View source for Where is the way to understand? The conclusion is, mahajano yena gatah sa panthah (CC Madhya 17.186): "Mahajana, great personalities, recognized acarya, what they say, you follow." That is the best system

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"where is the way to understand? The conclusion is, mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ"|""Mahājana, great personalities, recognized ācārya, what they say, you follow." That is the best system"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Soham}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|2023-01-27T08:57:38Z}}
{{last|2023-01-27T08:57:38Z}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Where Is]]
[[Category:Way]]
[[Category:Understand]]
[[Category:Conclusion Is]]
[[Category:Great Personalities]]
[[Category:Recognize]]
[[Category:Follow the Acaryas]]
[[Category:Say]]
[[Category:Best System]]
[[Category:Following in the Footsteps of the Mahajanas - Spiritual Authorities]]
[[Category:Pages Needing Audio - SOHAM]]
</div>
<div id="section">
<h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="sub_section">
<h3>1975 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div class="quote">
<div class="quote_heading">
Things which are beyond our conception, simply argument will be useless. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkena yo . . . tarka means arguments. In another place it is said: "Tarka, argument, is futile." Tarkaḥ apratiṣṭhaḥ: "By argument, you cannot come to the right conclusion." You can argue in a way; I can argue a better way; he can argue in better way. That is not the system. That will not help. Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186). If you study scriptures, so in the world there are many varieties of scriptures. There is Bible, there is Bhagavad-gītā, there is Koran, there is so on, so on. So which one is correct? That also you cannot decide. Śrutayo vibhinnāḥ, and nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And if you consult philosophers or scientists, every scientist, every philosopher differs from the other. Otherwise he cannot become a big scientist. He must give a different view; then he is big scientist. So nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. Then where is the way to understand? The conclusion is, mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ (CC Madhya 17.186): "Mahājana, great personalities, recognized ācārya, what they say, you follow." That is the best system.
</div>

<div class="quote_link">
[[Vanisource:750624 - Conversation - Los Angeles|750624 - Conversation - Los Angeles]]
</div>
<div class="text">
Dr. Wolfe: Foster fathers very often say that they are the real . . .

Prabhupāda: Huh?

Dr. Wolfe: Foster fathers very often tell their foster children that they are the real fathers.

Prabhupāda: No, no, we are not talking of foster; we are talking of real father. How do you know your real father?

Dr. Crossley: You've grown up with him. You've known him since you were a little child. It's part of your consciousness.

Prabhupāda: So if my consciousness is not right, then I may select a wrong father.

Dr. Crossley: Well, just because you know he's your father, there's still more to know about him. There's more and more to understand.

Prabhupāda: It is . . . very simple answer is: when the mother certifies, "He is your father," that's all. (laughter) You don't have to make research. That is futile. By research, you cannot understand who is your real father. You can understand your real father only by the certificate of your mother. That's all. Therefore our Vedic mantra says that religion and God cannot be manufactured by speculation. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkena yojayet (Mahābhārata, Bhīṣma-parva 5.22). Just like this example, father. Father was existing before my birth. So after my birth, with limited knowledge I make research who is my father—you will never find your father. But if you take the certificate of your mother, that is there. Similarly, acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā, things which are beyond our conception, that cannot be established simply by argument, logic, so-called science and philosophy. That is not possible. The same example: by argument, logic, science, philosophy you cannot ascertain who is your father. The only simple method and authorized method is to ask mother, and if she says: "Yes, he is your father . . ."

Similarly, things which are beyond our conception, simply argument will be useless. Acintyāḥ khalu ye bhāvā na tāṁs tarkena yo . . . tarka means arguments. In another place it is said: "Tarka, argument, is futile." Tarkaḥ apratiṣṭhaḥ: "By argument, you cannot come to the right conclusion." You can argue in a way; I can argue a better way; he can argue in better way. That is not the system. That will not help. Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnāḥ ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 17.186|CC Madhya 17.186]]). If you study scriptures, so in the world there are many varieties of scriptures. There is Bible, there is Bhagavad-gītā, there is Koran, there is so on, so on. So which one is correct? That also you cannot decide. Śrutayo vibhinnāḥ, and nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. And if you consult philosophers or scientists, every scientist, every philosopher differs from the other. Otherwise he cannot become a big scientist. He must give a different view; then he is big scientist. So nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. Then where is the way to understand? The conclusion is, mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 17.186|CC Madhya 17.186]]): "Mahājana, great personalities, recognized ācārya, what they say, you follow." That is the best system.

So anyone who is speaking about God with authority—take for example Jesus Christ; he is speaking in the Western world—you accept him. We Indians, we accept Caitanya or Rāmānujācārya, Madhvācārya. That is the way. That is the way, because these ācāryas, these authorities, they are speaking about God. None of them speaking that "You become happy here." No, none of them. Either Christ or Caitanya or Muhammad, nobody has said. So according to the time, circumstances, position, either you follow any one of them as it suits you or, if you can make a comparative study, you follow the best one. So therefore, our conclusion is Kṛṣṇa is the best. He is God. Christ is son of God. So we don't differ "son of God" and "God." That is all right. But when the father is speaking personally, he is speaking what the son has spoken plus something, because he is more experienced. So take the father and follow him. That's all.
</div>
</div>
</div>