yukti-yuktaṁ vaco grāhyaṁ bālād api śukād api |
ayuktam api na grāhyaṁ sākṣād api bṛhaspateḥ ||
(Unknown source)
“A statement endowed with reason, even from a boy, and even from a parrot, is to be accepted, while one devoid of reason is not to be accepted even from Bṛhaspati himself.
yukti-yuktam upādeyaṁ vacanaṁ bālakād api |
anyat tṛṇam iva tyājyam apy uktaṁ padma-janmanā ||
(Yoga Vaśiṣṭha: 2.18.3)
“A statement endowed with reason, even from a boy, is to be accepted. A statement otherwise [i.e., devoid of reason], even from he of lotus birth [viz., Brahmā], is to be rejected like straw.”
yukti-yuktaṁ vaco grāhyaṁ na grāhyaṁ guru-gauravāt |
sarva-śāstra-rahasyaṁ tad yājñavalkyena bhāṣitam ||
(Yājñavalkya-śikṣā: 232)
“A statement that is endowed with reason is to be accepted and not to be accepted [just] because of reverence for the guru [alt., just because of the venerability of the guru, who spoke it]. This secret of all the śāstras has been stated by Yājñavalkya.”
vaktur icchā tu tātparyaṁ parikīrtitam |
(Nyāya-siddhānta-muktāvalī: 84)
“The wish of the speaker is said to be the ‘intent’ (tātparyam).”
vartitavyaṁ śam-icchadbhir bhaktavan na tu kṛṣṇavat |
ity evaṁ bhakti-śāstrāṇāṁ tātparyasya vinirṇayaḥ ||
rāmādivad vartitavyaṁ na kvacid rāvaṇādivat |
ity eṣa mukti-dharmādi-parāṇāṁ naya īryate ||
(Ujjvala-nīlamaṇi: 3.24–5)
“[Conduct] is to be observed like a bhakta, and not, rather, like Kṛṣṇa, by those who desire well-being—this is the proper determination of the intent of the bhakti-śāstras. [Conduct] is to observed like Rāma and others [i.e., other forms of Bhagavān], and never like Rāvaṇa and others [i.e., those who are inimical to Bhagavān]—this is said to be proper for those who seek mukti, dharma, and so on [but not for those who follow bhakti-śāstra].”
aśakyānuṣṭhānakasya vidher aprāmāṇyād iti bhāvaḥ |
(Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā on Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 9.6.51)
“‘Because of the non-authoritativeness of an injunction enjoining performance of that which is impossible [to actually be carried out]’ is the purport.”
vyāmohāya carācarasya jagatas te te purāṇāgamās
tāṁ tām eva hi devatāṁ paramikāṁ jalpantu kalpāvadhi |
siddhānte punar eka eva bhagavān viṣṇuḥ samastāgama-
vyāpāreṣu vivecana-vyatikaraṁ nīteṣu niścīyate ||
(Padma Purāṇa: 5.97.27; cited in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa: 1.107; Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: 2.4.142; Laghu-bhāgavatāmṛta: 1.2.53; Caitanya-caritāmṛta: 2.20.142)
“Let the various Purāṇas and Āgamas chatter about the [supposed] supremacy of various devatās for the sake of deluding the world of moving and stationary beings to the end of the kalpa. When, however, the expressions of all the Āgamas are brought into conjoint examination, then, in accord with their siddhānta, one alone, Bhagavān Viṣṇu, is ascertained [to be supreme].”
laukika-parīkṣakāṇāṁ yasminn arthe buddhi-sāmyaṁ sa dṛṣṭāntaḥ |
(Nyāya-sūtra: 1.1.25)
“That object in regard to which common people and examiners [i.e., those who deliberate logically] have a likeness in understanding is [called] an example (dṛṣtānta).”
na hi nindā nindayituṁ prayujyate | kiṁ tarhi? ninditād itarat praśaṁsitum |
(Śabara-bhāṣya on Mīmāṁsā-sūtra: 2.4.21)
“The criticism (nindā) is not employed to criticize. Then what [is it employed for]? To praise something other than that which is criticized.”
prādhānyena vyapadeśā bhavanti |
(Unknown source; cited in the Sārārtha-darśinī-ṭīkā on Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā)
“Statements occur on the basis of prominence [i.e., they can be based on a prominent aspect of what they describe and not necessarily on something that is literally true in every sense about their object].”
