MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

bhamati_cartoon_film.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 (0.998281)
Duration: 17:24
Source: Open preserved recording

Timestamped machine output

0:07–0:13Setting a debating hall, a servant carries in a lamp at dusk and in the failing light,
0:13–0:17sets down beside the door a coil of rope and an arms length from it,
0:17–0:22a small conch shell washed white by years of handling, props for an argument,
0:22–0:25not yet noticed by the assembly.
0:25–0:27Satradhara enters.
0:27–0:31Every debate needs a mistake to start from, and this one has two,
0:31–0:36lying by the doorway you can see them if you look a rope and a shell.
0:36–0:42In bad light, a man once mistook the rope for a snake and leapt back with his heart pounding,
0:42–0:48though no snake was ever there. Another, reaching for a coin, mistook a shell for a piece of silver,
0:48–0:54and his hand closed with pleasure on nothing. Every school in this hall agrees the man was wrong.
0:54–0:59What they cannot agree on is what happened when he was wrong where, if anywhere,
0:59–1:05the silver was while he was seeing it. Vekarspati Mishra spent a Lifetime's commentary on this
1:05–1:11single hinge because he saw that the answer to what is a mistake and the answer to what
1:11–1:17is the world turn out on inspection to be the same question asked twice. Watch the
1:17–1:22shell, it will not leave the stage until the debate is finished with it.
1:22–1:26Act 1 The voice that says aye, Vakar spati is seated.
1:26–1:29The object to enters and bows.
1:29–1:34Before you come in Braumann to us is something worth inquiring into. Akaria answer
1:34–1:38a plainer difficulty. Inquiry exists for what is doubtful or for what is useful to no one's
1:38–1:42doubt is settled, but no one doubts his own existence. The child, the sage, the beast in the
1:42–1:46field, every creature that has ever drawn breath knows itself as I, instantly, without proof,
1:46–1:50without a moment's hesitation. If the self is already the best known thing in the world,
1:50–1:54on what possible ground do you propose to inquire into it, as though it were hidden?
1:54–1:59You have stated the objection better than most who bring it, and I will not blunt its edge.
1:59–2:05It is true. No one doubts a my or a my not. But notice what you have proven and what you have not.
2:05–2:09You have proven that something answering to I is known beyond doubt. You have not proven that we
2:09–2:14know what that something is. A man may be certain a face is looking back at him in a dark room and
2:14–2:19be entirely wrong about whose face it is. Certainty of existence and knowledge of nature
2:19–2:23are two different achievements and the entire quarrel of this act lies in the gap between
2:23–2:29them. Then show me the gap. What, in the plain experience of I could possibly be mistaken?
2:29–2:33Consider what the word eye is made to carry in ordinary speech. I am thin, I am going,
2:33–2:39I am blind. Each ties thy to the body, if the body itself were the referent of eye,
2:39–2:44a man who knew his boyhood body and his aged body. Two bodies sharing not one hair,
2:44–2:49not one tooth, not one grain of skin in common across sixty years, could never say,
2:49–2:55with the confidence he does say it, I, who played in my father's lap, now hold my grandson
2:55–3:00in mind. Nothing continuous links those two bodies, except the eye that claims them both,
3:00–3:05and a thing that persists through what changes, can not itself be the changing thing.
3:05–3:08No more than the thread running through a garland is one of the flowers strung upon it.
3:08–3:12A dreamer then might answer you that I have dreamed I wore a king's body,
3:12–3:15jeweled and tall and woken to find this same short ordinary frame.
3:15–3:19If the dream self is a different self from the waking one, your thread has already snapped.
3:19–3:23On the contrary, you have handed me my own example before I could reach for it.
