An irrefutable and invincible logical reason as to why Sanaatana-dharma is the only true and natural religion of the mankind, thus establishing all other denominations as its later advented mere pervert duplicates.

A) There exist two types of religion (dharma/धर्म) viz., natural/spontaneous/primeval (svaabhaavika/स्वाभाविक/moola/मूल) and imposed/artificial/unnatural (आरोपित कृत्रिम/aaropita kritrima).
B) Only a natural religion is a true religion (vaastavika/वास्तविक). Imposed is never genuine (अवास्तविक/avaastavika).
C) However, the natural has to be beginningless (anaadi/अनादि), everlasting (shaashvat/शाश्वत), eternal (nitya/नित्य), immortal (अमर/amara), trans-human (apaurusheya/अपौरुषेय) and God-manifest (भगवत्प्रकाशित/bhagavat-prakaashita) as opposed to the unnatural which has a dated historical beginning (sa-aadi/सादि), is temporal (क्षणिक/kshanika), with an end/mortal (sa-anta/सान्त), human-made (paurusheya/पौरुषेय) and made manifest by a worldly creature (jantu-praneeta/जन्तु-प्रणीत).
D) An object without beginning (an-aadi-vastu/अनादि-वस्तु) is, simultaneously (yugapad-roopena/युगपद्रूपेण) and invariably (निश्चिद्रूपेण/nischid-roopena), an object without an end (an-anta-vastu/अनन्त-वस्तु), too. Whereas, an object with a traceable beginning (sa-aadi-vastu/सादि-वस्तु) is, concurrently, an object with an end (sa-anta-vastu/सान्त-वस्तु), as well. It is as simple as this — beginning has an end and without beginning has no end. Evidence of this principle is, also, found in the Geetaa’s Second Chapter verse — “jaatasya hi dhruvo mrityur dhruvam janma-mritasya ca….” (“जातस्य हि ध्रुवो मृत्युर्ध्रुवं जन्म-मृतस्य च”).
E) There exist two types of beginningless objects viz., one which exists or existent (भावयुक्त सत्पदार्थ/bhaava-yukta sat-padaartha) and the one which doesn’t or non-existent (अभावयुक्त असत्पदार्थ/abhaava-yukta asat-padaartha). A non-existent has no beginning. An existent, too, doesn’t have a beginning. The ‘sat’ and ‘a-sat’ principle is depicted in Geetaa, too — “na asato vidyate bhaavo na abhaavo vidyate satah” (“नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सत:”).
F) Since, Sanaatana-dharma is an existential entity practiced by followers and unlike a non-existent horn of a rabbit (शश-शृङ्ग-असदृश/shasha-shringa-asadrisha — rabbits don’t have horn), even if such Sanaatana-dharma is to be placed in a category of a beginningless object, it can only be placed into the ‘bhaava-yukta an-aadi-padaartha/भाव-युक्त अनादि-पदार्थ’ category (श्रेणी/shrenee) or a category of ‘existential beginningless item’. If, once, it is placed into this category, it will come to enjoy the rank of a ‘bhaava-yukta an-anta-padaartha/भाव-युक्त अनन्त-पदार्थ’ or an ‘existential end-less item’ — thus, turning it (Sanaatana-dharma) into an eternal existential object (nitya-bhaava-maya padaartha/नित्य-भाव-मय पदार्थ). Nitya or eternal means in existence without beginning and without end (aadi+anta-rahita-sattaa / आदि+अन्त-रहित-सत्ता).
G) Once, it (Sanaatana-dharma) is established as an eternally existential object, it will, concurrently, be established as the sole natural religion of the mankind (without any other competitor religious denomination) — for all jeevas/जीव (living beings) are eternal and without a beginning or an end. (Why jeevas are eternal? Because, they are sparks of consciousness personified and consciousness is an element which never ceases to exist for if it would cease to exist, it wouldn’t be called as consciousness/chetanaa/चेतना.) So, only an eternally existent religion devoid of a beginning and an end can be, logically, considered as compatible to the likewise status (sa-jaateeya/सजातीय) of the jeeva-aatmaas (living souls) which are, too, eternally existing objects devoid of beginning/commencement and termination/end.
H) So, let us start analyzing the unanimously accepted (accepted by the scholars and leaders of non-Vedic/non-Sanaatanee/non-Aaryan/non-Hindu religious denominations, too) facts about Sanaatana-dharma.
