MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

Episode2_Part1_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 (0.988009)
Duration: 23:25
Source: Open preserved recording

Timestamped machine output

0:04–0:46तद्विसिंट 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, कव
0:46–0:51preservation, preservation, and destruction in the three forms of Brahma, Vayu, and Mahisa,
0:51–0:58who is the unfathomable ocean of compassion and the sole supreme refuge of the three worlds.
0:58–1:03The Preliminary Connections of the Tathasintmai
1:03–1:06Having learned the science of Nyaya from his teachers, understood the doctrine of the
1:06–1:11Prabhakara Mme with Mekhran Esi with Mekhran Masters, and with the Divine Eye of Reflection
1:11–1:16seen the entire essence of both traditions, Gangesa composes the Tathasintmai in measured
1:16–1:21words, teaching decisive conclusions on rules rendered exceedingly difficult by numerous
1:21–1:24defects.
1:24–1:27Justification of the title.
1:27–1:31The purpose of learned scholars polishing this wishfulfilling jewel of thought is to
1:31–1:37remove the darkness of ignorance belonging to powerful atheists such as the Buddhists.
1:37–1:41This is possible because no ingenuity of reasoning appears in the views of the opponents,
1:41–1:45while there is no poverty of expression in the statements establishing our own Naya
1:45–1:49conclusions.
1:49–1:56of the auspicious invocation. People in this world who desire the completion of an undertaking
1:56–2:01perform an auspicious invocation when beginning it. These are actions in which all traditional
2:01–2:09MMA with Macron essay with Macron scholars unanimously accept the attainment of a result.
2:09–2:14Objection, the causality of auspicious invocation is unproved.
2:14–2:18The Buddhists object that in such a case the causal status of auspicious invocation
2:18–2:22cannot be established by positive and negative concomitance, because a work such as the
2:22–2:26composition of a book by the inattentive Udayana is seen to reach completion without an invocation.
2:27–2:31Nor can an invocation performed in a previous birth be imagined, because mutual dependents
2:31–2:35would arise between establishing the causality of invocation and positing a previous birth
2:35–2:40invocation. Moreover, since causes already accepted on the basis of ordinary conduct and
2:40–2:44common practice are sufficient, positing an invocation in a previous birth is pointless.
2:46–2:49It may be said that the causality of auspicious invocation is established
2:49–2:54through inference by elimination. For example, auspicious invocation is productive of a result
2:54–2:58because it is the object of the unimpeached practice of cultivated persons, like the new,
2:58–3:03and full moon sacrifices. Once this inference establishes that invocation has a result,
3:03–3:08the desired completion of the undertaking comes to mind, because that completion is expected
3:08–3:13at the time of invocation. No result other than completion is appropriate, to accept another result
3:13–3:18by the maximum of the vis-vigid sacrifice would introduce needless complexity. Completion
3:18–3:22is therefore established as the result of invocation, and its causal status becomes certain.
3:23–3:29This reasoning is not sound. Deviation of auspicious invocation is seen in the undertakings
3:29–3:36of inattentive persons, therefore, its causal status is absent. What does not exist cannot be
3:36–3:45apprehended by a thousand devices. Revelation is the authority. Themsaka's nevertheless say
3:45–3:50that the Vedic revelation inferred from the regular practice of cultivated persons is
3:50–3:54the authority establishing that auspicious invocation causes the desired completion.
3:56–4:01The completion of the curable by the inattentive Udayana does not establish deviation of invocation.
4:02–4:07Once unobstructed revelation provides authoritative cognition that invocation is a means to
4:07–4:12completion, an invocation and a previous birth may be inferred from that very revelation
4:12–4:18is the mark in the case of an inattentive person's completed work. Such invocation is a subsidiary
4:18–4:23of the undertaking, because cultivated persons perform it before beginning a work while desiring
4:23–4:26its completion.
4:26–4:31Auspicious invocation is a means to completion because it has no other result and is regularly
4:31–4:35performed before an undertaking by persons who wish to begin a fruitful action, just
4:35–4:41as preliminary offerings are made in the new and full moon sacrifices.
4:41–4:46This invocation must be regarded as a subsidiary of the undertaking and as having completion
4:46–4:48for its result.
