MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

Episode2_Part18_CartoonFilm.mp4

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 (0.996528)
Duration: 23:37
Source: Open preserved recording

Timestamped machine output

0:02–0:33गोल्डि आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजि
0:33–0:39colour and luminosity are not overwhelmed, only whiteness is overwhelmed. Therefore the colour
0:39–0:44of fire illuminates fire and other objects. In gold colour itself is overwhelmed, hence even
0:44–0:49if whiteness and luminosity remain unoverwhelmed, they cannot illuminate the individual gold,
0:49–0:55because the latter is not apprehended. Nor is it impossible to establish gold,
0:55–1:00the locus of yellowness and heaviness, as something distinct from earth. Gold, which
1:00–1:06remains undestroyed despite continuous conjunction with intense fire, is reasonably a fiery substance
1:06–1:11distinct from earth. If gold were earthy, intense conjunction with fire, in the absence
1:11–1:16of relation to a liquid substance inhibiting heterogeneous change of color, would produce
1:16–1:20in it a color different from its earlier one, because in an earthy substance conjunction
1:20–1:26with fire causes such change. Burning and non-burning of cloth and the like are observed
1:26–1:30according to conjunction with water and its absence.
1:30–1:34Hence the inference, if molten gold were an earthy substance can join with intense fire
1:34–1:39and unrelated to a liquid substance inhibiting heterogeneous change of color, it would be
1:39–1:44the locus of a color different from its previous yellow, like a pot can join with fire.
1:44–1:48But it is not so, therefore gold is not earthy.
1:48–1:55Nor can it be accepted merely as water or as an earthy substance can join with fire.
1:55–2:02of the inference establishing the fiery nature of gold. The inference establishing gold as
2:02–2:07fiery may be formulated thus, yellow gold conjoined with intense fire is conjoined with
2:07–2:11a liquid substance that inhibits heterogeneous change of color, because despite conjunction
2:11–2:15with intense fire it is non-earthy while not becoming the locus of a color different from
2:15–2:21its former color, like yellow cloth situated in water conjoined with fire.
2:21–2:25A second form, yellow gold is conjoined with a liquid substance inhibiting production
2:25–2:29of a color different from yellow, because despite being conjoined with fire day and night it
2:29–2:34is not the locus of a color different from yellow, like yellow cloth situated in water
2:34–2:38for a long time while conjoined with fire.
2:38–2:42Intense conjunction with fire cannot be called irrelevant.
2:42–2:46In the absence of relation to an opposed liquid substance, intense conjunction with fire
2:46–2:51produces heterogeneous change of color in an earthy substance.
2:51–2:56The inhibiting liquid substance related to gold is not water, because water is a locus
2:56–3:02of natural fluidity, nor is its fluidity non-manifest, because non-manifest fluidity cannot inhibit
3:02–3:07burning, whereas the fluidity of gold is adventitious.
3:07–3:11If only being molten in earthy is regarded as the inhibitor of heterogeneous change
3:11–3:15of color, the same inhibition would have to be accepted in ghee and the like, and
3:15–3:18change of color would arise in gold.
3:18–3:23A supporting element can join with fire, if earthy, cannot itself inhibit heterogeneous
3:23–3:25change of color.
3:25–3:29Fire distinct from gold is neither the locus of adventitious fluidity nor an inhibitor
3:29–3:34of heterogeneous change of color, it is precisely what produces change of color.
3:34–3:41Gold, being a perceptible substance, possesses color, being different from earth and water,
3:41–3:42it is fiery.
3:42–3:47From this subject establishing proof, in molten fire, that is, liquefied gold, the property
3:47–3:53of inhibiting change of color is established. Therefore, even when conjoined with the intense
3:53–3:58heat of fire, the fluidity of the yellow part of gold is not destroyed, because the fiery fluidity
3:58–4:03of gold inhibits its destroyer, as does the fluidity of geese situated in water conjoined with
4:03–4:09fire. View of Udaena Karii, molten fire inhibits change of color.
4:12–4:16Objection, if molten fire inhibits heterogeneous change of color, the color of cloth and the
4:16–4:20like situated in molten gold would also not change, just as that of cloth in water does
4:20–4:21not.
4:21–4:26Reply, in this world molten fire inhibits heterogeneous change of color only when the yellow substance
4:26–4:30is experienced as gold and when a supporting cause of fiery heat is present in partless
4:30–4:33molten gold, not elsewhere.
4:33–4:37Positive and negative concomitance is found only in this specific form.
4:37–4:41Therefore an inhibiting supporting nature should be accepted only in gold as established
4:41–4:43by experience.
4:43–4:48Or can it be said, let gold alone be accepted as the inhibitor, why imagine separate molten
4:48–4:50fire?
4:50–4:55Subject establishing proof establishes molten fire, when a general supporting factor is
4:55–5:00present, as inhibiting heterogeneous change of color, hence the inhibitory nature is established
5:00–5:03in the form of molten fire.
5:03–5:07The argument if molten fire were an inhibitor, it would also prevent change in the color
5:07–5:12of cloth and the like is based on an unestablished locus, the contrary reasoning
5:12–5:14is established.
5:14–5:19No subject establishing or other proof establishes and inhibiting supporting nature in experienced
5:19–5:22solid gold.