(i) Sanaatana-dharma has been considered to be without a historically recorded beginning. Both the current religious history globally existing (of both Occidental and Oriental types / praachya + paashchaattya / प्राच्य व पाश्चात्त्य) and the up to date global scientific research evidences have not been able to date or ascertain any beginning time source (काल-स्रोत/kaala-srota) and human source (purusha-srota/पुरुष-स्रोत) from which Sanaatana-dharma originated. There has been no appointed (adhikrita/अधिकृत) or elected (nirvaachita/निर्वाचित) or self-proclaimed (svayambhoo/स्वयम्भू) prophet or messenger or son of God who started Sanaatana-dharma in the universal time — though the internal sects found within Sanaatana-dharma have a timely personal origin traceable in history for certain.
Such fact about beginningless existentiality of Sanaatana-dharma (literally meaning ‘eternal religion’) is, unanimously, accepted by all the three parties viz., the followers and representatives of Sanaatana-dharma (sanaatana-dharma-anuyaayee/सनातन-धर्म-अनुयायी) + the representatives of all non-Vedic religious denominations (a-vaidika-mata-anuyaayee/अवैदिक-मतानुयायी) + the scientific researchers (vaijnaanika shodha-karttaa/वैज्ञानिक शोधकर्त्ता).
(ii) In contravention to the above facts concerning Sanaatana-dharma, all the three parties, unanimously, ascertain all non-Vedic denominations to have a certain traceable historical beginning (time source) and a human source of origination.
(iii) Moreover, Sanaatana-dharmees believe their Vedic texts to be of trans-human origin because, as the tradition holds, the sages (rishis/ऋषि) have been perceived as only the divinely acquired intuition-endowed seers (अलौकिक मन्त्रद्रष्टा ऋषि / alaukika mantra-drashtaa rishi) of the God-manifest/revealed non-human Vedic hymns (वैदिकी ऋचा / vaidikee richaa), and are not treated as their composers (न तत्-प्रणेतार: / na tat-pranetaarah). Even Maharshi Vedavyasa is treated as a mere compiler and editor of the Veda and not its author. The Indigenous atheistic Chaarvaaka’s Lokaayatika view claiming the human authorship of the Vedas was there and then refuted without its acceptance anywhere in the history.
That the God is the primeval revealer (not creator of) of the Veda is substantiated in the Brihad-aaranyaka-shruti 2.6.10 (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad affiliated with the Shukla-yajurveda’s Shatapatha Braahmana) as — “asya mahato bhootasya nihshvasitam etad yad rig-vedah yajur-vedah saama-vedah atharvaangirasah……” (“अस्य महतो भूतस्य यदृग्वेदः यजुर्वेदः सामवेदः अथर्वांगिरसः….”).  Similarly, Sanaatana-dharma is, directly, God manifest As substantiated in Shreemad-bhaagavatam — “dharmam tu saakshaat bhagavat-praneetam” (“धर्मं तु साक्षाद्भगवत्प्रणीतं”) + “dharma-moolam tu bhagavaan sarva-veda-mayo harih” (“धर्ममूलं तु भगवान् सर्ववेदमयो हरि:”).
(iv) Some modern/Western scientific researchers assert that the Vedas were authored sometime between 1700 to 1100 BC as per the Christian/Gregorian calender and as based on the currently available linguistic and philological evidences in their hand. They consider Shreemad-bhagavad-geetaa (part of Mahaabhaarata epic which was authored by Vedavyaasa) to be in existence only since 500 BCE or so. But, if such is accepted, then the traditional Sanaatanee claim of Veda without timely origin will be jeopardized. Ironicslly, even scientists accept, unanimously, the beginningless stature of Sanaatana-dharma. Moreover, Sanatanees believe Geetaa to have been spoken by Bhagavaan Krishna some 5,150+ years back from now. So, if the Western scientists’ claims of Vedic origin dating to only 1700 BCE is accepted, it, for certain, conflicts with the Sanaatanee concept of Geetaa’s origin about 5150+ years back. And Geetaa mentions the term ‘Veda/वेद’ explicitly in the “….pranavah sarva-vedeshu…” (“…प्रणव: सर्ववेदेषु…..”) verse found in its 10th Chapter. Also, 5000 years is not a timely duration so vast that the origin of Geetaa can be forgotten by the Sanaatanees and so, the opinion on Geetaa’s origin limiting it to, only, about 500 BCE — is untenable.