3:23–3:29The dreamer wakes and says, I am not a king. I am a man, the kingly body is what gets cancelled by
3:29–3:34waking, while the sense of I that owned both the dream and the waking equally is cancelled by nothing
3:34–3:39at all. A man who by yogic power takes on a tiger's form does not. In that form, cease to
3:39–3:44experience himself as the same one who was a man a moment before. Body after body is put on
3:44–3:49and shed like a traveler's changing coats. The traveler is not thereby proven to be
3:49–3:53one of the coats. Then let the senses be the substratum of I, if not the body for surely
3:53–3:57the eye that saw is not the hand that now touches. And yet I say, without a flicker of
3:57–4:03doubt, what I saw, I now touch, one abridging two different instruments, exactly as one
4:03–4:08abridged two different bodies a moment ago. The senses are instruments of the knower,
4:08–4:12they cannot also be the knower they serve, any more than the axe can be the woodsman
4:12–4:15who swings it. Grant all this, I still do not see what
4:15–4:20remains to be inquired into. You have only relocated I from body to something behind
4:20–4:23the body, call it consciousness, and be done.
4:23–4:28Here is the second half of your original objection. And it is the sharper half. You are right
4:28–4:33that it existed, and I saved it for its proper place. Inquiry is pointless where knowledge
4:33–4:38serves no purpose, but consider the experience of I that every creature has as an experience
4:38–4:43of a limited thing. I am in this room. I am small. I suffer this grief and not
4:43–4:50that one. The scriptures which speak of the self, a secure Trudy, a Samriti, the old epics,
4:50–4:55describes something that shares none of those limits, infinite, undivided, a single and
4:55–5:00broken mass of consciousness and bliss. Either the everyday I and the self of the scriptures
5:00–5:04are the same reality wrongly seen, where there are simply two different things and
5:04–5:09the scriptures are lying. If they are the same reality wrongly seen, then everything
5:09–5:14turns on the single word wrongly, and until we understand what wrongness itself is, we
5:14–5:18cannot know whether scripture or everyday experience has the truer claim on us.
5:18–5:20That is not a settled question.
5:20–5:22That is the whole of what remains to inquire into.
5:22–5:26Then the entire edifice you are building rests on knowing what an error is.
5:26–5:31It does, which is why I will not move one step further toward Brahman until that question
5:31–5:35has been fought to its floor, here, in this hall, by every school willing to defend
5:35–5:37an account of it.
5:37–5:41your strongest opponents by what rather lose this argument honestly than win it by leaving
5:41–5:43the hardest part for later.
5:43–5:44Act 2.
5:44–5:46The Shell in the Half Light.
5:46–5:48The lamp by the door is trimmed brighter.
5:48–5:53The Shell, still lying where the servant set it, is now visible to the Hall.
5:53–5:56The Naeik allegation rises.
5:56–5:59Since you have thrown the floor open, Akaria, let me close it quickly.
5:59–6:02A man sees that Shell in poor light and cries silver.
6:02–6:05What has happened is not mysterious.
6:05–6:10is a real thing existing somewhere in the world. An emergence shop in a coin in his own memory
6:10–6:13and his cognition has simply misapplied that real silver to this location,
6:13–6:17mistaking one existing thing for another existing thing standing in its place.
6:17–6:23Nothing indefinable is required. Error is simply any athakayati, a real object, wrongly placed.
6:23–6:28A tidy answer, logician, and I will treat it exactly as tidally as it deserves.
6:28–6:33Tell me first, on your account, does his cognition apprehend the shell at all?
6:33–6:37Only confusingly its thisness is grasped, but its shell nature is missed,
6:37–6:39owing to some defect in the eye or the light.
6:39–6:44And the silver he sees so vividly, where, at that moment, does it actually exist?
6:44–6:49In the market, elsewhere, real as ever, his cognition merely reaches across distance and
6:49–6:51and misapplies it here through the defect.
7:19–7:24vain seed does not. Missing its proper power, sprout a banana stalk instead, yet you ask
7:24–7:29me to believe that a defective eye, blocked from its proper task of showing a man a shell,
7:29–7:33somehow acquires the entirely different power of hauling real silver across a city and
7:33–7:38setting it down in his palm. That is not a small defect, that is a miracle wearing
7:38–7:41the modest clothing of an error. Then say only that the form of remembered
7:41–7:45silver arises and is misapplied here, not the silver itself traveling bodily.
