Just like cow-killing. Take, take it for example. The Hindus, they say that cow-killing is irreligious. But, the Muhammadans say: "No, cow-killing is religious." There is some adjustment, but . . . now, in the scripture I see that the cow-killing, in some scriptures it is said that cow-killing is irreligious, and another scripture says that cow-killing is religious. So which of them I shall accept? This is ni . . . this is all right, or that is all right?
So therefore it is said that smṛtayo vibhinnāḥ. If you consult different scriptures, you'll find different contradictory statements. Your scripture may be different from my scripture. And nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam: if you consult philosophers, you'll find one philosopher is differing from another philosopher. A big philosopher means who has cut down other philosophers and put up his own theory, "This is true." This is going on. So tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ smṛtayo vibhinnā nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam.
Then how to conclude what is the right path? I cannot establish it by my imperfect arguments. I cannot consult even the scriptures. Neither I can take real instruction from different philosophers. Then what . . . what is the way of having the real thing? So it says that, dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām: "The truth of religiosity is very confidential, very secret." So how to know it?
- mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ
- (CC Madhya 17.186):
"We have simply to see that great personalities, as they have taken up, we have to follow. That's all."