If Christians can remember their Biblical history and the origin of Jesus Christ not surpassing the timely duration of past 2 millennia (past 2000 years roundabout), it is illogical to think that the Sanaatanees following a timeless religion cannot rememember their past 5000+ years of history, if not more. Hence, the time of origin of Geetaa as given by Western/Christian scientists is not acceptable to the Oriental Sanaatanees. Hence, if Geetaa is 5150+ (according to Sanaatanee tradition) years old and if such Geetaa mentions ‘Veda’, the ‘Veda’ needs to be much more older than Geetaa — even if Veda is not accepted as absolutely beginningless or timeless by the non-Vedic path-treaders. Due to this above given logic, the time of origin of Veda as given by certain Christian/Western/Occidental scientific researchers to be not more than 1700 CBE (before Christ) is untenable and wholly illogical.
The linguistic and philological evidences they have acquired are not untrue, on the other hand. Those oldest dated (through carbon-dating process) Rig-vedah manuscripts analyzed by them are the oldest available scripts. Their current oldest availability is not tantamount to their (Vedas’) origin date and neither it can ascertain whether the Veda has a timely origin or not. Why? Because, as per the Sanaatanee tradition, Veda is known as Shruti which means passed down from generation to generation through guru-shishya oral tradition. Veda was first put into writing only by Vedavyaasa 5000+ years back during the conjunction of Dvaapara and Kali eras. Before that, they existed only in an oral form.
Now, the 500 BCE oldest available scientific existence of Rig-Veda does not disapprove the Sanaatanee claim of Vedas being written down by Vyaasa 5000+ years ago. Manuscripts have a timely limit of existence. For sake, if some book was authored 25,000 years back on a manuscript in timely history, it is possible and logical to have a 25,000 years old manuscript available? Can a manuscript survive that long? And does its (25,000 years old original manuscript’s) cessation of survival past few centuries after its first time authorship translate into that 25,000 years old book’s being a recent composition just because its currently oldest available manuscript is few centuries old? The answer lies in all these questions.
How can the Vedas’ existence cease before their being put into a manuscript form by Vyaasa, especially, when prior to their transfer in a written form, they were in existence in an oral form?
Similarly, how can a 1700 BCE believed existence of Veda currently speculated through scientific researches be considered sufficient/ample enough to decide the first time timely origin of Veda – even if the fact that Veda has no timely origin be discounted for a moment and it be hypothetically accepted that the Veda has a timely origin?
Isn’t it a clear cut example of duplicity and hypocrisy on part of the Western scientific researchers when they, on one hand, unanimously accept Sanaatana-dharma to be without a historically recorded timely origin, but at the same time, try to unsuccessfully establish a very recent origin of the textbook of such beginningless Sanaatana-dharma viz., the Veda — only based on the currently available oldest manuscript of the Veda — by contravening the Sanaatanee tradition which upholds Veda to be a similarly beginningless as their Sanaatana-dharma?
Similarly, their concocted theory of the evolution concerning the Vedic and Puranic Sanskrit is as baseless as how their Big Bang and Darwin’s evolutionary theories have now been outdated due to their flawed stature.
(v) Such (of trans-human manifestation / revelation by God of the Veda)  is not the case with the holy textbooks of all non-Vedic denominations whose textbooks have been authored by men either claiming themselves as the prophet, the guru, the messenger or the son of God. This fact is accepted by even the followers of those non-Vedic denominations.

