Wittgenstein's Verification Principle and the Nature of Self
A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Chapters
Verification principle and the moving force
This morning we're discussing a philosopher called Ludwig Wittgenstein, contemporary German philosophy.
One of his major, uh, so-called contributions is what is called a verification principle, which reads: "To understand a proposition means to know what is the case if it is true."
That means, uh, in order to... anyone who wishes to understand a proposition must first know the, the conditions under which that proposition is true. That is, what information is required by way of evidence of its truth.
Or another one says is that "I am this body." So that is untruth. What do you say? I love this. Well, if I claim that I am this body, that means I have to know all of the conditions which make it true that I am this body.
Yeah. And then, if all of these conditions are... we must discuss what I am. We have to see whether I am this body or not. I am. You are individual. I am an individual. How I exert my individuality?
How you make that your union? What is the thinker? What is the, uh, meaning of "I am"? That's what I was talking about in that. What do you mean by "I am"? I am my activity. Uh, yeah, my activity.
So I want to... "I am" means, uh, my activity. So how my activity is the way presently can see my activity going out by the movement of mind, senses, or the limbs of the body.
Therefore, we come to the point that the moving force is the real thing. Yes. That, that moving force, if I am, uh, then I am not this body. But because they have some moving force, probably body is, uh, works.
The body will say that when I cease to exist, then I am no more, they say, and the body dies and I am no more. Then how do some...? "No more" means... You can truly exist somewhere. How do you do that? This is that
after stopping the movement of the body, then there is no more "I am." Then how this "I am" came in change with you? That is the question.
Well, from this, one can—they say that the conditions, or the evidence required to know if this is true, that I came from... The first thing is that if I identify myself with the body, the body remains, momentum leaves.
Now, something is wanting, and in me, I do not move anymore.
Scientific inadequacy and the soul existence
That moving causes that... a combination of chemicals? No. They postulated—the French philosopher, at one point, postulated that within the matter itself there's a potential of consciousness.
They called it élan vital, living potential within matter, and when you put the matter together in a certain condition, then that living potential is able to come out. And when the material nature changes... That
is another nonsense. Because when the body becomes only a lump of matter, why that living potentiality, consciousness, does not come? "Because the elements are no longer in suitable arrangements for life."
You add these elements. Just like when the motor stops for want of gas, we take it casually to some store and start it. I agree. Otherwise, that we're putting some wrong choice.
We should say that putting the combination of chemicals and, you know, that if the symptoms are there, then bring that chemical and add it, and let people go out again. We cannot do that.
There's no sense that we have success.
So in other words, if a body dies from heart failure, they should immediately be able to remove that heart and put in a fresh heart from somebody who just died, and it should come back to life. But it doesn't do that.
No, that is... how many have that thing? And I've heard of many cases. But there are many, for example. The principle is: when the body is called dead, why don't you move some chemicals and make it alive?
We say something is wanting. What is that something? That is not known. But we can say, what is that something? We say that something is the soul. That is logic.
So for that proposition, you said "I am" means that the soul exists. That is your proposition. Yes, my proposition means I am this, I am this soul, seated soul, about this body.
So they say if we are to verify this proposition and to prove that it is true, then we have to know what conditions under which it is true. What are those conditions under which it is true? It's very simple.
Well, now it's only that it is moving. As long as the soul is there, it's moving. Anyone can understand. You say something is gone. I see this soul... dead. But you do not know what is your "something."
Therefore your knowledge is imperfect. My knowledge is perfect. My knowledge is supported by Bhagavad-gītā. But your knowledge has no... What? That way your knowledge is not there.
In order for that statement or that proposition to be true, there must be evidence. This is evident: that when the soul itself, the individual soul, is now departed, therefore, this body is now matter.
This is evident. And because the soul is there, therefore the body changes or develops. Dead, then the body does not develop. Obtain it. It remains in the same condition. But the soul is there. The child grows.
Attain this body. So that is evidence. Because the soul is there, therefore the child is growing or changing body, or child also body join. Suppose a child is born, doctor says "dead child."
You say something... what is that something? Is it not wrong? Otherwise he doesn't add it. What is that something? What is that something? Simply a vague idea of "something" — that is not the idea. That is not science.
He must be saying that it's blood. The redness that, like nowadays, blood supply is filled. So what is this blood? Blood is a liquid; there is liquid by chemical or something or some, uh, salt.
So you can add salt, that's like in cholera and saline. Saline injection. So red water. You, you see saline inject and make it red. I can color. If you say that red blood is now white, then make it red. What is that?
