View source for Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. This is axiomatic truth

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other"|"Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another"|"according to the axiomatic truth that things equal to the same thing are equal to one another"|"things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. This is axiomatic truth"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Rishab|Visnu Murti}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|06Oct11}}
{{last|14Feb12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=1|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=3|Con=2|Let=2}}
{{total|8}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Thing|2]]
[[Category:Equal|2]]
[[Category:Same Thing|2]]
[[Category:One Another|2]]
[[Category:This Is|2]]
[[Category:Axiomatic Truth|2]]
</div>
<div id="Srimad-Bhagavatam" class="section" sec_index="1" parent="compilation" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam"><h2>Srimad-Bhagavatam</h2>
</div>
<div id="SB_Canto_4" class="sub_section" sec_index="4" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam" text="SB Canto 4"><h3>SB Canto 4</h3>
</div>
<div id="SB41339_0" class="quote" parent="SB_Canto_4" book="SB" index="582" link="SB 4.13.39" link_text="SB 4.13.39">
<div class="heading">So, according to the axiomatic truth that things equal to the same thing are equal to one another, the child born of King Aṅga became the follower of his maternal grandfather.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:SB 4.13.39|SB 4.13.39, Translation and Purport]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="trans text"><p style="display: inline;">That boy was born partially in the dynasty of irreligion. His grandfather was death personified, and the boy grew up as his follower; he became a greatly irreligious person.</p>
</div>
<div class="purport text"><p>The child's mother, Sunīthā, was the daughter of death personified. Generally the daughter receives the qualifications of her father, and the son acquires those of the mother. So, according to the axiomatic truth that things equal to the same thing are equal to one another, the child born of King Aṅga became the follower of his maternal grandfather. According to smṛti-śāstra, a child generally follows the principles of his maternal uncle's house. Narāṇāṁ mātula-karma means that a child generally follows the qualities of his maternal family. If the maternal family is very corrupt or sinful, the child, even though born of a good father, becomes a victim of the maternal family. According to Vedic civilization, therefore, before the marriage takes place an account is taken of both the boy's and girl's families. If according to astrological calculation the combination is perfect, then marriage takes place. Sometimes, however, there is a mistake, and family life becomes frustrating.</p>
<p>It appears that King Aṅga did not get a very good wife in Sunīthā because she was the daughter of death personified. Sometimes the Lord arranges an unfortunate wife for His devotee so that gradually, due to family circumstances, the devotee becomes detached from his wife and home and makes progress in devotional life. It appears that by the arrangement of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, King Aṅga, although a pious devotee, got an unfortunate wife like Sunīthā and later on a bad child like Vena. But the result was that he got complete freedom from the entanglement of family life and left home to go back to Godhead.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Sri_Isopanisad_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="4" parent="Lectures" text="Sri Isopanisad Lectures"><h3>Sri Isopanisad Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="SriIsopanisadMantra5LosAngelesMay71970_0" class="quote" parent="Sri_Isopanisad_Lectures" book="Lec" index="11" link="Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 5 -- Los Angeles, May 7, 1970" link_text="Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 5 -- Los Angeles, May 7, 1970">
<div class="heading">Just like in geometry there are so many axiomatic truths, we have to accept it. "A point has no length, no breadth." "Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another." These are axiomatic truths. Similarly the Vedas, they are truth. We have to accept.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 5 -- Los Angeles, May 7, 1970|Sri Isopanisad, Mantra 5 -- Los Angeles, May 7, 1970]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Kṛṣṇa, although He is in Vṛndāvana, Goloka Vṛndāvana, enjoying pastimes with the associates, He is everywhere, according to the position, shape, form, activities. Everywhere. Therefore it is said here that Supreme Lord walks and does not walk. He does not go from His abode. He is fully enjoying. But at the same time, everywhere He is. Everywhere walking. Just like we offer foodstuff. So do not think that Kṛṣṇa is not accepting. Kṛṣṇa is accepting, because He can spread His hand immediately if you offer something with devotion. Tayā bhakty-upahṛtam aśnāmi. Kṛṣṇa says, "Anyone offering Me, offering Me something with faith and love, I eat." People may ask, "Oh, Kṛṣṇa is far away, in Goloka Vṛndāvana. How He eats? How He takes?" Oh, that is God. Yes, He eats. Yes, He takes. He walks; He does not walk. Immediately comes. But you must have the qualification to call Him. If you are actually a devotee, immediately Kṛṣṇa is present. Just like Hiraṇyakaśipu challenged devotee Prahlāda, "Where is your God? Do you think...?" The Prahlāda was looking to the column. "Oh, do you think your God is here? All right." He immediately broke. "Ahh!" Kṛṣṇa came. That is Kṛṣṇa.</p>