5:22–5:26Therefore the causal status of conjunction with fire and producing change of color,
5:26–5:30established by positive and negative concomitance when there is no relation to an opposed liquid
5:30–5:33earthy substance, is not defeated.
5:33–5:38This is Udayna Karya's view.
5:38–5:42Modern view, gold is not water.
5:42–5:47Neacose, molten gold, the locus of perceptible fluidity undestroyed even by conjunction with
5:47–5:52intense fire, is fiery, because while possessing color it differs from water and earth, like fire.
5:53–5:58There is no unestablished reason here, because gold's possession of color is
5:58–6:01established from its being the locus of perceptible fluidity.
6:02–6:07Gold is not water, because it is not the locus of natural fluidity, like lack,
6:07–6:11it is the locus of adventitious fluidity and lack's viscosity.
6:12–6:17If viscosity were accepted in gold, gold would have to be an aggregate of substances dependent
6:17–6:23on viscosity and fluidity. Nor is gold earthy, because its fluidity is not destroyed even by
6:23–6:30conjunction with intense fire, like that of water atoms. The qualification in the absence of relation
6:30–6:36to an opposed liquid substance should be included in the definition, so there is no overextension
6:36–6:42to gees situated in boiling water. The qualification is not purposeless, because Earth fluidity
6:42–6:46hood is what causes destruction of fluidity in earthy substances such as lack and geethru
6:46–6:52intense conjunction with fire. In the absence of a defeater, it is improper to abandon the
6:52–6:58causal relevance of a recurrent property. The non-recurrent fluidity of gees is not the cause,
6:58–7:03neither general fluidity nor adventitious fluidity is the cause, otherwise the fluidity
7:03–7:06of gold too would be destroyed.
7:06–7:11Objection, non-earthy natural fluidity present in oil, water, and the like is also destroyed
7:11–7:16by intense conjunction with fire, therefore, on the analogy of grass, fire sticks, and
7:16–7:19gems, some recurrent property must destroy fluidity.
7:19–7:24Reply, through economy, earth fluidityhood, water fluidityhood, and other fluidityhood
7:24–7:28produced by taste and the like respectively destroy earthy fluidity, watery fluidity,
7:28–7:31and commonly produced fluidity.
7:31–7:36For this reason the counter-inference, the disputed gold is earthy because, like Guy,
7:36–7:40it is the locus of adventitious fluidity is weak.
7:40–7:44There is no favorable reasoning for it, rather there is contrary reasoning that, if it were
7:44–7:49earthy, its fluidity would be destroyed by intense conjunction with fire in the absence
7:49–7:53of relation to an opposed liquid.
7:53–7:56Fire has no natural fluidity.
7:56–7:57Objection.
7:57–8:01Earthhood is the delimiter of the adhering causal status of adventitious fluidity.
8:01–8:05No property's delimitorship should be abandoned without a defeater.
8:05–8:10Reply, then all earthy substances such as pots would become locky of adventitious fluidity.
8:10–8:14Nor is it possible to accept any subordinate property of earthhood as one recurrent delimitor
8:14–8:20of the inhering causal status of adventitious fluidity in G, Lac, and the like.
8:20–8:24If a subordinate property delimited by earthhood is accepted in both horizontally moving
8:24–8:29earth and upward flaming earth, it is absent in pots and the like.
8:29–8:34If a special subordinate property of Earthhood is accepted, it must also be present in lack
8:34–8:37and other things distinct from ghee.
8:37–8:41Therefore no such recurrent delimiter is established.
8:41–8:45A further objection, in earthy gold, the locus of yellowness and heaviness, being the locus
8:45–8:49of fluidity undestroyed by intense fiery heat even without supporting conjunction with
8:49–8:54fire is a deviant reason, because there is the experience, yellow gold is molten.
8:54–8:58Reply, yellow gold has no natural fluidity.
8:58–9:03earthy fluidity is destroyed by intense conjunction with fire, the cognition yellow gold is molten
9:03–9:06is a defeated illusion.
9:06–9:10Nor should one ask why yellow gold is not then seen merely as hard.
9:10–9:14Like the parts of ink, honey, and the like in water, the parts of gold, through relation
9:14–9:19to a liquid substance, are loci of loose in conjunction, the parts of gold themselves
9:19–9:21do not possess fluidity.
9:21–9:25There is no contradiction with the example of ghee and the like, whose parts can
9:25–9:29possess fluidity.
9:29–9:36Another view, fluidity is produced in gold. Other Neayakase, in the presence of support
9:36–9:41in the form of fiery heat, fluidity is certainly produced in fiery substances such as gold,
9:41–9:47the experience of fluidity cannot readily be denied. Fluidity is not destroyed in gold
9:47–9:53because the molten fiery substance itself is an inhibitor of the destroyer of fluidity.
9:53–10:00Molten fire is not unsupported. Affirmative inference, yellow gold, the locus of fluidity,
10:00–10:04is conjoined with a liquid substance inhibiting destruction of fluidity, because it is an earthy
10:04–10:10locus of fluidity whose fluidity is not destroyed even by intense conjunction with fire, like
10:10–10:13geese situated in boiling water.