It has women. Then it's not only... can you... If you say the redness is the life, so there are many natural products, just like jewels, there are many jewels. By nature it is red. Why is it that not a life?
Why is it not a life? When natural reason of functions, if you say that is the cause of life, then there are many jewels. What is five jewels? Ruby. Why is it not a life?
That we have to accept: your identification is in the soul, not in this body. I don't know if it is nonsense. He's, he's, he's not disputing that there is soul or there is not soul.
He's really, uh, putting forward a principle to test something if it is true or false. This is a test. This is the test. Because the soul is there, that holds the body's moving. So that is the evidence. That is the evidence.
And you are going to see. Now we say, "My father is gone." Oh, "My father is gone." Well, God, your father is lying, you know. I didn't say "boss."
Soul migration and the changing body
The word is "passed away." That means you have not seen your father. You have not seen your father still. You identify the body of your father.
Or your father identified your body as yourself. The father has not seen the son, the son has not seen the father. But we lose that. The movement of the body is evidence that the soul exists. Yes, that is real.
Only evidence. Because the soul is dead. That needs to be done. When death comes, at the moment, before death, the whole body is alive, completely alive and functioning. And in split seconds, it's all finished.
Completely dead. That would be an evidence that it is not chemical combination. The reason is that he told when speaking this body, uh, there is explanation. What kind of body is going to get to be that explanation?
Identify nature of God and superior exam. According to the formula, he'll get the world.
Now that requires a little time. So what kind of body this soul is, as far as it's divided, then immediately is satisfied to that kind of body and is what in the main. This
may, this would also, it seems, satisfy his second requirement for verification, but sense observation or information ultimately derived by means of sense observation is necessary for verification.
So by observation, it is that, uh, completely living bag, now this soul has body and that would be body's death. The body is not the man, the soul is there. This is quite funky. This is not nonsense.
Otherwise, how do you explain? You explain what you said. Anybody. What we are telling, according to this trial. He isn't quibbling with that.
He is going, uh, his only philosophy was that he was putting forward ways of determining what is true and what is false. But that is our reality, that this body is false. This soul is true. That is our sweater.
Body is false. Looks like this, this Hindi. This sweater. This is false. It has not a hand, but this is false hand. A real hand is within this. Within this sweater. What is real hand? Real hand. It is body also.
It is some kind of breath. The place is false. The man who puts on the dress is true. Similarly, the soul is the truth and the body is false.
If you want to make distinction, it is false and truth, then this is the distinction. The soul is the truth, the body is false.
It says, uh, philosophy is that mental activity which seeks to analyze or clarify the meanings of scientific propositions. What is this body, what is, how is it moving? This is analytical study.
And you come to the understanding that the body is a dead lump of matter. There is something which is called soul. Because you showed it there, it is scientific. One who has not this knowledge is not scientific.
It's foolish. In other words, if he makes a scientific proposition that, uh, uh, because I am, the body moves, it has a sanctioned proposition. Then philosophy is a clarification of that proposition.
But it's Vedic thought, dehino 'smin yathā dehe, kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā, tathā dehāntara-prāptiḥ, he says, the Bhagavad-gītā says.
God Himself, He says that, uh, as the, uh, the body is changing in the five phases of my life, similarly, uh, ultimately at the end, this body is left and another body gets it. This is like this.
It is not our bold revolution. It is supported by the whole Vedic knowledge. And the scientists may disagree or not. I think that we did that really far. That wouldn't be better than you.
That's like modern science: if somebody introduces some theory and it is accepted by the scientists of the world, then this science is accepted as science. Clearly, our proposition is accepted by Krishna.
Can't hold it back. But you have no support by the scientists. What you say? My proposition is accepted by you, and we are creating these old lights.
Perfect knowledge through disciplic succession
Philosophers present old facts in new lights, but philosophers do not discover any new facts because they are limited and fools. What they can do too?
They simply purified on their last hill, that's, uh, that is the business. General area of war. There is no fact. And those who are rascals, they believe them.
We are not speculating because our knowledge is received from the disciplic succession. I am not a doctor, but because I follow the disciplic succession, therefore, my knowledge is perfect.
I do not know how this picture was working. But somebody has said, "This is a picture of a bulb." I will watch it. That is nice. I may not be the real mechanic, but I watch it.
He says that philosophy is a process which attempts to clarify thought, not that itself it has factual content, which is clarification, that mostly the people are under an identification of the body with itself. So we are clarifying that you are not this body.
We have to be source. That wouldn't be scientific. So we're clarifying the scientific propositions. Yes, without philosophy. Philosophy means the science of sciences. Vedas is the science of sciences.