4:48–4:52Both tradition-established revelation and inference convey that one who desires completion
4:52–4:58should perform an invocation for completion and that completion alone is its result.
4:58–5:03Although the preliminary II is regularly performed at the beginning of the new and full moon
5:03–5:07sacrifices, it is not performed with a desire for the completion of those sacrifices, a
5:07–5:13separate result is stated for it, and it is therefore a principal act. The preliminary
5:13–5:18I.I. consequently does not show deviation in the causal relation between auspicious invocation
5:18–5:28and completion. Objection, auspicious invocation cannot be a subsidiary. On the basis of the
5:28–5:33carpenter aphorism, it is objected that auspicious invocation is a supersensible
5:33–5:39or Vedic act and therefore cannot be a subsidiary cause of the completion of a worldly undertaking.
5:39–5:44A worldly undertaking can be completed only by worldly means.
5:44–5:48In the examples when the supporting peg of a house or chariot breaks, an iron bolt should
5:48–5:52be fitted and a bruma should be fed food cooked in milk, fitting the bolt and feeding the
5:52–5:57bruma are not subsidiaries of the principal act but independent occasional acts performed
5:57–6:00when the relevant occasion arises.
6:00–6:04Similarly, auspicious invocation should be regarded as an independent occasional
6:04–6:08principal act performed at the beginning of an undertaking, and heaven should be
6:08–6:14taken as its result by the maximum of the vis-pudget sacrifice.
6:14–6:16This objection is not proper.
6:16–6:20The purport of the carpenter aphorism, a supersensible act is not a subsidiary of a worldly
6:20–6:25act, concerns only a subsidiary that generates a supersensible operation such as a puva.
6:25–6:30The operation produced by auspicious invocation is the absence of an inhibitor or the destruction
6:30–6:34of an obstacle, this is merely an auxiliary cause of the completion understood from worldly
6:34–6:35means.
6:35–6:40A worldly undertaking cannot be completed without the absence of obstruction.
6:40–6:44Invocation is therefore not like the preliminary offerings that generate an unseen potency.
6:44–6:48An atheist's undertaking that is naturally free from obstacles may be completed even
6:48–6:52without unseen merit produced by invocation.
6:52–6:57Nor should one say that because deviation is observed in the case of an atheist,
6:57–7:02invocation cannot be a subsidiary cause even through the destruction of obstacles.
7:02–7:08This invocation is a subsidiary cause of obstacle destruction only when an obstacle exists.
7:08–7:13Where there is no obstacle, no destroyer of it is required.
7:13–7:18In Vedic preliminary offerings, the subsidiary cause is unseen potency, here it is more economical
7:18–7:23to accept the destruction of obstacles, because although unseen merit is already recognized
7:23–7:28elsewhere, it is unnecessary in the present case.
7:28–7:33The operation is the absence of obstacles.
7:33–7:37In fact, the guided persons in fact regularly perform auspicious invocation both when they
7:37–7:41doubt an obstacle and when they are certain of one.
7:41–7:46The operation toward completion is therefore solely the absence of obstacles.
7:46–7:50If invocation is performed with the desire may the undertaking be completed without
7:50–7:57obstruction, revelation establishes the causal operation as the absence of obstacles.
7:57–8:01If the operation of invocation were taken to be a porva, its status as a subsidiary
8:01–8:06cause of a worldly undertaking would be contradicted.
8:06–8:10Completion can be established from already accepted causes such as the absence of obstacles,
8:10–8:15therefore, just as a broken supporting peg is repaired by inserting a bolt, it is unnecessary
8:15–8:18to posit a new apporva.
8:18–8:22An objection may arise, activity aimed at destroying an obstacle should occur only when
8:22–8:27the obstacle is certain, just as certainty of sin motivates expiation.
8:27–8:31How can one perform an invocation when an obstacle is merely suspected?
8:31–8:37Answer, general cognition of an obstacle causes the undertaking of invocation, because cultivated
8:37–8:41persons perform it both in doubt and certainty.
8:41–8:45The injunction inferred from their conduct identifies as qualified the person who desires
8:45–8:51completion of an undertaking begun and possesses general cognition of an obstacle.
