Refute (CC and other books)

Expressions researched:
"refutation" |"refutations" |"refute" |"refuted" |"refutes" |"refuting"

CC Adi-lila

CC Adi 2.62, Translation:

In this way their arguments appear in various forms, but the poetry of the Bhāgavatam expertly refutes them all."

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

But if the living entities had been created from material nature at a certain point, they would be noneternal and would have no chance to be liberated and associate with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. When a cause is nullified, its results are nullified. In the second chapter of the Vedānta-sūtra's second khaṇḍa, Ācārya Vedavyāsa has also refuted the conception that the living beings were ever born (nātmā śruter nityatvāc ca tābhyaḥ). Because there is no creation for the living entities, they must be eternal.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

In his Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta (Pūrva 5.165–193), Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī has refuted the charges directed against the devotees by Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya regarding their explanation of the quadruple forms Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. Rūpa Gosvāmī says that these four expansions of Nārāyaṇa are present in the spiritual sky, where They are famous as Mahāvastha.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

Someone might argue that the Absolute would be affected by duality if He were both all-cognizance (Brahman) and the Personality of Godhead with six opulences in full (Bhagavān). To refute such an argument, the aphorism svarūpa-dvayam īkṣyate declares that in spite of appearances, there is no chance of duality in the Absolute, for He is but one in diverse manifestations.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

Malicious editors and scholars who attempt to misrepresent the Pañcarātra-śāstras to refute their regulations are most abominable. In the modern age, such malicious scholars have even commented misleadingly upon the Bhagavad-gītā, which was spoken by Kṛṣṇa, to prove that there is no Kṛṣṇa. How the Māyāvādīs have misrepresented the pāñcarātrika-vidhi will be shown below.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

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. It should be noted that the Bhāgavata school accepts the quadruple forms of Nārāyaṇa, but that does not mean that it accepts many Gods.

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.

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.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

"Considering all these points, one should understand that Śaṅkarācārya's statement that Saṅkarṣaṇa is born as a jīva is completely against the Vedic statements. His assertions are completely refuted by the above arguments. In this connection the commentary of Śrīdhara Svāmī on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (3.1.34) is very helpful."

For a detailed refutation of Śaṅkarācārya's arguments attempting to prove Saṅkarṣaṇa an ordinary living being, one may refer to Śrīmat Sudarśanācārya's commentary on the Śrī-bhāṣya, which is known as the Śruta-prakāśikā.

CC Adi 5.132, Purport:

In the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī has explained Kṛṣṇa's being both Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu and Nārāyaṇa in the spiritual sky and expanding in the quadruple forms known as Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. He has refuted the idea that Kṛṣṇa is an incarnation of Nārāyaṇa. Some devotees think that Nārāyaṇa is the original Personality of Godhead and that Kṛṣṇa is an incarnation.

CC Adi 6.14-15, Purport:

“Materialists sometimes give the argument that as straw eaten by a cow produces milk automatically, so material nature, under different circumstances, produces varieties of manifestations. Thus originally matter is the cause. In refuting this argument, 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.

CC Adi 7.51, Purport:

Although a kaniṣṭha-adhikārī also cannot tolerate such blasphemy, he is not competent to stop it by citing śāstric evidences. Therefore Tapana Miśra and Candraśekhara are understood to be kaniṣṭha-adhikārīs because they could not refute the arguments of the sannyāsīs in Benares. They appealed to Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu to take action, for they felt that they could not tolerate such criticism although they also could not stop it.

CC Adi 7.135, Translation:

All the Māyāvādī sannyāsīs said, “Your Holiness, kindly know from us that we actually have no quarrel with Your refutation of these meanings, for You have given a clear understanding of the sūtras.

CC Adi 17.159, Translation:

Refuting the Kazi's statement, the Lord immediately replied, “The Vedas clearly enjoin that cows should not be killed. Therefore every Hindu, whoever he may be, avoids indulging in cow-killing.

CC Madhya-lila

CC Madhya 6.177, Translation:

The Bhaṭṭācārya presented various types of false arguments with pseudo logic and tried to defeat his opponent in many ways. However, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu refuted all these arguments and established His own conviction.

CC Madhya 6.177, Purport:

The word vitaṇḍā indicates that a debater, not touching the main point or establishing his own point, simply tries to refute the other person's argument. 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.

CC Madhya 12.193, Translation:

Nityānanda Prabhu immediately refuted Śrīla Advaita Ācārya, saying, “You are a teacher of impersonal monism, and the monistic conclusion is a great hindrance to progressive, pure devotional service.

CC Madhya 12.194, Purport:

The philosophy of monism is an adjustment of the Buddhist philosophy of voidism. In a mock fight with Śrī Advaita Ācārya, Śrī Nityānanda Prabhu was refuting this type of monistic philosophy. Vaiṣṇavas certainly accept Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa as the ultimate "one," and that which is without Kṛṣṇa is called māyā, or that which has no existence.

CC Madhya 18.187, Translation:

When that person tried to establish the impersonal Brahman conception of the Absolute Truth on the basis of the Koran, Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu refuted his argument.

CC Madhya 18.188, Translation:

Whatever arguments he put forward, the Lord refuted them all. Finally the person became stunned and could not speak.

CC Madhya 18.189, Translation:

Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, “The Koran certainly establishes impersonalism, but at the end it refutes that impersonalism and establishes the personal God.

CC Madhya 18.196, Translation:

“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.