7:45–7:50Then you have already abandoned one real thing cognized as another, which was your whole
7:50–7:54doctrine and slid halfway into my own house without paying rent.
7:54–7:58If it is a mere form arising from memory and misapplied, tell me plainly.
7:58–8:00Is that form silver or is it not?
8:00–8:05If it is truly silver, my earlier question returns in full force.
8:05–8:10Silver cannot intelligibly be here, an object which is not silver, without the very contradiction
8:10–8:11you set out to avoid.
8:11–8:16If it is not truly silver, then you have quietly granted me everything, for that is exactly
8:16–8:23what I mean by any Avakinia, indefinable, neither simply real nor simply unreal, and you have
8:23–8:28arrived at my conclusion by the scenic route, complaining about the view the entire way.
8:28–8:32The assembly, a low ripple of laughter, quickly suppressed.
8:32–8:36I have answered this objection at length elsewhere in the Nyaknika and will not rehearse the
8:36–8:39whole of it standing here in the evening cold.
8:39–8:44need you, you have conceded the essential point, and a debater who yields the centre
8:44–8:48of a citadel need not also surrender the outer wall before witnesses.
8:48–8:53Sit, friend, you have argued honestly, which is worth more in this hall than winning.
8:53–8:54Act 3.
8:54–8:56The Vanishing Difference.
8:56–8:57The Prabhikara M.I.
8:57–8:58Macron M.A.
8:58–9:00Macron letter 1 E43 S.A.
9:00–9:01K.A.
9:01–9:02Steps Forward.
9:02–9:05More cautious than the logician who preceded him.
9:05–9:09I watched my colleague Silver dragged across the city, and I will not repeat his error.
9:09–9:16I posit nothing so extravagant, what actually occurs when the shell is mistaken.
9:16–9:18Is this two cognitions arise together?
9:18–9:25A bare perception of this, here and now, and a memory of Silver, seen long ago, awakened
9:25–9:29by the shell's faint gleam, the defect lies only in this the man fails to notice that
9:29–9:33one of these is a present perception, and the other a mere memory.
9:33–9:38He runs the two together, unmarked, and speaks as though he perceived one single thing.
9:38–9:44There is no third indefinable entity anywhere in this story, only ordinary perception, ordinary
9:44–9:48memory, and an ordinary failure to keep them apart.
9:48–9:53Call it achy-arty not a false cognition at all, only a missing cognition—the missing
9:53–9:55awareness of a distinction.
9:55–10:00A far more careful doctrine than the last, and I will grant at the complement of a hard
10:00–10:02question rather than a quick one.
10:02–10:07Tell me, on your account is the perception this, bear, present, immediate, in any way
10:07–10:08false?
10:08–10:09Not in the least.
10:09–10:12It is simple and entire accurate.
10:12–10:13Sufferce it, beause.
10:13–10:17And the memory of silver is it in itself, false?
10:17–10:19No more than any memory is false.
10:19–10:22It correctly recalls silver once seen.
10:22–10:26The fault lies only in a blending, never in either ingredient.
10:26–10:31Then hear the difficulty this creates for you, and it is fatal, not merely inconvenient.
10:31–10:37The whole world, without exception, describes this experience in a single sentence.
10:37–10:43This is silver, not this, and, separately, I recall silver, a plain, unified, first-person
10:43–10:48claim of identity, spoken with exactly the same confident grammar as this is a pot.
10:48–10:53If what truly occurred were too accurate cognitions standing innocently side by side,
10:53–10:58merely unlabeled, whence comes the positive, mistaken assertion of oneness between them.
