Argue (CC and Other Books)

Expressions researched:
"argue" |"argued" |"arguer" |"argues" |"arguing"

Notes from the compiler: VedaBase query: argue or argued or argues or arguing or arguer not "may argue*"@ 5 not "might argue"@4

CC Preface and Introduction

CC Introduction:

It is useless to argue or speculate about the inconceivable. If something is truly inconceivable, it is not subject to speculation or experimentation. Our energy is limited, and our sense perception is limited; therefore we must rely on the Vedic conclusions regarding that subject matter which is inconceivable. Knowledge of the superior nature must simply be accepted without argument. How is it possible to argue about something to which we have no access? The method for understanding transcendental subject matter is given by Lord Kṛṣṇa Himself in the Bhagavad-gītā, where Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna at the beginning of the Fourth Chapter:

imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān aham avyayam

vivasvān manave prāha manur ikṣvākave ’bravīt

"I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvān, and Vivasvān instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Ikṣvāku." (BG 4.1) This is the method of paramparā, or disciplic succession. Similarly, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam explains that Kṛṣṇa imparted knowledge into the heart of Brahmā, the first created being within the universe. Brahmā imparted those lessons to his disciple Nārada, and Nārada imparted that knowledge to his disciple Vyāsadeva. Vyāsadeva imparted it to Madhvācārya, and from Madhvācārya the knowledge came down to Mādhavendra Purī and then to Īśvara Purī, and from him to Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

CC Adi-lila

CC Adi 2.61, Purport:

Some scholars argue that because Nārāyaṇa has four hands whereas Śrī Kṛṣṇa has only two, Nārāyaṇa is the original Personality of Godhead and Kṛṣṇa is His incarnation. Such unintelligent scholars do not understand the features of the Absolute.

CC Adi 2.66, Translation:

The import of this verse has stopped you from arguing. Now listen to another verse of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.

CC Adi 2.108, Purport:

A learned man who has thoroughly studied the scriptures cannot hesitate to accept Śrī Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If such a man argues about this matter, certainly he must be doing so to agitate the minds of his opponents.

CC Adi 5.41, Purport:

Great souls assert that Nārāyaṇa, who is known as the Paramātmā, or Supersoul, is beyond material nature, and this is in accordance with the statements of the Vedic literature. Māyāvādīs also agree that Nārāyaṇa can expand Himself in various forms. Śaṅkara says that he does not attempt to argue that portion of the devotees' understanding, but he must protest the idea that Saṅkarṣaṇa is produced from Vāsudeva, Pradyumna is produced from Saṅkarṣaṇa, and Aniruddha is produced from Pradyumna, for if Saṅkarṣaṇa is understood to represent the living entities created from the body of Vāsudeva, the living entities would have to be noneternal. The living entities are supposed to be freed from material contamination by engaging in prolonged temple worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, reading Vedic literature and performing yoga and pious activities to attain the Supreme Lord. 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.

CC Adi 7.74, Purport:

The principles of the paramparā system were strictly honored in previous ages—Satya-yuga, Tretā-yuga and Dvāpara-yuga—but in the present age, Kali-yuga, people neglect the importance of this system of śrauta-paramparā, or receiving knowledge by disciplic succession. In this age, people are prepared to argue that they can understand that which is beyond their limited knowledge and perception through so-called scientific observations and experiments, not knowing that actual truth comes down to man from authorities. This argumentative attitude is against the Vedic principles, and it is very difficult for one who adopts it to understand that the holy name of Kṛṣṇa is as good as Kṛṣṇa Himself. Since Kṛṣṇa and His holy name are identical, the holy name is eternally pure and beyond material contamination. It is the Supreme Personality of Godhead as a transcendental vibration. The holy name is completely different from material sound, as confirmed by Narottama dāsa Ṭhākura: golokera prema-dhana, hari-nāma-saṅkīrtana.

CC Adi 7.153, Purport:

Here is an example of how a sannyāsī should preach. When Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu went to Vārāṇasī, He went there alone, not with a big party. Locally, however, He made friendships with Candraśekhara and Tapana Miśra, and Sanātana Gosvāmī also came to see Him. Therefore, although He did not have many friends there, due to His sound preaching and His victory in arguing with the local sannyāsīs on the Vedānta philosophy, He became greatly famous in that part of the country, as explained in the next verse.

