Bertrand Russell and Modern Philosophy
А. Ч. Бхактиведанта Свами Прабхупада
Главы
Critique of modern western philosophy
So this morning's philosopher is called Bertrand Russell. Um, as we enter into this twentieth century, the philosophy has become more and more complicated, more and more abstract. So
it may be a little difficult to understand some of these ideas. Well, that we do not become complicated. The mode of life becomes complicated. From simplicity to complexity. Otherwise, very similar.
But that may make us slow. The sunlight is not complicated. It is the same part of the thing. So we are making some together things and I need the sun. So if we know what is life, then there is no complication.
But we do not know. Because only the modern education, the making things uh more and more possible. Therefore, we talk about the things we don't...
Another uh difficulty with Bertrand Russell is that his philosophy changed many times throughout his life. He changed his viewpoint. That means he does not know what he was. Love that we cannot be kissed.
So it's love, I always symptoms of life. Eating, sleeping, mating. Huh? All right. They are eating. What is the change that clear up? Eating clear up is death. Eating clear up is there? Why is it case? What is bad?
There's no need of kidney. In fact, head knowledge, yes. But head knowledge never changed. So his change is to look out of the name, his knowledge is not.
His uh he comes in the tradition of the British empiricists which believes that uh nothing outside of our senses can give us any knowledge.
But still he was never able to uh believe that that simple mathematical principles like two plus two equals four are merely uh generalizations which we derived from our experience.
He said that these things must be eternal principles. Which is two plus two equals four. Yes. But my gotta do that. We believe it's possible? Then it will be always the last a child is born.
Mother plus mother is going to child that with our life, but if one day that without her, through mother only died, then I'll be whether we can... Whenever there is a guy, it is still understood that there is father of mother.
Is somebody dead? No, without father, sitting mother, this body, and what kind of calculation? They simply seem to make anyone. But that's not fair. Nikan is statistics. It's like mother. There must be father.
But they do not believe in the father. So all kinds of magnetic effects. And then it's complex. Mathematical calculus has two plus two four to the fact everywhere. And then we go to your operator and it's...
That mathematical calculation, two plus two equal to four, is equal to understanding. Similarly, it is very easy to understand that without father, mother cannot be back to itself.
Without the Supreme Bhagavan Krishna, she cannot be anywhere, but speak monas philosopher and teach they are trapped with one that simple observing the natural attribute. But
to start with that, the ground out of this natural activity is art. May I have to now for the beach and I'm my manas to take the prakṛti over naturally.
When she is young, I love the... when she's dead, when she's young, adventurish, when she's... and then we kill them to that time. In India this five, woman has long dependent. And to remain dependent.
And that father and that husband are in their wife. That is their happiness. And here's something I see the so body dependent. I'm very holding class. So I'm happy. So that's what you meant by the same means is it? No,
I should be getting to that. That will not make that.
Limitations of perception and mental knowledge
If you remember some of the philosophers we have discussed, they believed that unless the world is perceived, it does not, it does not exist.
But uh, Bertrand Russell thought that the world was real in itself, even though we do not perceive it, it still exists. That's, that's that one, and g plus two and not plus two. It doesn't matter.
So many things we do not suspect. This like the child, it sees electric fan moving. But he does not see the electricity power or the powerhouse.
So because the child does not feel the powerhouse and electricity, it doesn't mean there is no electricity and no power. It is the guided cause that one must see, that without necessity, without life, it can't act.
That it's guided. It says that the existence of the real world beyond sense data cannot be proved. That's what we have to go. We have some both. I may be fool just there. So I cannot perceive.
That does not mean things are not there as a fact and existing. Our process is therefore Vedic process, that we can have guru. Well, that first, in order to be really enlightened, wise, one must go to a guru.
Uh, we have said "must". Because we have said "eva" means "must". There is no alternative. We cannot know things as they are without a proper guru. That is our Vedic system.
And guru means one should know how to see that, and one who finally picks up a tip about the thing, he does. But how does someone prove that something exists beyond the sense, beyond our senses?
And that our interest left, that there's fact, that that's law. He should see the man is very superstitious. But he doesn't know that there is electric power. And there is a power. So that is lack of knowledge.
Well, you guys said, "Bold and gentlemen," I'm saying, I put many, many, but something on it, and that is possible with everyone. Then he knows the Bhagavad-gītā only. And knowing through the indriya, guru, apara.
That was guru. The hot and cold, that everyone is jñāna. Manas and the buddhi's business is so lightning. Ignite the uh śānta. That is called śānta. And then and then dṛk, yes. Dṛk, yes. The śabda. Buddhi speaks to śabda.
