Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Fallacious

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta

CC Preface and Introduction

Impersonalist philosophers (Māyāvādīs) maintain that both the living entity and God Himself are under the control of māyā when they come into this material world. This is the fallacy of their philosophy.
CC Introduction:

An analogy will help us understand the distincion between ourselves and God. From the ground we may see only clouds in the sky, but if we fly above the clouds we can see the sun shining. From the sky, skyscrapers and cities seem very tiny; similarly, from God's position this entire material creation is insignificant. The tendency of the living entity is to come down from the heights, where everything can be seen in perspective. God, however, does not have this tendency. The Supreme Lord is not subject to fall down into illusion (māyā) any more than the sun is subject to fall beneath the clouds. Impersonalist philosophers (Māyāvādīs) maintain that both the living entity and God Himself are under the control of māyā when they come into this material world. This is the fallacy of their philosophy.

CC Adi-lila

The conception of the Paramātmā is an invincible answer to these fallacious arguments. The Paramātmā is the witness of the past activities of the individual living being.
CC Adi 2.19, Purport:

The Paramātmā, or Supersoul, the guide of the individual living beings, does not take part in fulfilling the desires of the living beings, but He arranges for their fulfillment by material nature. As soon as an individual soul becomes conscious of his eternal relationship with the Supersoul and looks only toward Him, he at once becomes free from the entanglements of material enjoyment. 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. A criminal is first reminded of his misdeeds by witnesses in a law court, and then he is punished. If death is complete forgetfulness, why should a person be punished for his past misdeeds? The conception of the Paramātmā is an invincible answer to these fallacious arguments. The Paramātmā is the witness of the past activities of the individual living being. A man may not remember what he has done in his childhood, but his father, who has seen him grow through different stages of development, certainly remembers. Similarly, the living being undergoes many changes of body through many lives, but the Supersoul is always with him and remembers all his activities, despite his evolution through different bodies.

CC Adi 2.73, Translation:

To such a misguided interpreter we may reply, “Why should you suggest such fallacious logic? An interpretation is never accepted as evidence if it opposes the principles of scripture.

Other Books by Srila Prabhupada

Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead

The personified Vedas said: "The impersonalists argue that opinion of other transcendentalists is fallacious because it is sometimes found that matter is produced from spirit soul and sometimes that spirit soul is produced from matter."
Krsna Book 87:

"This cosmic manifestation is certainly produced from the Absolute Truth, but because its existence is temporary, it is false; the impersonalists' understanding is that the Absolute Truth, which is always present, is the only truth. In the opinion of other transcendentalists, however, this material world, being produced of the Absolute Truth, is also truth. The impersonalists argue that this is fallacious because it is sometimes found that matter is produced from spirit soul and sometimes that spirit soul is produced from matter. Such philosophers 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. Therefore, things produced of a certain thing are not always of the same quality as that thing. On the strength of this argument, Māyāvādī 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. According to this view, the Absolute Truth, Brahman, should therefore be accepted as truth, whereas the cosmic manifestation, although a product of the Absolute Truth, cannot be taken as truth."

Message of Godhead

If Godhead were subject to being revealed by our relative sense perception, then our sense perception, and not Godhead, would be absolute. The process is therefore fallacious in all its manifold stages.
Message of Godhead Introduction:

Therefore, the transcendentalists do not recognize such a process of generalization but pass over direct perception to receive the knowledge of deduction in its various stages—from authorities who have actual revelation of transcendental knowledge. This revelation is made possible from the deeper aspect within the human personality. The real knowledge of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His relationship with us can be revealed only by this transcendental method. Since the Supreme Personality of Godhead is absolute, He reserves the right of not being exposed to the mundaners. He can be known by one absolute process, and the relative process of sense perception cannot reach Him ever. If Godhead were subject to being revealed by our relative sense perception, then our sense perception, and not Godhead, would be absolute. The process is therefore fallacious in all its manifold stages.