10:58–11:03true things standing near each other? Even if their nearness goes unnoticed, do not thereby
11:03–11:08generate a false claim that they are identical. You have accounted for a failure to distinguish,
11:08–11:13you have not accounted for the man's eager reach toward the ground to pick the silver up,
11:13–11:17missing a difference is a kind of blindness. Reaching for a coin that is not there is
11:17–11:22a kind of belief, and your doctrine, for all its carefulness, gives me the blindness and
11:22–11:27quietly loses the belief along the way. The blending itself might be called the error,
11:27–11:31without positing any third entity beyond the two cognitions blended.
11:31–11:37Then the blending is either itself a cognition. In which case, of what object? If not of some
11:37–11:42thing answering to silver here, which is precisely the indefinable object I am arguing for and you
11:42–11:47are trying to argue around, where the blending is not a cognition at all. In which case it
11:47–11:52cannot explain a man's hand moving eagerly toward the ground, for hands do not move at the
11:52–11:57prompting of what is not known. You have built a very fine wall around the shell, friend,
11:57–12:03and left the door open on both sides. Act 4 Neither real nor unreal.
12:03–12:09Vekas Bharti rises and comes down from the teacher's seat, level with the assembly.
12:09–12:14Two schools have tried, honestly, to explain the shell without paying the price I ask,
12:14–12:18and both have quietly paid it after all. In smaller coin, let me now say plainly
12:18–12:22what I think happened when that man reached for silver that was not there, and let the
12:22–12:28haul test it as harshly as it tested the rest. The silver he saw was not real, for if it were,
12:28–12:33his cognition would rightly take the form shall or, at furthest reach, silver, back
12:33–12:38in the market, never silver here. No true thing can be. At one and the same time,
12:38–12:43itself and located where it demonstrably is not, nor was the silver simply unreal,
12:43–12:47nothing whatsoever, on the same footing as a hare's horn or the son of a barren
12:47–12:52woman, for the utterly non-existent never enters experience at all. No one, not once in the
12:52–12:57history of the world, has reached eagerly toward a hair as horn-believing he saw one gleaming on
12:57–13:01the ground. Whatever gleamed at him was something sufficient to move his hand.
13:01–13:06Then say it was both real and unreal at once and be done with the paradox honestly instead
13:06–13:11of inventing a third word to hide inside. I cannot. And here is why, stated as plainly
13:11–13:17as I can manage. Real and unreal are not two shades on a single scale that a thing might mix,
13:17–13:22like gray mixing black and white, their direct contradictory, exhaustive of the field between
13:22–13:28them to affirm one is already in the same breath. To deny the other, a single thing cannot be not
13:28–13:32once affirmed and denied under the very same respect without the sentence collapsing into
13:32–13:39noise. So the silver was neither wholly real nor wholly unreal nor a coherent mixture of both.
13:39–13:45It was any of Iconea indefinable in terms of that very distinction, appearing with all the
13:45–13:50the vividness of the real, resting on nothing that could sustain it as real, and vanishing
13:50–13:54the instant a steadier light corrected it. A pleasing formula for a coin that was never
13:54–13:58really missing from anyone's purse. But why should I trust it as a key to anything larger
13:58–14:03than a merchant's shelf? Because the very same three-part test applies,
14:03–14:06without needing to be altered by so much as a word, to the whole of the world you
14:06–14:11are standing in as you ask me that question. Consider the mirage. A traveller crossing
14:11–14:17hot sand sees water shimmering ahead. Not memory alone, for it is seen now, before him.
14:17–14:21Not simple truth. For a thirsty man who ran toward it and tried to drink what finds sand
14:21–14:27in his mouth and nothing else, the water is there. Doing exactly what the silver did.