CC Adi 10.85, Purport:

The sahajiyās level three accusations against Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī. This is certainly not congenial for the execution of devotional service. The first accusation concerns a materialist who was very proud of his reputation as a great Sanskrit scholar and approached Śrī Rūpa and Sanātana to argue with them about the revealed scriptures. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī, not wanting to waste their time, gave him a written statement that he had defeated them in a debate on the revealed scriptures. Taking this paper, the scholar approached Jīva Gosvāmī for a similar certificate of defeat, but Jīva Gosvāmī did not agree to give him one. On the contrary, he argued with him regarding the scriptures and defeated him. Certainly it was right for Jīva Gosvāmī to stop such a dishonest scholar from advertising that he had defeated Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī and Sanātana Gosvāmī, but due to their illiteracy the sahajiyā class refer to this incident to accuse Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī of deviating from the principle of humility. They do not know, however, that humility and meekness are appropriate when one's own honor is insulted but not when Lord Viṣṇu or the ācāryas are blasphemed. In such cases one should not be humble and meek but must act. One should follow the example given by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu.

CC Adi 14.32, Purport:

This simple philosophy propounded by Śacīmātā, even though she is a woman, can defeat the Māyāvādī philosophers who speculate on oneness. The defect of Māyāvāda philosophy is that it does not accept the variety that is useful for practical purposes. Śacīmātā gave the example that although an earthen pot and a lump of dirt are basically one, for practical purposes the waterpot is useful whereas the lump of dirt is useless. Sometimes scientists argue that matter and spirit are one, with no difference between them. Factually, in a higher sense, there is no difference between matter and spirit, but one should have the practical knowledge that matter, being an inferior state of existence, is useless for our spiritual, blissful life, whereas spirit, being a finer state, is full of bliss. In this connection the Bhāgavatam gives the example that dirt and fire are practically one and the same. From the earth grow trees, and from their wood come fire and smoke. Nevertheless, for heat we can utilize the fire but not the earth, smoke or wood. Therefore, for the ultimate realization of the goal of life, we are concerned with the fire of the spirit, not the dull wood or earth of matter.

CC Madhya-lila

CC Madhya 2.93, Purport:

According to Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, there are three kinds of devotees, known as bhajana-vijña (experts in devotional service), bhajana-śīla (devotees engaged in devotional service), and kṛṣṇa-nāme dīkṣita kṛṣṇa-nāma-kārī (initiated devotees engaged in chanting). The author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta begs the mercy of all these devotees and asks them to be pleased with him. He says, "Let the neophyte devotees—the devotees who are very expert in arguing though they have no sense of advanced devotional service, who think themselves very advanced because they imitate some smārta-brāhmaṇa—let such devotees not be displeased with me, thinking that I have committed errors in this regard. I beg their pardon with great humility, but I am submitting that I personally have no desire to add or subtract anything. I have only written what I have heard in the disciplic succession because I am dedicated to the lotus feet of previous ācāryas like Svarūpa Dāmodara, Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī and Rūpa Gosvāmī. I have only written what I have learned from them."

CC Madhya 8.83, Purport:

Actually the caste brāhmaṇas of the smārta community are opposed to the principles of the Sātvata-pañcarātra. Furthermore, there are many Māyāvādīs and those overly addicted to material sense enjoyment. None of these can be compared to a person who is purely engaged in preaching Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Every Kṛṣṇa conscious person is constantly endeavoring to utilize different transcendental devices in the service of the Lord. Such a devotee renounces all material enjoyment and completely dedicates himself to the service of his spiritual master and Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He may be a perfect celibate, a restrained householder, a regulated vānaprastha or a tridaṇḍi-sannyāsī in the renounced order. It doesn’t matter. The pseudo transcendentalists and the pure devotees cannot be compared, nor can one argue that a person can invent his own way of worship.

CC Madhya 8.309, Translation:

This part of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu's pastimes is most confidential. One can derive benefit quickly only by faith; otherwise, by arguing one will always remain far away.