Conclusion —
Amalgamated watery part has been extracted out of the milk (neera-ksheera-viveka-nyaayah / नीर-क्षीर-विवेक-न्यायः). The milk has been differentiated from the water and the reality about Sanaatana-dharma’s par-excellence has been established. Rest discretion is left with the rationally intellectual perusal makers.

— Bhakti-rasa-vedanta-pithadhishvara Gurupadacharya Shri-charana
(BRVF — City & dist. of Anand, Gujarat, Bhaarata/India/Hindustan/Aaryaavartta, South-eastern Asia + Maha Shakti Ashram, City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, Northern California, USA, North America)

3 thoughts on “​An irrefutable and invincible logical reason as to why Sanaatana-dharma is the only true and natural religion of the mankind, thus establishing all other denominations as its later advented mere pervert duplicates. (केवल गुरुण्डा/अँग्रेजी आवृत्ति)

  1. Dear Acharya Ji,

    I read in Wikipedia link section quoted below and it got me little confused.
    We know that Bhagavata Purana was composed by Vyasa himself in samadhi after gaining inspiration from Narada Rishi.
    On the contrary, the academic scholars tend to believe that the puranas are smritis which further evolved and were written down by the contributions of many saints during the medival/post vedic India. The academic scholars seem to date this Bhagavata Purana based on the style of Sanskrit.

    What are your thoughts on this and what do you think is the flaw in their claim? Thank you so much for your articles.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavata_Purana#Modern_scholarship
    “Modern scholarship dates its composition to between 500 CE to 1000 CE, but most likely between 800 and 1000 CE.[16] A version of the text existed no later than 1030 CE, when it is mentioned by al Biruni[16] and quoted by Abhinavagupta. The Bhagavata Purana abounds in references to verses of the Vedas, the primary Upanishads, the Brahma Sutra of Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy, and the Bhagavad Gita, suggesting that it was composed after these texts.[48] The text contains more details of Krishna’s biography than the 3rd- 4th-century Harivamsha and Vishnu Purana, and is therefore likely to have been composed after these texts, suggesting a chronological range of 500–1000 CE.[16][49] Within this range, scholars such as R. C. Hazra date it to the first half of the 6th century CE, Bryant as well as Gupta and Valpey citing epigraphical and archaeological evidence suggest much of the text could be from the 4th to 7th century,[50][51] while most others place it in the post-Alvar period around the 9th century.[16][52][53] Parts of the text use an archaic Vedic flavour of Sanskrit, which may either suggest that its authors sought to preserve or express reverence for the Vedic tradition, or that some text has an earlier origin.[48] There are two flavors of Krishna stories, one of warrior prince and another of romantic lover, the former composed in more archaic Sanskrit and the later in a different linguistic style, suggesting that the texts may not have been composed by one author or over a short period, but rather grew over time as a compilation of accretions from different hands.[9][54]

    The Bhagavata Purana contains apparent references to the South Indian Alvar saints and it makes a post factum prophecy of the spread of Vishnu worship in Tamil country (BP XI.5.38–40);[26][49] these facts, along with its emphasis on “emotional Bhakti to Krishna” and the “Advaita philosophy of Sankara”, lead many scholars to trace its origins to South India.[5] However, J. A. B. van Buitenen points out that 10th–11th CE South Indian Vaishnava theologians Yamuna and Ramanuja do not refer to Bhagavata Purana in their writings, and this anomaly needs to be explained before the geographical origins and dating are regarded as definitive.[26][49]

    Since the 19th-century, most scholars believe that the Bhagavata Purana was written by a group of learned Brahmin ascetics, probably in South India, who were well versed in Vedic and ancient Indian literature and influenced by the Alvars.[55] Postmodern scholars have suggested alternate theories.[56]”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Clarification –