Jñāna never śabda. What is a śabda? Well, I wanna be drawing the honor. That is tough. Very transitory, that is. So the proof that one accepts for something which is beyond our senses is not necessarily scientific. Not at all.
But if people still believe, it is uh completely ignored.
Authority of vedic disciplic succession
So I mean if one accepts the proof of the guru's uh authority, that is the proof of being dṛk. Guru, the next lamp said, śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham, he has heard the truth from the paramparā śiṣya.
And as a result of his hearing, he has become as siddha is a when we see that one siddha consists of answer and the answers all questions under the past or present.
That's why we know when we say something, we easily support it by quoting from the Bhagavad-gītā. This is some knowledge and the result of knowledge, śikṣā and śikṣā-pada. Nobody can do it. Two times.
One thing that he knows everything somehow. So he has pretty sick about it. Think things, I will think about that.
Bertrand Russell says that the world consists of a number of simple facts, each independent of all the others, yet related externally to each other. What is this fact?
Well, everything that that we see and perceive individually uh separate, atomic to call it.
So that uh the world consists of millions of billions, no, numberless simple facts; they're externally related, but they are still independent of each other. Yes. They're not independent. They're dependent.
Who makes them separate? How they are separated? There is no answer for that. They see simply the two are separate. But how they're supposed to run there? That means people have learned it.
But our biggest problem is to find out the original source. And that is that we're not. Because we are scientists, if you are searching not according to the scientific tactics and point out to be set... Yeah.
You have more than entities. So to define that very sensitive, it does not go away if it depends, it's just like... Just like when we were discussing Hegel, Hegel's belief was everything was synthetic.
Therefore, for every thesis there was an antithesis, and these combining made a synthesis, so that all things were related and all things combined together was the world.
But his idea is the opposite: that everything is separate, individual. Yes, separate, but very simple. It is so separate, uh, a wrap, very simple. It's like here, all our food, and they're immediate, the Paramātmā.
But there is two decisions that everyone are two are uh, lying just about very treatment. Even more, we are all saviśeṣa, we are body as individuals, opinions, is still very excited to be picked up.
Otherwise, when it used a without ending. I know, very simple. What do you say that's a material? Or what does science say? The material is composed of, uh, atoms.
The atoms, in turn, they are composed of smaller particles like electrons, protons, neutrons, and so on. And now science has found out that the smaller particles, they are also composed of the still smaller particles.
So there is no end. I mean, the bigger... So smaller. God is greater than the greatest and smaller than the smallest. So actually, for a scientist, it is very difficult to find an end to these smaller particles.
That is what it is coming out every day. But that means they could not lead to the ultimate goal of law. Not only that, but the scientific theory they are changing like anything.
Einstein developed a theory, and that theory was thought to be superior to that developed by Newton. Now another study has been developed which is being thought to be superior than that of Einstein.
So these things are only relative. Even real scientists can see that all these things are relative, everything is changing. Our conception applies: somebody says that sun is moving, somebody says earth is moving.
But this is on the calculation we find that eclipse, lunar, are the, you know, the both take place at the same time. It does not matter. Which thing you mean and which is too complicated.
And the complicated thing for so nice a death. So we know or no good. That was that. When when people were not so scientifically free. At that time also life was going on.
Now they have developed a rocket and it should leave this earth and they will travel to other planets. But after some time they will have to find something else. You still like the big calls moving.
Nārada Muni just says some words. But not become muni unless you would differ from the previous system. That is muni. Muni means mental concocter. Mental concocter. That's right. Many functions.
But mental concepts are there, no, basically. And I thought it's something that is inconceivable that we can do the energy which is pulling everything down.
If they don't know what they do when they do it, if they just put it back to work down, it's gone. And then they'll let it have done it.
So sometimes Bertrand Russell's philosophy is called atomistic logic because he sought to base all of logic at the in a smallest particle. That is not new. It was discussed in India. Paramāṇu-vāda. Paramāṇu-vāda. Oh.
I thought. And in Manu-saṁhitā, the paramāṇu-vāda, the paramāṇu saṁsthāna-vāda. it is not a new story.
He thinks he seeks to reduce philosophy to the smallest particles where, in each individual fact that the Kaṇāda gave his answer to say that it's all divided into proportions, it's not... And this theory they do not know.
See, not only that, but they have developed an idea of antimatter. There is antimatter, you know, something against matter. So for every positive thing there is something negative. So, so this idea is very complicated.
So for each fact, there is... it's also composed of things which other facts are actually, uh, as you say, atoms, what is this? In my jar, I say I'm too much full. The size of the soul is very small.
