MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

NYAYAKUSUMANJALI Full_RadioPlay_video.mp4

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 (0.995714)

Duration

58:20

Source

Open preserved recording

Timestamped machine output

1. 0:00–0:06Based on Sanskrit to Maitrely translation by Gajendra Thakkar, copyright Gajendra Thakkar,
2. 0:06–0:17edit at Vidat Maitrely e-journal www.vidat.co.in
3. 0:17–0:24Before argument and offering, understand these words in two senses at once, as one speaks
4. 0:24–0:28of flowers and in the same breath of doctrine.
5. 0:28–0:33May this bouquet, gathered honestly, kept fresh, never crushed to wilting though the
6. 0:33–0:39hand presses hard upon it, be laid at the two feet of the Lord and made my mind, in that
7. 0:39–0:46offering, no joy, no grief can follow, and understand me twice over, friends, I speak of flowers.
8. 0:46–0:52I also speak of the doctrines I am about to set before you, proofs of God's existence,
9. 0:52–0:57reasonings tested against their opposites, inferences that do not break under any countable
10. 0:57–1:02lo. Neither will wither in your hands. Cultivate this knowledge, and suffering itself loses
11. 1:02–1:04its hold on you."
12. 1:04–1:08Asterisk definition of the subject of Inquiry, Dot Asterisk.
13. 1:08–1:13"...I mean then to make plain the nature of that Lord, the transcendent self, whose worship
14. 1:13–1:16the learned call erode to heaven and to freedom."
15. 1:16–1:19Udeana, why Asterisk inquire Asterisk?
16. 1:19–1:20The Vedda already sings of him.
17. 1:20–1:24Every tradition in this hall already has its God under a different name.
18. 1:24–1:26What doubt remains to open an inquiry.
19. 1:26–1:31"...None, and that is exactly my point, friend, and exactly my problem.
20. 1:31–1:38at this assembly. The follower of the UP at NI letter 1 E 6 3 a DS calls him pure consciousness.
21. 1:38–1:43Capillus people call him eternal and conscious, but not the maker. Pat and Jolly Joggins call
22. 1:43–1:48him a self untouched by affliction, who wears a body only to teach. The passiparers call
23. 1:48–1:56him free even of the rules that bind us. Sabers call him Savor, V and I letter 1
24. 1:56–1:571.
25. 1:57–1:58E63-1.
26. 1:58–1:59E47-V.
27. 1:59–2:00A.
28. 2:00–2:01S.
29. 2:01–2:02VI.
30. 2:02–2:03E63-1.
31. 2:03–2:04E47-U.
32. 2:04–2:05The tellers of P.
33. 2:05–2:06U.
34. 2:06–2:07R.
35. 2:07–2:08A.
36. 2:08–2:09Macron.
37. 2:09–2:101.
38. 2:10–2:11E47-A.
39. 2:11–2:12Call him grand sire of all.
40. 2:12–2:13The ritualist calls him the one.
41. 2:13–2:14Even the oblation is port.
42. 2:14–2:17The digimbar calls him one freed of body and of ignorance.
43. 2:17–2:18The M.
44. 2:18–2:19A.
45. 2:19–2:20Macron.
46. 2:20–2:21A.
47. 2:21–2:22Macron.
48. 2:22–2:231.
49. 2:23–2:24E43-S.
50. 2:24–2:25A.
51. 2:25–2:30Garbier-Archer had some word for what ordinary people mean by God.
52. 2:30–2:32A word, not a belief.
53. 2:32–2:33Even a word is data.
54. 2:33–2:39Friend, my point stands everyone in this hall already agrees, asterisk, that asterisk something
55. 2:39–2:45is meant by God and disagrees completely on asterisk what asterisk, that is not the
56. 2:45–2:49ground for silence, that is the very ground that demands inquiry.
57. 2:49–2:52We have heard enough from Scripture, it is time not a reason.
58. 2:52–2:59The Veddo itself says, first hear, then reflect, and the Elders add, through hearing, through
59. 2:59–3:06reasoning, through the quiet practice of meditation, a soul comes at last to seal itself truly.
60. 3:06–3:08So, reflection begins.
61. 3:08–3:12Let me be honest about what stands against me before I offer a single proof.
62. 3:12–3:16Five doubts, and I will take them one by one across this bouquet.
63. 3:16–3:171.
64. 3:17–3:18There is no unseen.
65. 3:18–3:21Supernatural cause behind our fate in the next world at all.
66. 3:21–3:222.
67. 3:22–3:26cause, plain human striding is enough to explain ritual and its fruit.
68. 3:26–3:303. There is positive evidence that God does asterisk, not asterisk exists.
69. 3:30–3:354. Even if some proof of God is offered, that very proof will turn out invalid.
70. 3:35–3:395. No authoritative proof of God exists at all, valid or not.
71. 3:39–3:44Good. Say them plainly. That is fair debate. Take the first, then.
72. 3:44–3:50Look at how differently people act. Two men, same circumstance. Choose opposite paths.
73. 3:50–3:55One turns to ritual, one to indulgence, one to renunciation.
74. 3:55–3:59That difference in tendency has asked risk, causes asked risk.
75. 3:59–4:02And a chain of those causes has no first link we can point to.
76. 4:02–4:06And whatever a man reaps, he reaps in his own person, not in others.
77. 4:06–4:11So something unseen must connect this light's action to a fruit received beyond it.
78. 4:11–4:17This world, thick with every kind of suffering unequally dealt out, cannot be uncaused.
79. 4:17–4:20An uncaused thing either exists always or never.
80. 4:20–4:24It does not arise here, cease there on no schedule at all.
81. 4:24–4:29Yet plainly this world of ours, asterisk, does asterisk arise and cease on a schedule
82. 4:29–4:30run of a set.
83. 4:30–4:33Therefore, some cause beyond the scene.
84. 4:33–4:37Unless the effect simply derows asterisk by accident asterisk, no cause needed at
85. 4:37–4:38all.
86. 4:38–4:43Say what you mean by accident, and I will show you it collapses into one of four
87. 4:43–4:46things no cause at all.
88. 4:46–4:51production, production from nothing, are merely a fact about the thing's own nature. None of the
89. 4:51–4:56four survives. Every effect that comes to be has a clear earlier limit, the moment before which it
90. 4:56–5:03was not, and a clear later limit, the moment after which it will not be, as it is. Nothing marks
91. 5:03–5:09asterisk that asterisk limit, that asterisk that asterisk moment, except it cause acting then.
92. 5:09–5:15But suppose the moment itself needs no further explanation. A thing simply asterisk has asterisk
93. 5:15–5:19the property of beginning to exist on this day rather than another, the waste space simply
94. 5:19–5:25has the property of being eternal. A property shared by asterisk, everything asterisk explains
95. 5:25–5:30nothing about why asterisk, this asterisk thing, when asterisk, this asterisk day,
96. 5:30–5:35if beginning to exist whenever it does, readjust each things, bear nature, with no cause behind
97. 5:35–5:41it, the very question, why then and not earlier would return, endlessly, and answer nothing.