10:13–10:17Destruction and non-destruction of earthy fluidity depend upon relation or non-relation
10:17–10:21to an opposed liquid substance along with intense conjunction with fire, therefore the
10:21–10:25inference is not purposeless.
10:25–10:29Negative inference, the disputed gold, a locus of fluidity about which fiery or
10:29–10:34earthy nature is in doubt while it possesses color and differs from water, is fiery, because
10:34–10:38it is the locus of non-eternal fluidity not destroyed even by intense conjunction with
10:38–10:43fire in the absence of relation to an opposed liquid substance, whatever is not so is not
10:43–10:46fiery, like water and ghee.
10:46–10:51Uncommonness is not a fault, because an uncommon reason produces doubt only in the
10:51–10:54absence of a special observation.
10:54–10:58Just as a reason excluded from a negative instance possessing absence of the pro-bandom
10:58–11:03establishes the probandom, so a reason excluded from a subject possessing the probandom establishes
11:03–11:06absence of the probandom.
11:06–11:11Uncommonness yields inconclusiveness by generating an equally strong counter reason only when
11:11–11:14special observation is absent.
11:14–11:18Here a negative reason accompanied by favorable reasoning and special observation establishes
11:18–11:20the probandom.
11:20–11:25The statement sound is non-eternal because it is sound may likewise possess a valid
11:25–11:29reason when a special observation is present, only this much is intended here.
11:30–11:34The counter position that establishes gold as earthy is not equally strong.
11:35–11:40It has no favorable reasoning but contrary reasoning, if molten gold were earthy,
11:40–11:45its fluidity would be destroyed by intense conjunction with fire, like oil, in the absence
11:45–11:50of relation to an opposed liquid. Conversely, the reason establishing gold as fiery has
11:50–11:55favorable reasoning, if molten gold, which possesses color and differs from water, were
11:55–12:00not fiery but earthy, it would be the locus of destruction of fluidity through intense
12:00–12:02conjunction with fire.
12:02–12:05There is also no contrary reasoning.
12:05–12:11Hence the inference establishing fiery nature is stronger.
12:11–12:15Final Establishment of the Fiery Nature of Gold
12:15–12:20Other teachers establish fiery nature thus, fiery nature does not occur only in colored
12:20–12:25non-fluid substances, because it is a universal directly pervaded by fluidity occurring in
12:25–12:31colored substances, like earthhood. Or, fiery nature occurs in molten gold, because it is a
12:31–12:37universal directly pervaded by substancehood occurring in colored substances, like waterhood.
12:38–12:42Occurrence in a locus of fluidity is not an extraneous condition.
12:43–12:47First molten fire is established by the inference, possession of fluidity is the
12:47–12:53counter-positive of an absolute absence co-located with fluidity, because it is a property pervaded
12:53–12:59by substancehood occurring in non-fluid substances. Then, through a commonly observed inference based
12:59–13:05on the absence of non-pervasion of the probandom, fluidity is established in fire. Finally, the
13:05–13:10fiery nature of gold is established by the inference, the disputed molten gold is fiery,
13:10–13:15because it is the locus of eternal fluidity undestroyed even by intense conjunction with fire,
13:15–13:22Whatever is not so is not fiery, like water. Removal of the extraneous condition.
13:24–13:29Objection, occurrence in fire in general, is an extraneous condition in the first inference.
13:30–13:34Nor can fiery nature be called what is outside the subject, because the fiery nature of lamps and
13:34–13:40the light would have to be excluded from the subject. Reply, molten fiery nature in disputed
13:40–13:44gold is established by a stronger reason defeating the negative instance, therefore the stated
13:44–13:49extraneous condition does not pervade the pro-bandom. Many inferences establishing both
13:49–13:53earthenness and fireiness in gold are possible, but because reasoning defeats earthhood as a
13:53–13:56counter-instance, the inference establishing fiery nature is stronger.
13:58–14:00The reason is not unestablished.
14:02–14:06Objection, gold is cognized successively as molten, more molten, and so forth,
14:06–14:11therefore, when gold is destroyed by the intense heat of fire, its fluidity too is
14:11–14:15destroyed, and the reason, fluidity undistroyed by conjunction with fire, is unestablished.
14:16–14:20Nor may it be said that after earlier fluidity is destroyed later fluidity arises,
14:20–14:25and therefore destruction of fluidity co-located with prior absence does not occur in gold,
14:25–14:29even if later fluidity were not produced after the former gold substrate was destroyed,
14:29–14:32destruction of the earlier fluidity would still be possible, as in G.
14:34–14:38Reply, the fluidity of gold can be destroyed by destruction of its substrate,
14:38–14:44but not by conjunction with fire. If conjunction with fire itself destroyed fluidity, later
14:44–14:50fluidity would not arise, as in Ghee, because the fire conjunction that destroys fluidity would
14:50–14:55inhibit new fluidity. Thus the meaning of the reason is being the locus of fluidity whose
14:55–15:00counter-positive destruction produced by fire conjunction is absent even while fire conjunction
15:00–15:07is present. Alternatively, at the time fluidity is destroyed in Ghee, the totality of causes
15:07–15:12of fluidity co-located with fire is absent, while in gold it is present.
