View source for A philosopher is not a philosopher if he does not agree with other . . . if he does not agree other philosophers. So in this way, you are perplexed. Therefore it is advised, we should accept the authority, and then we shall be benefited

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"a philosopher is not a philosopher if he does not agree with other"|"if he does not agree other philosophers. So in this way, you are perplexed. Therefore it is advised"|"we should accept the authority, and then we shall be benefited"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|SharmisthaK}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|2022-08-23T11:02:00Z}}
{{last|2022-08-23T11:02:00Z}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Is Not]]
[[Category:Not A]]
[[Category:Philosophers Do Not Agree]]
[[Category:With]]
[[Category:Other]]
[[Category:In This Way]]
[[Category:You Are]]
[[Category:Perplexed]]
[[Category:Therefore]]
[[Category:It Is Advised]]
[[Category:We Should (Disciples of SP)]]
[[Category:Accept Authority]]
[[Category:We Shall Be (Disciples of SP)]]
[[Category:Benefit]]
[[Category:Pages Needing Audio - BHAV]]
</div>
<div id="section">
<h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="sub_section">
<h3>1976 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div class="quote">
<div class="quote_heading">
And a philosopher is not a philosopher if he does not agree with other . . . if he does not agree other philosophers. So in this way, you are perplexed. Therefore it is advised, mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). We should accept the authority, and then we shall be benefited. So the authorities are mentioned in the śāstra, who are authorities. So if we follow the authority, then we get the conclusion.
</div>

<div class="quote_link">
[[Vanisource:760707 - Conversation C - Washington D.C.|760707 - Conversation C - Washington D.C.]]
</div>
<div class="text">
Prabhupāda: Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet (Mahābhārata, Bhīṣma parva 5.22). Things which are inconceivable, do not try to understand by argument. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. So our process, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, is to take knowledge from the authority. Unless we take knowledge from the authority, however we may go on arguing, we cannot come to the conclusion. The modern scientist, philosophers, they are arguing, but they do not come to the conclusion. If you want to take conclusion . . . just like two lawyers are arguing in the court, but the conclusion is given by the authority, the judge. That one has to accept. So we take authority, Bhagavad-gītā or Kṛṣṇa. He is accepted authority by all the ācāryas—Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, Caitanya Mahāprabhu, and in the śāstra also, Vyāsadeva, Nārada, Devala, Asita. So our authority is confirmed. So if we take conclusion from the authority, then we benefit. Otherwise, with our limited knowledge, if we go on arguing, then we cannot understand the conclusion. That is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā. By argument we cannot come to the conclusion. I can argue, and you can argue, but you may argue more than me. Another person can argue more than you. In this way, you do not come to the conclusion. And śrutayo vibhinnā. So far scriptures are concerned, there are also different scriptures. Nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam (Mahābhārata, Vana-parva 313.117). And a philosopher is not a philosopher if he does not agree with other . . . if he does not agree other philosophers. So in this way, you are perplexed. Therefore it is advised, mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 17.186|CC Madhya 17.186]]). We should accept the authority, and then we shall be benefited. So the authorities are mentioned in the śāstra, who are authorities. So if we follow the authority, then we get the conclusion.

So Kṛṣṇa is the authority accepted. At least in India, all the Vedic authorities, Vedāntists, they have accepted Kṛṣṇa as the authority. So we simply follow what Kṛṣṇa says, and we get benefit out of it. Then it is all right. And without following authority, if you go on arguing, there is no end. The same example, that two lawyers, both of them are learned scholar. They are going on arguing on some point, they do not come to conclusion. But when the judge gives his conclusion, that has to be accepted. That is final. So we have to find out the judge. That is Kṛṣṇa. So we have got many points to understand by argument, but if we take the judgment of Kṛṣṇa, then it is conclusive. And He has His direction in every field of life, in Bhagavad-gītā. Even our political leaders, they also accept Bhagavad-gītā in guidance. So if we take guidance from Bhagavad-gītā without malinterpretation, then we are benefited. Unfortunately, we interpret our own way which is favorable to us, and that is not required. Then the authority of the Bhagavad-gītā is gone. We make our own conclusion, supposing on the authority of Bhagavad-gītā. That will not help us, by malinterpretation. You take the conclusion of Bhagavad-gītā as it is, then you will be benefited.
</div>
</div>
</div>