98. 5:41–5:47No, production needs a producer. Chance is not an answer. It is the question wearing a disguise.
99. 5:48–5:53Then tell me why the asterisk same asterisk kind of cause, say fire, rises from such
100. 5:53–5:58different means, dry grass rubbed, wood churn, sunlight gathered through a lens. If cause
101. 5:58–6:02determines effects strictly, how does one effect come from three unlike origins?
102. 6:02–6:08Because causal powers known through asterisk observed asterisk correlation in each distinct
103. 6:08–6:11context, not proclaimed once for all contexts at once.
104. 6:12–6:16Grinding, churning, focusing, three different causal complexes,
105. 6:17–6:20each independently verified to yield fire under its own conditions.
106. 6:21–6:24Nothing in that a variety damages the rule that asterisk and asterisk
107. 6:24–6:28effect requires asterisk and asterisk sufficient cause.
108. 6:28–6:32It only shows that sufficient costs can be realized more than one
109. 6:32–6:33way the rule survives.
110. 6:34–6:36Only your picture of it was too narrow.
111. 6:36–6:42Grant all that. Why must the unseen, merit and demerit, asterisk a D letter 1 E5 B letter
112. 6:42–6:491 E6 3 letter 1 E6 DA asterisk be the missing cause? Why not simply say ordinary, visible
113. 6:49–6:54auxiliary causes strung together, explain all the diversity we see?
114. 6:54–6:59Because of visible chains of cause alone explained everything, no one would trouble to perform
115. 6:59–7:05a single unrewarded ritual, and yet people do expecting nothing here, only hereafter.
116. 7:05–7:11at risk, why at risk they persist. Not for pleasure. The unbeliever seeks pleasure more directly
117. 7:11–7:17and skips the ritual, not for reputation alone, that fails to explain private devotion no
118. 7:17–7:23one sees. Not because elders deceive the young, for the elders themselves keep the observance,
119. 7:23–7:28and a deceiver does not usually deceive himself first, some cunning founder, inventing it
120. 7:28–7:34all for his own gain. Then a alohmed should have grown rich and free, giving nothing
121. 7:34–7:42yet the pattern runs the other direction entirely the sincere give a asterisk away asterisk with the hath no exhaustive account without an unseen
122. 7:42–7:49throat survives scrutiny something unseen some asterisk a d little one e5 b little one e6
123. 7:49–7:55three little one e6 d asterisk must be admitted as the real cause connecting this act to that throat
124. 7:55–8:03even so must this potency you speak of be some separate reality over and above the visible substances that act could not mirror asterisk
125. 8:03–8:08absence asterisk of an obstruction be doing the causal work, with nothing further needed.
126. 8:08–8:15Absence can remove a hindrance, it cannot, by itself. Asterisk produce asterisk a positive effect,
127. 8:15–8:19to make bricks into a house you need not only the absence of the builder's laziness,
128. 8:19–8:26but the masons hand. Ritual, likewise, does not merely clear a path, it lays down something,
129. 8:26–8:32a residual potency in the agent, that ripens later into frout, that residue is real, though
130. 8:32–8:40unseen its reality is asterisk inferred asterisk exactly as we infer far from smoke by its necessary
131. 8:40–8:45connection with an effect that is no other adequate explanation. This is the same style
132. 8:45–8:52of reasoning that will, in time, carry us all the way to God, an inference from effect to a cause
133. 8:52–8:59required by the effect nothing mystical, nothing merely asserted. Let me offer our school's account,
134. 8:59–9:02since it touches your very question.
135. 9:02–9:09We hold that PRK letter 1E5BTI, Promortal Nature, Unconscious but Active,
136. 9:09–9:16Woven of the 3G, U letter 1E47S, Undertakes all transformation of the world unaided,
137. 9:16–9:22For the sake of PUR, U letter 1E6RIA, S Liberation, No further cars,
138. 9:22–9:28Unseen marriage or God, Is required that PRK letter 1E5BTI alone
139. 9:28–9:33suffices as the ground of ritual's power in the world's unfolding.
140. 9:33–9:38An elitist system, teacher and I will grant it much, but consider P.R.K.
141. 9:38–9:44letter 1 E5 B.T.I. as you describe her as asterisk when asterisk,
142. 9:44–9:50undifferentiated at the route, acting always by the same essential nature, a single, uniform
143. 9:50–9:57cause, left to itself, cannot by itself explain asterisk, sequence asterisk of unlike
144. 9:57–10:03effects arising one after another, each waiting its turn. If she preuses successively, something
145. 10:03–10:08must account for the order of that succession, and that something is exactly the kind of
146. 10:08–10:13unseen, individuating cause I am arguing for. Grant me that much, and we are no longer
147. 10:13–10:18very far apart. You have simply not yet divin'd the name I give it.
148. 10:18–10:23We will not settle that today, but I concede the difficulty is real.
149. 10:23–10:30Delicacy. There is no unseen anything. What is not seen, touched or reason from direct perception is simply not there to reason about.
150. 10:30–10:34Ritual is habit. The next world is a story told to keep the poor obedient.
151. 10:34–10:36Then answer me plainly.
152. 10:36–10:45Carvokra, my two sincere people perform rites that cost them that bring them no worldly return, that they could abandon at no cost to their reputation.
153. 10:45–10:48And still they persist quietly, without display.
154. 10:48–10:53You have called it habit, but habit needs a first cause too.
155. 10:53–10:59In every account you offer, pleasure, custom, deception, a founder's cunning, collapses the
156. 10:59–11:03moment it is tested as I have already shown this assembly.
157. 11:03–11:05What is not directly seen is not thereby proven false.
158. 11:05–11:10It is simply what must be established by inference, which is the very tool you yourself
159. 11:10–11:15use to walk from smoke to fire, though you have never seen the two joined at the
160. 11:15–11:16source.
161. 11:16–11:23Then let us continue by inference alone, that is all I have asked of anyone in this hall.
162. 11:46–11:51person tomorrow is only a causal series, each moment new.
163. 11:51–11:52Then tell me.
164. 11:52–11:57On your own doctrine, who reaps what was sown by a moment that no longer exists at the
165. 11:57–12:02time of reaping, if nothing endures even an instant longer than its arising, the doer
166. 12:02–12:08of the deed and the receiver of the fruiting or, by your own account, two different, unconnected
167. 12:08–12:12momentary existence, moral responsibility itself, dissolves.
