.

Sri Isopanisad

Sri Isopanisad Introduction:

This is the Vedic principle, and we accept it. Vedic principles are accepted as axiomatic truth, for there cannot be any mistake. That is acceptance. For instance, in India cow dung is accepted as pure, and yet cow dung is the stool of an animal. In one place you'll find the Vedic injunction that if you touch stool, you have to take a bath immediately. But in another place it is said that the stool of a cow is pure. If you smear cow dung in an impure place, that place becomes pure. With our ordinary sense we can argue, "This is contradictory." Actually, it is contradictory from the ordinary point of view, but it is not false. It is fact. In Calcutta, a very prominent scientist and doctor analyzed cow dung and found that it contains all antiseptic properties.

Sri Isopanisad 5, Purport:

Here is a description of some of the Supreme Lord's transcendental activities, executed by His inconceivable potencies. The contradictions given here prove the inconceivable potencies of the Lord. "He walks, and He does not walk." Ordinarily, if someone can walk, it is illogical to say he cannot walk. But in reference to God, such a contradiction simply serves to indicate His inconceivable power. With our limited fund of knowledge we cannot accommodate such contradictions, and therefore we conceive of the Lord in terms of our limited powers of understanding. For example, the impersonalist philosophers of the Māyāvāda school accept only the Lord's impersonal activities and reject His personal feature. But the members of the Bhāgavata school, adopting the perfect conception of the Lord, accept His inconceivable potencies and thus understand that He is both personal and impersonal. The bhāgavatas know that without inconceivable potencies there can be no meaning to the words "Supreme Lord."

Sri Isopanisad 6, Purport:

At present there are many commentaries on the revealed scriptures, but most of them are not in the line of disciplic succession coming from Śrīla Vyāsadeva, who originally compiled the Vedic wisdom. The final, most perfect and sublime work by Śrīla Vyāsadeva is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, which is the natural commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. There is also the Bhagavad-gītā, which was spoken by the Lord Himself and recorded by Vyāsadeva. These are the most important revealed scriptures, and any commentary that contradicts the principles of the Bhagavad-gītā or Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is unauthorized. There is complete agreement among the Upaniṣads, Vedānta-sūtra, Vedas, Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, and no one should try to reach any conclusion about the Vedas without receiving instructions from members of Vyāsadeva's disciplic succession, who believe in the Personality of Godhead and His diverse energies as they are explained in Śrī Īśopaniṣad.

Mukunda-mala-stotra (mantras 1 to 6 only)

Mukunda-mala-stotra mantra 1, Purport:

A devotee is never as eager to see the Lord as he is to render service to Him. Yet the Lord does appear before His devotee, for He is just like an affectionate father, who is more eager to see his son than the son is to see him. There is no contradiction in such a quantitative difference in affection. Such a disparity exists in the original reality—between the Lord and His devotees—and is reflected here not only in the relations between parents and children in human society but even in the animal kingdom. Parental affection is exhibited even among lower animals because originally such affection in its fullness exists in God, the original father of all species of living beings. When a man kills an animal, God, the affectionate father, is perturbed and is pained at heart. Thus the slaughterer of the animal is suitably punished by the material energy, just as a murderer is punished by the government through police action.

Mukunda-mala-stotra mantra 2, Purport:

The Lord's different potencies remain tightly under His control. In fact, the Lord actually has only one potency—namely, the internal potency—which He employs for different purposes. The situation is similar to how one uses electricity. The same electricity can be used for both heating and cooling. Such contradictory results are due to the expert handling of a technician. In the same way, by His supreme will the Lord employs His one internal potency to accomplish many different purposes. That is the information we get from the śrutis (Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.8): parāsya śaktir vividhaiva śrūyate (Cc. Madhya 13.65, purport).