All sciences are derived from philosophy. So philosophy's position is supposed to be on the higher level than the science. Another definition he has is that philosophy is the pursuit of meaning. Pursuit of meaning. Yes.
Because philosophy is searching out about the ultimate truth. That's what it is, first truth. And the ultimate truth is meaning. That's right. That there are different levels of life.
So far we are concerned, we know that the ultimate meaning is this, because of all that. They are powerful to be perfect. They are simply pursuing, but we have reached the goal, that is the point.
We are on the way, but we are on the path. Is that right? He says that these propositions of logic and mathematics are tautology because they are uninformative assertions which state nothing factual about the world.
Just like, for instance, two plus two equals four. On paper it's just two symbols. A symbol two, a symbol two, and a symbol four. But actually that is a void arrangement.
It doesn't say anything factual about the world, or they are like more factual. He said it can... these can be demonstrated but not verified by that very fact. Two rupees, like two rupees about the quality.
But that's something else. But that is there, matters. We got what that was. You have got two degrees, I want two rupees and combined together. We got four rupees. That is my review. This is practical proof. What does it say?
Practical use. And philosophers could become philosophers, if not to become an answer, because in... uh, theorize something nonsense because it becomes a true. That is that... uh, flower.
So let us... let us say that the proposition that the sum of the angles of a triangle equals 180 degrees... Yes. That is the proposition.
It can be demonstrated on paper, but it cannot be... uh, ver— uh, verified by experiential data if you're staying at a shift, you can make use of it. It can be made use of and it can be called valid or invalid.
It wants to know true and false. That... that... that this sum of the angles equal to 180 degrees can be said to be valid or invalid. But it cannot be said to be true or false.
And in that way, what is the one in better false? Because in this material world there is no truth, everything is false. So he loves nothing for what is any logical false. Actually he came to recognize that.
Yeah. No, he does not say false. He says that it... that this... the sum of... better... better thing, better thing is that as we say, it is not false, but it is... He doesn't say true or false.
He says it, this sum of the angle. That is false. No, it... it cannot be verified if it is true or false. But it can be no doubt. It is doubtful.
Just like the proposition that sum of the angles of a triangle equals a hundred and eighty degrees. Yes. But that's everywhere designed to be standing. Yes. That can be said to be a valid proposition or invalid proposition.
Why is it... why it is valid? Yes, it can be demonstrated that it is valid. But it cannot be said that it is true or false while it's— That can be said, it is false.
Because in this world everything is a temporary manifestation. So this world itself is a temporary manifestation. This is high and this letter and everything is temporary manifestation.
So even that law is temporary; if the sum of angles equals 180, yes, that's all temporary. But temporary meaning in this sense, because the existence of this universe is also temporary. So whatever is there is temporary.
But even when this universe ends, doesn't that law tell you and this, uh, what a thought? These water thoughts, uh, you can say, uh, uh, false or true.
Krishna as the source of energy
False means when it's black. Then there's no longer this is what a force. It becomes asat again. Come to asat with the leg. And again it's the town. That's what this see was before the force is not both the rest.
That is the right one. It will not return the manas well. It is blessed. And when it's blessed, it isn't us, probably like men. That's what we say is simply. That that example is part we can verify to a thought by a senses.
But this until this is also senses. I'm taking it as water quad. That is like I'm taking it by myself. But the sleep of the water pod is simply that can be proven. Yes, so a man there is in this world. That in this house.
This big house. This is also principle. What about a principle like, like super true? Principle is true. Partly manifest is any simple. Principles that have heart and, uh, here from our Gita, we are mind to manifest energy.
Because it's not energy. And consider is true. Therefore, that energy is true.
But the intellectual of the energy manifestation of divine, some of that energy that is that we become material energy or external energy, simple energy. What about the proposition that two plus two equals four?
That is all temporary. That disappears, and I said everything you have, yes. We wanted to bank left. Two plus two is four. Everything is finished. The principle does not carry on. Huh? The principle does not carry on despite...
Just like this, what I've watched. It breaks, it becomes earth, and again some earth in that water pot. Therefore, this principle that the water pot is made out of earth, that is a fact.
But the water pot as we see it, that is simply creation. But the water or earth is a fact. Similarly, this material world is creation out of Krishna's external energy, that is a fact. The energy is fact, which means fact.
What about something that cannot be transitively seen, like a mathematical calculation or an equation? That does not mean that does not exist. Your power of seeing is limited. Why you are depending on seeing?
No, I... I want to take something we all know, like two plus two equals four, that principle. Yes. There's no water pot or anything visible involved, but just a purely abstract principle. Two plus two equals four.