8:51–8:56In expiation, only a person certainly possessing the fault is qualified because the injunction
8:56–9:01restricts eligibility to such a person. The concern that certainty of the obstacle
9:01–9:06qualifies the eligible person, so activity cannot occur under doubt, is therefore removed.
9:06–9:12Vedic activity normally follows certainty of eligibility, but here the person
9:12–9:16eligible for the principal act is also eligible for the subsidiary, to posit an
9:16–9:23independent eligibility for invocation would destroy its subsidiary status. The
9:23–9:28The desire for completion qualifies the eligible person.
9:28–9:33It is not correct to say that despite the desire to begin the principal action, the obstacle
9:33–9:36itself qualifies eligibility.
9:36–9:40Abstruction and qualifying status are opposed.
9:40–9:45The true qualification is the desire for completion of the undertaking begun, and the eligible
9:45–9:49person is certain of that desire.
9:49–9:54Some say that in other contexts the performer of an expiatory or similar act is a person
9:54–9:59with certain eligibility, whereas the performer of an auspicious invocation has only doubtful
9:59–10:03eligibility, because the Vedic sentence inferred from the practice of cultivated persons who
10:03–10:08doubt obstacles identify such a person as the agent.
10:08–10:11This view is unsound.
10:11–10:15Eligibility cannot be determined on the basis of actually possessing an obstacle, action
10:15–10:19often occurs even when the obstacle is not certain.
10:19–10:26A discerning person performs an invocation to remove even a suspected undesirable obstruction.
10:26–10:32Medicine is drunk to neutralize poison when snake bite poisoning is suspected.
10:32–10:36Cultivation is undertaken on the certainty that it is a means to a harvest despite doubt
10:36–10:38whether the crop will actually mature.
10:38–10:44Likewise, invocation is possible despite doubt concerning obstacles.
10:44–10:48If cultivation is undertaken on the reasoning that when rain and other conditions are
10:48–10:53present it necessarily produces a crop. Invocation is likewise undertaken on the reasoning that when
10:53–10:57an obstacle is present it necessarily brings the composition to completion.
10:59–11:05Removal of the conflict with the Sphylei Adhikara and justification of auspicious invocation.
11:07–11:12Objection, in the new and full moon sacrifices, when grains adhere to the wooden sword or
11:12–11:17ladle called Sphaya, an occasional sacrifice is performed. By a rule of transfer, invocation
11:17–11:22of the deity as a subsidiary is prescribed on the preceding day, but that indication is not
11:22–11:26prescribed when it is merely doubtful whether grains will adhere. This resembles the example
11:26–11:31in which pounding is not performed as a subsidiary upon a golden bin because no husk removal operation
11:31–11:36is possible. How, then, can auspicious indication be performed merely from doubt about an obstacle
11:36–11:39when the operation of destroying that obstacle is itself doubtful?
11:41–11:45Answer, in an occasional act, only a person who knows the occasion is eligible.
11:45–11:51When the potchard breaks, one should offer an ablation, qualifies a person who knows that it has broken.
11:51–11:59Likewise, in the new and full moon sacrifices, only one who knows that grains have adhered to the sphyate is eligible to invoke the deity.
11:59–12:06On the previous day there is no certainty of such adhesion, so it is proper not to perform the invocation then.
12:06–12:07a
12:07–12:08a
12:08–12:09a
12:09–12:10a
12:10–12:11a
12:11–12:12a
12:12–12:13a
12:13–12:14a
12:14–12:15a
12:15–12:16a
12:16–12:17a
12:17–12:18a
12:18–12:19a
12:19–12:20a
12:20–12:21a
12:21–12:22a
12:22–12:23a
12:23–12:24a
12:24–12:25a
12:25–12:26a
12:26–12:27a
12:27–12:28a
12:28–12:29a
12:29–12:30a
12:30–12:31a
12:31–12:32a
12:32–12:33a
12:33–12:34a
12:34–12:35a
12:35–12:39by one not yet eligible.