168. 12:12–12:18Number 2. How ordinary recognition works. I see a jar today and know it as the asterisk
169. 12:18–12:23same asterisk jar I saw yesterday. Not a new jar resembling the old. If that recognition
170. 12:23–12:29of identity were always illusion. No cognition of asterisk difference asterisk between two
171. 12:29–12:36moments could stand as reliable either since both rest on the same faculty of comparing
172. 12:36–12:41it cross time. Denied persistence route in branch and you cannot even trust the doubt
173. 12:41–12:45you had just raised against me, for even raising a doubt requires that the one who doubted a
174. 12:45–12:50moment ago, and the one who now speaks, are the same continuing self.
175. 12:50–12:55We say the continuity is causal, not substantial.
176. 12:55–12:59An occultal series, sufficiently unified to carry karmic fraud across time is, in every
177. 12:59–13:03respect that matters here, what I mean by an enduring self.
178. 13:03–13:06We may be closer in substance than in vocabulary.
179. 13:06–13:08Monk, let something persists.
180. 13:08–13:11On that, this bouquet cannot yield.
181. 13:11–13:16Grant persistence, then, sell, if an object's very nature asterisk is asterisk to be a cause.
182. 13:16–13:21Must it not cause its effect always, everywhere, the moment it exists, the way blue is always
183. 13:21–13:26blue, yet an eternal, all-pervading self is not seen to produce pleasure and pain at
184. 13:26–13:27every moment.
185. 13:27–13:31How, then, can causality in an eternal self dereconciled at all?
186. 13:31–13:37Because causality is not any object, automatically produces any effect it is capable of.
187. 13:37–13:42is the asterisk, unobstructed and a sudden asterisk of a cause relative to its effect
188. 13:42–13:48ascertained sometimes by matching agreement and difference, where that feels as with something
189. 13:48–13:52eternal and everywhere present, which cannot be absent anywhere to test the different
190. 13:52–13:58side ascertained instead through a reason that establishes the causal relation directly.
191. 13:58–14:03The self produces pleasure and pain only in conjunction with its proper auxiliary conditions,
192. 14:03–14:09mind, body, the ripening of that sane, unseen potency we spoke of earlier. Not everything
193. 14:09–14:15blue produces every blue thing affects at all times either. A particular cause, with its
194. 14:15–14:21particular auxiliaries present, produces its particular effect that is simply what causality
195. 14:21–14:28asterisk means asterisk. Once stated tearfully, an ordinary experience confirms that at every
196. 14:28–14:29turn
197. 14:29–14:32asterisk conclude in prayer dot asterisk.
198. 14:32–14:38With hidden power of the Supreme Lord which deals each soul its portion, call it, Mayor,
199. 14:38–14:40since the mind cannot grasp it whole.
200. 14:40–14:42Call it P. R.K.
201. 14:42–14:46Let-a-1-D-5-V-T-I, since all creation springs from it.
202. 14:46–14:50Call it, Advier, since knowledge alone dissolves it.
203. 14:50–14:54May that Lord standing beyond the whole disorder churn of this creation, resting in perfect
204. 14:54–15:05peace, wait devotion in my heart and stand as witness visibly to what I offer here.
205. 15:05–15:10have established, cross the first bouquet, that an unseen destiny governs the fruit of
206. 15:10–15:16every act, but destiny itself must have some cause, and no creature among us can perceive
207. 15:16–15:21that cause directly. No one acts purposefully toward what lies wholly beyond cognition, so
208. 15:21–15:28some extraordinary omission being must exist, able to hand down to us true knowledge of
209. 15:28–15:32that hidden causal link, so that we may act rightly at all.
210. 15:32–15:37reach for an omnipotent God, Udayana, when the beginningless, unbroken chain of Vedic tradition
211. 15:37–15:42already carries that knowledge to us. But if you distrust an ortholous Vedder, the sage Kapila
212. 15:42–15:47and others attain omniscience through yoga and discipline alone, neither requires your God.
213. 15:47–15:53Because valid cognition depends and causes outside itself, and the world is not on any account
214. 15:53–16:00unbroken. It dissolves periodically, entirely. When it dissolves, the unbroken transmission
215. 16:00–16:05of the better dissolves with it. There is no teacher, no student, no sound in the air.
216. 16:05–16:11Nor can we rest the whole edifice on sages like Capillar, whose access to hidden truths
217. 16:11–16:16I intend to test directly before this bouquet closes. Something must renew the tradition
218. 16:16–16:19after every dissolution. That is the thread I mean to follow now.
219. 16:19–16:24Before you reach for God, settle a smaller question first, one, my school, and yours have
220. 16:24–16:30long disputed. When a cognition arises, is his asterisk truth asterisk known automatically
221. 16:30–16:33in the very arising of it. I say yes to cognize something, at all simple,
222. 16:33–16:38asterisk is asterisk to take it is true. What later proves false was on inspection,
223. 16:38–16:45never truly a cognition. Then explained out M, I'm Macron M, a Macron little 1A43SK,
224. 16:46–16:51if validity announced itself the instant a cognition arose, no cognition could ever be
225. 16:51–16:56doubted. Yet we doubt constantly, the moment a cognition doesn't resemble others,
226. 16:56–17:03Already confirmed true, validity, like invalidity, is known by something asterisk, external asterisk
227. 17:03–17:10to the bare fact of cognizing a further mark, a further inference, a test in successful action.
228. 17:10–17:15But your external test invites its own regress. If a second commission is needed to certify
229. 17:15–17:19the first, a third is needed to certify the second, so on without end.
230. 17:19–17:25Not so, because most of the time, certifying validity is simply unnecessary, where there
231. 17:25–17:27There is neither doubt nor reason for doubt.
232. 17:27–17:33Belief in an object arises and we act on it without any separate act of certification.
233. 17:33–17:39Only when doubt genuinely arises does the further inference come in and there it terminates.
234. 17:39–17:43Because it regresses your fear of threatens during intrinsic validity doctrine exactly as
235. 17:43–17:44much as mine.
236. 17:44–17:50You too must postulate that a cognitions being known as itself validly postulated.
237. 17:50–17:54Prove asterisk that asterisk and you are inferring all over again.
238. 17:54–17:56a fair hit.
239. 18:24–18:25remains extrinsic.
240. 18:25–18:28Then tell me how any of us tells Waking from dreaming at all.
241. 18:28–18:32Udayana, if LED is never simply given, I dream I am drowning in a pond.
242. 18:32–18:36The terror is total and distinguishable in the moment from any waking terror, until I
243. 18:36–18:38wake and find no water anywhere.
244. 18:38–18:42In the moment you wake, the two states stand in sharp.
245. 18:42–18:46Undeniable opposition, the dim memory of the dream against the vivid immediacy of
246. 18:46–18:50waking, at contrast is itself a criterion.
247. 18:50–18:53It does not need to be imported from anywhere else.
248. 18:53–18:58his waking experience supplies its own standard against which the dream is measured and found
249. 18:58–18:59one in.
250. 18:59–19:01The Western logicians raise a sharper doubt still.
