Question: If we have no inherent devotion, does it mean that we have no complete personality? What is a “person” in that case? Answer: Personality is understood to be the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual’s distinctive character. I am not sure what you mean by the qualifier “complete.” As human beings,
Every living being, not just human beings, has a drive for happiness. It is a natural tendency from birth and is not something acquired by training. Whether someone is learned or illiterate, cultured or uncultured, rich or poor, theist or an atheist—everyone hankers to be happy. The nonhumans such as birds, animals, and aquatics avoid
Question: Who are the ācāryas we take as final authorities to settle differing opinions? Answer: Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the propounder of our sampradāya. Therefore, Caitanya Mahāprabhu is the ultimate authority. But He did not write any philosophical works, as is seen in the case of the propounders of other sampradāyas, such as Śrī Rāmānujācārya. Rather, he personally instructed
Question: A devotee scholar explained that when śāstra clashes with pratyaksa, we should accept modern science when it comes to descriptions of Vedic cosmology, and not be literal fanatics of śāstra. I am confused by this. Why should we accept the arguments of NASA for the moon landing and the shape of the Earth as absolute truth? Answer: Yes, no need.
Sanskrit nouns have genders. Sometimes, a noun may even have two or three genders. Every noun, whether used for a sentient being or an insentient object, has a gender. That means even objects such as water, table, chair, and so on have genders. It is important to know the gender of a noun because Sanskrit
Question: Is it OK to seek revenge? I have the tendency to want to get even with people. I am working on myself, but it’s a challenge. I try to justify my actions by referring to the Mahābhārata. When Draupadī was insulted in the assembly of the Kuru dynasty, Bhīma took a vow to avenge
Question: In Paramātmā Sandarbha 93, Śrī Jīva states that the seed of bhakti is imperishable, which seems to contradict what Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja Gosvāmī writes in Caitanya-caritāmṛta, where he describes how bhakti can be totally uprooted by aparādha. I personally take the latter as implying that the creeper may be uprooted, but the seed remains. Any
