MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

Episode2_Part1_RadioPlay.mp3

Not an editorially verified transcript. This text was generated automatically from the preserved recording and may contain recognition, language-detection, spelling, segmentation or name errors. Consult the source recording for authoritative content.

Collection: Part 10 · VIDEHA MITHILA MAITHILI DISCUSSION CRITICISM SERIES PART 10
Status: asr-draft
Human verified: No
Editorial review: not-reviewed
ASR model: small
Detected language: en (0.990047)
Duration: 23:15
Source: Open preserved recording

Timestamped machine output

0:04–0:45तद्विशिंट मेथिली भाषाक साहित्य, समालोचना, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, क�
0:45–0:50preservation, preservation, and destruction in the three forms of Brahma, Vyu, and Mahisa,
0:50–0:56who is the unfathomable ocean of compassion and the sole supreme refuge of the three worlds.
0:56–1:01The Preliminary Connections of the Tattva Sintmai
1:01–1:05Having learned the science of Nyaya from his teachers, understood the doctrine of the
1:05–1:10Prabhakara Mme with Mekhran Esi with Mekhran Masters, and with the Divine Eye of Reflection
1:10–1:14seen the entire essence of both traditions, Gangesa composes the Tattva Sintmai in
1:14–1:19measured words, teaching decisive conclusions on rules rendered exceedingly difficult by
1:19–1:23numerous defects.
1:23–1:25Justification of the title.
1:25–1:30The purpose of learned scholars polishing this wishfulfilling jewel of thought is to remove
1:30–1:35the darkness of ignorance belonging to powerful atheists such as the Buddhists.
1:35–1:39This is possible because no ingenuity of reasoning appears in the views of the opponents,
1:39–1:47While there is no poverty of expression in the statements establishing our own Gaya conclusions.
1:47–1:51Justification of the Auspicious Invocation
1:51–1:55People in this world who desire the completion of an undertaking perform an auspicious invocation
1:55–1:57when beginning it.
1:57–2:02These are actions in which all traditional MMA with Macron essay with Macron scholars
2:02–2:06unanimously accept the attainment of a result.
2:06–2:12Objection, the causality of auspicious invocation is unproved.
2:12–2:16The Buddhist subject that in such a case the causal status of auspicious invocation cannot
2:16–2:20be established by positive and negative concomitance, because a work such as the composition of
2:20–2:25a book by the inattentive Udayana is seen to reach completion without an invocation.
2:25–2:29Nor can an invocation performed in a previous birth be imagined, because mutual dependence
2:29–2:32would arise between establishing the causality of invocation and positing a previous
2:32–2:34birth invocation.
2:34–2:38Moreover, since cause is already accepted on the basis of ordinary conduct and common practice
2:38–2:43are sufficient, positing an invocation in a previous birth is pointless.
2:43–2:47It may be said that the causality of auspicious invocation is established through inference
2:47–2:49by elimination.
2:49–2:53For example, auspicious invocation is productive of a result because it is the object of
2:53–2:58the unimpeached practice of cultivated persons, like the new and full moon sacrifices.
2:58–3:02Once this inference establishes that invocation has a result, the desired completion of
3:02–3:06undertaking comes to mind because that completion is expected at the time of invocation.
3:07–3:11No result other than completion is appropriate to accept another result by the maximum of the
3:11–3:16vis-vigid sacrifice would introduce needless complexity. Completion is therefore established
3:16–3:19as the result of invocation and its causal status becomes certain.
3:21–3:26This reasoning is not sound. Deviation of auspicious invocation is seen in the
3:26–3:32undertakings of inattentive persons, therefore, its causal status is absent.
3:32–3:38What does not exist cannot be apprehended by a thousand devices.
3:38–3:39REVELATION IS THE AUTHORITY
3:39–3:45The Msaakas nevertheless say that the Vedic revelation inferred from the regular practice
3:45–3:51of cultivated persons is the authority establishing that auspicious invocation causes the desired
3:51–3:53completion.
3:53–3:59The completion of the curable by the inattentive Odeana does not establish deviation of invocation.
3:59–4:05Once unobstructed revelation provides authoritative cognition that invocation is a means to completion,
4:05–4:09an invocation in a previous birth may be inferred from that very revelation is the mark
4:09–4:13in the case of an inattentive person's completed work.
4:13–4:18Such invocation is a subsidiary of the undertaking, because cultivated persons perform
4:18–4:23it before beginning a work while desiring its completion.
4:23–4:27Auspicious invocation is a means to completion because it has no other result and is regularly
4:27–4:32performed before an undertaking by persons who wish to begin a fruitful action, just
4:32–4:38as preliminary offerings are made in the new and full-looned sacrifices.
4:38–4:42Auspicious invocation must be regarded as a subsidiary of the undertaking and as having
4:42–4:45completion for its result.
4:45–4:49Both tradition-established revelation and inference convey that one who desires completion
4:49–4:54should perform an invocation for completion and that completion alone is its result.