251. 19:01–19:06A philosopher, Mer, they call him, held up both his hands before a halt and said, Here
252. 19:06–19:09is one hand, here is another, therefore external objects are real.
253. 19:09–19:13His critics answered, If your very eyes could be doubted, showing us your hands proves
254. 19:13–19:14nothing.
255. 19:14–19:15Let them doubt one.
256. 19:15–19:21A bare estrusc lodge will possibly estrusc that evidence, might some disservice against
257. 19:21–19:27of fact is not the same as evidence that has surfaced. Push that skepticism to its route,
258. 19:27–19:32and you land on a wall of non-contradiction itself. Call it a tautology if you like, empty
259. 19:32–19:37of content, but either the skeptic must stand on it to say anything at all, including his
260. 19:37–19:43doubt. I do not need certainty invulnerable to every conceivable future. I need what
261. 19:43–19:48any reasonable inquiry needs, the balance of evidence, honestly weight, and on that
262. 19:48–19:55balance, Nyer's account of validity, known through marks, external to bare cognition,
263. 19:55–20:00confirmed to finally, by successful action, carries the greater weight, illusion and error
264. 20:00–20:08are undeniable facts of experience. If, as you am on Macron M, a Macron lit. 1-4-3-S-S-S-A,
265. 20:08–20:13everything cognized is thereby true, what, then, or illusion and error, you have no answer
266. 20:13–20:14for that.
267. 20:14–20:17Ground me this much then, and let me change ground.
268. 20:17–20:27Even without your God, the Vedda need not be authored at all, the Vedda, and the very sound it is made of may simply be eternal, requiring no faultless speaker and no author to answer for.
269. 20:27–20:32Then I must take that from you too, friend, and I will do it from plain hearing.
270. 20:32–20:37We say, every day that sound has stopped, the drum was struck, and now it is silent.
271. 20:37–20:42That is a direct cognition of sounds, asterisk, destruction, asterisk.
272. 20:42–20:45Sound cannot have merely moved elsewhere, being formless.
273. 20:45–20:49It cannot have been covered over, for covering the longs to things with shape
274. 20:49–20:54is not merely grown too faint for us, for the same excuse would prove that a shattered pot
275. 20:54–20:59is not really broken, only become invisible. But the ear cannot perceive the absence directly,
276. 20:59–21:05its substratum, ether cannot be perceived at all. The ear need not proceed either to
277. 21:05–21:10perceive the estrusc absence of sound in the ear estrusc, precisely as darkness
278. 21:10–21:15is perceived as the absence of light, without anyone perceiving the invisible particles that would be
279. 21:15–21:23at its locus, and listen to the sound itself pitch rises, falls, loudens, softens, one and the same
280. 21:23–21:28eternal thing to not bear opposed to qualities at once. What you call the same word, recognized
281. 21:28–21:35again as a flame, recognized again, new fuel, new light, each moment, called by one name out of
282. 21:35–21:40of habit. Production and destruction, not eternity, is what your own near tells you, if you will
283. 21:40–21:45trust it. The tradition will need to answer you on this length elsewhere.
284. 21:45–21:51Yeah, well, for now it is enough that sound and with it, the spoken better is produced,
285. 21:51–21:56and what is produced can be lost, which returns us to the question who restores it each time
286. 21:56–22:01the world dissolves and forgets. Suppose I grant dissolution. During dissolution,
287. 22:01–22:06your own account. Nothing moves. Nothing acts. The sky itself stands empty and still. What,
288. 22:06–22:12then, could possibly initiate a de-asterous, new-asterous creation out of absolute stillness?
289. 22:12–22:17Consider deep sleep first as a smaller case of the same puzzle. In dreamless sleep the
290. 22:17–22:23self's cognition, desire, pleasure, and pain all fall silent together. Yet the body's
291. 22:23–22:29breath continues. Faint and the self wakes again, undamaged. So to a cosmic dissolution
292. 22:29–22:36and extremely so emotion persists in the atoms of the four elements to find to register as a world
293. 22:36–22:42until its final stage marks the moment and becomes the seed of new creation. It is not that a day must
294. 22:42–22:47always be preceded by another day of its own kind, the first day of the monsoon is preceded by the
295. 22:47–22:53last day of summer, not by another rainy day. So to the first day of a new creation is preceded
296. 22:53–22:58by dissolution, not by another day of an old world. And the first human beings, the first
297. 22:58–23:04Brahmins, the first speakers of any tongue at all. No parent taught them to speak, for there was no one yet to teach.
298. 23:04–23:17As the first Scorpion arises from rotten dumb, not from a Scorpion parent, and only later, generations breed true, so the Supreme Lord may himself take the forms of teacher and pupil of the world's door.
299. 23:17–23:25Gesture is a puppeteer moves a puppet's hand toward a distant object, and in that gesture teach the very first convention of word and meaning.
300. 23:25–23:40From that first instruction the whole chain, potter to potter, weaver to weaver, teacher to student, descends unbroken until the mixed dissolution breaks it again, and do not imagine the chain is holding as firmly today as it once did.
301. 23:40–23:42Look honestly at what is already frayed.
302. 23:42–23:42Right?
303. 23:42–23:48One's performed with full memory of thousands of Vedic branches now survive, if at all,
304. 23:48–23:50through a single branch imperfectly kitt.
305. 23:50–23:52The member wants to do it on four legs.
306. 23:52–23:56Arsteity, knowledge, sacrifice, charity.
307. 23:56–23:58Arsteity fell.
308. 23:58–23:59Two legs remained.
309. 23:59–24:00Knowledge fell.
310. 24:00–24:02One leg, charity.
311. 24:02–24:03There's the whole weight now.
312. 24:03–24:05And even that leg is wounded.
313. 24:05–24:08Then say plainly what you're building toward.
314. 24:08–24:10That scripture is not self-sustaining.
315. 24:10–24:15Its authority depends on the better, not on the general good conduct of virtuous people
316. 24:15–24:16copying one another.
317. 24:16–24:21For a virtuous conduct alone were sufficient to make an act obligatory, no scriptural
318. 24:21–24:24indumption would be needed at all.
319. 24:24–24:29And yet we all know rights that have lapsed entirely with no living witness.
320. 24:29–24:34That must one day be asterisk restored asterisk, not merely remembered.
321. 24:34–24:38Restoration needs a knower in faith, and Scripture merely asterisk recognizes asterisk
322. 24:38–24:39truth.
323. 24:39–24:43not manufacture it once the original cause is gone.
324. 24:43–24:49Then let Capilla serve as that Noah, a sage of direct perception, purified by yoga, moved
325. 24:49–24:54by compassion for suffering creatures capable of reviving what scripture has lost.
326. 24:54–24:59Test the claim as carefully as you tested mine, friend, meditation may indeed be a means
327. 24:59–25:01of knowing what is otherwise hidden.
