Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge


Unacceptable

Bhagavad-gita As It Is

BG Chapters 7 - 12

The followers of a pseudo incarnation may say that they have also seen the transcendental incarnation of God, the universal form, but that is unacceptable because it is clearly stated here that unless one becomes a devotee of Kṛṣṇa one cannot see the universal form of God.
BG 11.48, Purport:

There are many persons who create incarnations. They falsely claim an ordinary human to be an incarnation, but this is all foolishness. We should follow the principles of Bhagavad-gītā, otherwise there is no possibility of attaining perfect spiritual knowledge. Although Bhagavad-gītā is considered the preliminary study of the science of God, still it is so perfect that it enables one to distinguish what is what. The followers of a pseudo incarnation may say that they have also seen the transcendental incarnation of God, the universal form, but that is unacceptable because it is clearly stated here that unless one becomes a devotee of Kṛṣṇa one cannot see the universal form of God. So one first of all has to become a pure devotee of Kṛṣṇa; then he can claim that he can show the universal form of what he has seen. A devotee of Kṛṣṇa cannot accept false incarnations or followers of false incarnations.

Srimad-Bhagavatam

SB Canto 3

Māyāvāda philosophy enunciates that the whole spirit exists, but a part of it, which is called the jīva, is entrapped by illusion. This philosophy, however, is unacceptable because spirit cannot be divided like a fragment of matter.
SB 3.25.17, Purport:

In the state of pure consciousness, or Kṛṣṇa consciousness, one can see himself as a minute particle nondifferent from the Supreme Lord. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā, the jīva, or the individual soul, is eternally part and parcel of the Supreme Lord. Just as the sun's rays are minute particles of the brilliant constitution of the sun, so a living entity is a minute particle of the Supreme Spirit. The individual soul and the Supreme Lord are not separated as in material differentiation. The individual soul is a particle from the very beginning. One should not think that because the individual soul is a particle, it is fragmented from the whole spirit. Māyāvāda philosophy enunciates that the whole spirit exists, but a part of it, which is called the jīva, is entrapped by illusion. This philosophy, however, is unacceptable because spirit cannot be divided like a fragment of matter. That part, the jīva, is eternally a part. As long as the Supreme Spirit exists, His part and parcel also exists. As long as the sun exists, the molecules of the sun's rays also exist.

The materialistic theory that there is no soul and that a child is born simply by material combination of the sperm and ovum is not very feasible. It is unacceptable.
SB 3.31.1, Purport:

Everything is done by the supervision of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Material nature supplies the body, but it does so under the direction of the Supersoul. It is said in Bhagavad-gītā that a living entity is wandering in this material world on a chariot made by material nature. The Supreme Lord, as Supersoul, is always present with the individual soul. He directs material nature to supply a particular type of body to the individual soul according to the result of his work, and the material nature supplies it. Here one word, retaḥ-kaṇāśrayaḥ, is very significant because it indicates that it is not the semen of the man that creates life within the womb of a woman; rather, the living entity, the soul, takes shelter in a particle of semen and is then pushed into the womb of a woman. Then the body develops. There is no possibility of creating a living entity without the presence of the soul simply by sexual intercourse. The materialistic theory that there is no soul and that a child is born simply by material combination of the sperm and ovum is not very feasible. It is unacceptable.

SB Canto 9

For a woman of the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya or vaiśya class to accept another husband in the presence of the husband she has married, or to file for divorce or accept a boyfriend or paramour, is unacceptable in the Vedic culture.
SB 9.3.21, Purport:

It is quite clear that according to Vedic culture a woman who accepts a paramour or second husband in the presence of the husband she has married is certainly responsible for the degradation of her father's family and the family of her husband. The rules of Vedic culture in this regard are strictly observed in the respectable families of brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas even today; only the śūdras are degraded in this matter. For a woman of the brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya or vaiśya class to accept another husband in the presence of the husband she has married, or to file for divorce or accept a boyfriend or paramour, is unacceptable in the Vedic culture. Therefore King Śaryāti, who did not know the real facts of Cyavana Muni's transformation, was surprised to see the behavior of his daughter.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta

CC Adi-lila

As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy deem these scriptures (the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran) unacceptable.
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 Madhya-lila

The word apavitra anna refers to food that is unacceptable for a Vaiṣṇava. In other words, a Vaiṣṇava cannot accept any food offered by an avaiṣṇava in the name of mahā-prasādam.
CC Madhya 9.53, Purport:

The word apavitra anna refers to food that is unacceptable for a Vaiṣṇava. In other words, a Vaiṣṇava cannot accept any food offered by an avaiṣṇava in the name of mahā-prasādam. This should be a principle for all Vaiṣṇavas. When asked, "What is the behavior of a Vaiṣṇava?" Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, "A Vaiṣṇava must avoid the company of an avaiṣṇava (asat)." The word asat refers to an avaiṣṇava, that is, one who is not a Vaiṣṇava. Asat-saṅga-tyāga,—ei vaiṣṇava-ācāra (CC Madhya 22.87). A Vaiṣṇava must be very strict in this respect and should not at all cooperate with an avaiṣṇava. If an avaiṣṇava offers food in the name of mahā-prasādam, it should not be accepted. Such food cannot be prasādam because an avaiṣṇava cannot offer anything to the Lord. Sometimes preachers in the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement have to accept food in a home where the householder is an avaiṣṇava; however, if this food is offered to the Deity, it can be taken. Ordinary food cooked by an avaiṣṇava should not be accepted by a Vaiṣṇava. Even if an avaiṣṇava cooks food without fault, he cannot offer it to Lord Viṣṇu, and it cannot be accepted as mahā-prasādam.

CC Madhya 19.159, Translation:

"Some unnecessary creepers growing with the bhakti creeper are the creepers of behavior unacceptable for those trying to attain perfection, diplomatic behavior, animal-killing, mundane profiteering, mundane adoration and mundane importance. All these are unwanted creepers."

CC Antya-lila

CC Antya 3.188, Translation:

"Liberation, which is unacceptable for a pure devotee, is always offered by Kṛṣṇa without difficulty."

Other Books by Srila Prabhupada

Renunciation Through Wisdom

Dr. Radhakrishnan's writing lacked spiritual insight: in many places he had mishandled and misinterpreted the text, and thus he had made his book unacceptable to spiritualists in the line of pure devotion.
Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.1:

The brahmacārī read the book and came to us a little dissatisfied, though the book itself was deeply esoteric. The reason for his dissatisfaction was that Dr. Radhakrishnan's writing lacked spiritual insight: in many places he had mishandled and misinterpreted the text, and thus he had made his book unacceptable to spiritualists in the line of pure devotion. This is a perfect example of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's statement (1.1.1) that "by Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion" (muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ). When the Lord so easily bewilders Lord Brahmā, Lord Śiva, Lord Indra, and other great universal controllers, it is not at all surprising that Dr. Radhakrishnan is placed into illusion.

Conversations and Morning Walks

1976 Conversations and Morning Walks

And there are so many movements, and the hippies have taken another say(?), but it is not that. It is actually Kṛṣṇa. So long it adheres to the principle, "I'll enjoy, I'll be unaccepted(?)." Otherwise it is ordinary movement.
Room Conversation with Siddha-svarupa -- May 3, 1976, Honolulu:

Prabhupāda: Go on. Yes, arcye viṣṇau śilā-dhīr guruṣu nara-matiḥ. Narakī, if anyone thinks arca-vigraha, the Deities as made of stone, made of earth, or made of something material, and guru, the spiritual master, "He is an ordinary man"—these are forbidden. So why guru is to be considered sākṣād dharitvena samasta-śāstrair, exactly (like) the Supreme Personality of Godhead? That reason is given there. That reason is that he is giving the Kṛṣṇa knowledge; therefore he is as good as Kṛṣṇa. Even though his family members or his friend thinking, "Oh, he has now become guru," still he should be considered the Supreme Personality of Godhead. That reason also given there, that even Kṛṣṇa was taken as ordinary man, but does it mean that He has become ordinary? Similarly any..., our movement, it may appear just like other movement, but because the movement is giving Kṛṣṇa, that means it is as good as Kṛṣṇa. This is the example. Ajñāya haña (follow the order). It may appear to others... And there are so many movements, and the hippies have taken another say(?), but it is not that. It is actually Kṛṣṇa. So long it adheres to the principle, "I'll enjoy, I'll be unaccepted(?)." Otherwise it is ordinary movement. This same man, he's guru, so long he gives the real knowledge of Kṛṣṇa. And the same man, he's ordinary man, as soon as he cannot give. Same thing, just like a stone doll, when it is worshiped according to the regulative principles—Kṛṣṇa. And the same doll, kept in the sculptor's showroom, it is stone. So if we keep our movement pure, then you are as strong as Kṛṣṇa. And as soon as you deviate from it, immediately, ordinary. This is the secret. Now it is up to us, how to keep it pure. Then no enemy can kill us. Nobody can kill you. That purity is wanted, then it will... So what is there difficulty? Their purity to kill him(?). Follow the rules and regulations, worship the Deity, and chant Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, as you have given, then you will remain as strong as Kṛṣṇa. And if we manufacture some idea also, that is no good. Kṛṣṇa cannot be manufactured; Kṛṣṇa is Kṛṣṇa. You cannot manufacture another form competitor of Kṛṣṇa. That is no good. Then failure. Just like the, your one competitor came to, even in the lifetime of Kṛṣṇa, Pauṇḍraka.

Page Title:Unacceptable
Compiler:Vraj Kishori, Alakananda
Created:26 of Nov, 2008
Totals by Section:BG=1, SB=3, CC=4, OB=1, Lec=0, Con=1, Let=0
No. of Quotes:10