CC Madhya 23.117-118, Purport:

It was also foretold that all the asuras, who are enemies of the demigods, would be cut down by Lord Viṣṇu by His white and black plenary expansions and that the Supreme Personality of Godhead would appear and perform wonderful activities. In this connection, one should see the Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta, the chapter called Kṛṣṇāmṛta, verses 156–164. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī has refuted this argument about the hair incarnation, and his refutation is supported by Śrī Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa's commentaries. This matter is further discussed in the Kṛṣṇa-sandarbha (29) and in the commentary known as Sarva-saṁvādinī, by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī.

CC Madhya 25.48, Translation:

“If one accepts the Personality of Godhead, the philosophy that maintains that God and the living entity are one cannot be established. Therefore Śaṅkarācārya argued against and refuted all kinds of revealed scriptures.

CC Madhya 25.55, Translation:

“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.

CC Madhya 25.56, Purport:

The fact is, however, that if one accepts the existence of God, one certainly cannot establish the theory of monism. For this reason Śaṅkarācārya refuted all kinds of Vedic literature that establishes the supremacy of the Personality of Godhead. In various ways, Śaṅkarācārya has tried to refute the Vedic literature. Throughout the world, ninety-nine percent of the philosophers following in the footsteps of Śaṅkarācārya refuse to accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Instead they try to establish their own opinions. It is typical of mundane philosophers to want to establish their own opinions and refute those of others.

CC Madhya 25.56, Purport:

The five philosophers mentioned above do not accept Lord Viṣṇu as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but they are very busy refuting the philosophies of other schools. There are six kinds of philosophical processes in India. Because Vyāsadeva is the Vedic authority, he is known as Vedavyāsa. His philosophical explanation of the Vedānta-sūtra is accepted by the devotees.

CC Antya-lila

CC Antya 7.101, Translation:

Whatever conclusions Vallabha Bhaṭṭa eagerly presented were refuted by personalities like Advaita Ācārya.

CC Antya 7.113, Translation:

"In my commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam," he said, “I have refuted the explanations of Śrīdhara Svāmī. I cannot accept his explanations.

CC Antya 7.118, Translation:

By various hints and refutations, Lord Caitanya, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, corrected Vallabha Bhaṭṭa exactly as Kṛṣṇa had cut down the false pride of Indra.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 23:

Due to his poor fund of knowledge, the materialist cannot see beyond the purview of his imperfect senses; thus he thinks that matter automatically takes its own shape independent of a conscious background. This is refuted by Śrīla Vyāsadeva in the first verse of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. As stated before, Vyāsadeva is a liberated soul, and he compiled this book of authority after attaining spiritual perfection.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 23:

Some Māyāvādī scholars argue that Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was not compiled by Śrīla Vyāsadeva, and some suggest that the book is a modern creation written by someone named Vopadeva. In order to refute this meaningless argument, Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī points out that there are many of the oldest purāṇas which make reference to the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

Nectar of Devotion

Nectar of Devotion 21:

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 Padyāvalī which contains the following conversation between Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā. One morning, when Kṛṣṇa came to Rādhā, Rādhā asked Him, "My dear Keśava, where is Your vāsa at present?" The Sanskrit word vāsa has three meanings: one meaning is residence, one meaning is fragrance, and another meaning is dress.

Renunciation Through Wisdom

Renunciation Through Wisdom 2.1:

Lord Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā that He is the source of everything, but envious and cunning people try to refute this fact. Thus He appeared as Lord Caitanya and taught that Lord Kṛṣṇa is the source of everything. There is no difference between the instructions of Lord Kṛṣṇa and those of Lord Caitanya. The object of worship is the same. Still, the unfortunate people of this age refuse to accept these teachings.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 2.2:

Lord Kapila, the son of Devahūti, is a different person altogether from the agnostic Kapila. Lord Kapila is accepted as an empowered incarnation of the Supreme Godhead. In the Bhagavad-gītā Lord Kṛṣṇa refutes the atheist Kapila's Sāṅkhya philosophy and its contention that the unmanifested soul is nonexistent.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 2.13:

In attempting to prove that the Absolute Truth cannot be the Supreme Personality of Godhead with unlimited energies, they argue that this would mean immutable Brahman is actually mutable. Thus their logic loses all cohesion and they become a laughingstock. In trying to refute the established theory of pariṇāma-vāda, or the "transformation of energy," they accuse Śrīla Vyāsadeva of being mistaken when he says that the material universe and the living entities are all transformations of the Lord's energy and are therefore real, not false.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 3.5:

The Māyāvādīs are confused as to whether refuting the existence of consciousness or accepting it will give them contentment. The conscious beings always control inert matter. A simple example proves this point: we see how a puny conscious being like a crow defecates fearlessly on the head of a stone statue of some hero, thus demonstrating the conquest of dynamic spirit over dead matter.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.1:

To refute this impersonal conception of the Absolute, the previously quoted verse from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam unequivocally states that the Absolute Truth is a person. This transcendental personality is so powerful that He could impart the knowledge of the Vedas even to Lord Brahmā, who then went on to create the material universe. Lord Brahmā did not receive this extraordinary Vedic knowledge after creation but before he began the work of creation.

Sri Isopanisad

Sri Isopanisad 5, Purport:

We should not take it for granted that because we cannot see God with our eyes the Lord has no personal existence. Śrī Īśopaniṣad refutes this argument by declaring that the Lord is far away but very near also. The abode of the Lord is beyond the material sky, and we have no means to measure even this material sky. If the material sky extends so far, then what to speak of the spiritual sky, which is altogether beyond it? That the spiritual sky is situated far, far away from the material universe is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā (15.6).