These are good for the heart. They keep what they have. So it is, uh, unimaginable by the mind. But for the idea, smaller, quite, it is really so far. Paramāṇu of the Supreme Truth.
That definitely has to tell you in Brahma-saṁhitā. That is what this is. There are two types of logical atoms: the sense data and universals.
And this problem, uh, he saw that, uh, of the difference between the crude data of the senses and the things as understood by physical sciences. So he divides these into two types of knowledge.
The knowledge of sense data is an immediate knowledge by acquaintance to something, and the knowledge of physical science is that knowledge derived from things or inferred by description from things.
Then he says the example of the first type of knowledge, this knowledge, what is that? Inference. Inference.
And just that, uh, the proposition "all men are mortal," uh, this is inferred after, uh, examination, scientific examination of the number of men. How is it? How many number of men are examined? This is what he said.
He did his very far-to-see examination. Now our power is limited. How many men we can examine to know that he is a service worker? And the number of the human beings, they are as the same. So for 18 years to go on from there.
How many men is getting better every year? The 10,000 men, the 1,000 men, we are getting gone eight years. 10,000 engages. And how do you know they're mortal anyway?
Now, this is his idea, that this type of knowledge may not be always true. Yes, that is—it is not true. Yes. That drives in the senses that this snowball is white.
Because that type of knowledge, there's no possibility of error because it is knowledge which is direct or immediate. There's no mediation between. Immediate. That falls.
How about it is that we received that section, as from the Upaniṣads, very successful, as it's so for the brothers, but very successful, and whatever knowledge we are saying.
If we take knowledge from this class, then our knowledge is perfect. I may not be as perfect, but if I simply accept the statement of this...
He says that this type of conclusion says that all men are mortal, uh, there is—there is a real possibility of error because different people may arrive at the opposite.
So this type of conclusion, that all men are mortal, there's room, there's possibility of error in those kind of conclusions because different people arrive at different points. Because our
truth is Veda, and the Vedas said that bhūta, bhūta will be... yes, and the Veda is said that that original material has its bones, its core, its pith, its bipartition, its ringing, and then varies.
This is the nature of everything material that you get from the mother. But everything which is born is still to die.
So bhakti holdings, bhakta schooling, this is—and we didn't touch technology, some do that, that's our knowledge. So we can accept Vedic knowledge without any exam, that we can talk about a lot.
Because our study is imperfect. Because if our senses are imperfect, our scope of knowledge is imperfect. Therefore, as a key to knowledge, mainly perception... Very possible.
It says in a type of an understanding that is direct, such as this snowball is white, that there is no possibility of error because there is no distinction between what a thing seems to be and what it is in reality. No.
That is what direct perception is.
Logical evidence and hearing from authority
So that perception is not perfect. I see the sun daily, but I see that this... but it is not exist. Therefore, my direct perception of this sun is imperfect.
Well, we go through the works, absolutely, very well understand that it is so big. 1,400,000 times bigger than the earth. Because it might act quite this time. It has no end.
What about the knowledge, for instance, this snowball is white? Isn't that a direct fact that's understandable by everyone? Yes. It's snow, it's white.
But it's the fact that the snow is white, I mean, so this perception is incorrect. We see the rays of sun which are falling on the snowball, they are reflected. And then we see the snowball is white.
Otherwise snow is colorless. Sometimes we see seven colors on the snowball. Well, that is white light, we see white light.
But white light is composed of seven colors: violet, indigo, blue, you know, blue, and green, yellow, orange and red. So, but we are saying white, so our perception is smaller. That is in perception. That is in perception.
So that one is one truth, but direct perception is not all of it. It's like 400 years ago, they tried to separate the light.
His belief, or the criterion for truth, is called the correspondence theory, that a belief is true if it agrees with the fact with which it is supposed to correspond. Yes, that's like this example.
We see snow is white, but it does not correspond with the fact. And that would be not all, and there is another example: we see water can be kept in several pots. One is seawater.
One is some other water, it is from a lake, one is from a well. So we see that there is water in all the pots. But after testing we find that this is seawater, this is something else, this is sweet water.
So our senses are not perfect. By seeing you can't believe; if we believe, then we are at mistake because our senses are imperfect. So that is, you know, I mean, that points to the limit of material things.
Not only I'll tell you, but other thinkers... Oh, that also it says that it decides the correspondence, that a fact must correspond with that—a belief must correspond with the fact if it seems to be true.
Also, in that fact, it does not tell us that it is telling me that we are seeing the snowball white, but time to be given it, it is not white. It is a composition of seven colors.
And even by saying white, it is very different. You see chalk. You see white clouds. You see white light. You see snow. Then there are different things in the white, and the time says white.
