The article deals with the problem of interrelation of Eurasian and Slavophil teachings on the basis of discursive analysis. In modern Russian scientific literature it is widely believed that the Eurasians developed the philosophical views of the early and late Slavophils. The author of the article believes that this opinion is wrong. Critics of Eurasianism of the 20-30s of the last century, among whom there were many representatives of Russian religious philosophy, decisively denied the Eurasians the right to call themselves successors of the religious and philosophical tradition of the early Slavophils. Foreign researchers also don’t have a unanimous opinion on this issue. This is largely due to the lack of clear criteria by which a particular set of ideas can be included in the Eurasian tradition or excluded from it. The specificity of the Eurasian doctrine is revealed only in the field of the Eurasian discourse itself. And only within this field is the problem of the presence or absence of ideological continuity between the Slavophils and the Eurasians solved. Eurasian discourse is an integral part of the philosophical discourse about Russia, which is structurally formed around the problem of the world-historical meaning of its existence in the coordinates “East – West”. Eurasian discourse is a complex of different in form and scattered in time statements relating to the problem of ethno-cultural and socio-cultural synthesis of the Eastern Slavic, Finno-Ugric and Turkic-Mongolian cultural worlds in the space of Northern Eurasia. The application of discursive analysis to this problem clearly proves that the Slavophils were not the precursors of Eurasianism. Representatives of modern neo-Eurasianism see the traditional relationship between Slavophiles and Eurasians in the concept of L. Karsavin's “symphonic personality”. However, careful analysis proves that the similarity between the Slavophil concept of “conciliarity” and the concept of “symphonic personality” is purely external. For the Slavophils, “conciliarity” was revealed as the mystical property of the Church to achieve unity without formal legal procedures on the basis of free Christian consent and brotherly love. Eurasians also used this concept to justify the political dictatorship of a small group of oligarchs, expressing the opinion of a ruling stratum, united by a common ideology. Thus, the concept of “symphonic personality” was the complete opposite of the Slavophil concept of “conciliarity”.