Lectures

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

If the points of similarity differ, then there is no analogy. That is the law of analogy. So you cannot analogize with matter and spirit. Therefore this analogy is fallacious.
Lecture on BG 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968:

Now, the Māyāvādī says that this individuality is māyā. So their conception is that spirit, the whole spirit is a lump. Their theory is ghaṭākāśa poṭākāśa. Ghaṭākāśa poṭākāśa means... Just like sky. The sky is an expansion, impersonal expansion. So in a pot, in a waterpot, in a pitcher that is closed... Now, within the pitcher, there is also sky, a small sky. Now as soon as the pitcher is broken, the outside, the bigger sky, and the small sky within the pitcher mixes. That is Māyāvāda theory. But this analogy cannot be applied. Analogy means points of similarity. That is the law of analogy. The sky cannot be compared... The small sky within the pitcher cannot be compared with the living entity. It is material, matter. Sky is matter, and individual living entity is spirit. So how you can say? Just like a small ant, it is spirit soul. It has got its individuality. But a big dead stone, hill or mountain, it has no individuality. So matter has no individuality. Spirit has individuality. So if the points of similarity differ, then there is no analogy. That is the law of analogy. So you cannot analogize with matter and spirit. Therefore this analogy is fallacious.

There is fallacy, distribution: one is taking is more and the other is starving. Therefore, the starving population, they are making protest, "Why we shall starve?" But that is also defective.
Lecture on BG 4.34-38 -- New York, August 17, 1966:

The knowledge which the pigeons, the cats and dogs have got, we are lacking in that knowledge, that the whole thing belongs to the Supreme Lord and we can accept them, whatever we need, not more than that. That is knowledge. That is knowledge. There will be no difficulty. The whole world is made by the Lord's arrangement that you have no scarcity. Everything is sufficient. Everything is sufficient. There will be no scarcity, provided you know the distribution. The distribution is... There is fallacy, distribution: one is taking is more and the other is starving. Therefore, the starving population, they are making protest, "Why we shall starve?" But that is also defective.

As soon as you know Kṛṣṇa, you know everything. Therefore your knowledge is perfect. Is that argument fallacious?
Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Los Angeles, March 12, 1970:

The instruction is that "How by practicing yoga in full consciousness of Me"—this is Kṛṣṇa consciousness—"with mind attached to Me, you can know Me in full." And if you know Kṛṣṇa in full, you know everything. And you can know Kṛṣṇa simply by our concentrating mind upon Kṛṣṇa. And as soon as you know Kṛṣṇa, you know everything. Therefore your knowledge is perfect. Is that argument fallacious? You can understand Kṛṣṇa simply by concentrating upon Him. That you can do. Everyone can do that. And as soon as you understand Kṛṣṇa you know everything. So why not take this path? Simple. That is full knowledge. That means eternity.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

If God falls down, becomes under the clutches of māyā, then māyā is greater than God. Then how God is great? That is the fallacy of the Māyāvāda philosopher's argument.
Lecture on SB 1.5.12-13 -- New Vrindaban, June 11, 1969:

Kṛṣṇa's name is Acyuta. You'll find in the Bhagavad-gītā. Arjuna says to Kṛṣṇa, senayor ubhayor madhye rathaṁ sthāpaya me acyuta (BG 1.21). He's addressing Kṛṣṇa as Acyuta. Acyuta means "not," and cyuta means "falldown." So God never falls down. Therefore God's name is Acyuta. The Māyāvāda philosopher says that God has become man, being, I mean to say, complicated in māyā, being illusioned. But God is acyuta. God never falls down. Then what is the meaning of this acyuta? If God falls down, becomes under the clutches of māyā, then māyā is greater than God. Then how God is great? That is the fallacy of their argument. They say that "I am God, but now I am under the clutches of māyā. As soon as māyā will be cleared, then I am again God." But they cannot answer the question that "Why? You are God. Why you are under the clutches of māyā? How you fall down?"

The body has changed. It is very good logic. The same "I" am there. I was a boy. I was jumping. Now I am old man. I have changed my body. I cannot do that. I will have to take the stick. Because the body has changed. So where is the fallacy of logic?
Lecture on SB 6.1.1-4 -- Melbourne, May 20, 1975:

Now, because the soul is there, therefore the body is changing. Everyone knows that he was a child. I know, you know. I remember my childhood body or my boyhood body, my youthhood body. I am old man. I remember them, that "I was doing as a young man like this. I was doing as a boy like this. I was jumping. Now I cannot jump. Why? The body has changed." The body has changed. It is very good logic. The same "I" am there. I was a boy. I was jumping. Now I am old man. I have changed my body. I cannot do that. I will have to take the stick. Because the body has changed. So where is the fallacy of logic? It is very clearly... And the authority says... Kṛṣṇa says, not an ordinary person. He says, "Within this body there is the soul, and as on account of the soul, the body is changing shape from childhood to boyhood, boyhood to youthhood, from youthhood to old man's body. Similarly, when this body will be useless, he will accept another body." This simply truth one has to understand first of all before anything spiritual knowledge. If one cannot understand that the spirit soul is different from this body, then he is cat and dog. He is not human being.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures

He knows, "I am God," but he does not know why he has become dog. That is his knowledge. You'll find so many fallacies like this. How do you know that you are God? "That also I do not know." What is this? Is this any argument?
Lecture on CC Adi-lila 7.107-109 -- San Francisco, February 15, 1967:

The followers of Śaṅkarācārya say that "I am God. There is no other God. Every one of us God." Then why you have become dog? "Oh, that I do not know." Is that God's, I mean to say, answer? If I ask if you are God, if I answer you, "Why you are dog?" you say, "I do not know," so are you God? God does not know? Well, God description is there in Parāśara-sūtra that He is full of all knowledge. That is God. And God says, "I do not know"? How he is...? What kind of God he is? That is clearly stated here. Why you have become dog? "I do not know. But I am God." He knows, "I am God," but he does not know why he has become dog. That is his knowledge. You'll find so many fallacies like this. How do you know that you are God? "That also I do not know." What is this? Is this any argument?

Initiation Lectures

This tape recorder has got name, this plate has got name, the place has got name, the carpet has got name, and simply God has no name? Why? Just see the fallacy. The fountainhead of all names is God, and He has no name.
Talk, Initiation Lecture, and Ten Offenses Lecture -- Los Angeles, December 1, 1968:

Nāmādi, God has name. People say, "Why there should be name of God? He has no name." The impersonalist says "Nameless." Why? The Vedānta-sūtra says, janmādy asya yataḥ: (SB 1.1.1) "Everything is generated from Him." So if there is name, you have got name, I have got name, anything... This tape recorder has got name, this plate has got name, the place has got name, the carpet has got name, and simply God has no name? Why? (laughs) Just see the fallacy. The fountainhead of all names is God, and He has no name. You see? He is zero. These are the arguments. But we don't accept. The thing is they do not know the name because their senses are not purified. You cannot understand God by imperfect senses. Therefore Bhāgavata says, ataḥ śrī-kṛṣṇa-nāmādi. Nāmādi. Nāma means name; ādi, because name is the beginning of everything. Just like if I want to make friendship with you, I ask you, "What is your name?" That is the beginning. If you go to the court, before beginning the judgment, "What is your name? What is your father's name?" You submit any application, "What is your name?" So nāmādi.

Philosophy Discussions

The body and the soul, they are practically combined. That example is not complete. They are two individual clocks. They are not combined. So therefore there is fallacy of analogy. If there is no common point, you cannot have analogy.
Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Śyāmasundara: Just like the body is acting, but the soul is independent. It's not really affected by the body.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That's all right. We agree.

Śyāmasundara: So they are like two clocks going at the same synchronization, but not together. They are separate.

Prabhupāda: But why two clocks? What is the relationship between the body and the soul? You cannot analyze separately. The body and the soul, they are practically combined. That example is not complete. They are two individual clocks. They are not combined. So therefore there is fallacy of analogy. If there is no common point, you cannot have analogy.

Śyāmasundara: The common point is that they say the same time. They have the same time.

Prabhupāda: But the same time, gradually one clock goes slow and the other clock goes fast. This analogy is not perfect. Similar point. Analogy means there must be a majority of similar points. Similar point is lacking because the one clock is moving, you'll start the other one moving, and one may go slow or one may go at higher speed.

People desire so many things. Just like hog desires stool. Is that desirable?
Philosophy Discussion on John Stuart Mill:

Śyāmasundara: His idea is that if something is desired by people, then it is desirable.

Prabhupāda: That means... People desire so many things. Just like hog desires stool. Is that desirable? So similarly, the Bowery bums, they desire simply drinking. Is that very desirable thing? Desirable by the quality. Just like Caitanya Mahāprabhu desires, that is desire, not the bums. If something is desired by a personality like Caitanya Mahāprabhu, that is standard of desire. He desires Kṛṣṇa. That is real standard of desire. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). The greatest personalities, what they are desiring, that is standard.