That's what we sometimes say, "snow white." I know. What do you think about that? Not only that, they are somehow or other rough. It is very hard to... you know, I mean, they are not... they are not transparent.
But you can cut very fine, you know, slices out of them, and they are transparent. So how can we say that they are opaque? They are, in fact, transparent. It is very different. That also points to the same thing.
Another criterion for truth is coherence. That was in our baby language, pratyakṣa, parokṣa, aparokṣa. But śabda-pramāṇa... I don't think it's that. Pratyakṣa, parokṣa, aparokṣa, there are adhokṣaja, aprākṛta...
So when it comes to the standard of practice, and very sufficient, the pratyakṣa, direct perception, is this, and according to logic, pratyakṣa, anumāna, śabda. Pratyakṣa, anumāna. And śabda-pramāṇa.
So out of these three kinds of evidences, śabda-pramāṇa, Vedic pramāṇa is parama. Now, if the personality is perfect, then why is a boy sent to school to hear from the teacher? That is śabda. That is śabda.
Then there is no need of sending this boy to get some teachers. That would be very fancy. But isn't the understanding that the white light is composed of seven other colors?
Isn't that also a fact of the direct sense perception? No, that is śabda. A man sees his white snowballs, he sees white. He may not see the reflection of the seven colors.
But when he goes to speak, he can hear that very same color. That was a bad problem. the power that we have to profit. Anything that we are thinking to work on the key. No.
Anything we receive knowledge that it may have sense like this, and then we birth it from.
Because even if we see these seven colors in the laboratory with instruments, we still don't understand the even simpler facts of which that is composed. There may be seven colors, but how to understand those? Yeah.
Therefore, the material knowledge is our origin. That is the idea. He says that the mind plays no part in the process of evolution.
Because the only evidence for the existence of mental phenomena is a fragment of space and time. But this is not a substance. It is simply a set of relations. It does not know. It is also matter. But really a subtle matter.
It is matter. That's why ether, you cannot touch, you cannot see. But still it is matter. And mind, that is also ether. But it is a matter. Intelligence is subtler than the mind. Still it is matter.
So some people out of the way say, and understand that earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence, they're all material. And also, ego. Ego. Very good. So does the mind play any part in the evolutionary process?
The mind plays no part. If you believe some things go higher, then come mind with some intelligence. And if you go still higher... But
according to men like Russell, the evolution of bodies, the changes from one body to another, those are simply physical, that is all of them. That is all of them. That's where we have our liberty stuff.
But each belief in a body, uh, then the dying, that's some monkey. So where is the direct that the monkey body changes in the body?
We say that there are different types of homes, always just like different types of apartments. But the living entity is so in terms of... But that home is already ready.
But I am entering a certain type of apartment according to my need. If I can pay more rent, I can get a very nice apartment. If I do not pay, I cannot stay, then let's not stop.
Similarly, according to karma, nature is offering different apartments. And these apartments are already there. Six thousand... Eight million four hundred thousand types of life.
So as you make yourself fit, you enter the corner. It is not fixed that because you are now in a very nice apartment, you cannot go down or go up. If you are fit for entering into the apartment, that is also ready.
And if you are fit for entering into the bed, that's lower class of apartment. Very well to this. So these things are already there. And I, as a guest, uh, transfer from one apartment to another. Yes.
It is there, just like you step forward. You first of all put your leg when you see that if you sit there, then it's unless you have firm that place, then you take the other leg.
Similarly, yes, that's when it is started, that this soul has to enter such and such body. When it is settled up by higher authority, leave this body and enter into that.
It says that matter is simply a series of events and with energy and not force as the real, um, motive power; that, uh, what we call a material world, rather than being described as solid and, and, uh, and, and, uh, understood in terms of force, that actually it is energy performing different events.
Krishna as the supreme source
Yes. Yes. It is forced by the energy. Matter has no form, but by the material energy, the living entity, they mix up the matter and make the form. Just like a giant plate, clay, water and fire.
So the potter makes a form from the clay, a clay-water mixture. And it makes a form, and then put it with fire and it was done to glass as well. But change the water as well. It should be exchange of water and fire.
But this mixture is being made by the potter. And the instrument is the potter's wheel. Similarly, God is the potter and material nature is the wheel, and so on, things are the same.
But if there is no potter to turn the wheel or make the clay into forms... There is already water. There is already ice, there is already fire.
But unless a spirit, a being, a living being, is there, then no question, you know, of forming. That Bhagavad-gītā, it on the field of because the... It gives way to the prominent other matter.
But because we see that the life is there. It is taking a shape inside one step. We have not had experience that matter is taking shape of itself. Well, we've got the lava. Is there any life? Huh?