CC Madhya 8.310, Purport:

Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura says that Kṛṣṇa is obtainable for the faithful, but for those who are accustomed to argue, Kṛṣṇa is far, far away. Similarly, these talks between Rāmānanda Rāya and Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu can be understood by a person who has firm faith. Those who are not in the disciplic succession, the asauta-panthīs, cannot have faith in these talks. They are always doubting and engaging in mental concoctions. These talks cannot be understood by such whimsical people. Transcendental topics remain far, far away from those engaged in mundane arguments. In this regard, the Vedic mantras in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad (1.2.9) state, naiṣā tarkeṇa matir āpaneyā proktānyenaiva su-jñānāya preṣṭha.

CC Madhya 9.49, Purport:

The Buddhists argue that the world is false, but this is not valid. The world is temporary, but it is not false. As long as we have the body, we must suffer the pleasures and pains of the body, even though we are not the body. We may not take these pleasures and pains very seriously, but they are factual nonetheless. We cannot actually say that they are false. If the bodily pains and pleasures were false, the creation would be false also, and consequently no one would take very much interest in it. The conclusion is that the material creation is not false or imaginary, but it is temporary.

CC Madhya 10.177, Purport:

A discussion of the impersonal Brahman is not very palatable to a devotee. The so-called regulations of the śāstras also appear null and void to him. There are many people who argue over the śāstras, but for a devotee such discussions are but tumultuous roaring. By the influence of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, all these problems disappear.

CC Madhya 18.227, Translation:

Whoever argues about this is a great fool. He intentionally and personally brings a thunderbolt down upon his head.

CC Madhya 22.71, Purport:

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has stated that if one has developed faith in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he is to be considered an eligible candidate for further advancement in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Those who have faith are divided into three categories—uttama, madhyama and kaniṣṭha (first class, second class and neophyte). A first-class devotee has firm conviction in the revealed scriptures and is expert in arguing according to the śāstras. He is firmly convinced of the science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The madhyama-adhikārī, or second-class devotee, has firm conviction in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, but he cannot support his conviction by citing śāstric references. The neophyte devotee does not yet have firm faith. In this way the devotees are typed.

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 Antya-lila

CC Antya 2.171, Translation:

Please hear the pastimes of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu with faith and confidence. Do not argue, for arguments will produce a contrary result.

CC Antya 3.80, Purport:

While we are preaching, opposing elements sometimes argue, "If all living entities were delivered by the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, what would happen then? The universe would be devoid of living entities." In answer to this, we may say that in a prison there are many prisoners, but if one thinks that the prison would be empty if all the prisoners adopted good behavior, he is incorrect. Even if all the prisoners within a jail are freed, other criminals will fill it again. A prison will never be vacant, for there are many prospective criminals who will fill the prison cells, even if the present criminals are freed by the government. As confirmed in the Bhagavad-gītā (13.22), kāraṇaṁ guṇa-saṅgo ‘sya sad-asad-yoni-janmasu: “Because of the living entity's association with material nature, he meets with good and evil among various species.” There are many unmanifested living entities covered by the mode of ignorance who will gradually come to the mode of passion. Most of them will become criminals because of their fruitive activities and again fill the prisons.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter Intoduction:

Since it is not possible to obtain information of anything beyond this material nature by experimental means, those who believe only in experimental knowledge may doubt the Vedic conclusions, for such people cannot even calculate how far this universe extends, nor can they reach far into the universe itself. That which is beyond our power of conception is called acintya, inconceivable. It is useless to argue or speculate about the inconceivable. If something is truly inconceivable, it is not subject to speculation or experimentation. Our energy is limited, and our sense perception is limited; therefore we must rely on the Vedic conclusions regarding that subject matter which is inconceivable. Knowledge of the superior nature must simply be accepted without argument. How is it possible to argue about something to which we have no access?