<p>So this is explained here. This is Vedic mantra. This is the proof, Veda mantra. Why we are attached to Veda mantra? Veda mantra is the proof of everything. Whatever is said in the Vedas, that is fact. Unless you take some axiomatic truth in that way, you cannot make progress. Just like in geometry there are so many axiomatic truths, we have to accept it. "A point has no length, no breadth." "Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another." These are axiomatic truths. Similarly the Vedas, they are truth. We have to accept. Just like I've given example in my book: The conchshell is the bone of an animal. So Vedic injunction is if you touch the bone of an animal, immediately you become impure and you have to take your bath. But here is a bone which is used in the Deity room. But you cannot argue, "Oh, you said that bone is impure. As soon as you touch it, you become impure. And you are putting into the Deity room?" No argument. You have to accept it. This is Veda. You cannot argue. Similarly, spiritual master's order, you have to accept. There is no argument. In this way you can make progress. Sādhu śāstra guru vākya tinete kariyā aikya. If we argue... Na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkeṇa yojayet. Things which are inconceivable by you, you cannot argue. Then it will be a failure. You have to accept that axiomatic truth. It is not dogmatic. It is not dogmatic in this sense, because our predecessor ācāryas, they accepted. What you are that you are arguing? So that is the proof. Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 17.186|CC Madhya 17.186]]). Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā. If you argue, there is no conclusion. The argument will go on. You put some argument; I put some argument. That is not the process. Śrutayo vibhinnā. Scriptures, in different countries, different circumstances, different scriptures, they're also different. Then tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And so far philosophical speculation is concerned, one philosopher is putting some theory, another philosopher putting some theory—there is contradiction. And unless you defy another philosopher, you cannot be a famous philosopher. That is the way of philosophical...</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="General_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="11" parent="Lectures" text="General Lectures"><h3>General Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureSeattleOctober181968_0" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="25" link="Lecture -- Seattle, October 18, 1968" link_text="Lecture -- Seattle, October 18, 1968">
<div class="heading">Saintly person means who confirms the Vedic injunction, who accepts. And scripture means what is accepted by the saintly person. And spiritual master means who follows the scriptures. So things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. This is axiomatic truth.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture -- Seattle, October 18, 1968|Lecture -- Seattle, October 18, 1968]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">So here in the Bhagavad-gītā, the Supreme Personality of Godhead explaining Himself, Kṛṣṇa. So if you say, "How can I believe that Kṛṣṇa said? Somebody has written in the name of Kṛṣṇa that 'Kṛṣṇa said,' 'God said.' " No. This is called disciplic succession. You will see in this book, Bhagavad-gītā, Kṛṣṇa, what Kṛṣṇa said, and how Arjuna understood. These things are described there. And the sādhu, saintly person, beginning from Vyāsadeva, Nārada, down to many ācāryas, Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, and latest, Lord Caitanya, in this way, they have accepted: "Yes. It is spoken by Kṛṣṇa." So this is the proof. If saintly persons have accepted... They have not denied. Authorities, they have accepted, "Yes." This is called sādhu. And because sādhu, saintly persons have accepted, therefore it is scripture. That is the test. Just like... It is common sense affair. If the lawyers accept some book, then it is to be understood that this is lawbook. You cannot say that "How can I accept this is law?" The evidence is the lawyers are accepting. Medical... If the medical practitioners accept, then that is authoritative medical. Similarly, if saintly persons are accepting Bhagavad-gītā as scripture, you cannot deny it. Sādhu śāstra: saintly persons and scriptures, two things, and with spiritual master, three, three parallel lines, who accept the sādhu and the scripture. Sādhu confirms the scriptures and spiritual master accept the scripture. Simple process. So they are not in disagreement. What is spoken in the scripture is accepted by saintly person, and what is spoken in the scripture, the spiritual master explains only that thing. That's all. So via media is the scripture. Just like lawyer and the litigants-via media is the lawbook. Similarly, the spiritual master, the scripture... Saintly person means who confirms the Vedic injunction, who accepts. And scripture means what is accepted by the saintly person. And spiritual master means who follows the scriptures. So things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. This is axiomatic truth. If you have got one hundred dollars, and another man has got hundred dollar, and if I have got hundred dollar, then we are all equal. Similarly, sādhu śāstra guru vākya, when these three parallel lines in agreement, then life is success.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Philosophy_Discussions" class="sub_section" sec_index="13" parent="Lectures" text="Philosophy Discussions"><h3>Philosophy Discussions</h3>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHegel_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="4" link="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel">
<div class="heading">Touching the toe of Kṛṣṇa makes Ganges water important. So, any water when it touches Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet it becomes Ganges water. This is logic. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. Is it not?