4:54–4:59Although the preliminary II is regularly performed at the beginning of the new and full moon
4:59–5:04sacrifices, it is not performed with a desire for the completion of those sacrifices, a separate
5:04–5:09result is stated for it, and it is therefore a principal act.
5:09–5:14The preliminary II consequently does not show deviation in the causal relation between
5:14–5:17auspicious invocation and completion.
5:17–5:23Objection, auspicious invocation cannot be a subsidiary.
5:23–5:28On the basis of the carpenter aphorism, it is objected that auspicious invocation is
5:28–5:33a supersensible or Vedic act and therefore cannot be a subsidiary cause of the completion
5:33–5:35of a worldly undertaking.
5:35–5:40A worldly undertaking can be completed only by worldly means.
5:40–5:44In the examples when the supporting peg of a house or chariot breaks, an iron
5:44–5:48bolt should be fitted and a bruma should be fed food cooked in milk. Fitting the bolt and
5:48–5:53feeding the bruma are not subsidiaries of the principal act but independent occasional acts
5:53–5:58performed when the relevant occasion arises. Similarly, auspicious invocation should be
5:58–6:04regarded as an independent occasional principal act performed at the beginning of an undertaking,
6:04–6:08and heaven should be taken as its result by the maxim of the this budget sacrifice.
6:08–6:14This objection is not proper. The purport of the carpenter aphorism, a super sensible
6:14–6:19act is not a subsidiary of a worldly act, concerns only a subsidiary that generates a
6:19–6:24super sensible operation such as a puvva. The operation produced by auspicious invocation
6:24–6:28is the absence of an inhibitor or the destruction of an obstacle, this is merely an auxiliary
6:28–6:32cause of the completion understood from worldly means. A worldly undertaking cannot
6:32–6:37be completed without the absence of obstruction. Invocation is therefore not like the preliminary
6:37–6:42offerings that generate an unseen potency. An atheist's undertaking that is naturally
6:42–6:48free from obstacles may be completed even without unseen merit produced by invocation.
6:48–6:52Nor should one say that because deviation is observed in the case of an atheist, invocation
6:52–6:58cannot be a subsidiary cause even through the destruction of obstacles.
6:58–7:02Auspicious invocation is a subsidiary cause of obstacle destruction only when an obstacle
7:02–7:10exists. Where there is no obstacle, no destroyer of it is required. In Vedic preliminary offerings,
7:10–7:15the subsidiary causes unseen potency, here it is more economical to accept the destruction of
7:15–7:21obstacles, because although unseen merit is already recognized elsewhere, it is unnecessary in the
7:21–7:30present case. The operation is the absence of obstacles. Cultivated persons in fact regularly
7:30–7:35perform auspicious invocation both when they doubt an obstacle and when they are certain
7:35–7:36of one.
7:36–7:41The operation toward completion is therefore solely the absence of obstacles.
7:41–7:45If invocation is performed with the desire may the undertaking be completed without
7:45–7:52obstruction, Revelation establishes the causal operation as the absence of obstacles.
7:52–7:57If the operation of invocation were taken to be a porva, its status as a subsidiary
7:57–8:01cause of a worldly undertaking would be contradicted.
8:01–8:06Completion can be established from already accepted causes such as the absence of obstacles,
8:06–8:11therefore, just as a broken supporting peg is repaired by inserting a bolt, it is unnecessary
8:11–8:14to posit a new aporva.
8:14–8:17An objection may arise, activity aimed at destroying an obstacle should occur only
8:17–8:22when the obstacle is certain, just as certainty of sin motivates expiation.
8:22–8:27How can one perform an invocation when an obstacle is merely suspected?
8:27–8:32answer, general cognition of an obstacle causes the undertaking of invocation, because cultivated
8:32–8:36persons perform it both in doubt and certainty.
8:36–8:40The injunction inferred from their conduct identifies as qualified the person who desires
8:40–8:46completion of an undertaking begun and possesses general cognition of an obstacle.
8:46–8:51In expiation, only a person certainly possessing the fault is qualified because the injunction
8:51–8:54restricts eligibility to such a person.
8:54–8:59The concern that certainty of the obstacle qualifies the eligible person, so activity
8:59–9:03cannot occur under doubt is therefore removed.
9:03–9:07Vedic activity normally follows certainty of eligibility, but here the person eligible
9:07–9:13for the principal act is also eligible for the subsidiary, to posit an independent eligibility
9:13–9:18for invocation would destroy its subsidiary status.
9:18–9:23The desire for completion qualifies the eligible person.
9:23–9:27It is not correct to say that despite the desire to begin the principal action, the
9:27–9:32obstacle itself qualifies eligibility.
9:32–9:35Obstruction and qualifying status are opposed.
9:35–9:40The true qualification is the desire for completion of the undertaking begun, and the eligible
9:40–9:44person is certain of that desire.
9:44–9:48Some say that in other contexts the performer of an expiator or similar act is a person
9:48–9:53with certain eligibility, whereas the performer of an auspicious invocation has only
9:53–9:58doubtful eligibility, because the Vedic sentence inferred from the practice of cultivated persons
9:58–10:03who doubt obstacles identify such a person as the agent.