12:39–12:43Even when the principal sacrifice is known to be forthcoming, invocation connected with
12:43–12:47the sacrifice caused by adhesion to the sphaya cannot be performed on the preceding day
12:47–12:52because the place and time of the subsidiary, the previous day, do not fit the principal
12:52–12:56act of the following day and are therefore incompatible.
12:56–12:59The case of auspicious invocation differs.
12:59–13:04Here a person with general cognition of an obstacle is eligible, and such cognition
13:04–13:09may exist even when the obstacle is nearly doubted. The decision to perform the principal
13:09–13:14act of composing is clear, therefore, it is proper to perform the invocation even while
13:14–13:19the obstacle-destroying operation remains uncertain.
13:19–13:26Auspicious invocation is a subsidiary act. In worldly acts of future prosperity such
13:26–13:31as marriage, a person who merely knows the occasion is eligible, because that is the
13:31–13:33established practice.
13:33–13:39Objection, a subsidiary is enjoined only by an injunction governing the principal act.
13:39–13:43There is no injunction to compose a book as a principal act, so invocation cannot be enjoined
13:43–13:45as its subsidiary.
13:45–13:49Nor can Vedic revelation form part of a worldly statement, because revelation is independent
13:49–13:52of worldly sources of knowledge.
13:52–13:57Answer, only a Vedic subsidiary that produces a porva needs to be enjoined through the
13:57–14:00injunction of the principal act.
14:00–14:06An inferred from cultivated practice can prescribe auspicious invocation as a subsidiary of composition
14:06–14:11even without a separate principle injunction in joining composition.
14:11–14:15Being conveyed as obligatory by the statement that conveys the obligation of the principle
14:15–14:19act is the pervading property that grounds subsidiary status, this property is present
14:19–14:21in auspicious invocation as well.
14:21–14:26The absence of an inhibitor, the destruction of obstacles, is a general cause of every
14:26–14:27effect.
14:27–14:31Therefore, even a statement in joining a worldly act depends upon the injunction of auspicious
14:31–14:36indication that removes obstacles. One should not object that, as in a Vedic sacrifice, the place
14:36–14:41and time of the principal act would have to be connected with the invocation. The place and
14:41–14:45time of a principal act constrain only extraordinary Vedic subsidiaries that produce a puvva,
14:45–14:50a worldly subsidiary such as tying the top knot is not bound to the principal act's place and time.
14:50–14:59The conclusion of the ancient msakas. It should not be said that where the absence of obstacles
14:59–15:05is already secured by the causal complex, auspicious invocation with all its subsidiaries is fruitless
15:05–15:11and the Vedic statement prescribing it becomes invalid. The Vedic injunction declares invocation
15:11–15:15a cause of obstacle destruction only where an obstacle is known to have arisen from worldly
15:15–15:21conditions. Where, exceptionally, the absence of obstacles is already naturally secured,
15:21–15:28the injunction does not apply. For the same reason, if a person possessing true cognition
15:28–15:33of the supreme reality performs a forbidden act merely for experience, no demeritor rises because
15:33–15:38the defect is absent, the Vedic statement prescribing the consequences of such an act
15:38–15:43does not thereby become invalid. A further objection may be raised, where the absence of
15:43–15:48obstacles is naturally secured by the causal complex but known through another means, cultivated
15:48–15:53persons do not perform an invocation, the rule of obligatory performance, as with a daily right,
15:53–15:58would then fail. Answer, cultivated persons who cognize an obstacle perform invocation in every
15:58–16:04relevant situation like a daily right. This, and no more, is the position of the ancient massacres.
16:06–16:09Refutation of the MMA with Macron essay with Macron view.
16:09–16:17No, this MMA with Macron essay with Macron view is not correct.
16:17–16:21Works such as the composition begun by the inattentive Udayana are seen to reach completion without
16:21–16:25auspicious invocation.
16:25–16:30Invocation cannot be a subsidiary of a composition that is completed without it.
16:30–16:34Nor can an invocation performed in a previous birth be a subsidiary of composition in this
16:34–16:39birth, because cultivated persons in a previous life do not perform invocation with a desire
16:39–16:43for the completion of a book in a future birth.
16:43–16:48It may be said that even when a sacrifice for a sun, complete with subsidiaries, does not
16:48–16:52yield a sun in this birth, a sun in the next birth is regarded as its result.