How much are not filled with it? Let's see. That is the defect of the modern age. The man has got scant knowledge and he will become fool. Prapadyante 'pi māyām etāṁ taranti te, buddhi.
Those who are buddhi, actually jñānī, they know that Kṛṣṇa, He is the supreme father of everything. That's why we can say, "He is Kṛṣṇa."
This is actually knowledge, and one who does not know how He is done is ignorant, but suppose blindly he accepts the... And without any knowledge, is that the time we left?
Similarly, the chariot is Kṛṣṇa, and his śraddhā... And with śraddhā, He is supreme. So somewhere or other, if one goes to the Supreme, to become such one.
That is, that is the defect of the modern man, who will be forced to feel about the līlā of Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs. Gopīs naturally, they loved Kṛṣṇa. Kṛṣṇa is beautiful.
But Kṛṣṇa being the Supreme, their lust is deserved, becomes purified, and they become the first class. Lord Caitanya was so strict as a sannyāsī to allow no woman to come near to His darśana.
He said, "ramyā kācid upāsanā vraja-vadhū-vargena yā kalpitā." So there is no superior mode of worship than which was conceived by the damsels of Vraja. Because they love Kṛṣṇa blindly. Without any reason. Without any time.
Manas. So take on the mind. They might have gone with some purpose. That doesn't matter. But because they approach Kṛṣṇa, "sakṛd eva prapannāya," it doesn't... fire is that in any way. Give me that.
So in that way, since God does not become polluted. Superficially it appears to be polluted. But gopīs were otherwise. But because it's Kṛṣṇa, He cannot pollute. The example is given just like the sun.
The sun absorbs water from urine. So that place very fast, meaning that becomes sterilized, purified, but sun does not become influenced. Similarly, you may go to Kṛṣṇa. Even with lust, it doesn't matter.
But because you come to Kṛṣṇa, you become intact. And Kṛṣṇa remains pure always. For those who do not know this science, they think of this man being there. This man is not doing that.
This man is giving a chance to everyone. You come to Me anyway. I give you very long, quick. Even if you are a sinful man, as a man, to those who are in a man, it is sinful.
But because he went to Kṛṣṇa, so Kṛṣṇa meant then your purification starts. See, that's what they can apparently in your people and become crucial since that is Krishna.
As the example is given, yathā jñāna-phalaṁ dānaṁ, sakṛd-āmatraṇaṁ punar-māyā-vini-muktaḥ. Simply like jantu, by Krishna's name one becomes śiva. How the gopīs can be met in law in tattoos?
Simply in touch with this holy name, one becomes pure, yet directly in touch with how they can use you. So one who does not know the side of Krishna, they say like that, or like this. They want to give dictation to God.
And they think that God should be under their rules and regulations. Therefore, they are supposed to say Krishna's activity. Krishna therefore says: "Although He does, that is something that one must know."
And as soon as you know, you become jīvan-mukta. Janma karma ca me divyam evaṁ yo vetti tattvataḥ. So once we know Krishna in truth, not superficially, and comparing oneself with Krishna. No, Krishna.
Little either that frog calculated Atlantic Ocean from the well, three-foot well. The gopīs ran to Krishna out of knowledge, or being attracted by Him, being addressed in life. Yeah. Not that like that he saw Him.
No, no, no. Otherwise, how the transama klay that will be done in the knew that He is God, then they could not go and cleaning which we could not. They nursing, but she's sending us off. She's very old friends, boyfriends.
We are all in the world who didn't. That guy who has grown up and the girls say that still five years old get married. But Krishna, quite much marriage. But they are friends.
So they are telling the sister, they could not forget sister. And they want the sister and their husband. But it was not possible. Because in our India, millions of boys, yeah, it's not married.
But a girl, twelve, five in the year, she's quite young. But the gopīs had love for Krishna, but they are married, some of them have children, but still they used to come to Krishna due to old friendship. That is a fact.
But this kind of friendship is not allowed in the society. Therefore it appears like immoral. And considering the special thing, when the gopīs came at midnight, He said that, "What you have done?" We go and did this.
That instruction is there. But it still may just that love as this must point death. It will must dance with that. The Krishna all is very. And then another point is the Krishna to bear and there.
Oh, far bar and thems of the little boy. The evening, he danced it, I that's why that day easy for greater. So from that angle of details, the big no more.
From that angle of vision, everyone is committing adultery except Kṛṣṇa. Yes. That a unceptor is doctrine. Uh, when you think that, "This is my wife," that is other.
But she doesn't belong to you; everything belongs to Kṛṣṇa. Unless that, and actually ceremony, many ceremony, Kṛṣṇa gives you all that we take it. That is so much we can check thin of ten of me. But he cannot aspirate.