10:03–10:06This view is unsound.
10:06–10:10Eligibility cannot be determined on the basis of actually possessing an obstacle, action
10:10–10:14often occurs even when the obstacle is not certain.
10:14–10:21A discerning person performs an invocation to remove even a suspected undesirable obstruction.
10:21–10:26is drunk to neutralize poison when snake bite poisoning is suspected.
10:26–10:30Cultivation is undertaken on the certainty that it is a means to a harvest despite doubt
10:30–10:33whether the crop will actually mature.
10:33–10:38Likewise, invocation is possible despite doubt concerning obstacles.
10:38–10:42If cultivation is undertaken on the reasoning that when rain and other conditions are
10:42–10:47present it necessarily produces a crop, invocation is likewise undertaken on the
10:47–10:52reasoning that when an obstacle is present it necessarily brings the composition to completion.
10:54–10:59Removal of the conflict with the Sphylei adhikara and justification of auspicious invocation.
11:01–11:06Objection, in the new and full moon sacrifices, when grains adhere to the wooden sword or ladle
11:06–11:11called Sphaya, an occasional sacrifice is performed. By a rule of transfer,
11:11–11:14invocation of the deity as a subsidiary is prescribed on the preceding day,
11:14–11:19but that indication is not prescribed when it is merely doubtful whether grains will adhere.
11:19–11:24This resembles the example in which pounding is not performed as a subsidiary upon a golden bin
11:24–11:29because no husk removal operation is possible. How, then, can auspicious indication be performed
11:29–11:33merely from doubt about an obstacle when the operation of destroying that obstacle is itself
11:33–11:40doubtful? Answer, in an occasional act, only a person who knows the occasion is eligible.
11:40–11:45When the potchard breaks, one should offer an ablation qualifies a person who knows that it
11:45–11:51has broken. Likewise, in the new and full moon sacrifices, only one who knows that grains have
11:51–11:57adhered to the sphyate is eligible to invoke the deity. On the previous day there is no
11:57–12:01certainty of such adhesion, so it is proper not to perform the invocation then.
12:02–12:07A subsidiary is appropriately performed only when there is certainty that the principal
12:07–12:13sacrifices to be performed. When adhesion to the sphaya is doubtful, there is no certainty
12:13–12:18on the previous day that the occasional sacrifice is obligatory, there is therefore no eligibility
12:18–12:24for the principal act and consequently none for the subsidiary. If the invocation were performed
12:24–12:29under the supposition perhaps there will be eligibility, it would be fruitless because
12:29–12:35performed by one not yet eligible. Even when the principal sacrifice is known to be
12:35–12:39forthcoming, invocation connected with the sacrifice caused by adhesion to the sphaya
12:39–12:43cannot be performed on the preceding day because the place and time of the subsidiary, the
12:43–12:49previous day, do not fit the principal act of the following day and are therefore incompatible.
12:49–12:55The case of auspicious invocation differs. Here a person with general cognition of an
12:55–13:00obstacle is eligible, and such cognition may exist even when the obstacle is nearly
13:00–13:11The decision to perform the principal act of composing is clear, therefore, it is proper to perform the invocation even while the obstacle-destroying operation remains uncertain.
13:11–13:16Auspicious invocation is a subsidiary act.
13:16–13:26In worldly acts of future prosperity such as marriage, a person who merely knows the occasion is eligible, because that is the established practice.
13:26–13:32Objection, a subsidiary is enjoined only by an injunction governing the principal act.
13:32–13:36There is no injunction to compose a book as a principal act, so invocation cannot be
13:36–13:38enjoined as its subsidiary.
13:38–13:43Nor can Vedic revelation form part of a worldly statement, because revelation is independent
13:43–13:45of worldly sources of knowledge.
13:45–13:50Answer, only a Vedic subsidiary that produces a porva needs to be enjoined through the
13:50–13:53injunction of the principal act.
13:53–13:59An inferred from cultivated practice can prescribe auspicious invocation as a subsidiary of composition
13:59–14:04even without a separate principle injunction in joining composition.
14:04–14:08Being conveyed as obligatory by the statement that conveys the obligation of the principle
14:08–14:12act is the pervading property that grounds subsidiary status, this property is present
14:12–14:14in auspicious invocation as well.
14:14–14:18The absence of an inhibitor, the destruction of obstacles, is a general cause of every
14:18–14:19effect.
14:19–14:23Therefore, even a statement in joining a worldly act depends upon the injunction of
14:23–14:29auspicious invocation that removes obstacles. One should not object that, as in a Vedic sacrifice,
14:29–14:32the place and time of the principal act would have to be connected with the invocation.
14:33–14:38The place and time of a principal act constrain only extraordinary Vedic subsidiaries that produce
14:38–14:42a puvva, a worldly subsidiary such as tying the top knot is not bound to the principal
14:42–14:50act's place and time. The conclusion of the ancient msakas. It should not be said that
14:50–14:55where the absence of obstacles is already secured by the causal complex, auspicious invocation with
14:55–15:00all its subsidiaries is fruitless and the Vedic statement prescribing it becomes invalid.
