You cannot establish religion by arguing. What is the value of your argument? You can argue very nice, but I can argue better than you, I can defeat you. Then another man comes; he is better arguer than me, he defeats me. So in this way, simply by argument you cannot establish religion. That is not possible. That is not possible. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ. It will never establish what is actually religion. śrutayo vibhinnā: if you consult different scriptures, Bible, Koran, or Vedas, you cannot understand what is what.
You will find different methods, different ways; although they are one, may be one, but according to country and place and people, the methods are different. Therefore we sometimes argue that "Our scripture says like that; your scripture says . . ." No. The scripture says the same thing, but it is adjusted according to time, circumstances, audience. So therefore if you simply read scripture, śrutayo vibhinnā—there are Ṛg Veda, Sāma Veda, Yajur Veda, this Veda, so many—you cannot come to the conclusion. Neither by argument. Neither by argument, nor by simply reading books. śrutayo vibhinnā (CC Madhya 17.186).
Then philosophical speculation—there are so many philosophers. No. He says nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. Philosophers . . . one philosopher means not agreeing with another philosopher. That is philosopher. I become a great philosopher when I defy. So one philosopher is trying to defy another philosopher. So that also very difficult. Tarko ‘pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnā nāsāv munir yasya . . . muni, muni means philosopher, mental speculator. So my mental speculation, your mental speculation may be different, and it is always different, because it is mental speculation. You have got a different type of mind, I have got a different type of mind. It cannot agree. So by following these different types of mental speculation you can also . . . you cannot establish what is religion.