ṛṣe vidanti munayaḥ praśāntātmendriyāśayāḥ |
yadā tad evāsat-tarkais tirodhīyeta viplutam ||
(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: 2.6.41)
“O sage, when of calm body, senses, and mind, contemplatives know him [i.e., Bhagavān]. [When] Assailed by spurious argumentation (asat-tarka) [however] he conceals himself.”
kṛṣṇehitānām akhilottamaṁ yas
tarkaiḥ prakarṣaṁ tanute sa dhanyaḥ |
teṣāṁ darākārṇana-mātrato yaḥ
syāt prema-pūrṇas tam ahaṁ namāmi ||
(Bṛhad Bhāgavatāmṛta: 2.5.139)
“One who disseminates the supereminent among all of Kṛṣṇa’s activities with rationale is blessed [i.e., highly fortunate, or, highly praiseworthy]. To someone who can become filled with prema as a result just of hearing of them a little [i.e., without even requiring deliberation based on rationale], I offer obeisance [i.e., such a person is most worshipable].”
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].”
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.”
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.”
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].”
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.”
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.”
kevalaṁ śāstram āśritya na kartavyo vinirṇayaḥ |
yukti-hīna-vicāre tu dharma-hāniḥ prajāyate ||
(Bṛhaspati; quoted in the Smṛti-candrikā)
“Do not ascertain what is to be done on the basis of śāstra alone. Dharma is lost by deliberation devoid of reasoning.”
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.”