15:01–15:05The Vedic injunction declares invocation a cause of obstacle destruction only where an
15:05–15:11obstacle is known to have arisen from worldly conditions. Where, exceptionally, the absence
15:11–15:18of obstacles is already naturally secured, the injunction does not apply. For the same reason,
15:18–15:23if a person possessing true cognition of the supreme reality performs a forbidden act merely
15:23–15:28for experience, no demeritor rises because the defect is absent, the Vedic statement prescribing
15:28–15:35the consequences of such an act does not thereby become invalid. A further objection may be raised,
15:35–15:39where the absence of obstacles is naturally secured by the causal complex but known through
15:39–15:43another means, cultivated persons do not perform an indication, the rule of obligatory
15:43–15:49performance, as with a daily rite, would then fail. Answer, cultivated persons who cognize
15:49–15:55an obstacle perform indication in every relevant situation like a daily rite. This, and no more,
15:55–16:02is the position of the ancient masakas. Refutation of the MMA with Macron essay with Macron view
16:04–16:07No, this MMA with Macron essay with Macron view is not correct.
16:08–16:12Works such as the composition begun by the inattentive Udayana are seen to reach
16:12–16:19completion without auspicious invocation. Invocation cannot be a subsidiary of a composition that
16:19–16:25is completed without it. Nor can an invocation performed in a previous birth be a subsidiary
16:25–16:30of composition in this birth, because cultivated persons in a previous life do not perform
16:30–16:35invocation with a desire for the completion of a book in a future birth.
16:35–16:39It may be said that even when a sacrifice for a son, complete with subsidiaries, does
16:39–16:44not yield a son in this birth, a son in the next birth is regarded as its result.
16:44–16:49Similarly, if a composition is not completed in this birth after indication with all subsidiaries,
16:49–16:53completion in the next birth should be regarded as its result. This is unsound.
16:54–16:58The sacrifice for a son specifies only the desire for a son without a temporal limit,
16:58–17:02whereas indication is performed with an explicit desire for the prompt completion,
17:02–17:07in the present life, of the work about to be begun. Therefore, only a revelation
17:07–17:11communicating such proximate completion would be inferred, and completion in the near future,
17:11–17:16as with the careery sacrifice, would be the result. It may further be said that
17:16–17:21invocation produces neither immediate completion nor future completion qualified by
17:21–17:26immediacy, so mere completion of composition, common to present and future, should be taken as its
17:26–17:33result. This too is incorrect. The expression near time indicates completion occurring within
17:33–17:39that period, otherwise, the result of the career sacrifice could not be regarded as rain in the
17:39–17:45near future. Because of deviation, auspicious invocation is not a subsidiary of book composition.
17:47–17:51The view of partial msakas, auspicious invocation as a principal act.
17:53–17:58Other partial msakas say that auspicious invocation is a principal act, through a porva,
17:58–18:04It produces completion of the undertaking begun, and the person who desires completion is eligible.
18:05–18:10Failure to obtain the result sometimes occurs because of deficiency in performance and similar
18:10–18:16factors, as in the careery sacrifice. Outside the time when an undertaking is begun,
18:16–18:20invocation is not the most efficacious cause of completion through a porva.
18:21–18:26The revelation inferred from the regular invocation of cultivated persons at the
18:26–18:30beginning of an undertaking, one who desires completion and is about to begin a fruitful
18:30–18:35act should perform an auspicious invocation, enjoins the principal invocation only at the beginning.
18:36–18:41It resembles the revelation in joining one who begins the new and full moon sacrifices to offer
18:41–18:48at the outset an 11k kablation to value in the preliminary II. Although auspicious invocation
18:48–18:53is an optional act based upon desire for a result, it must regularly be performed when an
18:53–18:59undertaking begins because one who desires the completion of the undertaking necessarily performs
18:59–19:05it as a means to completion. Objection, if indication is optional, it would not be performed even at
19:05–19:10the beginning of a fruitful undertaking when the person does not desire completion. Answer,
19:10–19:14anyone who desires the result necessarily desires completion because only a completed action can
19:14–19:23produce its fruit. Refutation of the partial MMA with Macron essay with Macron view. This view
19:23–19:292 is not correct. The apporva produced by invocation would complete the causal aggregate
19:29–19:34and establish the result, like the excellence produced by an enjoined principal act and like
19:34–19:39that produced by the careery sacrifice. Completion of the undertaking in this life would then
19:39–19:44necessarily follow, because a Vedic act is not performed without certainty that it
19:44–19:50will produce its result. Such necessity cannot be maintained.
19:50–19:55Some works, such as the Kadambari, remain incomplete despite abundant invocation performed
19:55–19:58with all subsidiaries.
19:58–20:02Completion in the next birth cannot be the result because the fruits of Vedic acts are
20:02–20:04held to occur in this birth.