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Hegel|Philosophy Discussion on Hegel]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Yes, one who does not know... Kṛṣṇa, He makes the difference between Ganges water and ordinary water. Because we are giving Ganges water important, but because it is coming out, flowing from the toe of Kṛṣṇa. So, as soon as the other water, it is offered to Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet, then how it becomes other water? It becomes Ganges water. The one who hasn't got to see, by touching to the lotus feet, this Ganges water will form. So any water when it is touched in Kṛṣṇa's feet, it is Ganges water.</p>
<p>Pradyumna: You write in Bhagavad-gītā that by using something in Kṛṣṇa's service it regains it's spiritual qualities.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that's it. We have to see how you can becomes Ganges water. Why you give importance to the Ganges water? Because it is flowing from the toe of Kṛṣṇa, Viṣṇu. So anything comes in contact with Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet, it will be Ganges water. Just like we are offering water, generally in India the Ganges water is used for worshiping. Then the worshiping of Kṛṣṇa will stop here in America? Does it mean so? We create Ganges water. As soon as it is touched with Kṛṣṇa, it is Ganges water.</p>
<p>Pradyumna: Yes, but someone, still who doesn't know, if he comes...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: If someone does not know, one who does not know we are not talking about. This is the issue, that, why Ganges water is important. Because it is flowing from the toe of Kṛṣṇa. That means touching the toe of Kṛṣṇa makes Ganges water important. So, any water when it touches Kṛṣṇa's lotus feet it becomes Ganges water. This is logic. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. Is it not?</p>
<p>Pradyumna: So you use something material in Kṛṣṇa consciousness...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: If you have got material idea, then it will... (break) ...so the fire makes it warm, warm, hot, red hot. When it is red hot, you cannot say it is iron, it is actually burning. You touch that red hot iron, you know it is iron rod but it is acting as fire. Similarly, when everything is acting for Kṛṣṇa's (indistinct). It has no other business. Just like in this dictaphone and all these things, you don't use for any other purpose, therefore it is spiritual. Prachurja(?), it is called prachurja. Prachurja means this original function is stopped. That gold. Just like this is wooden, but if you cover it with gold plate, everyone will say, "Golden." (indistinct). It is called prachurja. That means his wooden quality is covered. Therefore it is gold. And another is that when it is completely made of gold. So both ways it is gold. Both ways. Prachurja te and (indistinct), you transform gold into table or you cover it with only gold, they are both ways (indistinct) golden.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="section" sec_index="5" parent="compilation" text="Conversations and Morning Walks"><h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="8" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1975 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1975 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkJuly121975Philadelphia_0" class="quote" parent="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="140" link="Morning Walk -- July 12, 1975, Philadelphia" link_text="Morning Walk -- July 12, 1975, Philadelphia">
<div class="heading">Yes, that is the duty. Paramparā system means the spiritual master shall not give anything which is not spoken by Kṛṣṇa. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's... Yāre dekha, tāre kaha 'kṛṣṇa'-upadeśa: "You become guru under My order." "But I do not know anything nicely, how can I become guru?" "No, you have no botheration. You simply take Kṛṣṇa's word and say, and you become guru."