Concrete, it doesn't matter. What is that for you is concrete for others. Paramātmā, actually that is the only guru. So this idea has found this related...
Just like the idea of, uh, the sum of the angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees. It is calculation. There is calculation.
There is no limiting knowledge because you cannot know beyond an X degree according to your geometrical calculation. But your calculation, everything is imperfect. Because you are imperfect.
So, uh, because it is going on for our purpose. That's only working in two planes, the two dimensions. It's like a big body. This body, I should say, can say false. Suppose somebody kills somebody. So you cannot argue.
But it is a false thing. So if it is, uh, killed, why? And it's based on, uh, so much, and also it is false. No. Even if it's temporary, even if it is false, but it has a temporary use, you cannot disturb that use.
Because the proposition, uh, pertaining to metaphysical realities that we've been talking about, like the soul, is neither, uh, tautological, uh, that is, uninformative assertions, neither are they empirical propositions.
So it is impossible to demonstrate either their validity or to verify them. Right. Statements like the soul, "I am the soul." Yes. We can neither say that it's tautological or is valid, neither can we say it is...
We cannot understand valid. Right, I understand. It is valid. And you saw it that, uh, he also says it cannot be demonstrated also.
This is the one that says that—you want to say that this is the one says that—as soon as I go, actually I go before you know me. That is the one. And then satisfy those conditions.
So one condition you say that it's as soon as the body dies and then there's no more movement. But what is there to prove that the soul has left the body, or is there a soul in the body? That is proved.
Because the soul takes place, uh, takes shelter into the womb of the mother. The father injects the soul. That's—that is the statement in the śāstra.
In the womb of the mother, as the mother gives shelter, so the body develops from the womb of the mother. There is conceptual pregnancy. That is the proof.
So ultimately there's nothing to measure when the—so when the body died to determine where that soul went. Yeah, that becomes that right knowledge. It's like one—be that same bit.
This working man has committed, uh, murder, killed somebody. He's arrested, he's taken arrest from your side. But in the law, like you committed murder, you have that off. You do not require to go there and see that he has.
It doesn't require. That is fully proved. If somebody says that, "I did not see that the man was arrested at all." but I did not see that affair, I cannot believe it." No, you believe or not believe it, it is a fact.
Gaining knowledge through authority and reason
So what he is saying is that because he can't see the soul after the body, it is the body, therefore we cannot say if the soul exists with his eyes. But why does he believe in his eyes so much?
Why does he not accept that we are so imperfect that he cannot see the thing? Either directly or indirectly, he says that we have to be able to follow.
The same example: just like a man committed a murder, and his arrest is certain. So others will know that this man is finished. And one says, "Oh, I have not seen." So how is it helped? That is his foolishness.
The law says, the law says, the state law says that if the man has committed murder, he will be hanged. So he has to see through the law, not with the eyes; the nonsense eyes cannot see.
One should see through knowledge, through books. So our ultimate verification does not rest with our senses, but with the authority. That is, that is the way to see. That is the way to see.
Just like we have not seen Krishna. Take for example. Are we all fools that worship Krishna? People may say, "But you have not seen Krishna. Why are you after Him?" We can see.
But then we are, then we are all such fools, does it mean? If we are all such fools, then how are we seeing? It starts with Wittgenstein in that, in that respect, and he answers.
He answers that these metaphysical or mystical ideas, even though they're not expressed in words, can be felt or appreciated without knowing whether it is true. No, that is not knowing.
To know through authority, that is knowing. That is the knowing. That is, that is the process of gaining knowledge. To know through the authority. It is the same example.
The same example: if somebody is asking, "Who is my father?", then he has to know through the authority, the mother; otherwise there is no other way.
So therefore, to know through authority is what these, these modern scientists, they fall back on that idea that, "Well, I accept that there is something mystical or metaphysical, but because I don't know its truth, still I cannot appreciate it," or, "It cannot be spread, we're not trying to do it."
I tell you: appreciate it or not appreciate it, it does not matter. Who this truth... so they fall back on kind of a blind faith. Well, you are in blind faith.
There are those who do not accept our physics, they are in blind faith. That's like one who does not know that what is so, even blind faith; accepting this body as self, even blind faith.
He has no real evidence for himself as a body. He needs blind faith because it is not the fact. The evidence is there. But he didn't... in the sense of the whole world is one in blind faith.
I am Pakistani, I am Hindustani, I'm American, I'm Englishman, simply body identification. The whole world is a set of fools that is fitted in this house and the sample and future of his house.
Anyone who has set this band of three battles coming with the wife as well. They are mad.