More than that, that is immoral.
Religion as surrender to supreme order
But uh, Bertrand Russell says that ethics, or what is right and wrong, is simply a set of emotional attitudes and it cannot be—we cannot regard anything as good or bad. Well, that there's no absolute good and bad.
Nothing can be said, "This is true or false," that "This is good," or if "This is bad." That means of that. Does it mean that?
Well, it's just since only knowledge which is valid is proven scientifically, and he says that since moral right and wrong, it's not. What do you—what do you think for that? What is it? Why is it something you can do?
To him, but very proof what is really good and what is really bad? Has been any practical example with this hand is good and this is fantastic? He says what is good is that which is desired. That is desirable.
Also it is nonsense, because he went to jail because he—he wanted them not to bomb. He went to jail himself. Well, it's—it's reality. He said it's reality being there. They were the magma.
From his point of view, he said it was good, if you understand.
He says that values like good and bad lie outside the domain of knowledge, but they are simply venting of emotion, because that's what the wrong time means. It depends on the party from some somebody high later, is it not?
Is that not some of the twice? Huh? No, he says it's all relative, uh, good and bad. Well, he says—what does he say? He says that values like good and bad lie outside the domain of knowledge, but they're simply emotional.
Outside the domain of knowledge. So that means it depends on the body of God. If God has this good, then good. If God says it is there, that is there. Just like this person, Puruṣa, to manage it.
So to surrender unto Him, that is religious. Any dealer who does not cease to surrender to Kṛṣṇa, that is not religion. Every believer who does not free to surrender is to free. That is not religion.
Um, in Bertrand Russell's own case, they're going to drop the bomb on someone. Now some people say it's good. They should drop the bomb to test it. Some people like he say, "No, it's bad." So who's to decide?
There's no scientific... uh, no, there he does not know. Unless truth order the drop, bombs would be dropped. Unless truth order is, bomb should not be dropped. Very good, but he does not know.
Let's let me... uh, he said it to five. No, I, I, I tell you that Bertrand Russell... But when you are starting to studying what was weak, that I had to carry out the order of the strong.
So it's just so here in this material right, yeah, being the form is by your will. But by the direct order like Kṛṣṇa, that is nothing. That is good. So that is the time of good and bad.
If you carry out, uh, Śrī Bhagavān's order, that is good. I will say that I shall carry out here. Some good. That's a few power. No. He wants to do that. There is that. He may, uh, understand himself very simple.
He does not carry out the order of Kṛṣṇa. That is bad. He says that the social good is that which is desired by the most people. Well, most people may be foolish. Therefore, we don't take it so far in that way.
Our greatest message is from the higher authority. That's a law we take from Manu. More people wanted to drop the bomb, but he was against it. So therefore his own philosophy is negated by himself.
And his idea is that you have to educate. I go, where is he? I think it's goal out of that education. I think goal out of education to come to the stuff. Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate, that is educated. Why?
So too much knowledge is there. See, his idea is that, uh, emotions are what are determining good and bad. And if you educate people into the scientific reality of things...
We, we don't... they say what you're making more of that. You are thinking and not fight. That was him. Oh, I tell you that man. Tell him. And philosophy without religion is mental speculation.
So therefore our eyes is just about that moment is so down. We do not go like anywhere. We accept we should be in honor of Krishna and the Sages. That there's, um, there's no such thing as facts.
He just before said that it is fact what we see from our senses. So again he's negating his own talk. Right. He's using... he wants to use another word for fact instead of, instead of fact. Calls it proposition or symbol.
That is... instead of calling it a fact, you would say it's a proposition. In London, one of the first asked in the temple that, uh, how can we believe that a man brought the whole mountain?
Say, uh, hundred years back, you're not believing man can go in the air on the space. So you, you never knew that.
But in the fact, in the Vedas, in the history, a man brought the mountain and, uh, Rāmacandra himself brought the bridge of the man. Now we have got that for the Kardama Muni.
He manifests that, uh, uh, uh, palace which are big, big cities. There are palaces, gardens, there are lakes and aeroplanes traveled all over the world. Yes. And for his wife, all the plan. But you see, now study.
But now formerly there are small planes. Now there's 400 tons and service, 747. It is carrying five hundred men and luggage. There may be another plane. It may be in that way to think it. So what is the cause of disbelief?
It is the power of prayer. Apart from this plane, now this big planet, this tall mountain, sea, that's floating in the air, that's a part of your Lord, what He has left.
And many thousands, many millions of Atlantic Oceans, and many millions of Himalayan mountains are floating the earth, holding window.