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- July 12, 1975, Philadelphia|Morning Walk -- July 12, 1975, Philadelphia]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Ravīndra-svarūpa: The same criticism that you made of induction was also made by John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell, but they became skeptics. They said, "Therefore there's no knowledge at all."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is another nonsense. That is also speculation. (laughter) "Because I have failed, therefore there is no knowledge." This is also imperfect because how I can conclude like that? I am imperfect. I cannot decide this way or that way. So that is also. Vedic knowledge says that a conditioned soul has got four defects: illusion, mistake, imperfectness and cheating. Any conditioned soul. Even Brahma, he is receiving knowledge from Kṛṣṇa. Tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]). Ādi-kavi means Brahma. He is the most perfect person within this universe, Lord Brahma. So he is also receiving knowledge from Kṛṣṇa. Any conditioned soul, beginning from Brahmā down to the ant, they are defective in four ways: illusion, mistake, imperfectness and cheating. They know that "I am imperfect." Just this Darwin. He knew that he is imperfect, and he cheated so many persons—by false theory, which he cannot explain. He simply gives, "Perhaps millions of years' gap...," this, that. That is not knowledge. So the imperfect person is prone to become a cheater. So we should not take knowledge from the cheaters. What do you think?</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: We should take knowledge from Kṛṣṇa.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Svarūpa Dāmodara: And Prabhupāda.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Prabhupāda is giving you the same knowledge, that's all. There is no question of cheating. I have received this knowledge from Kṛṣṇa, and you take this. That's all. My business is finished.</p>
<p>Kīrtanānanda: Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that is the duty. Paramparā system means the spiritual master shall not give anything which is not spoken by Kṛṣṇa. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu's... Yāre dekha, tāre kaha 'kṛṣṇa'-upadeśa: "You become guru under My order." "But I do not know anything nicely, how can I become guru?" "No, you have no botheration. You simply take Kṛṣṇa's word and say, and you become guru."</p>
:āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra ei deśa
:yāre dekha, tāre kaha 'kṛṣṇa'-upadeśa
:([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 7.128|CC Madhya 7.128]])
<p>If the child says to another man, "Father said, 'This is this,' " then he is perfect. He has learned from the father, and the father is perfect, then whatever he says, it is perfect. Why should he take so much botheration? So our, process is that, that we become guru not like that rascal Guruji, no. We speak whatever Kṛṣṇa has spoken. That's all. Of course, we try to impress upon you with your reason, logic, but we shall speak the same thing, not anything else. Kṛṣṇa says, "I am supreme;" We say, "Kṛṣṇa is supreme." That's all. Where is the botheration? I haven't got to find out by my logic and induction whether Kṛṣṇa is supreme. That I have already done. So Kṛṣṇa is supreme. There is no doubt about it. Now, whatever Kṛṣṇa says, it is all right. That's all.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ConversationwithProfessorHopkinsJuly131975Philadelphia_1" class="quote" parent="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="143" link="Conversation with Professor Hopkins -- July 13, 1975, Philadelphia" link_text="Conversation with Professor Hopkins -- July 13, 1975, Philadelphia">
<div class="heading">People know it. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Conversation with Professor Hopkins -- July 13, 1975, Philadelphia|Conversation with Professor Hopkins -- July 13, 1975, Philadelphia]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā you'll find, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat kiñcid asti dhanañjaya ([[Vanisource:BG 7.7 (1972)|BG 7.7]]), "Nobody or no principle is greater than Me." Then who can be God? God is great. Here the great says, "There is no more greater principle than Me." Then who can be God? People generally know God is great. Kṛṣṇa says, mattaḥ parataraṁ nānyat ([[Vanisource:BG 7.7 (1972)|BG 7.7]]). Not only He says but it is confirmed by great authorities like Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya, Viṣṇu Svāmī, all the big, big ācāryas, Caitanya Mahāprabhu, Vyāsadeva, authorities. Kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam ([[Vanisource:SB 1.3.28|SB 1.3.28]]). So how you can deny?</p>
<p>Prof. Hopkins: You refer to Rāmānujācārya as an important person. Where does he... Where does he fit into your, the Caitanya tradition? He's accepted as an authority. His, the Śrī Bhāṣya is studied, accepted...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Rāmānujācārya has written comment on Bhagavad-gītā. You know that?</p>
<p>Prof. Hopkins: No.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Prof. Hopkins: No.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: In the Bhagavad-gītā Caitanya philosophy is discussed.</p>
<p>Prof. Hopkins: So you would see no basic difference between Rāmānuja's position and...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They cannot be different because both of them are Vaiṣṇava. So this is the common point, that Caitanya Mahāprabhu is preaching Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Lord. Rāmānujācārya was preaching Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Lord. So where is difference?</p>
<p>Prof. Hopkins: Well, I don't see a difference, but...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: People know it. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another.</p>