20:04–20:09Under the rule that an efficacious cause necessarily produces its effect, a future
20:09–20:12sin cannot obstruct the present life result.
20:12–20:17Moreover, invocation would then, like the Kariri sacrifice, become a cause producing
20:17–20:23completion without further action by the person, which is impossible. If worldly operations
20:23–20:28established by practice such as conjunctions of throat and palate are accepted as necessary
20:28–20:33operations, those very operations should be accepted as the causes of completing a book,
20:33–20:40what purpose remains for invocation? Prima-facie view, auspicious invocation is not a means.
20:42–20:46It may be said, when all the known causes of an undertaking that has been begun are present,
20:46–20:50Vedic revelation declares auspicious invocation to be the means of its completion,
20:50–20:53just as it declares the Putrak may sacrifice to be the means of obtaining a sun.
20:54–21:00This position is not sound. Even when the known causes of a sun are present, a sun may not be
21:00–21:04born, it may therefore be admitted that the Putrak may produce a sun through an upuva.
21:05–21:10But it cannot be said that, even when all the known causes of completing a work are present,
21:10–21:15its completion is delayed and therefore an upuva generated by auspicious invocation is required.
21:16–21:20When all the known causes are present, no such delay in completion occurs.
21:21–21:25A work begun by an inattentive atheist may be completed without auspicious
21:25–21:29invocation, therefore invocation is not the cause of its completion.
21:30–21:33It may be said that accumulated merit from a previous birth causes an
21:33–21:36inattentive person to complete a work in this birth.
21:37–21:40This too is untenable, for invocation would still be irregular.
21:40–21:43It may then be said that there is an alternative, as between rice and
21:43–21:48barley, sometimes merit from a previous birth and sometimes present invocation causes completion.
21:49–21:53But then the obligatory performance of invocation every time in the hope of completion would become
21:53–21:58impossible. A Vedic statement cannot make both merit and invocation causes jointly,
21:58–22:02if they are alternatives, tributing equal causality to both is contradictory.
22:03–22:05Refutation of the next argument
22:07–22:11It may be said that the injunction does not convey that invocation must invariably occur
22:11–22:16before the result of completion, it conveys only that the result of completion necessarily
22:16–22:21arises from invocation. This argument is unsound. The meaning of the injunction is simply that
22:21–22:25invocation is a means to the desired completion.
22:25–22:30It may further be proposed that irregularity is a defect only where causality is known
22:30–22:36through positive and negative concomitance, not where it is known from revelation. Therefore,
22:36–22:41Since completion is the purpose as grounded in Revelation, irregularity is no defect,
22:41–22:46and invocation and sacrifice may respectively be means to completion in heaven.
22:46–22:49This too is untenable.
22:49–22:53What Revelation can establish as a cause must regularly exist before its result, and
22:53–22:58invocation does not satisfy this condition, Revelation therefore cannot establish its
22:58–22:59causality.
22:59–23:04In heaven produced by sacrifice and rain produced by the careery sacrifice, the
23:04–23:09respective specific kinds of result invariably occur, there is no such regularity in completion
23:09–23:11allegedly produced by invocation.

Plain text

तद्विशिंट मेथिली भाषाक साहित्य, समालोचना, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, कविता, क� preservation, preservation, and destruction in the three forms of Brahma, Vyu, and Mahisa, who is the unfathomable ocean of compassion and the sole supreme refuge of the three worlds. The Preliminary Connections of the Tattva Sintmai Having learned the science of Nyaya from his teachers, understood the doctrine of the Prabhakara Mme with Mekhran Esi with Mekhran Masters, and with the Divine Eye of Reflection seen the entire essence of both traditions, Gangesa composes the Tattva Sintmai in measured words, teaching decisive conclusions on rules rendered exceedingly difficult by numerous defects. Justification of the title. The purpose of learned scholars polishing this wishfulfilling jewel of thought is to remove the darkness of ignorance belonging to powerful atheists such as the Buddhists. This is possible because no ingenuity of reasoning appears in the views of the opponents, While there is no poverty of expression in the statements establishing our own Gaya conclusions. Justification of the Auspicious Invocation People in this world who desire the completion of an undertaking perform an auspicious invocation when beginning it. These are actions in which all traditional MMA with Macron essay with Macron scholars unanimously accept the attainment of a result. Objection, the causality of auspicious invocation is unproved. The Buddhist subject that in such a case the causal status of auspicious invocation cannot be established by positive and negative concomitance, because a work such as the composition of a book by the inattentive Udayana is seen to reach completion without an invocation. Nor can an invocation performed in a previous birth be imagined, because mutual dependence would arise between establishing the causality of invocation and positing a previous birth invocation. Moreover, since cause is already accepted on the basis of ordinary conduct and common practice are sufficient, positing an invocation in a previous birth is pointless. It may be said that the causality of auspicious invocation is established through inference by elimination. For example, auspicious invocation is productive of a result because it is the object of the unimpeached practice of cultivated persons, like the new and full moon sacrifices. Once this inference establishes that invocation has a result, the desired completion of undertaking comes to mind because that completion is expected at the time of invocation. No result other than completion is appropriate to accept another result by the maximum of the vis-vigid sacrifice would introduce needless complexity. Completion is therefore established as the result of invocation and its causal status becomes certain. This reasoning is not sound. Deviation of auspicious invocation is seen in the