Just that atomic propositions or the components of compound propositions depend for their validity upon the reliability with which they accurately picture atomic facts.
In other words, suppose there's some proposition that this ring is gold, this ring is gold.
This proposition is part of a compound proposition which tells where the ring came from, how it originated, and so many other facts. But only we take one proposition: "This ring is gold."
And so that this proposition depends upon the reliability with which it accurately pictures the fact, if it is true or false.
That statement, "this thing is gold," it must determine how accurately it pictures the facts, the same laws, before we can say if it is a valid or invalid proposition. So that one tried to say these laws. What is that?
We say that, first of all, we must give a list of conditions to determine why it is gold. Under what conditions it is gold, that they are with this. But he is speaking also, then they have a condition.
So different conditions. But he's speaking under some certain conditions. Everything in this material world, that is unconditional. So the finding is also under conditions. So everything is conditioned.
Why he does not understand first himself? Then he's trying to understand what is gold. In other words, if we list them correctly.
If we list it for some conditions, that it, uh, it must weigh a certain amount, it must have a certain color, it must have a certain texture. Those who are chemists will know: what is the characteristic of gold?
That's already there, everybody. What does he want? This is, this is part of his system for analyzing what is true. That analogy is there. It may not be with me. It may be with you. What if it's already there?
But what we do is that I'm going to do what you do then. Well, we can satisfy the conditions and then find, determine it is true. If this means it's all... there are so many conditions.
After, at the end, the conditions come to atom, atomic theory. Yes. Yes. But the atom is also coming. Aṇḍāntara-stha-paramāṇu-cayāntara-stham. Krishna is within the atom also. He may be called the world.
That's what Krishna is, the Absolute. That, yeah, Lord. He's the cause of all. So for instance, the ring may be gold under certain conditions. Yes, gold, it is gold under certain conditions.
But the original cause is this objective has to condition. Something is wood, something is gold, something is metal, something is weak, something... This is the divine condition. I am also conditioned.
Under certain conditions, I'm talking that I am a human being. And as an animal, he is under certain conditions, he is an animal. Everyone is under condition. He is not under condition. Everything is under condition.
Therefore, this is, this world is called conditioned world. I believe in what? Nothing is absolute. It says a proposition with a thing is gold. Gold means it is a metal, a combination of metal.
There are, uh, eight types of metal, and gold is a combination of tin, copper, and metal. What? Matter. So we have the taste to get on the gold. Magnetic. It is about money to different elements, uh, different metals.
According to the chemist, there are... there are basic hundred and eight basic elements to the gold. But, uh, I say that what we call gold is a combination of other matters. But gold, this is not alpha. This is related.
Because other metals have combined to the values is now known as gold. Similarly, the whole world is combination of different material elements. And that gross elements are this earth, water, fire, air.
What about they say there's a basic atom called, uh, hydrogen atom? Well, and, uh, what do you call? It is also matter. The minute particles are matter, then inside the molecule there are atoms.
Inside the atoms there are more particles. Yes.
Language and the ultimate Brahman substance
He says that a proposition is a picture of reality. A picture is a model of reality. A picture is a fact. The world is a totality of facts. The totality of true thought is a picture of the world. Totality of not facts.
That is a combination of, uh, uh, uh, gross and subtle matter. Combination of gross and subtle matter. But this gross and subtle matter as protection are Krishna's energies.
Therefore, the totality, they can say Krishna's external energy. And because Krishna's energy, the energy and energetic sometimes separate and sometimes mixed up. Whereas the world is manifest as some creation,
uh, where it is mixed that the energy is no longer... it is, uh, merged into the energy, the case of pralaya, call. So the picture of reality is always changing. There were no set combinations. Reality is not changing.
The combination of different energy changes. Reality is not changing. Reality is Krishna. But Krishna has got unlimited number of energies. So the combination of different energies making some picture, this and that thing.
It says that the totality of true thoughts is the picture of the world. So that picture does not change, but true thoughts do not change. So the world is not actually... yes, one that we're gonna energy.
Everything that's ultimately in the energy. And the energy ultimately relates from Krishna. Therefore, we say that everything ultimately relates from Krishna. Krishna is the ultimate cause. What's up?
I'm the cause of everything. He says that language is a picture of reality; language, words, a picture of reality. Just like we are speaking now.
We are making pictures of reality as we speak with our language, with our words. Do these words have more content in themselves or are they simply pictures of reality? Language is part of expressing to under- stand.
Language is a... yes. Yes, she said that proposition or statements of ideas provide merely the form, telling us not what things are but how they are, but only how they are. Just like I don't ask what they are.