328. 25:01–25:06I did not deny it wholesale, but meditation does not automatically yield knowledge the
329. 25:06–25:07instant it is practiced.
330. 25:07–25:12It needs some other means to confirm what it has found, what confirms Tappella's meditation
331. 25:12–25:14on compassion and non-violence.
332. 25:14–25:18This fruits no one has ever seen a strisk.
333. 25:18–25:23A coward meditates fruitfully on a snake only because he has met a snake before.
334. 25:23–25:25No one has met the frow of the over directly.
335. 25:25–25:30In this life are between two lies, for the body that acts in this birth and the body
336. 25:30–25:34that reaps the frow and the next are not even the same body, without some experienced
337. 25:34–25:36link joining the two.
338. 25:36–25:39The connection cannot be verified at all.
339. 25:39–25:41It is said some remember Fauna Biss.
340. 25:41–25:47It is said, but not established, a teacher who falls asleep on a holiday night and resumes
341. 25:47–25:53yesterday's lesson at dawn proves only that memory holds estrus within estrus one life,
342. 25:53–25:55not across the gulf between two.
343. 25:55–26:00And consider the very first params at creation's dawn by what memory could they have known
344. 26:00–26:01their own lineage.
345. 26:01–26:07If no one had yet been born to remember it, no power travel between worlds is proven either
346. 26:07–26:11that might have carried settlers in Berenade cast system redamade.
347. 26:11–26:17It is, in the end, simpler and more reasonable to accept one omission of an omnipotent being
348. 26:17–26:24who needs nobody, no untested memory, no unproven journey between worlds, then to multiply unproven
349. 26:24–26:28half omissioned sages to do the same work badly.
350. 26:28–26:30I will carry the question forward, you Deanna.
351. 26:30–26:33I do not yet carry your conclusion.
352. 26:33–26:38That is exactly as debate should stand at the end of its second round.
353. 26:38–26:43Made my heart hold fast to see ver until light's last moment, he who, aided by the destinies
354. 26:43–26:48of ever-beating, builds this astonishing world again and again, and, like a magician and
355. 26:48–26:53doing his own trick, amix it again, his will runs imposed through the whole of
356. 26:53–27:02the cosmos, whose its final cause, on that Lord alone, let my devotion rest amoot.
357. 27:02–27:06You have spent two bouquets building toward a maker of the world, Ute Ana, I will spend
358. 27:06–27:08this one demolishing the foundation.
359. 27:08–27:12If God existed, he ought to be knowable, as a cow's horn is knowable by its shape and
360. 27:12–27:13color.
361. 27:13–27:16He is not known, therefore he does not exist, exactly as a hare's horn does not exist,
362. 27:16–27:20precisely because, though its asterisk shape asterisk would be knowable if it were there,
363. 27:20–27:22no one has ever perceived one.
364. 27:22–27:25A clean argument and cleanly wrong at its first step.
365. 27:25–27:27Your inference works.
366. 27:27–27:31Only where the object was asterisk already granted to be perceptible asterisk.
367. 27:31–27:36The hare's horn fails the test of perception that was always eligible to sit.
368. 27:36–27:40God was never claimed by any theist in this hall to be an object of ordinary perception
369. 27:40–27:41at all.
370. 27:41–27:45You cannot fault a non-seen thing for failing a test it was never entered into.
371. 27:45–27:49Then how is he known, if not by the one method you now exempt him from?
372. 27:49–27:50By inference.
373. 27:50–27:54Which is precisely what these five cases exist to supply.
374. 27:54–27:56Sage your strongest objection for the fifth.
375. 27:56–28:00When the inferences themselves stand before you, for now I only clear the ground in
376. 28:00–28:05non-apprehension of a thing never claimed to be apprehensible proves nothing. Consider
377. 28:05–28:10your own self, then, as a test case. In dreamless sleep you do not apprehend your own self, yet
378. 28:10–28:14you do not conclude, on waking, that you had ceased to exist. Why does the same silence,
379. 28:14–28:18applied to God, not equally prove asterisk his asterisk absence?
380. 28:18–28:22Because in sleep the causes that would produce self-cognition are simply not assembled,
381. 28:22–28:27the mind has withdrawn from the senses not because the self has vanished, but because
382. 28:27–28:32As the instrument of noticing it has gone quiet, the very fact you rely on, that no one doubts
383. 28:32–28:37their own continued existence to a dreamless night is a self-proof that non-apprehension
384. 28:37–28:40does not entail nonexistence.
385. 28:40–28:43You have refuted your own method with your own example.
386. 28:43–28:47Then try this instead, a conscious being ought to show bodily activity, as the sprouting
387. 28:47–28:49seed shows the gardener's hand.
388. 28:49–28:52No divine activity is seen before a single sprout appears.
389. 28:52–28:54No activity, no agent.
390. 28:54–28:58pot needs an embodied potter, the world does not thereby need an embodied maker of the
391. 28:58–29:00identical kind.
392. 29:00–29:07The self persists, a-moving, too-sleep, too-feigning, to the stillness of poison or extreme cold.
393. 29:07–29:13Without any bodily sign at all, different effects proceed from different kinds of causes,
394. 29:13–29:18and there is no law binding asterisk, every asterisk, maker to a visible hand.
395. 29:18–29:20Let me strip this den further than the atheist dares.
396. 29:20–29:23I do not even require noble but unknown as your loophole.
397. 29:23–29:31My rule is simpler. What is not known. In asterisk, any asterisk sense does not exist. What is known exists. God is never known. Finnith.
398. 29:31–29:47Then finish it, tear barter and see where it leads you. On your rule, the moment you step outside your own house, you no longer perceive your wife, your children, your stored grain, by your own law. They must be judged. Destroy the instant your eyes leave them. Do you believe that?
399. 29:47–29:52memory shows me they remain memory assures you have many destroyed things too a
400. 29:52–29:57childhood house long since fallen a friend long dead memory alone cannot
401. 29:57–30:01certify present existence the instant you lean on memory to save your family
402. 30:01–30:06from your own rule you've conceded exactly what I need non-apprehension is
403. 30:06–30:11not proved non-existence and consider the eye itself the very organ you're
404. 30:11–30:16seeing depends on is never itself seen yet you do not doubt it exists or
405. 30:16–30:21or rule. Followed honestly, destroys your own instrument of doubting.
406. 30:21–30:26Ordinary conduct does not need certainty. It runs on probability, general agreement tested
407. 30:26–30:27by use.
408. 30:27–30:33Then where does probability estrusc live estrusc? On your account, if a thing is seen, you
409. 30:33–30:39say its existence is certain, if unseen, its absence is certain. You have left no middle
410. 30:39–30:43ground for probability to stand on at all. You have described a doctrine with no room
411. 30:43–30:47for the very mode of belief, you say it rests on.
412. 30:47–30:49Grants inference some ground, then, if you insist.