Śyāmasundara: Yes. There would seem to be a fallacy in what he says, because...

Prabhupāda: He does not know anything. For the fools he is hero, that's all.

Śyāmasundara: Just like if you are sick, the medicine the doctor may prescribe may be bitter, not desirable at all, but it will cure you. Still you don't want it. It's not desirable.

Prabhupāda: He says?

Śyāmasundara: No. I mean that seems like he..., there's a fallacy in his reasoning, because if the medicine were undesirable, still it will cure you.

Prabhupāda: Yes, yes. Just like I was not desiring to take my medicine. When I was a child it was very difficult to give me medicine. Three men required. (laughter) Yes. One will capture me, another (laughing) will take my legs, and then my mother will by force, I will do like this. (gestures locking of teeth, trying to force spoon into mouth, much laughter all around) This was my position. I won't agree to take any medicine. I was so obstinate.

Conversations and Morning Walks

1974 Conversations and Morning Walks

That means somebody has created. So how you can say that man has created everything? The fallacy, just see.
Morning Walk -- June 12, 1974, Paris:

Prabhupāda: Who has created death? Eh? Who has created death? Man creates everything, but who has created your death, Mr. Man? What is the answer?

Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: He has not created anything then.

Prabhupāda: No no, no. I accept that man has created anything, everything. But who has created your death?

Puṣṭa-kṛṣṇa: God.

Prabhupāda: Huh? Is there any answer?

Paramahaṁsa: Well, man has not created death.

Prabhupāda: That means somebody has created. So how you can say that man has created everything? The fallacy, just see. How rascal they are. That I wanted to say.

1975 Conversations and Morning Walks

But their argument is fallacious. Kill means it dies. So how we can eat?
Morning Walk -- May 23, 1975, Melbourne:

Australian devotee 5: Śrīla Prabhupāda, you were telling this government man the other day not to kill the cows but to wait till they die. But they have a law that if the cow dies naturally, then it cannot be eaten.

Prabhupāda: That means we must commit sin. The government...

Amogha: I think their idea is that if...

Prabhupāda: But their argument is fallacious. Kill means it dies. So how we can eat? Just see the... See their intelligence. Kill means it dies.

Śrutakīrti: They say that if it dies naturally it is due to some disease, so there may be some harm in eating such meat.

Prabhupāda: So that means nobody will die. Is there... The law is it to die. Why disease? Disease or no disease, everyone should die.

New blood cells are coming into being. So you cannot say machine growing. That is fallacious. A machine, new machine.
Morning Walk -- July 2, 1975, Denver:

Ambarīṣa: The scientists say that every seven years the body...

Prabhupāda: Not seven years. A medical man says every moment the blood corpuscles are changing.

Ambarīṣa: Are different?

Prabhupāda: Yes. New blood cells are coming into being. So you cannot say machine growing. That is fallacious. A machine, new machine.

Yes, another fallacy.
Morning Walk -- August 12, 1975, Paris:

Brahmānanda: Now Nixon is in debt. He is now in debt.

Prabhupāda: Debt? Why?

Brahmānanda: For his legal fees. He owes 300,000 dollars. So one rabbi...

Prabhupāda: So he cannot give 300,000 dollars?

Brahmānanda: No, he has no money. He had to pay taxes.

Prabhupāda: So we are paying 300,000. So we are better than him. (break) ...rabbi is a Jew?

Brahmānanda: Yes. So this rabbi, he is a personal friend. He has taken the responsibility for raising the money. Actually the fees were 500,000. He has already raised 200,000. 300,000 to go.

Prabhupāda: And nobody is excusing the fee, the lawyers?

Brahmānanda: No. But now he is writing his book.

Prabhupāda: Yes, another fallacy.

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks

Yes, they will say like that, "fallacious," but you have to make them down.
'Life Comes From Life' Slideshow Discussions -- July 3, 1976, Washington, D.C.:

Sadāpūta: We gave a lecture a couple of days ago in Gainesville, and it was interesting. We actually gave a couple of TV interviews.

Prabhupāda: How they received it?

Sadāpūta: Well in the class, at first the professor said "That's completely fallacious." But he quieted down.