Why if they are how they are, then what they are, that is all can be expressed. Just like if I describe this picture I cannot really say what it is, but only how it is, what it is like. How it is. Why do you depend?
How it is then how do you depend? But what it is, he said. How is it? What is it? He says what it is can only be experienced by the other senses. By seeing it, touching it. How it is, of course it can be like that.
I do not mean what it is means the friend this both has said the how it is. A combination of other metals is gold. That is how it is.
But what it is that we have to research further just like how it is the combination of copper and tin and mercury now then what it is then how to make besides third from this mercury, first from this tin can the copper come.
That is what it is. Yes. There, that was basic languages, sarvaṁ khalvidam brahma. Everything is Brahman. That is what it is. So we can explain how it is molded into different ways. That is how it is. How it has good time.
But ultimate is Brahman. Sarvaṁ khalv idaṁ brahma. Everything is Brahman. He says that therefore most philosophical propositions are not false, but they are devoid of sensory facts, of sense content.
Therefore they're nonsensical. Therefore he's also not, a genuine proposition. Just so, we must find out what is a genuine proposition.
It says that a genuine proposition presents the sense content and shows how things stand if it is true. That is this sense content that surmounts "everything is Brahman". Everything is Brahman.
But how does that give us a sense context? What does that mean to my sense observation? Isn't there a way, that there is a way of perceiving that everything is Brahman? It can be perceived.
You cannot perceive now, but it can be perceived. Brahman is the ultimate cause. So Brahman has got different energies, and the multiple energies, they combine together and they manifest in different physics.
That's why Brahman is the cause of all, Prabhu. That is what the Vedānta-sūtra says. Janmādy asya yataḥ. Brahman means, Prabhu, everything is Brahman. Everything is Brahman.
That seems to me devoid of sensory facts, of sense content. Therefore he says it's nonsensical because I cannot experience it as a sense, if it's true.
How does that have sense content? For that means whatever it does not come through senses? That is not true. No, but whatever cannot be experienced. It's not experienced. Experience means by sense experience. Yes.
That means whatever is not under direct contact and sense experience... built on. Either direct or indirect. So how can I experience that statement that everything is Brahman? Reason is there.
And it's like we accept that everything has got some cause. So I am a person because of my personal father. And his father is also personal. Similarly, the ultimate father, the original father... I'll omit this.
I cannot transcribe. But I think behind your statement "everything is Brahman," there are also statements which show the person how to experience Brahman. This is Brahman. Brahman means the, uh, goodness. Okay. Goodbye.
But you are also, when you say everything is Brahman, you're also willing to include another set of propositions which show how to experience Brahman, how one can experience this fact: everything is Brahman.
Well, that is not very good, that this is in terms of one society. What do you mean? I start to saw and any time, I'm the rabbit yet. And, uh, at this thing, but we don't have, uh...
Personally, I'm ignorant there, but I still am there by my expansion of energy to do that is the original Brahmā. Whatever we see, we perceive, we see it, Krishna, Krishna, it's one Brahman.
His attack then is not upon your statement "everything is Brahman," because you are also proposing other, uh, propositions which show how to experience that everything is Brahman. His attack...
His attack is upon philosophy that is empty or divorced. He's attacked other philosophies that merely state "this is that, this is that," but there is no sense content. It cannot be perceived. The truth cannot be perceived.
Okay, cannot be perceived, and what good is the philosophy? No, who can be perceived? We can, we can show; therefore our philosophy is good.
We would agree that this philosophy is good because we can, we can not only state from authority what is the truth, we can reasonably establish it though. And we can demonstrate it also. Yeah, we can demonstrate it.
Uh, I have a question though. Whether he says that that philosophy which is good, which is, uh, which can be verified by observation and/or fact, and he came to the conclusion that his philosophy is nonsense.
I'd like to find out how he arrived at this kind of a conclusion. We're coming to that.
So he said that, uh, proposition must describe reality completely by means of logical scaffolding, exhibiting the logical form of reality. And whatever cannot be shown cannot be said either.
So he says that if we purport to show reality by our wording, by language, that our structure of language must be logically complete and that it's... and all, and it must also be able to be seen, or cannot be said.
Whatever cannot be shown cannot be said either, logically complete. Suppose I am my father, I've seen my father, or I've seen my grandfather, or I've seen my great-grandfather.
But because I cannot see the father of great-grandfather, it does not mean that there was no great-grandfather. Logically, he says, yes. There was a father of my grandfather who was also a human being.
He has two hands, two legs and one head, even though I have not seen. So it does not mean things which we sometimes do not see is not logical, we cannot say anything. That is also logical.