413. 30:49–30:51But how is doubt about it ever finally removed?
414. 30:51–30:56Every observed pattern might break tomorrow, or a mile from here, or under some condition
415. 30:56–30:57we haven't thought to check.
416. 30:57–30:58That threat never closes.
417. 30:58–31:03It closes the moment you notice something you have already conceded to to asterisk,
418. 31:03–31:05doubt, asterisk, a future deviation.
419. 31:05–31:10You must already be able to think about the future, and that very capacity is inference,
420. 31:10–31:14extended from present time to hour, day, and season.
421. 31:14–31:17You cannot use inference to attack inference without
422. 31:17–31:20burying the very tool you are trying to disqualify.
423. 31:20–31:24And practically, doubt ends where counterfactual would trap the
424. 31:24–31:29dower in his own contradiction to nigh that cause an effect, a reliably connected, and
425. 31:29–31:34the very act of doubting itself an effect, could never have arisen in you at all.
426. 31:34–31:38A reasonable mind does not chase every conceivable exception forever, it follows
427. 31:38–31:43a reason this provision has been tested and holds and acts.
428. 31:43–31:46Carry it forward, then. I will listen to the rest.
429. 31:46–31:52One more avenue, Udayana, before you move on. Some hold comparison, cognition through observed
430. 31:52–31:57similarity, to be its own independent means of knowledge, distinct from perception and
431. 31:57–32:02inference, if so. A difficulty for you follows. Everything known resembles something
432. 32:02–32:07else already known, but the God you describe has nothing else similar to him anywhere.
433. 32:07–32:12comparison than prove his asterisk absence asterisk, but at very singularity.
434. 32:12–32:18Only if similarity were some third kind of entity, neither being nor non-being, and no
435. 32:18–32:24such third kind exists, beating and non-beating exhaust the field to nine one, and you have
436. 32:24–32:26thereby affirmed the other.
437. 32:26–32:31Similarity is simply a property of things that already are, sorted under one or the
438. 32:31–32:36other of those two categories, it needs no independent status, and therefore yields
439. 32:36–32:42no independent weapon against a being who happens, but his nature to be singular, uniqueness,
440. 32:42–32:47is not a defect that argument can weaponize, it is simply a fact some subjects have and others don't.
441. 32:48–32:52Then let me press you on testimony itself since this whole bouquet circles back to whether the
442. 32:52–33:00Vedder needs an author at all. The V.I.S.Q.T. letter 1 E6-3 I.K.O. treats an ordinary sentence
443. 33:00–33:05meaning as something asterisk inferred asterisk from the speaker's intention.
444. 33:05–33:10Testimony reduced to a kind of inference. My own school's prior Baccaro branch goes further,
445. 33:10–33:16only the Veda, being awful, carries independent authority. An ordinary human sentence is
446. 33:16–33:20trust where the only once inference has certified the speaker reliable.
447. 33:20–33:26Both positions ask testimony to do more work than it needs to. The moment you already know
448. 33:26–33:31words express of power, the sentences meaning a rise, with a hearing of it, no separate
449. 33:31–33:37inferential step, no prior certification of the speaker's reliability, is required for
450. 33:37–33:41comprehension to occur at all. A child who is not yet know whether the
451. 33:41–33:45vetter has an author still understands the Vedic sentence perfectly well the moment
452. 33:45–33:51he hears it, that alone shows understanding does not wait on settling authorship first.
453. 33:51–33:56Only is its own means of knowledge standing beside perception and inference, not smuggled
454. 33:56–33:59inference wearing a disguise.
455. 33:59–34:02Then consider the sharper objections some raised directly against you if an asterisk
456. 34:02–34:07omniscient asterisk creator composed even human language itself at the world's dawn,
457. 34:07–34:11teaching the first speaker's word by word how could such teaching ever get off the
458. 34:11–34:16ground with no shared word yet existing between teacher and pupil to teach asterisk with
459. 34:16–34:18asterisk.
460. 34:18–34:24As I have already shown you in the second bouquet through gesture before a word exactly
461. 34:24–34:29as a puppeteer's cord makes a puppet's hand point at a distant thing and the watching child
462. 34:29–34:33infers meaning from the pointing before any word is spoken at all.
463. 34:33–34:36Instruction need not presuppose language completed.
464. 34:36–34:39It can asterisk begin asterisk language.
465. 34:39–34:40Gesture first.
466. 34:40–34:41Word following.
467. 34:41–34:44I do not ask you to accept this today.
468. 34:44–34:49I only ask you to notice that the objection, however sharp it sounds, has already been met.
469. 34:49–34:55Astorisk examination of postulation as an independent means of knowledge, examination
470. 34:55–35:01of non-apprehension as an independent means of knowledge, and further examination of
471. 35:01–35:03the same daughter's turrisque.
472. 35:03–35:05One and then the other.
473. 35:05–35:08Udayana, since you have answered comparison and testimony.
474. 35:08–35:12Postulation, first, the inference forced on us when a known fact makes no sense otherwise.
475. 35:12–35:16postulation nut, in some case, force us to explain the world asterisk without asterisk
476. 35:16–35:18God and so crowd him out?
477. 35:18–35:23Show me the fact that only makes sense without a maker, and I will answer it directly, but
478. 35:23–35:26no one in this hall has yet produced one.
479. 35:26–35:31Every alleged case of postulation that Ansky turns out, on inspection, to be an ordinary
480. 35:31–35:37inference wearing postulation's name, an ordinary inference I have already answered
481. 35:37–35:38at length.
482. 35:38–35:43Then non-Aprihension once more, in its fullest form, not merely, I have not seen him, which
483. 35:43–35:45you answered in the first scene, but the deeper M.I.
484. 35:45–35:46Macron M.A.
485. 35:46–35:47Macron letter 1 E4 3 S.A.
486. 35:47–35:51Macron claim that non-Aprihension is asterisk itself, asterisk a distinct sense-born means
487. 35:51–35:56of knowledge, and that its silence regarding God should count as positive evidence.
488. 35:56–36:01Trace it carefully and it collapses into perception after all, a normal, unimpaired sense
489. 36:01–36:06produces the determinate cognition no-pot here by apprehending the asterisk place
490. 36:06–36:14Then I have exhausted perception, inference by non-application, and I have exhausted perception,
491. 36:14–36:15inference by non-application.
492. 36:15–36:19I have been able to understand the existence of the mind, the essence of the mind, and
493. 36:19–36:20the essence of the mind.
494. 36:20–36:24I have been able to understand the essence of the mind, the essence of the mind, the
495. 36:24–36:28essence of the mind, the essence of the mind, the essence of the mind, the essence
496. 36:28–36:29of the mind.
497. 36:29–36:32I have been able to understand the essence of the mind, the essence of the mind, the
498. 36:32–36:33essence of the mind.