15:12–15:16Thus the meaning of the reason is being the locus of fluidity possessing a subordinate
15:16–15:21universal of a distinct fluidity, produced by causal conditions of fluidity co-located
15:21–15:26with fire and absent from the counter positive of destruction of fluidity produced by
15:26–15:28fire conjunction.
15:28–15:33In this way the reason is not unestablished.
15:33–15:37Negative and affirmative negative inferences.
15:37–15:48Alternatively, after the first fluidity in an atom of D is destroyed by conjunction with fire, a second fluidity does not arise, because fluidity is absent in the ash of D produced by fire conjunction.
15:49–15:56Similarly, if fluidity of gold atoms were destroyed by fire conjunction, gold produced from those atoms would be non-fluid.
15:58–16:06Hence the negative inference, the atoms that originate gold are not earthy, because they are loci of fluidity undestroyed even by intense conjunction with fire,
16:06–16:08like water atoms.
16:08–16:15Therefore they are fiery, whatever atoms are not so are not fiery, like atoms of ghee.
16:15–16:19Affirmative negative inference, gold produced from non-earth-y or fiery atoms is non-earth-y
16:19–16:24or fiery, because it is produced from atoms that are loci of fluidity undestroyed even
16:24–16:27by intense conjunction with fire.
16:27–16:33By this inference the fiery nature of gold is established.
16:33–16:39Partial view gold is a distinct substance different from earth, water, and fire.
16:39–16:46A partial theorist says, gold, the locus of fluidity, is not fiery, because it is yellow.
16:46–16:51The reason is not unestablished, because the cognition yellow gold is molten establishes
16:51–16:53fluidity in gold.
16:53–16:57Nor is cognition of yellow color illusory merely because one might thereby have to
16:57–16:59regard gold as earthy.
16:59–17:04Even if white color were accepted, there would be no obstacle to golds being non-earthy,
17:04–17:09Similarly, even with yellow color, non-earthiness is possible.
17:09–17:14Just as earthhood is not an indispensable cause of adventitious fluidity, invariability with
17:14–17:18smell is not an indispensable cause of yellowness.
17:18–17:22The Neayaka inference, gold, while possessing yellow color and differing from earth and
17:22–17:26water, is fiery, is inconclusive.
17:26–17:30Otherwise one would also have to accept air, while possessing touch and differing from
17:30–17:33water and fire, is earthy.
17:33–17:39It cannot be replied that air has no color, fluidity, or smell and therefore is not earthy.
17:39–17:44If these qualities are taken as non-manifest, the pervasion earth is the locus of at least
17:44–17:48one among manifest color, taste, and smell is defeated.
17:48–17:52Yet many pervasions on the fiery side are also defeated in gold.
17:52–17:56Non-fluid fire is perceptible, in perceptible fire either manifest color or manifest
17:56–18:01touch is necessarily present, and fire illuminates both itself and other things, do not apply
18:01–18:04light a gold.
18:04–18:08The Neayaka himself accepts that a substance which is the locus of adventitious fluidity
18:08–18:12is not necessarily earthy.
18:12–18:16Therefore yellow gold, as the locus of adventitious fluidity, differs not only from water and
18:16–18:21earth but from all three, earth, water, and fire, and is an independent additional
18:21–18:22substance.
18:22–18:26This is the partial view.
18:26–18:31Conclusion of the theory of the causes of perception.
18:31–18:35This sends the theory of the causes of perception and the perception section of the Tattvasint
18:35–18:42Mai composed by Sri Gangesapadhyaya.
18:42–18:47The theory of the Atomicity of Mind.
18:47–18:51Mind as the sixth sense organ.
18:51–18:56Perceptual cognition of the self-special qualities, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, effort,
18:56–18:59and the like, is not produced by the five external sense organs.
18:59–19:03Nevertheless, such cognition is a produced perception.
19:03–19:07Therefore, a separate sixth sense organ must be accepted.
19:07–19:09This organ is the mind.
19:09–19:13Pleasure and the like are not objects of the external senses such as touch, so the unwanted
19:13–19:17consequence of treating the tactile sense as their cause does not arise.
19:17–19:22Thus the status of mind as the sixth sense organ is established.
19:22–19:26Msaka view mind is all-pervasive.
19:26–19:31The Msaka says, mind is an eternal, partless, touchless substance distinct from earth and
19:31–19:33the other substances.
19:33–19:38It is the locus of conjunction between self and mind, which serves as a non-inhering
19:38–19:44cause of cognition, and is an eternal sense-organ. Since, though eternal, it does not originate
19:44–19:50another substance, it is all pervasive like the self. Magnitude is not an extraneous condition
19:50–19:57of this inference, because it is pervaded only in the instrument.
19:57–20:02Objection concerning subordinate universals in pleasure and the like.
20:02–20:06Objection, pleasure and the like are non-eternal special qualities occurring in the eternal
20:06–20:10self, conjunction of the five mobile elemental substances is their non-inhering cause.
20:11–20:15Therefore a subordinate universal of qualityhood should be accepted in pleasure and the light,
20:15–20:22as in cooked colour. Reply, on the BHA view sound is a substance. Not occurring in the self,
20:22–20:26not being produced by a sense organ that apprehends special qualities other than sound,
20:26–20:30and, qualityhood occurring in the five corporeal substances, all become extraneous conditions
20:30–20:35and obstruct the inference. Pleasure and the light may also be accepted as produced by
20:35–20:40conjunction of the body and self as a cause.