    A) The ‘smṛti’ status of Purāṇas is denied on the following ground –

    Purāṇas and Itihāsa are enumerated as the fifth Veda both in the Mādhyandini-śruti and in the Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad (2.4.10) belonging to the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa of Śukla-yajurveda-saṁhitā asserts –“evaṁ vā are’sya mahato bhūtasya niḥśvasitametad yadṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ sāmavedo’tharvāṅgirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇam”. Also, in Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 1.4.20, it’s stated – “ṛg-yajuḥ sāmātharvvākhyā vedāścatvāra udhṛtāḥ / itihāsa-purāṇañca pañcamo veda ucyate”. Apart from these evidences, there are other similar explicit proofs found in ŚBMP 3.12.39, Mahābhārata – Mokṣadharma 340.11 and Chāndogyopaniṣad 7.1.2 – “ṛgvedaṁ bhagavo ‘dhyemi yajurvedaṁ sāmavedamātharvaṇaṁ caturthamitihāsaṁ purāṇaṁ pañcamaṁ vedānāṁ vedaṁ”. By all these citations, it’s clear that since Śrīmad-bhāgavad-gītā is part of Mahābhārata (which is ‘itihāsa’ and thus pañcama-veda), it has also emanated from the ‘niḥśvāsa’ of the Śrī Hari (as indicated by Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad verse no. 2.4.10 given above). It’s, similarly, clear that since Śrīmad-bhāgavata-mahāpurāṇa is, also, a pañcama-veda, it has, similarly, emanated from the exhalation of the Lord and such fact regarding the manifestation of all the 18 Purāṇas + 4 Vedas from the four mouths of Brahmā is asserted in the Brahma-purāṇa statement cited in Gauḍīya-tattvācārya Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī’s Tattva-sandarbhaḥ. Furthermore, the logic of ‘samānajātīya-niveśitatvāt sañkhyāyāḥ’ is employed to indicate ‘na hi trapuṇā hema-pūraṇaṁ yujyate’ to explain the complementary nature of the pañcama-veda-svarūpa purāṇetihāsa. Just as how an incompletely built golden anklet cannot be completed by filling the gap with a glass, similarly, if Purāṇas and Itihāsa are the 5th Veda (as declared by the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Śruti itself), then, they form 1/5th portion of the total Veda and hence, Purāṇa/Itihāsa is of the same calibre as the first four Vedas or else, the golden anklet vs. glass filling analogy applies to show the inconsistency. The tales and histories mentioned in the Brāhmaṇa/Āraṇyaka/Upaniṣad sections affiliated with the first four Vedas cannot be considered here to be the Purāṇa and Itihāsa comprising the 5th Veda – for those tales and historical depicts described in the first 4 Vedas are part of the first 4 Vedas and thus, cannot be extrapolated to be counted as the 5th Veda.

    B) The Vedic and Purāṇic/laukika – both variants of Sanskrit are as primeval as the other on the grounds that both the four Vedas and the pañcama-veda-svarūpa Purāṇas have emanated, originally, from the exhalation of Mahāviṣṇu (during the elementary creation or sarga) and later, again from the four mouths of the quadruple faced Loka-pitāmaha Brahmā. When Purāṇas and Vedas are as primeval as the other, the whole concocted theory ascribing novice status to the Purāṇic/laukika Sanskrit in comparison to the ancient Vedic Sanskrit – dismantles. Thus, when the evolution of Vedic Sanskrit to the laukika Sanskrit is imaginary and non-existent, the hypothesis that Purāṇas have evolved from Vedas – stands out as unsubstantiated speculation mere.

    C) Since, Bhāgavata-purāṇa is the ‘eternal’ quintessence of all other scriptures (“vedopaniṣat-sārāj-jātā bhāgavatī kathā” – Padma-purāṇa, Bhāgavata-māhātmya), it contains themes and verses parallel to other texts. But, irony is that both the quintessential Bhāgavata and the Vedic scriptures (whose essence is Bhāgavata) – are as eternal as each other. Otherwise, Sage Gautama would not have ascribed the ‘nitya’ or eternal status to Śrīmad-bhāgavatam in Satya-yuga during his conversation with Sūrya-kula-divākara Rājarṣi Ambarīṣa as recorded in Padma-purāṇa – “ambarīṣa śuka-proktaṁ nityaṁ bhāgavatam śrṇu / paṭhasva sva-mukhenāpi yadīcchasi bhava-kṣayam //”. Then, how it is possible that the quintessential work is as primeval as the original work (whose quintessence is extracted)? Such is made possible by the virodha-bhañjikā-śakti of Bhagavān which is kartum-akartum-anyathā-kartuṁ samarthā and aghaṭana-ghaṭana-paṭīyasī. But, the atheistic and skeptic scientific researchers have no faith in the inconceivable prowess of Bhagavān and hence, they spell their errors out in regards to the acintya-padārtha-svarūpa Bhāgavata. Therefore, scriptures have forbidden the employment of mundane arguments and ways to judge anything divine. Bhāgavata is never an ordinary book whose antiquity can be discerned through carbondating. It is bhagavat-svarūpa (Vedas say that – “dvādaśāṅgo ha vai puruṣaḥ” or that Absolute is 12 limbed. How the 12 limbs of Bhagavān appear as 12 Cantos of Bhāgavatam has been substantiated by the Padma-purāṇa verse – “pādau yadīyau prathama-dvitīyau….”. Thus, Vedas, too, have alluded to Bhāgavatam, indirectly. Why indirectly? Because the first four Vedas spell out the most confidential truth in an indirect manner or parokṣa-rītyā and this has been substantiated in the an old Vedic corollary text Atharvaveda’s Gopathabrāhmaṇa 1.1.1.15 – “parokṣa-priyā iva hi devā bhavanti pratyakṣa-dviṣaḥ” meaning “the gods desire indirect eulogy (description) and are not desirous of direct praise (depiction)”. That is why the śrutis (upaniṣads) mostly state the foremost confidential truth indirectly. By the mantra – “dvādaśāṅgo ha vai puruṣaḥ” – Vedas speak of Bhāgavatam. Hence, the argument that since Bhāgavatam mentions notions of other scriptures, it is to be considered novice – is faulty, because, if so, even the Veda speaks of Bhāgavatam and so, the ‘anyonyāśraya-doṣa’ or the fault of eternal regress. This will backfire on the contenders who try to use the logic of considering one eternally existing beginningless scripture (the Bhāgavatam) to be dependent on another beginningless scripture (the Vedas) for its origin.

