Acharya Prashant explains that there are always two aspects to a Guru's life and words. He emphasizes that the Gurus being discussed were beings of their respective times. Some of their words and actions are related to their time and their nature as a living being. These things are relative to time and place and are not immortal or meant for all eternity. On the other hand, there are other aspects of a Guru's character and scriptures that are for all time, timeless, and beyond space. These are the immortal and ageless teachings. Both types of statements can be found in every Guru's life and scriptures. It is crucial to differentiate between them. The things that were only relevant to a specific time and place should not be applied today, as they are not universal. One should only value the teachings that are eternal and everlasting. However, people often do the opposite: they hold on to the momentary, time-bound actions while ignoring the timeless, central teachings. This is how people justify eating meat by citing examples of Gurus. They fail to see the compassionate life Buddha lived and instead focus on an incident where he allowed a monk to eat meat that he hadn't killed. This has led to many Buddhists eating meat under the pretext that they did not kill the animal themselves. The speaker explains the context of the story: a piece of meat fell into a monk's bowl, and the monk was in a dilemma. Buddha's instruction was for monks to live a life without choice (nirvikalp), accepting whatever comes their way. To uphold this principle and prevent monks from seeking exceptions, Buddha allowed the monk to eat the meat, as he hadn't killed the animal. The speaker warns against misusing such incidents as an excuse. He urges people to be honest and differentiate between the central, timeless teachings and the peripheral, incidental ones that have no relevance today. He concludes that this misuse of scriptures and saints' lives is common, where peripheral matters are highlighted while the core message is ignored.