20:40–20:45Atomicity of mind is not required for spatial restriction.
20:45–20:49The Nayaika objects, spatial restriction of the effect of an all-pervasive cause would
20:49–20:53depend upon conjunction of self and mind as the non-inherent cause.
20:53–20:57If mind were all-pervasive, pleasure and the light would arise in every self, therefore
20:57–20:59mind must be atomic.
20:59–21:03The Mensaka replies that, spatial restriction can have three meanings, the non-inherent
21:03–21:08causes produces its effect in the place delimited by itself, it produces it definitely there,
21:08–21:10or it produces it only there.
21:10–21:15On the first meaning, a regulator of production throughout all places is absent.
21:15–21:18On the second, conjunction with an atomic mind would produce the effect both in the
21:18–21:21place delimited by it and elsewhere.
21:21–21:24On the third, pleasure would arise only in the atomic location.
21:24–21:29Therefore, the doctrine of an all-pervasive mind is not defeated.
21:29–21:35The non-inhering cause depends upon an efficient cause.
21:35–21:36The Neayaka says,
21:36–21:40Pleasures occurrence in a greater or smaller region depends upon efficient causes such
21:40–21:46as sandalwood, just as spatial occurrence of sound depends upon conjunction with air.
21:46–21:50Conjunction with mine does not cause this spatial division.
21:50–21:51The Masaka replies,
21:51–21:55In our doctrine of an all-pervasive mine too, efficient causes such as sandalwood
21:55–21:58establish this regulation.
21:58–22:02There is no rule that an all-pervasive non-inhering cause must produce its effect everywhere,
22:02–22:10delimitation by the complete causal complex including an efficient cause is required.
22:10–22:15Simultaneous production of many pleasures and pains in oneself.
22:15–22:20Memsaka Prima face e view, when distinct efficient causes such as sandalwood, fire, and wounds
22:20–22:24are present in different parts of the body, many particular states of pleasure and pain
22:24–22:27can arise simultaneously in oneself.
22:27–22:30mind is all-pervasive, there is no contradiction in this production,
22:30–22:33difference of efficient causes determines difference of place in the effects.
22:35–22:43Conclusion of the Prima-Facey View. Thus mind is an all-pervasive, eternal, partless, touchless
22:43–22:49substance. Its status as a sense-organ is established from its production of perception
22:49–22:54of special qualities. The mere fact that many cognitions do not arise at one time is not
22:54–23:00proof that mind is atomic, because desire, purpose, concentration, merit and demerit,
23:00–23:07and particular efficient causes may regulate the sequence of cognitions. Possibility of many
23:07–23:14cognitions at one time. The memsaka says, although many sense organs are related to their different
23:14–23:19objects, tension, or desire to know makes one cognition predominant. Yet on some occasions
23:19–23:24many cognitions simultaneously occur as established by direct experience, for example,
23:24–23:27eating while watching a dance, hearing a song, and apprehending fragrance.
23:28–23:33Therefore impossibility of simultaneous cognition is not decisive proof of the atomicity of mind.

Plain text

गोल्डि आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजिद आजि colour and luminosity are not overwhelmed, only whiteness is overwhelmed. Therefore the colour of fire illuminates fire and other objects. In gold colour itself is overwhelmed, hence even if whiteness and luminosity remain unoverwhelmed, they cannot illuminate the individual gold, because the latter is not apprehended. Nor is it impossible to establish gold, the locus of yellowness and heaviness, as something distinct from earth. Gold, which remains undestroyed despite continuous conjunction with intense fire, is reasonably a fiery substance distinct from earth. If gold were earthy, intense conjunction with fire, in the absence of relation to a liquid substance inhibiting heterogeneous change of color, would produce in it a color different from its earlier one, because in an earthy substance conjunction with fire causes such change. Burning and non-burning of cloth and the like are observed according to conjunction with water and its absence. Hence the inference, if molten gold were an earthy substance can join with intense fire and unrelated to a liquid substance inhibiting heterogeneous change of color, it would be the locus of a color different from its previous yellow, like a pot can join with fire. But it is not so, therefore gold is not earthy. Nor can it be accepted merely as water or as an earthy substance can join with fire. of the inference establishing the fiery nature of gold. The inference establishing gold as fiery may be formulated thus, yellow gold conjoined with intense fire is conjoined with a liquid substance that inhibits heterogeneous change of color, because despite conjunction with intense fire it is non-earthy while not becoming the locus of a color different from its former color, like yellow cloth situated in water conjoined with fire. A second form, yellow gold is conjoined with a liquid substance inhibiting production of a color different from yellow, because despite being conjoined with fire day and night it is not the locus of a color different from yellow, like yellow cloth situated in water for a long time while conjoined with fire. Intense conjunction with fire cannot be called irrelevant. In the absence of relation to an opposed liquid substance, intense conjunction with fire produces heterogeneous change of color in an earthy substance. The inhibiting liquid substance related to gold is not water, because water is a locus of natural fluidity, nor is its fluidity non-manifest, because non-manifest fluidity cannot inhibit burning, whereas the fluidity of gold is adventitious. If only being molten in earthy is regarded as the inhibitor of heterogeneous change of color, the same inhibition would have to be accepted in ghee and the like, and change of color would arise in gold. A supporting element can join with fire, if earthy, cannot itself inhibit heterogeneous change of color. Fire distinct from gold is neither the locus of adventitious fluidity nor an inhibitor of heterogeneous change of color, it is precisely what produces change of color. Gold, being a perceptible