14:27–14:32Vivid, located, ungraspable, indefiable, now extend the same reasoning one step
14:32–14:37further. And you reach the very argument this whole bouquet. This whole inquiry
14:37–14:41was built to carry you toward the body you call yours, the senses through which you argue
14:41–14:47with me, this hall, this lamp, this evening itself, all of it is new, arising and changing
14:47–14:52before our eyes. The way the mirage water was new the instant the light struck the
14:52–14:57sand just so, and all of it is superimposed, exactly as the mirage water and the shell
14:57–15:02silver were superimposed upon a substratum that does not itself change, the single,
15:02–15:08self that was present, unaltered, to the seeing of your boyhood body and the seeing of the body
15:08–15:13you wear tonight. The whole visible, tangible, arguable world stands to the self exactly as the
15:13–15:19silver stood to the shell, neither ultimately real, since a steadier vision dissolves it without a
15:19–15:25trace, nor simply unreal, since here we both are using it to argue. Then when the merchant
15:25–15:29corrects the fool at the market and the fool's eyes clear and the shell is merely a shell again,
15:29–15:33you are telling me that is a small ordinary rehearsal of the one correction, all of us sooner
15:33–15:39or later must undergo. That is exactly what I am telling you, the whole of this science,
15:39–15:43the whole of the Bammati, if you will let an old commentator name his own book and his own
15:43–15:48hall, is nothing more than the slow, patient trimming of the lamp, so that when we finally
15:48–15:53do look down at what we have been calling silver our whole lives, we see, without flinching and
15:53–16:00without loss. That it was a shell, and, being a shell and nothing more, was never in the first
16:00–16:06place a thing our happiness ever actually depended on. A long stillness. The prapaka and the neyeka
16:06–16:12exchange a glance but do not speak. Sathridhara returns and picks up the shell from beside the
16:12–16:18door, turning it once in the land plight before setting it down again. No one in this hall,
16:18–16:25tonight, argued that the man was right to reach for silver. The argument was only ever about where
16:25–16:31the silver was while he was wrong, and that argument, once you have followed it all the way to its end,
16:31–16:37turns out to have been asking the largest question philosophy knows how to ask, wearing the smallest
16:37–16:44possible disguise. Vaikarspati Mishra did not invent the shell. Every tradition represented in
16:44–16:51this hall inherited it from the same old example, worn smooth by centuries of hands turning it
16:51–16:57over exactly as I have just turned it over now. What he did was refuse to let anyone leave the
16:57–17:02hall until they had said plainly what they thought had happened in the half-second before the
17:02–17:09mistake was caught. If you go home tonight turning the same question over in your own hands,
17:09–17:13The play has done what the commentary that inspired it was written to do.
17:13–17:21Exhumed Omnis, the lamp is carried out last and the shell is left as it was found beside the door.

Plain text

Setting a debating hall, a servant carries in a lamp at dusk and in the failing light, sets down beside the door a coil of rope and an arms length from it, a small conch shell washed white by years of handling, props for an argument, not yet noticed by the assembly. Satradhara enters. Every debate needs a mistake to start from, and this one has two, lying by the doorway you can see them if you look a rope and a shell. In bad light, a man once mistook the rope for a snake and leapt back with his heart pounding, though no snake was ever there. Another, reaching for a coin, mistook a shell for a piece of silver, and his hand closed with pleasure on nothing. Every school in this hall agrees the man was wrong. What they cannot agree on is what happened when he was wrong where, if anywhere, the silver was while he was seeing it. Vekarspati Mishra spent a Lifetime's commentary on this single hinge because he saw that the answer to what is a mistake and the answer to what is the world turn out on inspection to be the same question asked twice. Watch the shell, it will not leave the stage until the debate is finished with it. Act 1 The voice that says aye, Vakar spati is seated. The object to enters and bows. Before you come in Braumann to us is something worth inquiring into. Akaria answer a plainer difficulty. Inquiry exists for what is doubtful or for what is useful to no one's doubt is settled, but no one doubts his own existence. The child, the sage, the beast in the field, every creature that has ever drawn breath knows itself as I, instantly, without proof, without a moment's hesitation. If the self is already the best known thing in the world, on what possible ground do you propose to inquire into it, as though it were hidden? You have stated the objection better than most who bring it, and I will not blunt its edge. It is true. No one doubts a my or a my not. But notice what you have