View source for By argument you cannot come to the conclusion. By simply reading scriptures you cannot come to the conclusion. By following the philosophers you cannot come to the conclusion. Therefore the truth is very confidential. Dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"by argument you cannot come to the conclusion. By simply reading scriptures you cannot come to the conclusion. By following the philosophers you cannot come to the conclusion. Therefore the truth is very confidential. Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|SharmisthaK}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|2023-05-16T14:27:43Z}}
{{last|2023-05-16T14:27:43Z}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Argument]]
[[Category:You Cannot]]
[[Category:Come To]]
[[Category:Conclusion]]
[[Category:Simply]]
[[Category:Reading Scripture]]
[[Category:Cannot Come]]
[[Category:Follow]]
[[Category:Philosophers]]
[[Category:Therefore]]
[[Category:Truth]]
[[Category:Very]]
[[Category:Confidential]]
[[Category:Pages Needing Audio - SHARMISTHA]]
</div>
<div id="section">
<h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="sub_section">
<h3>1971 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div class="quote">
<div class="quote_heading">
By argument you cannot come to the conclusion. By simply reading scriptures you cannot come to the conclusion. By following the philosophers you cannot come to the conclusion. Therefore the truth is very confidential. Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ. It is kept very confidential.
</div>

<div class="quote_link">
[[Vanisource:710905 - Conversation - London|710905 - Conversation - London]]
</div>
<div class="text">
Prabhupāda: You can say in any language, but the function of the mind is flickering. Just like when Arjuna was advised by Kṛṣṇa to train the mind by meditation, by yoga system, he said that "Kṛṣṇa, it is very difficult for me." Cañcalaṁ hi manaḥ kṛṣṇa pramāthi balavad dṛḍham ([[Vanisource:BG 6.34 (1972)|BG 6.34]]). "My mind is very," I mean to say, "agitated. I think to control the mind is as impossible as the controlling the wind." Cañcalaṁ hi manaḥ kṛṣṇa pramāthi ba . . . vāyor iva suduṣkaram: "And it is very difficult to . . . (indistinct) . . . high wind, and if you want to control it, as it is . . . (indistinct) . . . similarly, I think the activities of the mind, thinking, feeling and willing, to control that is very difficult for me."

So actually that is the position. So long we shall be on the mental platform there will be no fixity of conclusion. That is not possible. We have to accept something for the time being, then again reject it. Therefore all mental speculators differ. Nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 17.186|CC Madhya 17.186]]). A philosopher is not philosopher until he differs from other philosophers. Nāsau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. Unless you place a different thesis, he will not be accepted as a good philosopher.

Dr. Ware: There it differs from science. Because if science is actually correct, it can only be one.

Prabhupāda: But philosophy is taken as the science of sciences.

Dr. Ware: Theology used to be that. Yes.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Dr. Ware: It shows a misconception of the word science.

Prabhupāda: So far I remember—I was also a student of philosophy—Dr. Urquhart, he said the philosophy is science of sciences. The science, their, I mean, theory begins from philosophy. Philosophy is the science of sciences. But according to Vedic version, a philosopher is not a philosopher if he has not a different opinion from another philosopher.

Nasau munir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. Therefore, through the philosopher you cannot come to the right conclusion. Tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ. If you simply go on arguing, that will also not help you. If you simply read scriptures, that will also not help you. Because there are different scriptures. Bible is different from Vedas, and Vedas is different from Koran.

So tarko apratiṣṭhaḥ ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 17.186|CC Madhya 17.186]]), by argument you cannot come to the conclusion. By simply reading scriptures you cannot come to the conclusion. By following the philosophers you cannot come to the conclusion. Therefore the truth is very confidential. Dharmasya tattvaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyāṁ. It is kept very confidential. Then how to have it? Mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 17.186|CC Madhya 17.186]]): you have to follow the great personalities who have actually realized God. That is the conclusion.

Dr. Ware: The trouble is that you only have the opportunity of hearing or reading what somebody else has said what they have said. So you're back again on the trouble of diversity of observation and opinion.

Prabhupāda: No. So far we are concerned, we are receiving knowledge directly from God. Just like Bhagavad-gītā: It is accepted, spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead; therefore if you take conclusion from the speeches delivered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, that is fact. That is very easy authority. Just like the other day I was explaining to Mr. Mathew that, "You are searching after who is your father, but if you simply ask your mother, 'Who is my father?' the truth is immediately disclosed." Immediately.

Dr. Ware: Being a lawyer, I would say that that doesn't necessarily follow.

Prabhupāda: Why?

Dr. Ware: Well, it's a wise woman sometimes who knows who's the father . . .

Prabhupāda: That is your misfortune if your mother cheats you. That's a different thing. That's different. We are expecting mother will not cheat us.

Dr. Ware: Some of them don't know!

Prabhupāda: That is different thing. Suppose you are a lawyer. I put my faith in you, but if you cheat me I lose the case. That is another thing.

Dr. Ware: Sometimes it's just honest ignorance.

Prabhupāda: No. Generally mother is honest. If one is unfortunate, he has got a mother like that, cheated. Generally expected, a mother is honest. Mother loves his (her) child, he (she) gives the good information. That is mother's position. But if someone has got a different mother, that's . . .

The same thing can be applicable to you also. You are lawyer. Everyone depends on you, but if you conduct a case in a different way just to make profit to other party, you can do that; that is my misfortune. I have to depend on you for conducting the case. I have no other means.

Dr. Ware: And the poor lawyer has to depend upon the other person in telling him what is supposed to be the true facts.

Prabhupāda: But my position is, as soon as I appoint my lawyer, I'll have to depend fully on you. I cannot do anything else. Whatever you advise me, I have to do that.
</div>
</div>
</div>