substance, possesses color, being different from earth and water, it is fiery. From this subject establishing proof, in molten fire, that is, liquefied gold, the property of inhibiting change of color is established. Therefore, even when conjoined with the intense heat of fire, the fluidity of the yellow part of gold is not destroyed, because the fiery fluidity of gold inhibits its destroyer, as does the fluidity of geese situated in water conjoined with fire. View of Udaena Karii, molten fire inhibits change of color. Objection, if molten fire inhibits heterogeneous change of color, the color of cloth and the like situated in molten gold would also not change, just as that of cloth in water does not. Reply, in this world molten fire inhibits heterogeneous change of color only when the yellow substance is experienced as gold and when a supporting cause of fiery heat is present in partless molten gold, not elsewhere. Positive and negative concomitance is found only in this specific form. Therefore an inhibiting supporting nature should be accepted only in gold as established by experience. Or can it be said, let gold alone be accepted as the inhibitor, why imagine separate molten fire? Subject establishing proof establishes molten fire, when a general supporting factor is present, as inhibiting heterogeneous change of color, hence the inhibitory nature is established in the form of molten fire. The argument if molten fire were an inhibitor, it would also prevent change in the color of cloth and the like is based on an unestablished locus, the contrary reasoning is established. No subject establishing or other proof establishes and inhibiting supporting nature in experienced solid gold. Therefore the causal status of conjunction with fire and producing change of color, established by positive and negative concomitance when there is no relation to an opposed liquid earthy substance, is not defeated. This is Udayna Karya's view. Modern view, gold is not water. Neacose, molten gold, the locus of perceptible fluidity undestroyed even by conjunction with intense fire, is fiery, because while possessing color it differs from water and earth, like fire. There is no unestablished reason here, because gold's possession of color is established from its being the locus of perceptible fluidity. Gold is not water, because it is not the locus of natural fluidity, like lack, it is the locus of adventitious fluidity and lack's viscosity. If viscosity were accepted in gold, gold would have to be an aggregate of substances dependent on viscosity and fluidity. Nor is gold earthy, because its fluidity is not destroyed even by conjunction with intense fire, like that of water atoms. The qualification in the absence of relation to an opposed liquid substance should be included in the definition, so there is no overextension to gees situated in boiling water. The qualification is not purposeless, because Earth fluidity hood is what causes destruction of fluidity in earthy substances such as lack and geethru intense conjunction with fire. In the absence of a defeater, it is improper to abandon the causal relevance of a recurrent property. The non-recurrent fluidity of gees is not the cause, neither general fluidity nor adventitious fluidity is the cause, otherwise the fluidity of gold too would be destroyed. Objection, non-earthy natural fluidity present in oil, water, and the like is also destroyed by intense conjunction with fire, therefore, on the analogy of grass, fire sticks, and gems, some recurrent property must destroy fluidity. Reply, through economy, earth fluidityhood, water fluidityhood, and other fluidityhood produced by taste and the like respectively destroy earthy fluidity, watery fluidity, and commonly produced fluidity. For this reason the counter-inference, the disputed gold is earthy because, like Guy, it is the locus of adventitious fluidity is weak. There is no favorable reasoning for it, rather there is contrary reasoning that, if it were earthy, its fluidity would be destroyed by intense conjunction with fire in the absence of relation to an opposed liquid. Fire has no natural fluidity. Objection. Earthhood is the delimiter of the adhering causal status of adventitious fluidity. No property's delimitorship should be abandoned without a defeater. Reply, then all earthy substances such as pots would become locky of adventitious fluidity. Nor is it possible to accept any subordinate property of earthhood as one recurrent delimitor of the inhering causal status of adventitious fluidity in G, Lac, and the like. If a subordinate property delimited by earthhood is accepted in both horizontally moving earth and upward flaming earth, it is absent in pots and the like. If a special subordinate property of Earthhood is accepted, it must also be present in lack and other things distinct from ghee. Therefore no such recurrent delimiter is established. A further objection, in earthy gold, the locus of yellowness and heaviness, being the locus of fluidity undestroyed by intense fiery heat even without supporting conjunction with fire is a deviant reason, because there is the experience, yellow gold is molten. Reply, yellow gold has no natural fluidity. earthy fluidity is destroyed by intense conjunction with fire, the cognition yellow gold is molten is a defeated illusion. Nor should one ask why yellow gold is not then seen merely as hard. Like the parts of ink, honey, and the like in water, the parts of gold, through relation to a liquid substance, are loci of loose in conjunction, the parts of gold themselves do not possess fluidity. There is no contradiction with the example of ghee and the like, whose parts can possess fluidity. Another view, fluidity is produced in gold. Other Neayakase, in the presence of support in the form of fiery heat, fluidity is certainly produced in fiery substances such as gold, the experience of fluidity cannot readily be denied. Fluidity is not destroyed in gold because the molten fiery substance itself is an inhibitor of the destroyer of fluidity. Molten fire is not unsupported. Affirmative inference, yellow gold, the locus of fluidity, is conjoined with a liquid substance inhibiting destruction of fluidity, because it is an earthy locus of fluidity whose fluidity is not destroyed even by intense conjunction with fire, like geese situated in boiling water. Destruction