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 17:

According to such Māyāvāda philosophy, the Personality of Godhead, His abode, His devotional service and His emotional devotees are all under the spell of māyā and are consequently subjected to the material condition. Those who forget the transcendental nature of the Supreme Lord, His abode, His devotional service and His devotees consider all these to be but manifestations of material activity. One who thinks that there is a possibility of arguing about transcendence is called an agnostic, and one who thinks that there is a possibility of criticizing transcendence is called an atheist. Lord Caitanya wanted to accept all kinds of agnostics, atheists, skeptics and unfaithfuls and swallow them in the flood of love of God. Therefore He accepted the renounced order of life to attract all these forces.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 17:

They were surprised to see Lord Caitanya chanting and dancing after He accepted His sannyāsa order from Keśava Bhāratī, for Keśava Bhāratī belonged to the Māyāvādī school. Since Lord Caitanya therefore also belonged to the Māyāvādī sect of sannyāsīs, the Māyāvādīs were surprised to see Him engaged in chanting and dancing instead of hearing or reading the Vedānta-sūtras, as is the custom. The Māyāvādī philosophers are very fond of the Vedānta, and they misinterpret it in their own way. Misunderstanding their own position, they criticized Lord Caitanya as an unauthorized sannyāsī, arguing that because He was a sentimentalist He was not actually a bona fide sannyāsī.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 20:

Generally Māyāvādī philosophers are perplexed before a learned Vaiṣṇava because the Māyāvādīs cannot explain the cause of bondage of the living entities. They simply say, "It is due to ignorance," but they cannot explain how the living entities can be covered by ignorance if they are supreme. The actual reason is that the living entities, although qualitatively one with the Supreme, are infinitesimal, not infinite. Had they been infinite, there would have been no possibility of their being covered by ignorance. Because the living entity is infinitesimal, he can be covered by an inferior energy. The foolishness and ignorance of the Māyāvādīs are revealed when they try to explain how the infinite can be covered by ignorance. It is offensive to attempt to qualify the infinite by arguing that He is subject to the spell of ignorance.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 20:

Although Śaṅkara attempted to cover the Supreme Lord by his Māyāvāda philosophy, he was simply following the order of the Supreme Lord. It should be understood that his teachings were a timely necessity but not a permanent fact. In the Vedānta-sūtra the distinction between the energy and the energetic is accepted from the very beginning. The second aphorism of the Vedānta-sūtra—janmādy asya yataḥ—-clearly states that the Supreme Absolute Truth is the source of all emanations. Thus the emanations are the energy of the Supreme, whereas the Supreme Himself is the energetic. Śaṅkara has falsely argued that if the transformation of energy is accepted, the Supreme Absolute Truth cannot remain immutable. But this is not true. Despite the fact that unlimited energy is always being generated, the Supreme Absolute Truth remains always the same. He is not affected by the emanation of unlimited energies. Śaṅkarācārya has therefore incorrectly established his theory of illusion.

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 21:

Unfortunate persons become enamored of these atheistic philosophers and thus can never understand the real nature of the Absolute Truth. It is far better to follow in the footsteps of great souls, or mahājanas. According to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, there are twelve mahājanas: (1) Brahmā, (2) Lord Śiva, (3) Nārada, (4) Vaivasvata Manu, (5) Kapila (not the atheist, but the original Kapila), (6) the Kumāras, (7) Prahlāda, (8) Bhīṣma, (9) Janaka, (10) Bali, (11) Śukadeva Gosvāmī and (12) Yamarāja. According to the Mahābhārata, there is no point in arguing about the Absolute Truth because there are so many different Vedic scriptures and philosophical understandings that no one philosopher can agree with another. Since everyone is trying to present his own point of view and reject others, it is very difficult to understand the prime necessity of life expressed by religious principles. Therefore it is better to follow in the footsteps of the mahājanas, great souls; then one can achieve the desired success. Lord Caitanya's teachings are just like nectar, and they hold whatever you need. The best way is to take to this path and follow it.”