proven and what you have not. You have proven that something answering to I is known beyond doubt. You have not proven that we know what that something is. A man may be certain a face is looking back at him in a dark room and be entirely wrong about whose face it is. Certainty of existence and knowledge of nature are two different achievements and the entire quarrel of this act lies in the gap between them. Then show me the gap. What, in the plain experience of I could possibly be mistaken? Consider what the word eye is made to carry in ordinary speech. I am thin, I am going, I am blind. Each ties thy to the body, if the body itself were the referent of eye, a man who knew his boyhood body and his aged body. Two bodies sharing not one hair, not one tooth, not one grain of skin in common across sixty years, could never say, with the confidence he does say it, I, who played in my father's lap, now hold my grandson in mind. Nothing continuous links those two bodies, except the eye that claims them both, and a thing that persists through what changes, can not itself be the changing thing. No more than the thread running through a garland is one of the flowers strung upon it. A dreamer then might answer you that I have dreamed I wore a king's body, jeweled and tall and woken to find this same short ordinary frame. If the dream self is a different self from the waking one, your thread has already snapped. On the contrary, you have handed me my own example before I could reach for it. The dreamer wakes and says, I am not a king. I am a man, the kingly body is what gets cancelled by waking, while the sense of I that owned both the dream and the waking equally is cancelled by nothing at all. A man who by yogic power takes on a tiger's form does not. In that form, cease to experience himself as the same one who was a man a moment before. Body after body is put on and shed like a traveler's changing coats. The traveler is not thereby proven to be one of the coats. Then let the senses be the substratum of I, if not the body for surely the eye that saw is not the hand that now touches. And yet I say, without a flicker of doubt, what I saw, I now touch, one abridging two different instruments, exactly as one abridged two different bodies a moment ago. The senses are instruments of the knower, they cannot also be the knower they serve, any more than the axe can be the woodsman who swings it. Grant all this, I still do not see what remains to be inquired into. You have only relocated I from body to something behind the body, call it consciousness, and be done. Here is the second half of your original objection. And it is the sharper half. You are right that it existed, and I saved it for its proper place. Inquiry is pointless where knowledge serves no purpose, but consider the experience of I that every creature has as an experience of a limited thing. I am in this room. I am small. I suffer this grief and not that one. The scriptures which speak of the self, a secure Trudy, a Samriti, the old epics, describes something that shares none of those limits, infinite, undivided, a single and broken mass of consciousness and bliss. Either the everyday I and the self of the scriptures are the same reality wrongly seen, where there are simply two different things and the scriptures are lying. If they are the same reality wrongly seen, then everything turns on the single word wrongly, and until we understand what wrongness itself is, we cannot know whether scripture or everyday experience has the truer claim on us. That is not a settled question. That is the whole of what remains to inquire into. Then the entire edifice you are building rests on knowing what an error is. It does, which is why I will not move one step further toward Brahman until that question has been fought to its floor, here, in this hall, by every school willing to defend an account of it. your strongest opponents by what rather lose this argument honestly than win it by leaving the hardest part for later. Act 2. The Shell in the Half Light. The lamp by the door is trimmed brighter. The Shell, still lying where the servant set it, is now visible to the Hall. The Naeik allegation rises. Since you have thrown the floor open, Akaria, let me close it quickly. A man sees that Shell in poor light and cries silver. What has happened is not mysterious. is a real thing existing somewhere in the world. An emergence shop in a coin in his own memory and his cognition has simply misapplied that real silver to this location, mistaking one existing thing for another existing thing standing in its place. Nothing indefinable is required. Error is simply any athakayati, a real object, wrongly placed. A tidy answer, logician, and I will treat it exactly as tidally as it deserves. Tell me first, on your account, does his cognition apprehend the shell at all? Only confusingly its thisness is grasped, but its shell nature is missed, owing to some defect in the eye or the light. And the silver he sees so vividly, where, at that moment, does it actually exist? In the market, elsewhere, real as ever, his cognition