and non-destruction of earthy fluidity depend upon relation or non-relation to an opposed liquid substance along with intense conjunction with fire, therefore the inference is not purposeless. Negative inference, the disputed gold, a locus of fluidity about which fiery or earthy nature is in doubt while it possesses color and differs from water, is fiery, because it is the locus of non-eternal fluidity not destroyed even by intense conjunction with fire in the absence of relation to an opposed liquid substance, whatever is not so is not fiery, like water and ghee. Uncommonness is not a fault, because an uncommon reason produces doubt only in the absence of a special observation. Just as a reason excluded from a negative instance possessing absence of the pro-bandom establishes the probandom, so a reason excluded from a subject possessing the probandom establishes absence of the probandom. Uncommonness yields inconclusiveness by generating an equally strong counter reason only when special observation is absent. Here a negative reason accompanied by favorable reasoning and special observation establishes the probandom. The statement sound is non-eternal because it is sound may likewise possess a valid reason when a special observation is present, only this much is intended here. The counter position that establishes gold as earthy is not equally strong. It has no favorable reasoning but contrary reasoning, if molten gold were earthy, its fluidity would be destroyed by intense conjunction with fire, like oil, in the absence of relation to an opposed liquid. Conversely, the reason establishing gold as fiery has favorable reasoning, if molten gold, which possesses color and differs from water, were not fiery but earthy, it would be the locus of destruction of fluidity through intense conjunction with fire. There is also no contrary reasoning. Hence the inference establishing fiery nature is stronger. Final Establishment of the Fiery Nature of Gold Other teachers establish fiery nature thus, fiery nature does not occur only in colored non-fluid substances, because it is a universal directly pervaded by fluidity occurring in colored substances, like earthhood. Or, fiery nature occurs in molten gold, because it is a universal directly pervaded by substancehood occurring in colored substances, like waterhood. Occurrence in a locus of fluidity is not an extraneous condition. First molten fire is established by the inference, possession of fluidity is the counter-positive of an absolute absence co-located with fluidity, because it is a property pervaded by substancehood occurring in non-fluid substances. Then, through a commonly observed inference based on the absence of non-pervasion of the probandom, fluidity is established in fire. Finally, the fiery nature of gold is established by the inference, the disputed molten gold is fiery, because it is the locus of eternal fluidity undestroyed even by intense conjunction with fire, Whatever is not so is not fiery, like water. Removal of the extraneous condition. Objection, occurrence in fire in general, is an extraneous condition in the first inference. Nor can fiery nature be called what is outside the subject, because the fiery nature of lamps and the light would have to be excluded from the subject. Reply, molten fiery nature in disputed gold is established by a stronger reason defeating the negative instance, therefore the stated extraneous condition does not pervade the pro-bandom. Many inferences establishing both earthenness and fireiness in gold are possible, but because reasoning defeats earthhood as a counter-instance, the inference establishing fiery nature is stronger. The reason is not unestablished. Objection, gold is cognized successively as molten, more molten, and so forth, therefore, when gold is destroyed by the intense heat of fire, its fluidity too is destroyed, and the reason, fluidity undistroyed by conjunction with fire, is unestablished. Nor may it be said that after earlier fluidity is destroyed later fluidity arises, and therefore destruction of fluidity co-located with prior absence does not occur in gold, even if later fluidity were not produced after the former gold substrate was destroyed, destruction of the earlier fluidity would still be possible, as in G. Reply, the fluidity of gold can be destroyed by destruction of its substrate, but not by conjunction with fire. If conjunction with fire itself destroyed fluidity, later fluidity would not arise, as in Ghee, because the fire conjunction that destroys fluidity would inhibit new fluidity. Thus the meaning of the reason is being the locus of fluidity whose counter-positive destruction produced by fire conjunction is absent even while fire conjunction is present. Alternatively, at the time fluidity is destroyed in Ghee, the totality of causes of fluidity co-located with fire is absent, while in gold it is present. Thus the meaning of the reason is being the locus of fluidity possessing a subordinate universal of a distinct fluidity, produced by causal conditions of fluidity co-located with fire and absent from the counter positive of destruction of fluidity produced by fire conjunction. In this way the reason is not unestablished. Negative and affirmative negative inferences. Alternatively, after the first fluidity in an atom of D is destroyed by conjunction with fire, a second fluidity does not arise, because fluidity is absent in the ash of D produced by fire conjunction. Similarly, if fluidity of gold atoms were destroyed by fire conjunction, gold produced from those atoms would be non-fluid. Hence the negative inference, the atoms that originate gold are not earthy, because they are loci of fluidity undestroyed even by intense conjunction with fire, like water atoms. Therefore they are fiery, whatever atoms are not so are not fiery, like atoms of ghee. Affirmative negative inference, gold produced from non-earth-y or fiery atoms is non-earth-y or fiery, because it is produced from atoms that are loci of fluidity undestroyed even by intense conjunction with fire. By this inference the fiery nature of gold is established. Partial view gold is a distinct substance different from earth, water, and fire. A partial theorist says, gold, the locus of fluidity, is not fiery, because it is yellow. The reason is not unestablished, because the cognition