Teachings of Lord Caitanya, Chapter 23:

That the Supreme Lord, the Personality of Godhead, is all-perfect is confirmed in all śruti-mantras. It is said in the śruti-mantras that the all-perfect Lord glanced over matter and thus created all living beings. The living beings are parts and parcels of the Lord, and He impregnates the vast material nature with the seeds of the spiritual sparks. Thus the creative energies are set in motion for so many wonderful creations. When one atheist argued that God is no more expert than the manufacturer of a subtle watch that has so many delicate parts, we had to reply that God is a greater mechanic than the watchmaker because He creates one machine in male and female forms that go on producing innumerable similar machines without the further attention of God. If a man could manufacture a set of machines capable of producing other machines without the man giving the matter any further attention, then that man could be said to equal the intelligence of God. But that is not possible. Each and every one of man's imperfect machines has to be handled individually by a mechanic.

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 many of the oldest Purāṇas make reference to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. The first śloka, or verse, of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam begins with the Gāyatrīmantra, and there is reference to this in the Matsya Purāṇa (the oldest Purāṇa). In that Purāṇa it is said about the Bhāgavatam that in it there are many narrations and spiritual instructions, that it begins with the Gāyatrīmantra, and that it contains the history of Vṛtrāsura. It is also said that whoever makes a gift of this great work on a full-moon day attains to the highest perfection of life and goes back to Godhead. There is also reference to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam in other Purāṇas, which even indicate that the work consists of twelve cantos and eighteen thousand ślokas. In the Padma Purāṇa there is also a reference to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, during a conversation between Gautama and Mahārāja Ambarīṣa.

Nectar of Devotion

Nectar of Devotion 3:

The second-class devotee has been defined by the following symptoms: he is not very expert in arguing on the strength of revealed scripture, but he has firm faith in the objective. The purport of this description is that the second-class devotee has firm faith in the procedure of devotional service unto Kṛṣṇa, but he may sometimes fail to offer arguments and decisions on the strength of revealed scripture to an opposing party. But at the same time he is still undaunted within himself as to his decision that Kṛṣṇa is the supreme object of worship.

Nectar of Devotion 13:

Some scholars argue that simply by following the principles of varṇa and āśrama one can gradually rise to the perfections reached by practicing devotional service, but this argument is not accepted by the great authorities. Lord Caitanya also condemned this idea while He was talking with Rāmānanda Rāya about the gradual development of devotional service. He rejected the idea of the importance of varṇāśrama-dharma when it was put forward by Rāmānanda Rāya. He said that this advancement of varṇa and āśrama is merely external. There is a higher principle. In Bhagavad-gītā also the Lord says that one has to give up all other principles of elevation and take simply to the method of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That will help one in achieving the highest perfection of life.

Nectar of Devotion 41:

Among the groups of different friends of Kṛṣṇa, some are well known from various scriptures, and some are well known by popular tradition. There are three divisions among Kṛṣṇa's friends: some are eternally in friendship with Kṛṣṇa, some are elevated demigods, and some are perfected devotees. In all of these groups there are some who by nature are fixed in Kṛṣṇa's service and are always engaged in giving counsel; some of them are very fond of joking and naturally cause Kṛṣṇa to smile by their words; some of them are by nature very simple, and by their simplicity they please Lord Kṛṣṇa; some of them create wonderful situations by their activities, apparently against Kṛṣṇa; some of them are very talkative, always arguing with Kṛṣṇa and creating a debating atmosphere; and some of them are very gentle and give pleasure to Kṛṣṇa by their sweet words. All of these friends are very intimate with Kṛṣṇa, and they show expertise in their different activities, their aim always being to please Kṛṣṇa.

Nectar of Devotion 51:

When Nārada Muni was passing through Vṛndāvana, he came to the Bhāṇḍīravana forest and saw in one of the trees the famous parrot couple that always accompanies Lord Kṛṣṇa. The couple was imitating some discussion they had heard upon the Vedānta philosophy, and thus were seemingly arguing upon various philosophical points. Upon seeing this, Nārada Muni was struck with wonder, and he began to stare without moving his eyelids. This is an example of anurasa, or imitation.

Krsna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead

Krsna Book 24:

Mahārāja Nanda and other elder members argued that without satisfying the predominating god one cannot derive any good result simply by material activities. This is actually the fact. For example, it is sometimes found that in spite of first-class medical help and treatment by a first-class physician, a diseased person dies. It is concluded, therefore, that first-class medical treatment or the attempts of a first-class physician are not in themselves the cause for curing a patient; there must be the hand of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Similarly, a father's and mother's taking care of their children is not the cause of the children's comfort. Sometimes it is found that in spite of all care by the parents, the children go bad or succumb to death. Therefore material causes are not sufficient for results.