undertakings of inattentive persons, therefore, its causal status is absent. What does not exist cannot be apprehended by a thousand devices. REVELATION IS THE AUTHORITY The Msaakas nevertheless say that the Vedic revelation inferred from the regular practice of cultivated persons is the authority establishing that auspicious invocation causes the desired completion. The completion of the curable by the inattentive Odeana does not establish deviation of invocation. Once unobstructed revelation provides authoritative cognition that invocation is a means to completion, an invocation in a previous birth may be inferred from that very revelation is the mark in the case of an inattentive person's completed work. Such invocation is a subsidiary of the undertaking, because cultivated persons perform it before beginning a work while desiring its completion. Auspicious invocation is a means to completion because it has no other result and is regularly performed before an undertaking by persons who wish to begin a fruitful action, just as preliminary offerings are made in the new and full-looned sacrifices. Auspicious invocation must be regarded as a subsidiary of the undertaking and as having completion for its result. Both tradition-established revelation and inference convey that one who desires completion should perform an invocation for completion and that completion alone is its result. Although the preliminary II is regularly performed at the beginning of the new and full moon sacrifices, it is not performed with a desire for the completion of those sacrifices, a separate result is stated for it, and it is therefore a principal act. The preliminary II consequently does not show deviation in the causal relation between auspicious invocation and completion. Objection, auspicious invocation cannot be a subsidiary. On the basis of the carpenter aphorism, it is objected that auspicious invocation is a supersensible or Vedic act and therefore cannot be a subsidiary cause of the completion of a worldly undertaking. A worldly undertaking can be completed only by worldly means. In the examples when the supporting peg of a house or chariot breaks, an iron bolt should be fitted and a bruma should be fed food cooked in milk. Fitting the bolt and feeding the bruma are not subsidiaries of the principal act but independent occasional acts performed when the relevant occasion arises. Similarly, auspicious invocation should be regarded as an independent occasional principal act performed at the beginning of an undertaking, and heaven should be taken as its result by the maxim of the this budget sacrifice. This objection is not proper. The purport of the carpenter aphorism, a super sensible act is not a subsidiary of a worldly act, concerns only a subsidiary that generates a super sensible operation such as a puvva. The operation produced by auspicious invocation is the absence of an inhibitor or the destruction of an obstacle, this is merely an auxiliary cause of the completion understood from worldly means. A worldly undertaking cannot be completed without the absence of obstruction. Invocation is therefore not like the preliminary offerings that generate an unseen potency. An atheist's undertaking that is naturally free from obstacles may be completed even without unseen merit produced by invocation. Nor should one say that because deviation is observed in the case of an atheist, invocation cannot be a subsidiary cause even through the destruction of obstacles. Auspicious invocation is a subsidiary cause of obstacle destruction only when an obstacle exists. Where there is no obstacle, no destroyer of it is required. In Vedic preliminary offerings, the subsidiary causes unseen potency, here it is more economical to accept the destruction of obstacles, because although unseen merit is already recognized elsewhere, it is unnecessary in the present case. The operation is the absence of obstacles. Cultivated persons in fact regularly perform auspicious invocation both when they doubt an obstacle and when they are certain of one. The operation toward completion is therefore solely the absence of obstacles. If invocation is performed with the desire may the undertaking be completed without obstruction, Revelation establishes the causal operation as the absence of obstacles. If the operation of invocation were taken to be a porva, its status as a subsidiary cause of a worldly undertaking would be contradicted. Completion can be established from already accepted causes such as the absence of obstacles, therefore, just as a broken supporting peg is repaired by inserting a bolt, it is unnecessary to posit a new aporva. An objection may arise, activity aimed at destroying an obstacle should occur only when the obstacle is certain, just as certainty of sin motivates expiation. How can one perform an invocation when an obstacle is merely suspected? answer, general cognition of an obstacle causes the undertaking of invocation, because cultivated persons perform it both in doubt and certainty. The injunction inferred from their conduct identifies as qualified the person who desires completion of an undertaking begun and possesses general cognition of an obstacle. In expiation, only a person certainly possessing the fault is qualified because the injunction restricts eligibility to such a person. The concern that certainty of the obstacle qualifies the eligible person, so activity cannot occur under doubt is therefore removed. Vedic activity normally follows certainty of eligibility, but here the person eligible for the principal act is also eligible for the subsidiary, to posit an independent eligibility for invocation would destroy its subsidiary status. The desire for completion qualifies the eligible person. It is not correct to say that despite the desire to begin the principal action, the obstacle itself qualifies eligibility. Obstruction and qualifying status are opposed. The true qualification is the desire for completion of the undertaking begun, and the eligible person is certain of that desire. Some say that in other contexts the performer of an expiator or similar act is a person with certain eligibility, whereas the performer of an auspicious invocation has only doubtful eligibility, because the Vedic sentence inferred from the practice of cultivated persons who doubt obstacles identify such a person as the agent. This view is unsound. Eligibility cannot be determined on the basis of actually possessing an obstacle, action