Argue (Letters)

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

1947 to 1965 Correspondence

Letter to Jawaharlal Nehru -- Allahabad 20 January, 1952:

The cultured Brahmin-order of the society would declare that there is God or Brahman and the Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and the Sudras who were less cultured than the Brahmins—would follow the later faithfully call it blindly or otherwise. By such faithfully following the subordinate classes would be able to save much time in the matter of arguing or reasoning for the existence of God at all, and still they would not be faithless.

Letter to Brother -- Jhansi November 1958:

I am prepared to convince you in every respect that there is our Eternal Father and He wants you and all of us to go back to our permanent home. If you argue that there is no such Father God at all, then I am still more prepared to argue with you in all seriousness. In that case you may kindly let me know your definite view points relevantly so that I may try to reply these points one by one. And should you desire to argue with me, then my only request to you will be that for all such arguments we must be always very sincere and serious. Once we are convinced in that way, we must be prepared to act accordingly.

1968 Correspondence

Letter to Mahapurusa -- Los Angeles 12 February, 1968:

I am very glad to learn that you are holding Kirtana on the University campus, do it nicely. Do not bother your head about that rascal Maharishi Mahesa. His activities are like the waves tossing foam on the ocean. It will stay for some time and then vanquish. For the time the ocean appears to be all devouring, but in proper time it is calm and quiet. Krishna Consciousness isn't like that. It is a great science. It requires great spiritual asset to adopt the principles. You have desired to meet with Maharishi Mahesa for argument, and as Lord Caitanya argued with Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya. Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya was talking on the basic principle of Vedanta. So there was a via media interpretation. This man does not follow any Sastra or any authority. He is authority by himself, and has manufactured his own meditation process. Therefore, he is not standard. We cannot waste our time with a non-standard loafer class man. Therefore do not agitate your mind in this way. We are following the footprints of Lord Caitanya. We are not going to become God, as Maharishi says every one of us is God.

Letter to Satsvarupa -- Los Angeles 18 November, 1968:

I am in due receipt of your letter dated Nov. 16, 1968, and it is very encouraging that Devananda is combating with Mr. Jarvis representing Maharishi Mahesa. Yes, in each and every such meeting you should go and challenge these persons, but you must be equipped very strongly with conclusions of the Bhagavad-gita. In the Bhagavad-gita it is clearly said that the first class yogi is he who has in his heart always the eternal form of Krishna. I could not follow what Devananda said to the Jerry Jarvis when he said that he was also worshiping Krishna. It is very good to argue with him even at the suspension of meetings, and it is very good enthusiasm.

1969 Correspondence

Letter to Upendra -- Tittenhurst 27 October, 1969:

Constitutionally every living entity, even if he is in the Vaikuntha Loka, has chance of falling down. Therefore the living entity is called marginal energy. But when the falldown has taken place for the conditioned soul is very difficult to ascertain. Therefore two classes are designated: eternally liberated and eternally conditioned. But for arguments sake, a living entity being marginal energy, he can't be eternally conditioned. The Time is so unlimited that the conditioned souls appear to be eternally so, but from the philosophical view he cannot be eternally conditioned. Since we cannot trace out when we have become conditioned, there is no use of arguing on this point. Better to take care first how we can get rid of this conditional existence; as much as a patient should take care for treating his disease more, and less waste his time in finding out the cause of his disease.

1970 Correspondence

Letter to Damodara Maharaja -- Los Angeles 13 May, 1970:

I am in due receipt of your letter dated 8th April, 1970, which was addressed to my New York office. I am so sorry to learn that there is a sort of conspiracy by some of our God-brothers as not to give me a place at Mayapur. I do not wish to argue on this point, but according to your advice I have already sent a telegram to Acyutananda Brahmacari and an urgent letter also requesting him to purchase the land of Jabed Ali almost a fortnight ago, but I have received no reply til now.