Prabhupāda: Yes, they will say like that, "fallacious," but you have to make them down. (laughter)

There are so many fallacies in this argument, by taking care of the human being you worship God. There are so many fallacies.
Morning Walk -- December 5, 1976, Hyderabad:

Prabhupāda: Suppose I have got several sons. If you take care of my one son and you neglect others I will not be happy, naturally. But if you take care of all my sons, then I'll be happy. For a father there is no such distinction that "My particular son should be taken care of and other should be neglected or they should be killed." That is not father's view. So if God is the father of all living entities, if you take simply care of the human being, then what of the others? There are so many fallacies in this argument, by taking care of the human being you worship God. There are so many fallacies. Hm? Is it not? So you have to put this argument, that "By serving human society is to serve God"—that is not fact. That may be partially; it is not complete.

1977 Conversations and Morning Walks

It is the infallible conclusion that your education should be perfected when you can prove through your educational talents that there is God. Then it is... Avicyutaḥ artha. Avicyutaḥ means there is no fallacy—infallible. So that we have to do.
Room Conversation with Scientists, Svarupa Damodara, and Dr. Sharma -- March 31, 1977, Bombay:

Prabhupāda: You have got that stage, so you should invite all scholarly people, every Sunday, Saturday, hold meeting, challenge them. In this way. Kavibhir nirūpito yad-uttamaśloka-guṇānuvarṇanam.

idaṁ hi puṁsas tapasaḥ śrutasya vā
sviṣṭasya sūktasya ca buddhi-dattayoḥ
avicyuto 'rthaḥ kavibhir nirūpito
yad-uttamaśloka-guṇānuvarṇanam
(SB 1.5.22)

Avicyutaḥ artha. It is the infallible conclusion that your education should be perfected when you can prove through your educational talents that there is God. Then it is... Avicyutaḥ artha. Avicyutaḥ means there is no fallacy—infallible. So that we have to do.

Correspondence

1972 Correspondence

It is a fallacy to say that my present engagement with the press is not the best for my spiritual advancement, and if we think in this way we may go on trying out one engagement after another and always say the same excuse.
Letter to Bhargava -- Los Angeles 13 June, 1972:

It is not a matter of changing our engagement, adjusting this or that material condition, in order to find our real happiness. Krishna Consciousness is not like that. It is able to be performed under any variety of material conditions or with any type of engagement. Therefore if your duty as a photographer is very much helpful to our propanganda work and for improving our BTG then there is very much need for your remaining in that occupation and doing it to your best capacity. It is a fallacy to say that my present engagement with the press is not the best for my spiritual advancement, and if we think in this way we may go on trying out one engagement after another and always say the same excuse. This restlessness or agitation of the mind cannot be rectified by altering the material circumstances. If we are Krishna Conscious, any type of occupation will suit me and we shall always be satisfied.

1973 Correspondence

Of course, we cannot expect to find always any utopia in this material world, that is a fallacy, and it may appear to someone who is materialistically inclined that what we are doing is not only harmful to our materialistic condition, but also that we are not caring for our students and so many other things.
Letter to Mr. Robert Keene -- Bombay 9 January, 1973:

Please accept my blessings. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated December 20, 1972, and I have noted the contents with great concern. I do not know what are exactly the facts of the matter, but if there are any discrepancies as you say in the temples of ISKCON, they should be immediately rectified by conscientious officers. Of course, we cannot expect to find always any utopia in this material world, that is a fallacy, and it may appear to someone who is materialistically inclined that what we are doing is not only harmful to our materialistic condition, but also that we are not caring for our students and so many other things. But if you inquire from our students more carefully, you will come to understand that these superficial matters are not very serious in the long run, and that the students are becoming very happy by their acquiring spiritual knowledge and serving Krsna in so many ways. It is said that "one man's food is another man's poison." Because they have become disgusted with this material world, sometimes our devotees appear to have foolishly disregarded everything, that is seen to be something bad in their eyes, but we should not take these things very seriously. Main thing is that these boys and girls have understood what is austerity and the difference between spirit and matter, that is the highest knowledge of existence. Because they are engaged in serving Krsna in this way, you have nothing further to worry, their position in life is very secure and sound because they are going back to home, back to Godhead, without any doubt. Though they may be dressed in rags, still they are more exalted than kings.

Page Title:Fallacious
Compiler:Serene, Labangalatika
Created:04 of Dec, 2008
Totals by Section:BG=0, SB=0, CC=3, OB=2, Lec=9, Con=7, Let=2
No. of Quotes:23