often occurs even when the obstacle is not certain. A discerning person performs an invocation to remove even a suspected undesirable obstruction. is drunk to neutralize poison when snake bite poisoning is suspected. Cultivation is undertaken on the certainty that it is a means to a harvest despite doubt whether the crop will actually mature. Likewise, invocation is possible despite doubt concerning obstacles. If cultivation is undertaken on the reasoning that when rain and other conditions are present it necessarily produces a crop, invocation is likewise undertaken on the reasoning that when an obstacle is present it necessarily brings the composition to completion. Removal of the conflict with the Sphylei adhikara and justification of auspicious invocation. Objection, in the new and full moon sacrifices, when grains adhere to the wooden sword or ladle called Sphaya, an occasional sacrifice is performed. By a rule of transfer, invocation of the deity as a subsidiary is prescribed on the preceding day, but that indication is not prescribed when it is merely doubtful whether grains will adhere. This resembles the example in which pounding is not performed as a subsidiary upon a golden bin because no husk removal operation is possible. How, then, can auspicious indication be performed merely from doubt about an obstacle when the operation of destroying that obstacle is itself doubtful? Answer, in an occasional act, only a person who knows the occasion is eligible. When the potchard breaks, one should offer an ablation qualifies a person who knows that it has broken. Likewise, in the new and full moon sacrifices, only one who knows that grains have adhered to the sphyate is eligible to invoke the deity. On the previous day there is no certainty of such adhesion, so it is proper not to perform the invocation then. A subsidiary is appropriately performed only when there is certainty that the principal sacrifices to be performed. When adhesion to the sphaya is doubtful, there is no certainty on the previous day that the occasional sacrifice is obligatory, there is therefore no eligibility for the principal act and consequently none for the subsidiary. If the invocation were performed under the supposition perhaps there will be eligibility, it would be fruitless because performed by one not yet eligible. Even when the principal sacrifice is known to be forthcoming, invocation connected with the sacrifice caused by adhesion to the sphaya cannot be performed on the preceding day because the place and time of the subsidiary, the previous day, do not fit the principal act of the following day and are therefore incompatible. The case of auspicious invocation differs. Here a person with general cognition of an obstacle is eligible, and such cognition may exist even when the obstacle is nearly The decision to perform the principal act of composing is clear, therefore, it is proper to perform the invocation even while the obstacle-destroying operation remains uncertain. Auspicious invocation is a subsidiary act. In worldly acts of future prosperity such as marriage, a person who merely knows the occasion is eligible, because that is the established practice. Objection, a subsidiary is enjoined only by an injunction governing the principal act. There is no injunction to compose a book as a principal act, so invocation cannot be enjoined as its subsidiary. Nor can Vedic revelation form part of a worldly statement, because revelation is independent of worldly sources of knowledge. Answer, only a Vedic subsidiary that produces a porva needs to be enjoined through the injunction of the principal act. An inferred from cultivated practice can prescribe auspicious invocation as a subsidiary of composition even without a separate principle injunction in joining composition. Being conveyed as obligatory by the statement that conveys the obligation of the principle act is the pervading property that grounds subsidiary status, this property is present in auspicious invocation as well. The absence of an inhibitor, the destruction of obstacles, is a general cause of every effect. Therefore, even a statement in joining a worldly act depends upon the injunction of auspicious invocation that removes obstacles. One should not object that, as in a Vedic sacrifice, the place and time of the principal act would have to be connected with the invocation. The place and time of a principal act constrain only extraordinary Vedic subsidiaries that produce a puvva, a worldly subsidiary such as tying the top knot is not bound to the principal act's place and time. The conclusion of the ancient msakas. It should not be said that where the absence of obstacles is already secured by the causal complex, auspicious invocation with all its subsidiaries is fruitless and the Vedic statement prescribing it becomes invalid. The Vedic injunction declares invocation a cause of obstacle destruction only where an obstacle is known to have arisen from worldly conditions. Where, exceptionally, the absence of obstacles is already naturally secured, the injunction does not apply. For the same reason, if a person possessing true cognition of the supreme reality performs a forbidden act merely for experience, no demeritor rises because the defect is absent, the Vedic statement prescribing the consequences of such an act does not thereby become invalid. A further objection may be raised, where the absence of obstacles is naturally secured by the causal complex but known through another means, cultivated persons do not perform an indication, the rule of obligatory performance, as with a daily rite, would then fail. Answer, cultivated persons who cognize an obstacle perform indication in every relevant situation like a daily rite. This, and no more, is the position of the ancient masakas. Refutation of the MMA with Macron essay with Macron view No, this MMA with Macron essay with Macron view is not correct. Works such as the composition begun by the inattentive Udayana are seen to reach completion without auspicious invocation. Invocation cannot be a subsidiary of a composition that is completed without it. Nor can an invocation performed in a previous birth be a subsidiary of composition in this birth, because cultivated persons in a previous life do not perform invocation with a desire for the completion of a book in a future birth. It may be said that even when a sacrifice for a son, complete with subsidiaries, does not yield a son in this