Krsna Book 64:

The King continued: “In spite of all this, unfortunately one of the brāhmaṇas' cows that I had given in charity chanced to enter amongst my other cows. Not knowing this, I again gave it in charity, to another brāhmaṇa. As the cow was being taken away by this brāhmaṇa, its former master claimed it as his own, stating, "This cow was formerly given to me, so how is it that you are taking it away?" Thus there was arguing and fighting between the two brāhmaṇas, and they came before me and charged that I had taken back a cow I had previously given in charity.” To give something to someone and then to take it back is considered a great sin, especially in dealing with a brāhmaṇa.

Krsna Book 87:

Sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma means that everything is Lord Kṛṣṇa in the sense that everything is His energy. That is the vision of the mahā-bhāgavatas. They see everything in relation to Kṛṣṇa. The impersonalists argue that Kṛṣṇa Himself has been transformed into many and that therefore everything is Kṛṣṇa and worship of anything is worship of Him. This false argument is answered by Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā: although everything is a transformation of the energy of Kṛṣṇa, He is not present everywhere. He is simultaneously present and not present. By His energy He is present everywhere, but as the energetic He is not present everywhere. This simultaneous presence and nonpresence is inconceivable to our present senses. But a clear explanation is given in the beginning of the Īśopaniṣad, in which it is stated that the Supreme Lord is so complete that although unlimited energies and their transformations emanate from Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa's personality is not in the least bit transformed. Therefore, since Kṛṣṇa is the cause of all causes, intelligent persons should take shelter of His lotus feet.

Krsna Book 87:

Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī has composed a nice verse in this regard: "Let others engage in severe austerities, let others fall to the land from the tops of hills and give up their lives, let others travel to many holy places of pilgrimage for salvation, or let them engage in deep study of philosophy and Vedic literature. Let the mystic yogīs engage in their meditational service, and let the different sects engage in unnecessary arguing as to which is the best. But it is a fact that unless one is Kṛṣṇa conscious, unless one is engaged in devotional service, and unless one has the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he cannot cross over this material ocean." An intelligent person, therefore, gives up all stereotyped ideas and joins the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement for factual liberation.

Krsna Book 87:

It is said by Lord Rāmacandra, "I always give confidence and security to anyone who surrenders unto Me and decides definitely that He is My eternal servant, for that is My natural inclination." Similarly, Lord Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, "The influence of the material nature is insurmountable, but anyone who surrenders unto Me can verily overcome the influence of material nature." The devotees are not at all interested in arguing with the nondevotees to nullify their theories. Rather than wasting time, they always engage themselves in the transcendental loving service of the Lord in full Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

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.

Krsna Book 88:

The brahmacārī addressed Vṛkāsura as the son of Śakuni just to convince him that He was known to his father, Śakuni. Vṛkāsura then took the brahmacārī to be someone known to his family, and therefore the brahmacārī’s sympathetic words appealed to him. Before the demon could argue that he had no time to take rest, the Lord informed him about the importance of the body, and the demon was convinced. Any man, especially a demon, takes his body to be very important. Thus Vṛkāsura became convinced about the importance of his body.

Renunciation Through Wisdom

Renunciation Through Wisdom 1.7:

When laborers and bosses perform activities that are not intended to please Lord Viṣṇu and are in fact troublesome to the Lord, they end up arguing and fighting with each other, thus creating an awful situation in society. The Communists and Socialists are spending money, intelligence, and even lives propagating their "isms"; the Bolsheviks revolted, disrupting the entire land of Russia and promising to fulfill the people's dream of a prosperous household life on a mass scale; the workers' unions are constantly at odds with the employers. All these complicated problems have one simple solution: everyone should perform karma-yoga, or work meant to please the Supreme Lord.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 1.9:

Once the spirit soul takes shelter of māyā, the illusory material energy, he develops the material qualities of goodness, passion, and ignorance. The spirit soul loses his original characteristics and develops a new nature, which is controlled by the three modes of material nature, and this continues until such time as he transcends them. His actions are prompted accordingly. If it happened in any other way, then material variegatedness would not be visible in this phenomenal world. So if a person fails to inform himself about the very subtle laws and workings of material nature, and at the same time he argues that all activities are sanctioned and inspired by the Supreme Lord, then he is reducing the Supreme Lord's position and making Him out to be partial and unjust. The Lord never favors one and discriminates against another. Factually, He advises everyone to give up all material activities, which are by nature unstable and temporary. Because of forgetfulness of God, a man becomes an eternal victim of ignorance, which then colours all his actions.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 2.13:

The austerities a monist performs are painful both during the initial stage of practice (sādhana) and when he has supposedly reached perfection. The impersonalists suffer excruciating pains trying to establish the oneness of matter and spirit through speculative theories. Thinking that Brahman is impotent, through sophistry they try to equate the Lord's inferior, material energy with His superior, spiritual energy, thus reaping ridicule from truly learned circles. 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. Thus in their philosophical discussions the monists reject the main purport and essence of all Vedic scriptures and their corollaries and hang on to nonessential injunctions, such as tat tvam asi, "You are that." They like to deliberate on these subpoints, but when confronted with the arguments of a learned Vaiṣṇava, they turn and run from the battlefront.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.1:

We have not the slightest intention of confronting a world-famous philosopher like Dr. Radhakrishnan with arguments, yet on the brahmacārī's repeated request we have to scrutinize the text and point out the discrepancies. We have great respect for Dr. Radhakrishnan, not only because he is the vice-president of our country but also because of his scholarship and his position as an erudite master of Hindu philosophy. Furthermore, he is faithful to the brahminical tradition he hails from and is a follower of the Māyāvāda school. Going by the oft-quoted dictum that it is better to have a learned enemy than a foolish friend, I feel encouraged in this matter. An intelligent opponent will present reasonable rebuttals, but an ignorant friend may bring about disaster with his floundering. Therefore we feel no compunction about strongly arguing against the points Dr. Radhakrishnan makes in his Bhagavad-gītā commentary.

Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.3:

In the Bhagavad-gītā, Arjuna glorifies Lord Kṛṣṇa as akṣara, Para-brahman, and ādi-deva (the original Personality of Godhead). Dr. Radhakrishnan writes that the term akṣara, "inexhaustible," is synonymous with the word avyaya, "without deterioration." Therefore why does he conclude that Lord Kṛṣṇa and His body are different? This we fail to understand. On page 275, Dr. Radhakrishnan admits that Arjuna says Lord Kṛṣṇa is Para-brahman, Bhagavān, the Absolute Truth. In the same book and on the same page he writes something quite incoherent and fictitious and attributes it to Arjuna: "Arjuna states that the Supreme (Śrī Kṛṣṇa) is both Brahman and Īśvara, Absolute and God." If Dr. Radhakrishnan possesses such a sketchy and incorrect perception of the Gītā that he thinks Bhagavān is different from Brahman then how can he claim to have read the Gītā? He argues that Bhagavān and Supersoul Kṛṣṇa are products of māyā, while Brahman is not! Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī has severely criticized such speculative philosophy. In the Caitanya-caritāmṛta he writes, "Not knowing that Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān are all features of Kṛṣṇa, foolish scholars speculate in various ways."

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:

Because He is full of inconceivable potencies, God can accept our service through any sort of medium, and He can convert His different potencies according to His own will. Nonbelievers argue either that the Lord cannot incarnate Himself at all, or that if He does He descends in a form of material energy. These arguments are nullified if we accept the existence of the Lord's inconceivable potencies. Then we will understand that even if the Lord appears before us in the form of material energy, it is quite possible for Him to convert this energy into spiritual energy. Since the source of the energies is one and the same, the energies can be utilized according to the will of their source. For example, the Lord can appear in the form of the arcā-vigraha, a Deity supposedly made of earth, stone or wood. Deity forms, although engraved from wood, stone or other matter, are not idols, as the iconoclasts contend.