merely reaches across distance and and misapplies it here through the defect. vain seed does not. Missing its proper power, sprout a banana stalk instead, yet you ask me to believe that a defective eye, blocked from its proper task of showing a man a shell, somehow acquires the entirely different power of hauling real silver across a city and setting it down in his palm. That is not a small defect, that is a miracle wearing the modest clothing of an error. Then say only that the form of remembered silver arises and is misapplied here, not the silver itself traveling bodily. Then you have already abandoned one real thing cognized as another, which was your whole doctrine and slid halfway into my own house without paying rent. If it is a mere form arising from memory and misapplied, tell me plainly. Is that form silver or is it not? If it is truly silver, my earlier question returns in full force. Silver cannot intelligibly be here, an object which is not silver, without the very contradiction you set out to avoid. If it is not truly silver, then you have quietly granted me everything, for that is exactly what I mean by any Avakinia, indefinable, neither simply real nor simply unreal, and you have arrived at my conclusion by the scenic route, complaining about the view the entire way. The assembly, a low ripple of laughter, quickly suppressed. I have answered this objection at length elsewhere in the Nyaknika and will not rehearse the whole of it standing here in the evening cold. need you, you have conceded the essential point, and a debater who yields the centre of a citadel need not also surrender the outer wall before witnesses. Sit, friend, you have argued honestly, which is worth more in this hall than winning. Act 3. The Vanishing Difference. The Prabhikara M.I. Macron M.A. Macron letter 1 E43 S.A. K.A. Steps Forward. More cautious than the logician who preceded him. I watched my colleague Silver dragged across the city, and I will not repeat his error. I posit nothing so extravagant, what actually occurs when the shell is mistaken. Is this two cognitions arise together? A bare perception of this, here and now, and a memory of Silver, seen long ago, awakened by the shell's faint gleam, the defect lies only in this the man fails to notice that one of these is a present perception, and the other a mere memory. He runs the two together, unmarked, and speaks as though he perceived one single thing. There is no third indefinable entity anywhere in this story, only ordinary perception, ordinary memory, and an ordinary failure to keep them apart. Call it achy-arty not a false cognition at all, only a missing cognition—the missing awareness of a distinction. A far more careful doctrine than the last, and I will grant at the complement of a hard question rather than a quick one. Tell me, on your account is the perception this, bear, present, immediate, in any way false? Not in the least. It is simple and entire accurate. Sufferce it, beause. And the memory of silver is it in itself, false? No more than any memory is false. It correctly recalls silver once seen. The fault lies only in a blending, never in either ingredient. Then hear the difficulty this creates for you, and it is fatal, not merely inconvenient. The whole world, without exception, describes this experience in a single sentence. This is silver, not this, and, separately, I recall silver, a plain, unified, first-person claim of identity, spoken with exactly the same confident grammar as this is a pot. If what truly occurred were too accurate cognitions standing innocently side by side, merely unlabeled, whence comes the positive, mistaken assertion of oneness between them. true things standing near each other? Even if their nearness goes unnoticed, do not thereby generate a false claim that they are identical. You have accounted for a failure to distinguish, you have not accounted for the man's eager reach toward the ground to pick the silver up, missing a difference is a kind of blindness. Reaching for a coin that is not there is a kind of belief, and your doctrine, for all its carefulness, gives me the blindness and quietly loses the belief along the way. The blending itself might be called the error, without positing any third entity beyond the two cognitions blended. Then the blending is either itself a cognition. In which case, of what object? If not of some thing answering to silver here, which is precisely the indefinable object I am arguing for and you are trying to argue around, where the blending is not a cognition at all. In which case it cannot explain a man's hand moving eagerly toward the ground, for hands do not move at the prompting of what is not known. You have built a very fine wall around the shell, friend, and left the door open on both sides. Act 4 Neither real nor unreal. Vekas Bharti rises and comes down from the teacher's seat, level with the assembly. Two schools have tried, honestly, to explain the shell without paying the price I ask, and both have quietly paid it after all. In smaller coin, let me now say plainly what I think happened when that man reached