16:52–16:57Similarly, if a composition is not completed in this birth after indication with all subsidiaries,
16:57–17:01completion in the next birth should be regarded as its result.
17:01–17:02This is unsound.
17:02–17:07The sacrifice for a sun specifies only the desire for a sun without a temporal limit,
17:07–17:11whereas invocation is performed with an explicit desire for the prompt completion in the present
17:11–17:16life of the work about to be begun. Therefore, only a revelation communicating such proximate
17:16–17:21completion would be inferred, and completion in the near future, as with the careery sacrifice,
17:21–17:23would be the result.
17:23–17:27It may further be said that invocation produces neither immediate completion nor
17:27–17:33future completion qualified by immediacy, so mere completion of composition, common
17:33–17:37to present and future, should be taken as its result.
17:37–17:39This too is incorrect.
17:39–17:43The expression near time indicates completion occurring within that period, otherwise, the
17:43–17:49result of the careery sacrifice could not be regarded as rain in the near future.
17:49–17:56Because of deviation, auspicious invocation is not a subsidiary of book composition.
17:56–18:02The view of partial msakas, auspicious invocation as a principal act.
18:02–18:07Other partial msakas say that auspicious invocation is a principal act, through a porva, it
18:07–18:12It produces completion of the undertaking begun, and the person who desires completion
18:12–18:14is eligible.
18:14–18:19Failure to obtain the result sometimes occurs because of deficiency in performance and similar
18:19–18:23factors, as in the career-y sacrifice.
18:23–18:28Outside the time when an undertaking is begun, invocation is not the most efficacious cause
18:28–18:30of completion through a porva.
18:30–18:34The revelation inferred from the regular invocation of cultivated persons at the
18:34–18:39beginning of an undertaking, one who desires completion and is about to begin a fruitful
18:39–18:44act should perform an auspicious invocation, enjoins the principal invocation only at
18:44–18:45the beginning.
18:45–18:49It resembles the revelation in joining one who begins the new and full moon sacrifices
18:49–18:56to offer at the outset an 11k ablation to value in the preliminary II.
18:56–19:00Although auspicious invocation is an optional act based upon desire for a result, it
19:00–19:05It must regularly be performed when an undertaking begins, because one who desires the completion
19:05–19:10of the undertaking necessarily performs it as a means to completion.
19:10–19:14Objection, if invocation is optional, it would not be performed even at the beginning of
19:14–19:18a fruitful undertaking when the person does not desire completion.
19:18–19:23Answer, anyone who desires the result necessarily desires completion, because only a completed
19:23–19:26action can produce its fruit.
19:26–19:32refutation of the partial MMA with Macron essay with Macron view.
19:32–19:35This view too is not correct.
19:35–19:40The apporva produced by invocation would complete the causal aggregate and establish the result,
19:40–19:44like the excellence produced by an enjoined principal act and like that produced by the
19:44–19:47careery sacrifice.
19:47–19:51Completion of the undertaking in this life would then necessarily follow, because a Vedic
19:51–19:57act is not performed without certainty that it will produce its result.
19:57–20:00Such necessity cannot be maintained.
20:00–20:05Some works, such as the Kadambari, remain incomplete despite abundant invocation performed
20:05–20:07with all subsidiaries.
20:07–20:11Completion in the next birth cannot be the result because the fruits of Vedic acts are
20:11–20:14held to occur in this birth.
20:14–20:19Under the rule that an efficacious cause necessarily produces its effect, a future sin cannot
20:19–20:21obstruct the present life result.
20:21–20:26Moreover, invocation would then, like the career-y sacrifice, become a cause producing
20:26–20:31completion without further action by the person, which is impossible.
20:31–20:36If worldly operations established by practice such as conjunctions of throat and palate
20:36–20:40are accepted as necessary operations, those very operations should be accepted as the
20:40–20:42causes of completing a book.
20:42–20:46What purpose remains for invocation?
20:46–20:52Prima-facy view, auspicious invocation is not a means.