But that statement, it can be seen that my father had a father, had a father. No, that is not seen, that is quite seen. Yes. But seed. Anuha. I can see God like that, yes. That is not sense.
So in order for us to say like that, we have to... something that cannot be shown cannot be said, because we say humanity cannot be shown to be bad. Not that because it cannot be so, it is not catch.
But everything you say, you also show and you also give examples that we can perceive. It's like the body. You say the soul has left the body, so the body does not move.
So even though it cannot be seen, the soul is leaving the body, we cannot be seen, we have no seeing power. We cannot see beyond this law. But that does not mean because it cannot be seen, that is not that.
That is another fallacy. But you have no seeing power. You are... impossible. Why you have the... proposing magazine? Because it cannot be seen. No, because it cannot be shown to say. But it can be shown. It can be shown.
But you have no eyes to see. That is my eyes. Your eyes are... there's a blind man. I can see. He's a blind man. So you are blind, you cannot speak, but those who have eyes, they can speak.
That's what they say, "Pashya kashchit," don't believe these eyes. Pashya kashchit. That is very... Don't see with these naked eyes. What is the value of your eyes? Why are you so much proud of the light?
You cannot see unless having light. So we have all adopted, adopted, adopted. Those who believe only the eyes... And what is the value of the eyes? That he... all that is... That I am blind, and he also.
He says simply, "I cannot see." How can you have black? I cannot see that. That he won't tell me. That is black. It seems like that I cannot see. That's why I can't tell you. But you are blind.
But it seems to me in all of your propositions, the propositions you said, "I am the source," you are also showing a correct example how this is true.
You cannot... it's not in the air, so we cannot receive it in some way. So nothing is in the air. Everything is fact. But if somebody says, "Oh, this is fact, I cannot see, so it is not fact." That is not a good policy.
He gives the evidence. Yes. The body suddenly stopped in the movement. There's evidence. Even though we cannot see the soul, perhaps. Evidence is there. It's like a cloudy day. We cannot see the sun.
But because there is light, we say, "Yes, there is that evidence." Evidence
is... it's right. Similarly, the evidence is the moving capacity, that because the body is moving, there is soul. And it doesn't matter if you can see or not see. It doesn't matter. When the motor is moving, there is gas.
You may not see the gas. Is that...? Lamb now chill you guys. What is that? Mind is life. How I am saying that is that this is fit. Yeah, that is, that is, that the past wasn't treated for the man.
Transcending material perception for absolute good
It's not the past, present, future for Ātmā. Therefore, the past, present, future is nil. Why? And Krishna is eternal. He has no past, present, future. I can understand how the past and the future can you...
I tell the present, future in relation to your body. Because you have got a limited body. Therefore you have what: past, present. Otherwise there is no past, present. But it was present for everyone. That is a limited body.
But the past and the future is simply, uh, reminiscence and forgetting of God. But the present is existing. That past means that the fact that the test. The past, present, future as is depends from your past presence. Why?
Because your body is different. The experience of it is different. There is no past for them; these experiences are that according to a body. Experience is a difference. But the present thought is the running.
There's no past; that is right presentation. In the same way the Buddhists say there is no soul. They say that the soul is completely dependent upon the body. Why there is no soul? They really think so within that.
Uh, buddhi are really discussing. So we say there is no past? Yes, time is eternal. There is no past, present, future. We participate past and present, future in this body. That's why Krishna is not past, present, future.
This Wittgenstein noted that his own propositions are nonsensical. That is devoid of any sense content. Therefore he held that person... He held that a person must transcend them in order to view the world correctly.
Yeah, that's where we are. We are trying to study. Even his verification principle cannot be verified by any other criterion. Therefore it's self-refuting.
And moreover, this mimics referring the individual to his own sense experiences. So how can the individual refer to herself as part of an existing but not yet experienced external world?
In other words, if a person followed his philosophy strictly, he would not be able to put himself in the context of that world. This back... when did he come out? Every one of us experience heat.
And there is winter, every one of us experience cold. That's we are parts and parcels of the... fifty. When there is spring season, all the trees need to become full of foliage.
And when there is winter season, it leads to furnace. So therefore, there is one in it. And we are part and parcel of the thing. When there is winter season, you cannot say, "Well, I'm not feeling cold." We cannot.
So you're not drinking? Well, the clock of 12 o'clock is in there. Earlier he said, earlier in his philosophies he said that there is only one language of terms which portray reality.
In other words, there's only one definite set of language terms that portray reality. That is Brahmā. Brahma dhāma. Paraṁ dhāma dhīmahi.