birth, a son in the next birth is regarded as its result. Similarly, if a composition is not completed in this birth after indication with all subsidiaries, completion in the next birth should be regarded as its result. This is unsound. The sacrifice for a son specifies only the desire for a son without a temporal limit, whereas indication is performed with an explicit desire for the prompt completion, in the present life, of the work about to be begun. Therefore, only a revelation communicating such proximate completion would be inferred, and completion in the near future, as with the careery sacrifice, would be the result. It may further be said that invocation produces neither immediate completion nor future completion qualified by immediacy, so mere completion of composition, common to present and future, should be taken as its result. This too is incorrect. The expression near time indicates completion occurring within that period, otherwise, the result of the career sacrifice could not be regarded as rain in the near future. Because of deviation, auspicious invocation is not a subsidiary of book composition. The view of partial msakas, auspicious invocation as a principal act. Other partial msakas say that auspicious invocation is a principal act, through a porva, It produces completion of the undertaking begun, and the person who desires completion is eligible. Failure to obtain the result sometimes occurs because of deficiency in performance and similar factors, as in the careery sacrifice. Outside the time when an undertaking is begun, invocation is not the most efficacious cause of completion through a porva. The revelation inferred from the regular invocation of cultivated persons at the beginning of an undertaking, one who desires completion and is about to begin a fruitful act should perform an auspicious invocation, enjoins the principal invocation only at the beginning. It resembles the revelation in joining one who begins the new and full moon sacrifices to offer at the outset an 11k kablation to value in the preliminary II. Although auspicious invocation is an optional act based upon desire for a result, it must regularly be performed when an undertaking begins because one who desires the completion of the undertaking necessarily performs it as a means to completion. Objection, if indication is optional, it would not be performed even at the beginning of a fruitful undertaking when the person does not desire completion. Answer, anyone who desires the result necessarily desires completion because only a completed action can produce its fruit. Refutation of the partial MMA with Macron essay with Macron view. This view 2 is not correct. The apporva produced by invocation would complete the causal aggregate and establish the result, like the excellence produced by an enjoined principal act and like that produced by the careery sacrifice. Completion of the undertaking in this life would then necessarily follow, because a Vedic act is not performed without certainty that it will produce its result. Such necessity cannot be maintained. Some works, such as the Kadambari, remain incomplete despite abundant invocation performed with all subsidiaries. Completion in the next birth cannot be the result because the fruits of Vedic acts are held to occur in this birth. Under the rule that an efficacious cause necessarily produces its effect, a future sin cannot obstruct the present life result. Moreover, invocation would then, like the Kariri sacrifice, become a cause producing completion without further action by the person, which is impossible. If worldly operations established by practice such as conjunctions of throat and palate are accepted as necessary operations, those very operations should be accepted as the causes of completing a book, what purpose remains for invocation? Prima-facie view, auspicious invocation is not a means. It may be said, when all the known causes of an undertaking that has been begun are present, Vedic revelation declares auspicious invocation to be the means of its completion, just as it declares the Putrak may sacrifice to be the means of obtaining a sun. This position is not sound. Even when the known causes of a sun are present, a sun may not be born, it may therefore be admitted that the Putrak may produce a sun through an upuva. But it cannot be said that, even when all the known causes of completing a work are present, its completion is delayed and therefore an upuva generated by auspicious invocation is required. When all the known causes are present, no such delay in completion occurs. A work begun by an inattentive atheist may be completed without auspicious invocation, therefore invocation is not the cause of its completion. It may be said that accumulated merit from a previous birth causes an inattentive person to complete a work in this birth. This too is untenable, for invocation would still be irregular. It may then be said that there is an alternative, as between rice and barley, sometimes merit from a previous birth and sometimes present invocation causes completion. But then the obligatory performance of invocation every time in the hope of completion would become impossible. A Vedic statement cannot make both merit and invocation causes jointly, if they are alternatives, tributing equal causality to both is contradictory. Refutation of the next argument It may be said that the injunction does not convey that invocation must invariably occur before the result of completion, it conveys only that the result of completion necessarily arises from invocation. This argument is unsound. The meaning of the injunction is simply that invocation is a means to the desired completion. It may further be proposed that irregularity is a defect only where causality is known through positive and negative concomitance, not where it is known from revelation. Therefore, Since completion is the purpose as grounded in Revelation, irregularity is no defect, and invocation and sacrifice may respectively be means to completion in heaven. This too is untenable. What Revelation can establish as a cause must regularly exist before its result, and invocation does not satisfy this condition, Revelation therefore cannot establish its causality. In heaven produced by sacrifice and rain produced by the careery sacrifice, the respective specific kinds of result invariably occur, there is no such regularity in completion allegedly produced by invocation.

← Transcript index