20:52–20:56It may be said, when all the known causes of an undertaking that has been begun are present,
20:56–21:00Vedic revelation declares auspicious invocation to be the means of its completion, just as
21:00–21:04it declares the putrak may sacrifice to be the means of obtaining a sun.
21:04–21:07This position is not sound.
21:07–21:11Even when the known causes of a sun are present, a sun may not be born, it may therefore
21:11–21:15be admitted that the putrak may produces a sun through an upuva.
21:15–21:19But it cannot be said that, even when all the known causes of completing a work are
21:19–21:25its completion is delayed and therefore an aporva generated by auspicious invocation is required.
21:26–21:30When all the known causes are present, no such delay in completion occurs.
21:31–21:36A work begun by an inattentive atheist may be completed without auspicious invocation,
21:36–21:39therefore invocation is not the cause of its completion.
21:40–21:44It may be said that accumulated merit from a previous birth causes an inattentive person
21:44–21:50to complete a work in this birth. This too is untenable, for invocation would still be irregular.
21:50–21:55It may then be said that there is an alternative, as between rice and barley, sometimes merit from
21:55–22:00a previous birth and sometimes present invocation causes completion. But then the obligatory
22:00–22:04performance of invocation every time in the hope of completion would become impossible.
22:04–22:09A Vedic statement cannot make both merit and invocation causes jointly, if they are alternatives,
22:09–22:12Tributing equal causality to both is contradictory.
22:14–22:16Refutation of the next argument
22:18–22:22It may be said that the injunction does not convey that invocation must invariably occur
22:22–22:26before the result of completion, it conveys only that the result of completion necessarily
22:26–22:32arises from invocation. This argument is unsound. The meaning of the injunction is simply that
22:32–22:34invocation is a means to the desired completion.
22:34–22:41It may further be proposed that irregularity is a defect only where causality is known through
22:41–22:46positive and negative concomitance, not where it is known from revelation. Therefore, since
22:46–22:52completion is the purposes grounded in revelation, irregularity is no defect, and invocation
22:52–22:58and sacrifice may respectively be means to completion in heaven. This too is untenable.
22:59–23:03What revelation can establish as a cause must regularly exist before its result,
23:03–23:09An invocation does not satisfy this condition, revelation therefore cannot establish its causality.
23:10–23:14In heaven produced by sacrifice and rain produced by the careery sacrifice,
23:14–23:19the respective specific kinds of result invariably occur, there is no such regularity
23:19–23:22in completion allegedly produced by invocation.

Plain text

तद्विसिंट 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, कव preservation, preservation, and destruction in the three forms of Brahma, Vayu, and Mahisa, who is the unfathomable ocean of compassion and the sole supreme refuge of the three worlds. The Preliminary Connections of the Tathasintmai 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 Tathasintmai 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 Naya conclusions. 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 Buddhists object 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 dependents would arise between establishing the causality of invocation and positing a previous birth invocation. Moreover, since causes 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 the 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. Themsaka's 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 Udayana does not establish deviation of invocation. Once unobstructed revelation provides authoritative cognition that invocation is a means to completion, an invocation and 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 moon sacrifices. This 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 I.I. 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 maximum of the vis-pudget sacrifice. This objection is not proper. The purport of the carpenter aphorism, a supersensible act is not a subsidiary of a worldly act, concerns only a subsidiary that generates a supersensible operation such as a puva. 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. This 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 cause is 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. In fact, the guided 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 apporva. 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 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. Abstruction 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 expiatory 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. Medicine 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 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 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 doubted. 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 indication 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 invocation, the rule of obligatory performance, as with a daily right, would then fail. Answer, cultivated persons who cognize an obstacle perform invocation in every relevant situation like a daily right. This, and no more, is the position of the ancient massacres. 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 sun, complete with subsidiaries, does not yield a sun in this birth, a sun 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 sun specifies only the desire for a sun without a temporal limit, whereas invocation 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 careery 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 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 career-y 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 ablation to value in the preliminary II. Although auspicious invocation is an optional act based upon desire for a result, it 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 invocation 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 too 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 career-y 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-facy 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 produces a sun through an upuva. But it cannot be said that, even when all the known causes of completing a work are its completion is delayed and therefore an aporva 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 purposes 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, An 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