And the answer is this: namely, gām āviśya ca bhūtāni dhārayāmy aham ojasā — all these things are things done because I enter into and behold anyway and maintain. That's like this body could be also very touching machine.
Now, it is being maintained there. How is it being maintained there? Because the spirit soul is there. Actually, the spiritual spark is warm. It is a lump of matter. Clearly it is all because the spirit soul has gone, gone.
That warmth must. And at last he goes out and said everything will be done. It's just like when we say, uh, "this snowball is white."
Scientific analysis versus eternal truth
We just found out that it's not a fact. That's a... he wants to call a proposition, yeah.
And he calls that proposition atomic because, uh, or molecular, because we can, we can divide up the molecule, uh, the molecular proposition into an atom, into atomic parts and examine each atomic part.
And when we get to the lowest part, smallest part, that is the fact. No. Because whatever we take, generally we take at all the... we say according to the Vedas, the... let that down lay. Then very if you come to that point.
And Paramātmā, Paramātmā. Because the soul moves, the same thing, just like the spiritual spark is within you or within the ant or within the elephant. It is warm.
After the spiritual spark is gone, no more elephant, no more ants, no more man. Everything is lump of matter, etc. And it will become cold. And it will be right.
He would say that these propositions are symbolic, just like we say that a snowball is white. We propose the snowball is white.
It's not a fact that the snowball is white, because when we analyze it, well, that means he does not know both of the facts. He sets the external at the end of the side.
So he wants to go behind the external appearance, which he calls a symbol, to the facts which compose that proposition. What is that fact? We say. That facts he likes. He doesn't say. But we do have to think bodhya.
They're simply causing in the external attack. He would say to ascertain the truth about the snowball we would have to examine the uh the facts, the individual facts that it is made up of. All right, snowballs. But
I'll leave it on the Krishna, I do not know it is that we are śira-nikara-bhāva. The exact word in the Sanātana-dharma. Śira-nikara-bhāva. Go and said letter many, many likes, one half the fruit sattva-tanu-bhṛtam.
The whole last many millions of years is done inconsequential. That was Bhagavad-gītā. So this is that.
His hope is, or his idea is that he along with a group of other philosophers in England came up with the idea that you could reduce all truth to the simplest logical statement. All truth could be reduced.
And a language should be invented which would be called uh atomic logic, uh which would give to each one of these truths a word. In other words that uh let him be loved. Let him be done. Let me loud the eighty already.
But it's the something bottom for me. Um that's his idea. But there should be a a one-to-one. And that is it on the picture. Dana says the paha. The three was a fillamini. Adal to linguistic atoms. Linguistic atoms.
Yes, that's sūtra, sūtra. That is actually, it is knowledge is, uh, very perfect, you know. In the beginning, when the scientists did not know about atoms, in that case, they based everything on molecule.
But molecule is regarded to be that smallest particle of matter which possesses all its properties, chemical and physical. At that time they knew nothing of it. When they came to know about it, then they based everything.
You know, they're like human logic, atomic logic, atomic theory, atomic, you know, I mean thinking, think like that. Atomic bomb. But now they have found out smaller fragments, then it's not.
So they are thinking of electronic truth. After some time, if another Bertrand Russell comes, he will, uh, call it electronic logic. There's no end to that.
And everyone, uh, scientists are finding smaller fragments and every, you know, all this body, there's no end to this.
So if he says that every truth can be, uh, analyzable into, uh, an atomic statement, then, uh, according to what you say, that truth itself can be analyzed in even smaller size because we have not found the ultimate truth, that we have this progression.
So we cannot accept any extent of that's what I'm saying to be the ultimate truth. What Vedānta also says. That this is a fact. You see that this is your book, you know. You see this is a pen. And this is a finger.
Now you go on dividing like that, then you will find molecules out of, uh, different types of molecules they go to compose this finger, different types of molecules they go to compose this and, uh, you know, I mean living means one type of molecule and that's those who compose that paper.
But if you go on dividing that molecule, everything comes to electrons. Electrons are not different.
Electrons of flesh, if you are in, uh, compounds which are not flesh, they are not different from those electrons we, uh, we can separate. Yeah, they are similar. They are similar in everything.
So, uh, I'm... it is, you know, I mean, um, certain uh, particles are there, you see, very, very smaller particles. Very similar and there's no difference at all. Smaller than that?
So how can we say that, uh, there is a monkey and there is a man and there is, uh, some other in the last, you know, everything comes to the same. So everything seems to be composed of energy.
Now you have to find out the cause of the cause. They are fine. They have found, uh, some smaller particles. But they are not very sure for all that. So everything, every day...