Later he said that it is the way in which a word is used, not its meaning as a name for some object. It gives a language and statement their validity.
In other words, the way we use words, not that words in themselves have absolute meaning, but the word users. Yes. It's like when you use one word, it has got some meaning. When you say Brahmā, it has got some meaning.
Brahmā means this... nothing is given that...
When the word Brahmā means nothing is greater than that, that state is nothing is greater than... if you use this in another context, say with three or four objects, and you would say this nothing, meaning these three objects is greater than this object.
That is another... No, any answer to green. When I say God is great, it means nothing is greater than God.
That's said, when we ask, for example, what is the meaning of the word "good", he said, we must inquire as to how we learn the meaning of the word "good", what its functions have then, and strive to clarify its use, not as a picture of reality, but as a tool for describing, importing, and asserting facts or ideas.
When you are in the material world, "good" means what satisfies my senses is good. That is good. And "bad" means which does not satisfy my senses. But so far as my senses are concerned, this is temporary and false.
Therefore, in this material world, because there's no other good and bad, the only real goodness is God. God is good, very good. So he says that everything which is not God... That is good.
So he said how he used the word "good", not what the word "good" means. "Good" means: I want to be a poet. It will satisfy my senses. That is good. But God is good. He satisfies my senses and all other senses.
If it is "good", it may satisfy my senses, but it may not satisfy your senses. So it's bad. But what is not good? So it would satisfy... What is good to me is bad to you. One man's good is the other man's poison.
This is illegal. Something that satisfies God's senses, that is that to you, that is real good. That is absolute good. So even a word, if it is used to satisfy God, that is good. Thank you. Anything that satisfies God. Wow.
Thank you. Just like Arjuna thinking, "Fighting is bad." But when he understood that this fighting will satisfy Krishna, that will be good. So how the same bad thing becomes good when it satisfies Krishna?
Anything which satisfies Kṛṣṇa, that is good. His final statement was that philosophy must describe the actual uses of language, never interfere with it in order to see its clarification.
This is clear that God is disciplined. God is all good. Therefore what satisfies God, that is good. What dissatisfies God, that is bad. So our philosophy describes the actual use of the word. Yes.
There may be the word "good", and I don't know why you are chanting the mantra Hare Kṛṣṇa. We are also words. Each one will purport to explain the word "good" differently. The real philosophy is absolute good means to God.
That is actually what the word means, but the use of it. There's one more quote. It says: "Don't ask for the meaning, ask for the use of a word."
In other words, we don't say if good means this or that, we say how it is used. Well, he doesn't present a philosophy, he presents a method, like a methodology, but not philosophy.
No, he says philosophy describes the attributes of language. That's philosophy. The only philosophy, any philosophy that describes how language is used, that's subject philosophy. He hasn't described how to use language.
He's described principles for judging how to use language. But he hasn't himself described how to use language. So that's what he has represented as philosophy.
He's always presented so many methods for presenting philosophy. But those methods, they are also philosophy. The philosophy of presenting philosophy. But no philosophy itself.
The philosophy is there, you understand the option. So anybody in philosophy is an active attempt to clarify. That's very much... Yeah, it's very easy nonsense.
He's talking nonsense, that some of his principles for ascertaining truth are all right, some of them are not so good. But he has himself not tried to present the truth at all.
He's simply fighting on a way of ascertaining truth. But how do you think that he would even... that would be possible? But how can you have to take it if he didn't know the truth? He didn't say he did.
He said he was nonsense, but we had to go beyond what he said to find out the truth. Actually, one of his students, John Wisdom at Oxford...
He is... in Pennsylvania he's still living now, and he's written an important book for modern theology which applies the philosophy to religion. where he says that we can see God everywhere.
So even though we can't prove God in a way that the scientists require, you know, this is enough that we can see as evidence where we are, so this is proof that we should see uh volition.
His students have been very godly, teaching in a godly way. No, I didn't mean to say it's only still we can't do it. If you're probably taking any side, it means Krishna. So unless you're a devotee of Krishna,
how can you be saying your God is true? Unless you're devoted to Krishna, you're not God's... well, in one thing, that God is the absolute truth of the devotion. But his student, as I recall, uses the example of the
garden, that he sees in the garden the wisdom of uh logical arrangement, right, shapes, greens, so many things. So he concluded that because man can build this garden or manipulate this garden, therefore it must be God.
Very uh redundant. But we also feel like that there's something like the range of the universal, we see something like the range in all the show.
So the child will pick up a flower and look at it and say, "It's so beautiful, who has made it?" and then the child will answer, "God." True, isn't it? I mean...