Visnu Murti at 09:34, 30 September 2021

2021-09-30T09:34:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:34, 30 September 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<div id="compilation">
			<div id="facts">
	{{terms\|"real philosopher"}}		{{terms\|"real philosopher"}}

Line 17:		Line 19:
	{{toc right}}		{{toc right}}

	[[Category:Real]]		[[Category:Real\|2]]

	[[Category:Philosophers]]		[[Category:Philosophers\|2]]
			</div>

	== Srimad-Bhagavatam ==		<div class="section" id="Srimad-Bhagavatam" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam"><h2>Srimad-Bhagavatam</h2></div>

	=== SB Canto 7 ~~===~~		<div class="sub_section" id="SB_Canto_7" text="SB Canto 7"><h3>SB Canto 7</h3></div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~q_heading~~">~~'''~~The Māyāvādī philosopher cannot understand this, but a real philosopher must be convinced that light is not possible at all without a background of sunlight.~~'''~~</~~span~~>		<div class="quote" book="SB" link="SB 7.15.58" link_text="SB 7.15.58, Purport">
			<div class="heading">The Māyāvādī philosopher cannot understand this, but a real philosopher must be convinced that light is not possible at all without a background of sunlight.</div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~SB-statistics~~">'''[[Vanisource:SB 7.15.58\|SB 7.15.58, Purport]]:''' The Māyāvādī philosopher cannot understand this, but a real philosopher must be convinced that light is not possible at all without a background of sunlight. Thus the jugglery of words used by the Māyāvādī philosopher to prove that this material world is false may amaze inexperienced children, but a man with full knowledge knows perfectly well that there cannot be any existence without Kṛṣṇa. Therefore a Vaiṣṇava insists on the platform of somehow or other accepting Kṛṣṇa (tasmāt kenāpy upāyena manaḥ kṛṣṇe niveśayet [SB 7.1.32]).</~~span~~>		<div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:SB 7.15.58\|SB 7.15.58, Purport]]:''' The Māyāvādī philosopher cannot understand this, but a real philosopher must be convinced that light is not possible at all without a background of sunlight. Thus the jugglery of words used by the Māyāvādī philosopher to prove that this material world is false may amaze inexperienced children, but a man with full knowledge knows perfectly well that there cannot be any existence without Kṛṣṇa. Therefore a Vaiṣṇava insists on the platform of somehow or other accepting Kṛṣṇa (tasmāt kenāpy upāyena manaḥ kṛṣṇe niveśayet [SB 7.1.32]).</div>
			</div>

	== Lectures ==		<div class="section" id="Lectures" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2></div>

	=== Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures ~~===~~		<div class="sub_section" id="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" text="Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures"><h3>Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures</h3></div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~q_heading~~">~~'''~~This one word can give so many volumes of thoughts to the real philosopher, to the real thinker. ~~'''~~</~~span~~>		<div class="quote" book="Lec" link="Lecture on BG 2.20-25 -- Seattle, October 14, 1968" link_text="Lecture on BG 2.20-25 -- Seattle, October 14, 1968">
			<div class="heading">This one word can give so many volumes of thoughts to the real philosopher, to the real thinker.</div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~LEC-statistics~~">'''[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.20-25 -- Seattle, October 14, 1968\|Lecture on BG 2.20-25 -- Seattle, October 14, 1968]]:''' Child's philosophy. Just like child does not look forward his future. He's very playful. He sees that "This playing will make me happy." Similarly, these rascals, they are simply enjoying senses, forgetting their future life. So this is a rascal civilization. This is not a good civilization. You see? Childish civilization. However they may be proud of their advancement of knowledge, it is childish civilization because they have no future. Everlasting. "How I am going to be everlasting," they do not think of it. You see? This one word can give so many volumes of thoughts to the real philosopher, to the real thinker. Here it is stated that the living entity is everlasting, and where is that living entity everlasting? Why it is not so? This is the problem.</~~span~~>		<div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.20-25 -- Seattle, October 14, 1968\|Lecture on BG 2.20-25 -- Seattle, October 14, 1968]]:''' Child's philosophy. Just like child does not look forward his future. He's very playful. He sees that "This playing will make me happy." Similarly, these rascals, they are simply enjoying senses, forgetting their future life. So this is a rascal civilization. This is not a good civilization. You see? Childish civilization. However they may be proud of their advancement of knowledge, it is childish civilization because they have no future. Everlasting. "How I am going to be everlasting," they do not think of it. You see? This one word can give so many volumes of thoughts to the real philosopher, to the real thinker. Here it is stated that the living entity is everlasting, and where is that living entity everlasting? Why it is not so? This is the problem.</div>
			</div>

	=== Philosophy Discussions ~~===~~		<div class="sub_section" id="Philosophy_Discussions" text="Philosophy Discussions"><h3>Philosophy Discussions</h3></div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~q_heading~~">~~'''~~Those who are discussing about Brahman or Paramātmā, Supersoul, or Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they are real philosopher because they are trying to find out the Absolute Truth, and others are bogus.~~'''~~</~~span~~>		<div class="quote" book="Lec" link="Philosophy Discussion on Blaise Pascal" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Blaise Pascal">
			<div class="heading">Those who are discussing about Brahman or Paramātmā, Supersoul, or Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they are real philosopher because they are trying to find out the Absolute Truth, and others are bogus.</div>