So, I mean, everything is... a scientist goes on, uh, goes on analyzing. You see, after many ages, you see, today we come to the same point. But, uh, today what's happening? The scientists will come to this eventually.
For the scientists, it is very easy to understand this, uh, Krishna consciousness. It is very easy. Because the scientists will see everything and there is no difference. You see, we are all composed of energy.
Actually, because these electrons are energy. And these electrons, which we, uh, go to make our body or this pen or paper, they are, uh, revolving all the time. They are rotating all the time.
You can explain anything today. So, and you know, I mean, there are, uh, things that, uh, in a like... is that, and, uh, one is, uh, not...
Energy might be, energy might be... out of that we have, uh, grouped into three: external, internal, and marginal. And marginal. So this material nature is, uh, I mean, external energy of Lord Krishna.
And, uh, all these things, they have started when Krishna glances over this material nature. Just like, uh, Śrīla Prabhupāda once said, there is a potter. Potter can't do anything without the clay.
And then, uh, the potter is there, anybody can do it. You can do it, I can do it. But you can't make, uh, that. There has to be a potter to make a pot out of that, out of the clay and everything. We can go like that.
I don't know. So what I say is that the Supreme Lord Krishna is not only at the most standard of purity and justice, but He is also at the most standard of what man sees. Human mind can never be there.
What man sees as a flower? How nice is this! But it is made by Krishna. We cannot say that somehow or otherwise... The center has to apply this brain and have to follow.
So how you can say that this yellow flower has come out otherwise? But it is not even as imitation flowers. Does not come otherwise. And we hate flowers come otherwise. Nothing.
The one to study that if this imitation flower has taken so much brain work, how much brain was taken this real flower? And who has got this brain? I tell it to brush to have three days to see.
But the brain is so fine that everything is complete. But if you think how a flower can come out automatically, then it's a break. It's like we're working machine.
There is two mechanical arenas, but simple as put in this bottle, here the Krishna will not be so participant that simply my glance that lies to simply we're putting, we're pushing a button, something is coming out?
This is what's wrong. The power is there, śakti. So that simply like seeing everything. It seems to be caused over and it's only creation. That is perception of the brain.
But we haven't got that brain, therefore we feel that it is nature. What do you mean with it?
His idea was to alter philosophy so that it becomes composed of a language which has a one-to-one ratio between the word and the fact of observation. And the fact which is observed. So that's related.
As one can observe, so one can question. So one who sees truth is love. His observation. So his language becomes reduced to the simplest, yes. We need to set up a cloud or how nice this class is.
That's why we should be our husband. Actually, this very great picture. Nobody has to do it. Now, I don't mind love this time with a nice food. Right? Because you are quite the picture.
I don't think the bar tells us in there with that. As a guide to the fire. But when I didn't have similarly, everything is to be for us to stop. It's the absurdity and our first love. Let's just try that. You'll write it.
Is it about? So I just know it can be. Oh, yeah, I don't think... I think that he said I get all the time, uh, at this time. Behind time and behind the space. You can't give me mercy.
Mūḍhas are thinking, "Because I am acting as a man," mūḍha is the king that I am a man. But you are thinking down for that.
Because you do not try to go to office after one if you say that's all money for something that is obvious. It is a tamas quality. And most people, they think that the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa is also like one of us. Yes.
And that is a great... I mean, that is a point where we make a mistake right in the very beginning. Kṛṣṇa is not like us.
His body is, you know, everything is... As soon as we find some somebody playing something magically, accept it. What have we done? Succeed? Huh? Let this somebody say a country. Ah, he died. Yes, that is a fact.
You must have drawn it in one. That is not the thing. Do not draw it in front. Tell us that the food. So you said just some. That would be so much of the bhava-bīja-janmam.
But we want to... so we can try to understand Kṛṣṇa is true, Lord of both issues that didn't make us. In the same way, I mean, he asked one to chant this. Many people asked this: to chant.
There's whom like Kṛṣṇa was chanting. We are chanting His name. Uh, He was chanting. So I told him that I'm Kṛṣṇa and then I had to chant and chanting. Yes, chanting to become perfect. And He's already perfect.
So there is no question of chanting to become perfect. But he also, a gentleman, published a letter to the editor in one of the indices, local Indian papers. All the things here. All the list together.
So we'll discuss some more of these, uh, analytic philosophers of this century, right, these days with scientists, scientists and, uh, logic.
You see, I, uh, I wanted to mention one point: after reading these books—I also happened to read some of these books, you know— and I found that in the end they have not arrived at any definite conclusion.
In the beginning they started with some hypothesis. In the end also they will everything conclude. That is the case with every Western philosopher.