Argument

śāstraṁ hy abuddhvā tattvena kecid vāda-balāj janāḥ

śāstraṁ hy abuddhvā tattvena kecid vāda-balāj janāḥ |
kāma-dveṣābhibhūtatvād ahaṅkāra-vaśaṁ gatāḥ ||
yāthātathyam avijñāya śāstrāṇāṁ śāstra-dasyavaḥ |
brahma-stenā nirārambhā dambha-moha-vaśānugāḥ ||
(Mahābhārata: Śānti-parva, 269.53)

“Not understanding śāstra accurately, some persons become captivated by arrogance (ahaṅkāra) on account of being overcome by desire or enmity on the strength of argument. Without knowing the truth of the śāstras, the robbers of the śāstras—thieves of Brahman—controlled by deceit and delusion, remain without undertaking [i.e., they do not take up the practices taught in the śāstras beginning with equanimity and so on].”

Read on →

nāsac-chāstreṣu sajjeta nopajīveta jīvikām

nāsac-chāstreṣu sajjeta nopajīveta jīvikām |
vādavādāṁs tyajet tarkān pakṣaṁ kañca na saṁśrayet ||
na śiṣyān anubadhnīta granthān naivābhyased bahūn |
na vyākhyām upayuñjīta nārambhān ārabhet kvacit ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 7.13.7–8; cited in Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.2.113)

“[Śrī Nārada to Śrī Yudhiṣṭhira regarding rules for a sannyāsī:] One should not foster attachment to texts related to the unreal (asat-śāstra), one should not subsist on a vocation, one should avoid arguments based on assertions regarding propositions, and one should not take any particular side [in such arguments]. One should not be followed by [many] disciples, one should not study many texts, one should not engage in teaching [many texts], and one should never start undertakings.”

Read on →

ātmāparijñānamayo vivādo

ātmāparijñānamayo vivādo
hy astīti nāstīti bhidārtha-niṣṭhaḥ |
vyartho’pi naivoparameta puṁsāṁ
mattaḥ parāvṛtta-dhiyāṁ sva-lokāt ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 11.22.34; cited in Bhakti Sandarbha: 1)

“[Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa to Śrī Uddhava:] The disputation on the part of people of mind turned away from me, [their] own domain [i.e., their own shelter], which is fixed [only] on the object of a difference [between their own view and another’s], ‘It is [so]; [no,] it is not,’ and based on incomplete knowledge of the self (ātmā), shall never cease even though it is useless.”

Read on →

niḥsaṁśayeṣu sarveṣu nityaṁ vasati vai hariḥ

niḥsaṁśayeṣu sarveṣu nityaṁ vasati vai hariḥ |
sa-saṁśayād dhetu-balān nādhyāvasati mādhavaḥ ||
(Mahābhārata: 12.349.71; cited in Paramātma Sandarbha: 17 and Vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī-tīkā on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 10.40.10)

“Hari ever abides in all who are free from doubt. As a result of doubting and the strength of reasoning, [however,] Mādhava does not dwell [in a given place, i.e., Mādhava does not dwell in the hearts of those who are doubtful and rely solely upon reasoning to ascertain reality].”

Read on →

svalpāpi rucir eva syād bhakti-tattvāvabodhikā

svalpāpi rucir eva syād bhakti-tattvāvabodhikā |
yuktis tu kevalā naiva yad asyā apratiṣṭhatā ||
(Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 1.1.45)

“Even just a little ruci [i.e., ‘taste’] shall be an illuminator of the nature of bhakti. Pure reasoning, however, is certainly not, because of its inconclusiveness.”

Read on →

alaukika līlā ei parama nigūḍha

alaukika līlā ei parama nigūḍha |
viśvāse pāiye—tarke haya bahu-dūra ||
(Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.8.308)

“This otherworldly līlā is highly esoteric. With faith, it is attained. With tarka, it remains very far.”

Read on →

vādo nāvalambyaḥ

vādo nāvalambyaḥ |
bāhulyāvakāśatvād aniyatatvāc ca |
(Nārada-bhakti-sūtra: 74–75)

“Vāda is not to be taken support of because of [vāda] having scope for prolixity and being unrestrained [i.e., because vāda can go on unlimitedly and never reach a definitive end].”

Read on →

dharma-śāstreṣu mukhyeṣu vidyamāṇeṣu durbudhāḥ

dharma-śāstreṣu mukhyeṣu vidyamāṇeṣu durbudhāḥ |
buddhim ānvīkṣikīṁ prāpya nirarthaṁ pravadanti te ||
(Rāmāyaṇa: Ayodhya-kāṇḍa, 100.36)

“[Even] In the presence of the principal dharma-śāstras, the ignorant take to logic [i.e., purely logic inquiry] and profess meaningless assertions.”

Read on →

yo’vamanyeta te mūle hetu-śāstrāśrayād dvijaḥ

yo’vamanyeta te mūle hetu-śāstrāśrayād dvijaḥ |
sa sādhubhir bahiṣkāryo nāstiko veda-nindakaḥ ||
(Manu Smṛti: 2.11)

“A twice-born who disregards those two sources [of instruction, i.e., the Śruti and Smṛti] on account of adherence to hetu-śāstra [i.e., nyāya-śāstra] is an unbeliever (nāstika), a defamer of the Veda, and to be shunned by sādhus.”

Read on →

naiṣā tarkeṇa matir āpaneyā

naiṣā tarkeṇa matir āpaneyā
proktānyenaiva sujñānāya preṣṭha |
(Kaṭha Upaniṣad: 1.2.9)

“O dear one, this understanding [i.e., knowledge of Brahman] is not to be sought with tarka. Only when taught by another [i.e., one who already knows Brahman] does one acquire true knowledge.”

Read on →

Scroll to Top