yellow gold is molten establishes fluidity in gold. Nor is cognition of yellow color illusory merely because one might thereby have to regard gold as earthy. Even if white color were accepted, there would be no obstacle to golds being non-earthy, Similarly, even with yellow color, non-earthiness is possible. Just as earthhood is not an indispensable cause of adventitious fluidity, invariability with smell is not an indispensable cause of yellowness. The Neayaka inference, gold, while possessing yellow color and differing from earth and water, is fiery, is inconclusive. Otherwise one would also have to accept air, while possessing touch and differing from water and fire, is earthy. It cannot be replied that air has no color, fluidity, or smell and therefore is not earthy. If these qualities are taken as non-manifest, the pervasion earth is the locus of at least one among manifest color, taste, and smell is defeated. Yet many pervasions on the fiery side are also defeated in gold. Non-fluid fire is perceptible, in perceptible fire either manifest color or manifest touch is necessarily present, and fire illuminates both itself and other things, do not apply light a gold. The Neayaka himself accepts that a substance which is the locus of adventitious fluidity is not necessarily earthy. Therefore yellow gold, as the locus of adventitious fluidity, differs not only from water and earth but from all three, earth, water, and fire, and is an independent additional substance. This is the partial view. Conclusion of the theory of the causes of perception. This sends the theory of the causes of perception and the perception section of the Tattvasint Mai composed by Sri Gangesapadhyaya. The theory of the Atomicity of Mind. Mind as the sixth sense organ. Perceptual cognition of the self-special qualities, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, effort, and the like, is not produced by the five external sense organs. Nevertheless, such cognition is a produced perception. Therefore, a separate sixth sense organ must be accepted. This organ is the mind. Pleasure and the like are not objects of the external senses such as touch, so the unwanted consequence of treating the tactile sense as their cause does not arise. Thus the status of mind as the sixth sense organ is established. Msaka view mind is all-pervasive. The Msaka says, mind is an eternal, partless, touchless substance distinct from earth and the other substances. It is the locus of conjunction between self and mind, which serves as a non-inhering cause of cognition, and is an eternal sense-organ. Since, though eternal, it does not originate another substance, it is all pervasive like the self. Magnitude is not an extraneous condition of this inference, because it is pervaded only in the instrument. Objection concerning subordinate universals in pleasure and the like. Objection, pleasure and the like are non-eternal special qualities occurring in the eternal self, conjunction of the five mobile elemental substances is their non-inhering cause. Therefore a subordinate universal of qualityhood should be accepted in pleasure and the light, as in cooked colour. Reply, on the BHA view sound is a substance. Not occurring in the self, not being produced by a sense organ that apprehends special qualities other than sound, and, qualityhood occurring in the five corporeal substances, all become extraneous conditions and obstruct the inference. Pleasure and the light may also be accepted as produced by conjunction of the body and self as a cause. Atomicity of mind is not required for spatial restriction. The Nayaika objects, spatial restriction of the effect of an all-pervasive cause would depend upon conjunction of self and mind as the non-inherent cause. If mind were all-pervasive, pleasure and the light would arise in every self, therefore mind must be atomic. The Mensaka replies that, spatial restriction can have three meanings, the non-inherent causes produces its effect in the place delimited by itself, it produces it definitely there, or it produces it only there. On the first meaning, a regulator of production throughout all places is absent. On the second, conjunction with an atomic mind would produce the effect both in the place delimited by it and elsewhere. On the third, pleasure would arise only in the atomic location. Therefore, the doctrine of an all-pervasive mind is not defeated. The non-inhering cause depends upon an efficient cause. The Neayaka says, Pleasures occurrence in a greater or smaller region depends upon efficient causes such as sandalwood, just as spatial occurrence of sound depends upon conjunction with air. Conjunction with mine does not cause this spatial division. The Masaka replies, In our doctrine of an all-pervasive mine too, efficient causes such as sandalwood establish this regulation. There is no rule that an all-pervasive non-inhering cause must produce its effect everywhere, delimitation by the complete causal complex including an efficient cause is required. Simultaneous production of many pleasures and pains in oneself. Memsaka Prima face e view, when distinct efficient causes such as sandalwood, fire, and wounds are present in different parts of the body, many particular states of pleasure and pain can arise simultaneously in oneself. mind is all-pervasive, there is no contradiction in this production, difference of efficient causes determines difference of place in the effects. Conclusion of the Prima-Facey View. Thus mind is an all-pervasive, eternal, partless, touchless substance. Its status as a sense-organ is established from its production of perception of special qualities. The mere fact that many cognitions do not arise at one time is not proof that mind is atomic, because desire, purpose, concentration, merit and demerit, and particular efficient causes may regulate the sequence of cognitions. Possibility of many cognitions at one time. The memsaka says, although many sense organs are related to their different objects, tension, or desire to know makes one cognition predominant. Yet on some occasions many cognitions simultaneously occur as established by direct experience, for example, eating while watching a dance, hearing a song, and apprehending fragrance. Therefore impossibility of simultaneous cognition is not decisive proof of the atomicity of mind.

← Transcript index