View source for If you consult different kinds of philosophers, you will be bewildered. Because one philosopher is giving one opinion, another philosopher is... Because nasav rsir yasya...: "A philosopher is not philosopher if he does not cut another philosopher."

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"if you consult different kinds of philosophers, you will be bewildered. Because one philosopher is giving one opinion, another philosopher is"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Krsnadas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|05Jul12}}
{{last|05Jul12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:if You]]
[[Category:consult]]
[[Category:Different Kinds Of...]]
[[Category:philosophers]]
[[Category:You Will Be]]
[[Category:bewilderment]]
[[Category:because]]
[[Category:one]]
[[Category:give]]
[[Category:one]]
[[Category:opinion]]
[[Category:another]]
[[Category:because]]
[[Category:is Not]]
[[Category:does Not]]
[[Category:cut]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="0" parent="Lectures" text="Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures"><h3>Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG92627NewYorkDecember161966_0" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="323" link="Lecture on BG 9.26-27 -- New York, December 16, 1966" link_text="Lecture on BG 9.26-27 -- New York, December 16, 1966">
<div class="heading">If you consult different kinds of philosophers, you will be bewildered. Because one philosopher is giving one opinion, another philosopher is... Because nāsāv ṛṣir yasya...: "A philosopher is not philosopher if he does not cut another philosopher." That is going on.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 9.26-27 -- New York, December 16, 1966|Lecture on BG 9.26-27 -- New York, December 16, 1966]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So the Vedic literature teaches us that tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ: "In the spiritual matter, you cannot argue." Your argument will be failure because you may be very good arguer, but I may come. I can cut all your arguments. And somebody else comes—he cuts all my arguments. It is a question of logic. So there are many logical experts. So by arguments we cannot reach the Supreme Truth. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. Not by purchasing books from the market and reading it. No. That also will not help you. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ. If you purchase Bhagavad-gītā, you purchase Bible, you purchase Koran, or... So many, there are, literatures. They are also authorized. That's all right. But you cannot learn them by your own study. Tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet (MU 1.2.12). One must go and learn it from the spiritual master, exactly you purchase some scientific book, medical science, or engineering and study at home. Oh, you will never be acknowledged as a medical practitioner. You have to admit yourself into the, that disciplic succession, medical college. You have to attend lectures. Then, when you pass degree, then you will be admitted.</p>
<p>So śrutayo vibhinnāḥ, and nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And if you consult different kinds of philosophers, you will be bewildered. Because one philosopher is giving one opinion, another philosopher is... Because nāsāv ṛṣir yasya...: "A philosopher is not philosopher if he does not cut another philosopher." That is going on. Nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām: "Therefore the purport of spiritual life is very confidential." How I can learn? Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ: ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 17.186|CC Madhya 17.186]]) "Therefore we will accept the footprint of those recognized ācāryas." Ācāryopāsanam.</p>
<p>So Kṛṣṇa is the best and foremost ācārya, and He is accepted as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In India all schools of, I mean to say, transcendentalists, the impersonalists and the personalists, all of them, they have accepted Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There is no doubt about it. So here the Lord says Himself that "I eat." So we cannot say that He does not eat. "He does not eat"—in favor of my conclusion, there is no evidence. But here is the evidence, accepted evidence, that God eats. If God eats, then why don't you offer Him to eat? Where is the harm? What is the harm? If your little fruits and flowers offered to God, He accepts it, why don't you offer it? You want to please so many. You flatter so many bosses by supplying good dishes and so many things, and why don't you try to please God? What is the harm? Is there any loss? You are eating every day, and before eating, if you offer to God, what is the harm there? Why people do not take this formula and see the result? If actually God eats from your hand, oh, how much advanced you become in spiritual life you do not know. He accepts your things from your hand. How much fortunate you are.</p>
<p>So here is the... It is clearly said, tad aham aśnāmi. Aśnāmi, the Sanskrit word, means "I eat. I eat." Why? Bhakty-upahṛtam: "He has brought with devotional love." So you try to love God. You become a lover of God and offer Him whatever you eat, whatever you do. Then see the result, how peaceful you become and how the world becomes peaceful. Simply by theoretical resolution you can make peace in the world? Now resolve, "We shall not fight." Oh, next moment you are fighting. UNESCO resolution is going on for the last twenty years, and where is the peace? That is not the way of peace. Here is the peace. Try to establish your lost relationship with Kṛṣṇa, or God. Then there will be peace. Now, Kṛṣṇa says in the next verse,</p>
:yat karoṣi yad aśnāsi
:yaj juhoṣi dadāsi yat
:yat tapasyasi kaunteya
:tat kuruṣva mad-arpaṇam
:([[Vanisource:BG 9.27 (1972)|BG 9.27]])
<p>Now, every human being, he has got a philanthropic view. Now, the other day I met one gentleman. So I did not know that he is not a family man because in India we are supposed to accept anyone, any gentleman, as family man. So he said, "Yes, I am not family man." Then what he is doing? He is earning nicely, but he is helping one orphanage. That's nice. He said that "I have got many sons in this orphanage." That is very good. So this natural inclination for loving an orphanage is there, is there. So this give and take, this inclination, is there in the human being.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>