499. 36:33–36:39Then I have exhausted perception, inference by non-apprehension, comparison, testimony,
500. 36:39–36:42and postulation, and none of them has delivered me your absence.
501. 36:42–36:47Not exhausted, a friend, only tested, fairly, one at a time.
502. 36:47–36:51That is all I have asked of anyone across this whole bouquet.
503. 36:51–36:55With full devotion we bow as they guide our gods, worshipped across every tradition in
504. 36:55–37:01this hall under a hundred names, whose quiet, festive, loveless, no rival joy equals, whose
505. 37:01–37:08reality, no perception can catch and discard, no inference overturn, no other means of knowledge
506. 37:08–37:14unseat, and on whom, in the end, every one of those means of knowledge itself depends
507. 37:14–37:19to be trustworthy at all.
508. 37:19–37:23One more difficulty, Udayana, and it strikes at the roots of everything you have built.
509. 37:23–37:28You call God omission, but valid cognition by definition must know something asterisk
510. 37:28–37:33not already known asterisk, otherwise memory itself would count as a valid means of knowledge
511. 37:33–37:34which no one accepts.
512. 37:34–37:39knowledge is totaled, nothing is ever new to him. If nothing is ever new to him on your own definition,
513. 37:39–37:44nothing he knows can count as asterisk valid asterisk knowledge at all. And if his knowledge is
514. 37:44–37:48not valid, he is no trust with the author of anything, including the veda you have spent
515. 37:48–37:54free becase defending. Then the floor is in that definition, not in God. Knowing what was not known,
516. 37:54–38:00a floor cannot be what makes a cognition true. It is both too narrow and too wide. Too narrow,
517. 38:00–38:05see the same jar twice, and the second seeding is every bit as true as the first, though
518. 38:05–38:09nothing is new in it. Too wide an illusion may present something never seen before and
519. 38:09–38:15still be false. Novelty tracks neither truth nor falsehood. What makes a cognition true
520. 38:15–38:20is simply this, that an asterisk corresponds to how the thing actually is asterisk. By
521. 38:20–38:26that measure, God's cognition, being total and never in error, is as true as any cognition
522. 38:26–38:31could be, whether or not any of it is new to him.
523. 38:31–38:34Then how do you distinguish a second true seething of the same, jar from mere memory?
524. 38:34–38:37We do not call memory a means of knowledge.
525. 38:37–38:42Because memory depends entirely on a prior cognition to borrow its content from, it cannot
526. 38:42–38:43arise from nothing.
527. 38:43–38:48A fresh seeing of the same jar depends on the jar being asked to risk presently their
528. 38:48–38:53asked to risk seen again through its own causes, not recalled from a store.
529. 38:53–38:57The gods case is simple of still then either this cognition of the whole universe is a single,
530. 38:57–39:03self identical act, dependent on no other cognition before it needing no second glance
531. 39:03–39:05at anything.
532. 39:05–39:09Call it neither new nor old, it simply is entire, all at once.
533. 39:09–39:12Let me try a different door then.
534. 39:12–39:17Surely cognition does asterisk something asterisk to its object leaves some mark on it.
535. 39:17–39:20We call this mark known as the property an object gained simply by being known that
536. 39:20–39:23of asterisk having been asterisk known.
537. 39:23–39:27Without it, being produced in your own inference for a divine maker becomes entrust with you,
538. 39:27–39:32because an agent who leaves no trace on what he touches can hardly be said to know his own
539. 39:32–39:33materials.
540. 39:33–39:37Three ways to argue for such a mark in non-survive testing.
541. 39:37–39:42First, that cognition, being an action, must yield a result the way any action yields
542. 39:42–39:43a result.
543. 39:43–39:48And that result is knownness, but an arrow shot of the empty sky produces no result
544. 39:48–39:51asterisk in the sky asterisk.
545. 39:51–39:54Cognition may be like that arrow real motion.
546. 39:54–39:55No mark left beyond.
547. 39:55–40:00Second, that we say the pot is known, and this phrase itself proves some new property
548. 40:00–40:01sits on the pot.
549. 40:01–40:05But we equally say the pot was destroyed of a pot that no longer exists to receive
550. 40:05–40:07any property at all.
551. 40:07–40:11Language describing a relation to an act is not.
552. 40:11–40:14By itself, prove a real recipe in the object.
553. 40:14–40:20Third, that the very fact we can asterisk talk about asterisk cognition proves some perceptible
554. 40:20–40:25trace that leads, but the causes that let us talk about a cognition are the very same
555. 40:25–40:29causes that produced the cognition in the first place.
556. 40:29–40:32Nothing further needs to be posited to explain the talk.
557. 40:32–40:36Then Nonus explains nothing that cognition's own nature doesn't already explain on its
558. 40:36–40:37own.
559. 40:37–40:43Just so, the cognition of a pot is a cognition of potbite's own nature, exactly as an effort
560. 40:43–40:49to lift a stone is an effort concerning that stone by its own nature, without either one,
561. 40:49–40:52depositing some third thing into what it touches.
562. 40:52–40:56Set the object aside then and turn the question on cognition itself.
563. 40:56–41:01How do you even know a cognition has occurred if not through some further cognition, perceiving
564. 41:01–41:04it endlessly, one behind the next?
565. 41:04–41:05Not endlessly, directly.
566. 41:05–41:10The moment an indeterminate awareness of some external thing arises, the very asterisk
567. 41:10–41:15fact of being a cognition, asterisk, is already faintly present alongside it to the mind.
568. 41:15–41:21On the next moment, when a further cognition of that same object arises, the mind turns
569. 41:21–41:26and knows the earlier cognition determinately, the way a first fire recognized in one's own
570. 41:26–41:30kitchen lets one recognize, but the same war.
571. 41:30–41:34A second fire blinks later on a distant hill through its smoke.
572. 41:34–41:38Cognition is not itself perceived through some second, separate cognition standing
573. 41:38–41:43outside it, the mind's direct relation to the self, in whom cognition in hears is enough.
574. 41:44–41:45Then answer the harder form of the question.
575. 41:46–41:51On your school's own account, a cognition lasts barely two or three moments before it perishes.
576. 41:51–41:55If it is that brief, how does it last long enough both to reveal its object asterisk
577. 41:55–41:58and asterisk to be caught, itself by the mind looking back at it,
578. 41:58–42:02and does that fleeting cognition in its second moment still grasp the very same
579. 42:02–42:07object it grasped in the first, or has the object in the instant already changed?