    D) Another reason why Bhāgavata-purāṇa contains conclusions and episodes same/similar to those described in other parallel Vedic and Purāṇic texts is the ‘ekārtha-pratipādaktā’ of the ‘samagra-śāstra’. All Vedas and Purāṇas are ‘one scripture’ in the last. This point has been, nicely, explained in the Tattva-sandarbhaḥ of Jīva Gosvāmī wherein, many scriptural assertions have been cited to demonstrate how the one Yajurveda was expanded into four Vedas and the appendix portion of that Yajurveda into the Purāṇas — “yac-chiṣṭaṁ tu yajurveda iti”. Since, whole scripture has a uniform objective (“nārāyaṇa-parā vedā…” + “vāsudeva-parā vedā” – verses of Bhāgavatam + “vedaiś ca sarvam aham eva vedyo…” of Gītā + “vede rāmāyaṇe caiva purāṇe bhārate tathā /ādāv ante ca madhye ca hariḥ sarvatra gīyate //” + “नामानि विश्वाभि न सन्ति लोके यदाविरासीदनृतस्य सर्वम् / नामानि सर्वाणि यमाविशन्ति तं वै विष्णुं परममुदाहरन्ति //” or “nāmāni viśvābhi na santi loke yadāvirāsīdanṛtasya sarvaṁ / nāmāni sarvāṇi yamāviśanti taṁ vai viṣṇuṁ paramam udāharanti //” —
    It cannot be argued that ‘since the name of other demigods (such as Rudra, Surya etc.) are also there in the Vedas, let these demigods also be conveyed by the word ‘Brahma’ or Absolute Truth, because, the Bhaallaveya Shruti states that ‘conveying by the words a meaning other than Visnu is created (not invariable or permanent as in the case of the meaning ‘Visnu’). The Suprme God who is primarily and invariably conveyed by all the words (Sanskrit nouns) is Visnu.”). Hence, when all scriptures have one objective, if styles or conclusions are repeatedly reiterated among different texts like Vedas and Purāṇas, it does not tantamount to make one scripture as timely antecedent to the other and that other as timely posterior to its predecessor.

    E) When the Bhāgavata -purāṇa contains the prophecy of Ālvāra saints, only if the śāstra is taken to be not ‘sarvajña’, it can be concluded that such scripture containing prophecy is composed after the actual occurrence of the prophesized event. But, if the ‘sarvajñatā’ of any Sanātanī mūla-śāstra is doubted, the opinion of such person has no worth to the adherents of the Sanātana-dharma, because for such a doubter, the śāstra is, merely, an ordinary book and hence, his opinion is worthless to the traditionalists. On the other hand, if the sarvajñatā of śāstra is accepted, it is not at all surprising for any scripture to predict the forthcoming events and due to containing such prophecy, such scripture does not into an object which came into existent post-prophecy. Conclusively, the contention of the disbelievers asserting the novice status of Bhāgavatam is nullified.

    — Gurupādācārya Svāmī of BRVF

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s