<p>Prof. Hopkins: What about certain other traditions; Ishnamadeva(?), Tukārāma, some of the poet saints of Maharastra. Where...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, Tukārāma accepted Viṣṇu as the Supreme. He accepted the process of Caitanya Mahāprabhu. He accepted Caitanya Mahāprabhu as his guru so there is no difference between Tukārāma and Caitanya.</p>
<p>Prof. Hopkins: So Tukārāma, you would say, is teaching the same thing as Caitanya?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, saṅkīrtana. And Kṛṣṇa is teaching the same thing. Satataṁ kīrtayanto māṁ yatantaś ca dṛḍha-vratāḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 9.14 (1972)|BG 9.14]]). Find out.</p>
<p>Prof. Hopkins: So by saying that the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism is, and Caitanya, are the central way of... You are not excluding...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Prof. Hopkins: You would not...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No.</p>
<p>Prof. Hopkins: You are not excluding the Pandarpur tradition of Tukārāma, Rāmanitoba, (indistinct), you are not excluding the Alavars and Rāmancha, but you are saying all of these groups, all of these teachers.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Tukārāma accepts Caitanya Mahaprabhu as his guru. Then where is the difference?</p>
<p>Prof. Hopkins: So that Lord Vitoba and Kṛṣṇa...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Is the same.</p>
<p>Prof. Hopkins: You see as the same.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Vitoba means Viṣṇu. They call Vitoba.</p>
<p>Prof. Hopkins: And the Alavars, the Alavars of Tamil Nadu.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Alavar.</p>
<p>Prof. Hopkins: Alavar.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. That is also Vaiṣṇava.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Correspondence" class="section" sec_index="6" parent="compilation" text="Correspondence"><h2>Correspondence</h2>
</div>
<div id="1969_Correspondence" class="sub_section" sec_index="4" parent="Correspondence" text="1969 Correspondence"><h3>1969 Correspondence</h3>
</div>
<div id="LettertoKirtananandaLosAngeles25January1969_0" class="quote" parent="1969_Correspondence" book="Let" index="60" link="Letter to Kirtanananda -- Los Angeles 25 January, 1969" link_text="Letter to Kirtanananda -- Los Angeles 25 January, 1969">
<div class="heading">Arjuna accepted Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and we also accept the same truth under the disciplic succession of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. This is an axiomatic truth. So there is no difference of opinion of understanding Krishna between ourselves and Arjuna.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Letter to Kirtanananda -- Los Angeles 25 January, 1969|Letter to Kirtanananda -- Los Angeles 25 January, 1969]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Regarding your question about the disciplic succession coming down from Arjuna, it is just like I have got my disciples, so in the future these many disciples may have many branches of disciplic succession. So in one line of disciples we may not see another name coming from a different line. But this does not mean that person whose name does not appear was not in the disciplic succession. Narada was the Spiritual Master of Vyasadeva, and Arjuna was Vyasadeva's disciple, not as initiated disciple but there was some blood relation between them. So there is connection in this way, and it is not possible to list all such relationships in the short description given in Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person. The conclusions which we have tried to explain in our Bhagavad-gita As It Is is the same as those conclusions of Arjuna. Arjuna accepted Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and we also accept the same truth under the disciplic succession of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. This is an axiomatic truth. So there is no difference of opinion of understanding Krishna between ourselves and Arjuna. Another example is that a tree has many branches, and you will find one leaf here and another leaf there. But if you take this leaf and the other leaf and you press them both, you will see that the taste is the same. The taste is the conclusion, and from the taste you can understand that both leaves are from the same tree.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LettertoDineshTittenhurst31October1969_1" class="quote" parent="1969_Correspondence" book="Let" index="640" link="Letter to Dinesh -- Tittenhurst 31 October, 1969" link_text="Letter to Dinesh -- Tittenhurst 31 October, 1969">
<div class="heading">Because Vyasadeva and Arjuna are of equal status, being students of Krishna, therefore we are in the disciplic succession of Arjuna. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Letter to Dinesh -- Tittenhurst 31 October, 1969|Letter to Dinesh -- Tittenhurst 31 October, 1969]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Regarding the disciplic succession coming from Arjuna, disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion. Arjuna was a disciple of Krishna and Brahma was also a disciple of Krishna. Thus there is no disagreement between the conclusions of Brahma and Arjuna. Vyasadeva is in the disciplic succession of Brahma. The teachings to Arjuna was recorded by Vyasadeva verbatim. So according to the axiomatic truth, things equal to one another are equal to each other. We are not exactly directly from Vyasadeva, but our Gurudeva is a representative of Vyasadeva. Because Vyasadeva and Arjuna are of equal status, being students of Krishna, therefore we are in the disciplic succession of Arjuna. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>