Letter to Jayapataka -- Indore 13 December, 1970:

When I was in Calcutta, many Naxalite and Communist youths used to see me. They were arguing with me, but I defeated them smilingly. They left after offering me their respects. I think they can also be reformed provided we diagnose and administer the proper medicine for them. I am not very much hopeless about Calcutta situation or even if there is some risk we should try to reform them and if we are successful, the people of India will hail us to great estimation and adoration and that will give us good impetus for pushing on our Movement, Krsna Consciousness.

1971 Correspondence

Letter to Locanananda -- Delhi, India 8 December, 1971:

So far your questions: No one can be avatara. unless he is authorized in the scriptures. We have no such record of avatara. in the present age, according to Srimad-Bhagavatam. Real God means he accepts a spiritual master, even He is God Himself. Like Krishna, His Spiritual Master was Sandipani Muni. And Krishna confirms in Bhagavad-gita, IV, that the supreme science is only received in disciplic succession, so where is the question of receiving this knowledge in nay other way? Are these people greater authority than Krishna? As for the teachings of Sri Aurobindo, his idea is not correct. Just like the whole material universe is the creation of the sunshine, so to go to the sunshine does not mean to sit down in the shade of a tree. If somebody argues that this tree is also a creation of the sun so why not sit under the shadow of a tree, this philosophy is not practical and is not accepted in BG. Krishna states that everything is resting in His impersonal feature, but that He is not there. Just like the cloud is sustained in the air, but that does not mean that cloud and air are the same thing. Why worship atom? If in deity there are so many atoms, is it not better to worship combination of atoms in nice form? This sort of philosophy is very misleading and damaging to people who become befooled by it. Try to defeat them, but if you cannot, don't mix with them. Or learn very nicely and argue with them strongly. All great acaryas worship deity, so why should we listen to some small man—Is Aurobindo greater than Krishna?

1973 Correspondence

Letter to Subrata Lahiri -- Bombay 4 January, 1973:

I have received your letter and I very much appreciate your kind sentiments. It appears that you are an intelligent man because you approach submissively and not to argue. In your letter you mention Bhagavad-gita. Actually the whole purpose of Bhagavad-gita is to revive our sanatana-dharma, which is the eternal occupation of the living entity. Sanatana-dharma does not refer to any sectarian process or religion. It is the eternal function of the eternal living entities in relationship with the eternal Supreme Lord. The English word "religion" is a little different from sanatana-dharma. Religion conveys the idea of faith, and faith may change. One may have faith in a particular process, and he may change this faith and adopt another, but sanatana-dharma refers to that activity which cannot be changed. Man professes to be a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist or any other sect. Such designations are not sanatana-dharma. A Hindu may change his faith to become a Muslim, or a Muslim may change his faith to become a Hindu, or a Christian may change his faith and so on. But in all circumstances the change of religious faith does not effect the eternal occupation of rendering service to others. Thus, to profess a particular type of sect is not to profess one's sanatana-dharma. The rendering of service is sanatana-dharma.

Letter to Madhudvisa -- Los Angeles 15 December, 1973:

I have not heard from Tusta Krsna or Siddha-Svarupa Goswamis nor do I know anything of their plans to return to New Zealand. Try to convince them to return to our Society and work cooperatively. That they have gone away is not good thing and it is a deviation from our line of parampara. Rather, avoiding faultfinding and anarchy, they should keep our standards and work maturely and not cause factions and splitting. I am not at all pleased at what they have done, but if they return let us forget what has happened and go forward. As Sannyasins they may preach and you may manage affairs. That will be very nice. We have got so much vital spiritual knowledge to distribute to the public and they are in desperate need of it. The whole world is going to hell and everyone is suffering. In light of this, how can we argue amongst one another and neglect our responsibility for reclaiming these fallen souls for going Back to Home, Back to Godhead.

1977 Correspondence

Letter to Caru -- Mayapur February 28, 1977:

I have heard that you are still not allowed to live in the Berkeley temple. You must fight this and continue the case until we win it. I have read your program for the grand opening of the temple, but I think it will be wiser to make our worship private. Declare that the building is our residence, and that wherever we live we worship the Deity. It is our private residential worship, it is not a temple. Argue like that. As for hiring the bhajan group Bharati Mandal, they are not as good as our bhajans. They eat anything and everything but no bhakti.