	<~~span~~ class="~~LEC-statistics~~">'''[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Blaise Pascal\|Philosophy Discussion on Blaise Pascal]]:'''		<div class="text">'''[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Blaise Pascal\|Philosophy Discussion on Blaise Pascal]]:'''
	Philosophy means, real philosophy means to understand the truth. That is philosophy. So without understanding about the truth, if he encourages untruth... Just like some philosophers are philosophizing on sex life. So the people are becoming degraded. So what is philosophy in sex life, that is an (indistinct). It is there in animal and man also. So sex life is not actual life; it is a symptom of life only. So if we stress on this point only, that is not philosophy. Philosophy means, as it is stated, tattva jñānārthaṁ darśanam. To find out the Absolute Truth, tattva, that is philosophy. And tattva means the spirit soul or the spiritual atmosphere. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate [SB 1.2.11]. So those who are discussing about Brahman or Paramātmā, Supersoul, or Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they are real philosopher because they are trying to find out the Absolute Truth, and others are bogus.</~~span~~>		Philosophy means, real philosophy means to understand the truth. That is philosophy. So without understanding about the truth, if he encourages untruth... Just like some philosophers are philosophizing on sex life. So the people are becoming degraded. So what is philosophy in sex life, that is an (indistinct). It is there in animal and man also. So sex life is not actual life; it is a symptom of life only. So if we stress on this point only, that is not philosophy. Philosophy means, as it is stated, tattva jñānārthaṁ darśanam. To find out the Absolute Truth, tattva, that is philosophy. And tattva means the spirit soul or the spiritual atmosphere. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate [SB 1.2.11]. So those who are discussing about Brahman or Paramātmā, Supersoul, or Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they are real philosopher because they are trying to find out the Absolute Truth, and others are bogus.</div>
			</div>
			</div>

Rati: /* Philosophy Discussions */

2008-11-25T14:28:47Z

Philosophy Discussions

New page

{{terms|"real philosopher"}}

{{notes|}}

{{compiler|Rati}}

{{complete|ALL}}

{{first|25Nov08}}

{{last|25Nov08}}

{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=1|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=2|Con=0|Let=0}}

{{total|3}}

{{toc right}}

[[Category:Real]]

[[Category:Philosophers]]

== Srimad-Bhagavatam ==

=== SB Canto 7 ===

'''The Māyāvādī philosopher cannot understand this, but a real philosopher must be convinced that light is not possible at all without a background of sunlight.'''

'''[[Vanisource:SB 7.15.58|SB 7.15.58, Purport]]:''' The Māyāvādī philosopher cannot understand this, but a real philosopher must be convinced that light is not possible at all without a background of sunlight. Thus the jugglery of words used by the Māyāvādī philosopher to prove that this material world is false may amaze inexperienced children, but a man with full knowledge knows perfectly well that there cannot be any existence without Kṛṣṇa. Therefore a Vaiṣṇava insists on the platform of somehow or other accepting Kṛṣṇa (tasmāt kenāpy upāyena manaḥ kṛṣṇe niveśayet [SB 7.1.32]).

== Lectures ==

=== Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures ===

'''This one word can give so many volumes of thoughts to the real philosopher, to the real thinker. '''

'''[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.20-25 -- Seattle, October 14, 1968|Lecture on BG 2.20-25 -- Seattle, October 14, 1968]]:''' Child's philosophy. Just like child does not look forward his future. He's very playful. He sees that "This playing will make me happy." Similarly, these rascals, they are simply enjoying senses, forgetting their future life. So this is a rascal civilization. This is not a good civilization. You see? Childish civilization. However they may be proud of their advancement of knowledge, it is childish civilization because they have no future. Everlasting. "How I am going to be everlasting," they do not think of it. You see? This one word can give so many volumes of thoughts to the real philosopher, to the real thinker. Here it is stated that the living entity is everlasting, and where is that living entity everlasting? Why it is not so? This is the problem.

=== Philosophy Discussions ===

'''Those who are discussing about Brahman or Paramātmā, Supersoul, or Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they are real philosopher because they are trying to find out the Absolute Truth, and others are bogus.'''

'''[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Blaise Pascal|Philosophy Discussion on Blaise Pascal]]:'''
Philosophy means, real philosophy means to understand the truth. That is philosophy. So without understanding about the truth, if he encourages untruth... Just like some philosophers are philosophizing on sex life. So the people are becoming degraded. So what is philosophy in sex life, that is an (indistinct). It is there in animal and man also. So sex life is not actual life; it is a symptom of life only. So if we stress on this point only, that is not philosophy. Philosophy means, as it is stated, tattva jñānārthaṁ darśanam. To find out the Absolute Truth, tattva, that is philosophy. And tattva means the spirit soul or the spiritual atmosphere. Brahmeti paramātmeti bhagavān iti śabdyate [SB 1.2.11]. So those who are discussing about Brahman or Paramātmā, Supersoul, or Bhagavān, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, they are real philosopher because they are trying to find out the Absolute Truth, and others are bogus.

Real philosopher - Revision history

Visnu Murti at 09:34, 30 September 2021

Rati: /* Philosophy Discussions */