for silver that was not there, and let the haul test it as harshly as it tested the rest. The silver he saw was not real, for if it were, his cognition would rightly take the form shall or, at furthest reach, silver, back in the market, never silver here. No true thing can be. At one and the same time, itself and located where it demonstrably is not, nor was the silver simply unreal, nothing whatsoever, on the same footing as a hare's horn or the son of a barren woman, for the utterly non-existent never enters experience at all. No one, not once in the history of the world, has reached eagerly toward a hair as horn-believing he saw one gleaming on the ground. Whatever gleamed at him was something sufficient to move his hand. Then say it was both real and unreal at once and be done with the paradox honestly instead of inventing a third word to hide inside. I cannot. And here is why, stated as plainly as I can manage. Real and unreal are not two shades on a single scale that a thing might mix, like gray mixing black and white, their direct contradictory, exhaustive of the field between them to affirm one is already in the same breath. To deny the other, a single thing cannot be not once affirmed and denied under the very same respect without the sentence collapsing into noise. So the silver was neither wholly real nor wholly unreal nor a coherent mixture of both. It was any of Iconea indefinable in terms of that very distinction, appearing with all the the vividness of the real, resting on nothing that could sustain it as real, and vanishing the instant a steadier light corrected it. A pleasing formula for a coin that was never really missing from anyone's purse. But why should I trust it as a key to anything larger than a merchant's shelf? Because the very same three-part test applies, without needing to be altered by so much as a word, to the whole of the world you are standing in as you ask me that question. Consider the mirage. A traveller crossing hot sand sees water shimmering ahead. Not memory alone, for it is seen now, before him. Not simple truth. For a thirsty man who ran toward it and tried to drink what finds sand in his mouth and nothing else, the water is there. Doing exactly what the silver did. Vivid, located, ungraspable, indefiable, now extend the same reasoning one step further. And you reach the very argument this whole bouquet. This whole inquiry was built to carry you toward the body you call yours, the senses through which you argue with me, this hall, this lamp, this evening itself, all of it is new, arising and changing before our eyes. The way the mirage water was new the instant the light struck the sand just so, and all of it is superimposed, exactly as the mirage water and the shell silver were superimposed upon a substratum that does not itself change, the single, self that was present, unaltered, to the seeing of your boyhood body and the seeing of the body you wear tonight. The whole visible, tangible, arguable world stands to the self exactly as the silver stood to the shell, neither ultimately real, since a steadier vision dissolves it without a trace, nor simply unreal, since here we both are using it to argue. Then when the merchant corrects the fool at the market and the fool's eyes clear and the shell is merely a shell again, you are telling me that is a small ordinary rehearsal of the one correction, all of us sooner or later must undergo. That is exactly what I am telling you, the whole of this science, the whole of the Bammati, if you will let an old commentator name his own book and his own hall, is nothing more than the slow, patient trimming of the lamp, so that when we finally do look down at what we have been calling silver our whole lives, we see, without flinching and without loss. That it was a shell, and, being a shell and nothing more, was never in the first place a thing our happiness ever actually depended on. A long stillness. The prapaka and the neyeka exchange a glance but do not speak. Sathridhara returns and picks up the shell from beside the door, turning it once in the land plight before setting it down again. No one in this hall, tonight, argued that the man was right to reach for silver. The argument was only ever about where the silver was while he was wrong, and that argument, once you have followed it all the way to its end, turns out to have been asking the largest question philosophy knows how to ask, wearing the smallest possible disguise. Vaikarspati Mishra did not invent the shell. Every tradition represented in this hall inherited it from the same old example, worn smooth by centuries of hands turning it over exactly as I have just turned it over now. What he did was refuse to let anyone leave the hall until they had said plainly what they thought had happened in the half-second before the mistake was caught. If you go home tonight turning the same question over in your own hands, The play has done what the commentary that inspired it was written to do. Exhumed Omnis, the lamp is carried out last and the shell is left as it was found beside the door.

← Transcript index