580. 42:07–42:12The same object held across both moments, nothing stranger is required than branding that a
581. 42:12–42:19cognition, once arisen, persists briefly enough to do both jobs without contradiction to disclose
582. 42:19–42:26its object and to become, in turn, an object for the mind's next glance. Chase the alternative
583. 42:26–42:31digest-ranked toward that each vanishing instant would need its own vanishing-knownness to
584. 42:31–42:37certify it, and that knownness it's owned further knownness to certify asterisk at asterisk,
585. 42:37–42:42and you have simply reproduced one level up. The same infinite regress you were trying
586. 42:42–42:48to rescue knownness from in the first place. Simplicity favors dropping the extra entity,
587. 42:48–42:52not multiplying it. Grant everything so far. Sell every means
588. 42:52–42:56of knowledge we have ever named is defined by asterisk doing asterisk something. The
589. 42:56–42:59The eye acts upon light, and inference acts through a middle term.
590. 42:59–43:01A word acts through a speaker's utterance.
591. 43:01–43:03God, on your account, does none of this.
592. 43:03–43:05No sense contact.
593. 43:05–43:06No middle term.
594. 43:06–43:07No speech act producing his knowledge.
595. 43:07–43:12By what right, then, do you still call him an asterisk nor asterisk at all, using a
596. 43:12–43:14word built entirely out of agency?
597. 43:14–43:20Because ordinary etymology gives only the estrus-common estrus-groud of a word's
598. 43:20–43:21meaning.
599. 43:21–43:23Not the whole of how it is actually used.
600. 43:23–43:27We call sense faculty a means of knowledge because of its costfully
601. 43:27–43:30asterisk involved asterisk in producing cognition.
602. 43:30–43:33We call God a knower for different, equally legitimate,
603. 43:33–43:38reasoned cognition simply asterisk resides asterisk in him as a permanent
604. 43:38–43:43feature of what he is without needing to be produced by anything at all.
605. 43:43–43:47A person to be a knower without, at this instant, being an agent of anything
606. 43:47–43:49knowing does not require doing.
607. 43:49–43:56need acclaim this cognition to some fifth un-discovered means of knowledge alongside perception, inference,
608. 43:56–44:02testimony, and the rest. Broadened perception to mean simply asterisk direct uninterrupted
609. 44:02–44:08awareness of an object asterisk. Not perception through sense contact specifically and thus
610. 44:08–44:13knowing false naturally under that wider sense without forcing a new category into
611. 44:13–44:17being. One last thrust and then I yield this bouquet.
612. 44:17–44:21If God is omniscient, He knows every false belief, every creature has ever held, every
613. 44:21–44:25illusion, every mistake and inference, every dream.
614. 44:25–44:29But then the asterisk objects asterisk of all our errors art in some sense present within
615. 44:29–44:33his own cognition too, does that not make his cognition itself shot through with error.
616. 44:33–44:37And if his knowledge already contains our mistakes, what uses his teaching in dispelling
617. 44:37–44:38them?
618. 44:38–44:43You have confused the error with the asterisk, knowledge of asterisk, the error, friend,
619. 44:43–44:49that confusion is exactly the kind of mistake God's cognition, unlike ours, never makes.
620. 44:49–44:55An illusion is false, but a true cognition, estrusc, that identifies estrusc and illusion
621. 44:55–45:01as illusion, this is a false cognition, is not itself false, it is precisely the opposite
622. 45:01–45:05clarity about falsehood, not participation in it.
623. 45:05–45:10God knows every error exactly as it actually is as error, and a cognition that correctly
624. 45:10–45:15sees error as error is. By the very definition we settled at the start of this bouquet, true,
625. 45:15–45:20far from when the mind is teaching, that is the only thing that makes us teaching worth anything
626. 45:20–45:25and all he is not merely hold our mistakes alongside his own truths. He sees them as
627. 45:25–45:31dress, as asterisk mistakes, which is precisely what we, still caught inside them, cannot yet
628. 45:31–45:37do for ourselves. I have carried four bouquets of doubt into this whole you day Anna, and you
629. 45:37–45:39you have met every one of them without once raising your voice.
630. 45:39–45:44I do not yet call myself answered in full, but I no longer call myself your opponent either,
631. 45:44–45:46only your most stubborn student.
632. 45:46–45:49The debate is no better outcome than that, friend.
633. 45:49–45:51Sit and rest a moment.
634. 45:51–45:54What remains is not defence any longer.
635. 45:54–46:00Pre-Bukesub defence are behind this hall now, the doubt that no unseen cause exists,
636. 46:00–46:05the doubt that ritual needs no God, the claim that God can be disproved outright,
637. 46:05–46:11in this fourth and shortest bouquet, the question of what it even means to call so still a being
638. 46:11–46:18a Noah. Every doubt raised against him has been met and turned. One task remains, greater
639. 46:18–46:23than all the rest, not merely to defend the Citadel but to build it, eight proofs standing
640. 46:23–46:30on their own feet, requiring no opponents first move at all. That is the fifth bouquet
641. 46:30–46:36and the summit of this whole garden.
642. 46:36–46:40I have done nothing yet but clear ground.
643. 46:40–46:44Answering doubt, refuting attack, defending the possibility of a maker.
644. 46:44–46:46Tonight, I stop defending.
645. 46:46–46:48Eight proofs stand before you.
646. 46:48–46:53Each, sufficient on its own, needing no opponents first move to exist at all that the world
647. 46:53–46:56is in asterisk, effect asterisk.
648. 46:56–46:59That the first motion in the arms requires a mover.
649. 46:59–47:02That the world is asterisk, sustained asterisk.
650. 47:02–47:05That it is asterisk destroyed asterisk.
651. 47:05–47:11the very conventions of word and craft required a first teacher that the asterisk, validity,
652. 47:11–47:16asterisk of the scriptural tradition demands a trustworthy source that scripture itself
653. 47:16–47:23testifies to its author, that even their asterisk, number asterisk, tunis, threenis, and things
654. 47:23–47:28too small for any of us to count, bears the mark of a counting mind.
655. 47:28–47:33Test each one as heartily as you have tested everything else. I have said this evening.
656. 47:33–47:37I ask only that you test them one at a time on their own ground.
657. 47:37–47:43Begin then, I have not conceded easily tonight and I will not begin now.
658. 47:43–47:45That is exactly how this should end.
659. 47:45–47:51The air of the mountains, the bodies we sit in, all that is asterisk produced asterisk,
660. 47:51–47:56exactly as a pot is produced, and nothing produced lacks a producer, therefore the world
661. 47:56–47:57has a maker.
662. 47:57–48:01Then that maker has a body as every potter does, and if he has a body, he is not the
663. 48:01–48:04bodiless god you have been building tore for forebukes.
664. 48:04–48:08Press that objection and watch it fall through your own hands, either you are claiming death
665. 48:08–48:13as a body, in which case you have already granted he exists and merely quibble above
666. 48:13–48:19the shade, or you are claiming the world was estrusk, not estrusk, made by an body
667. 48:19–48:22being inconglue from that alone that it was not made at all, which contradicts the
668. 48:22–48:25very inference you are supposedly answering.
669. 48:25–48:30A general cause need not share every feature of the particular causes we happen to have
670. 48:30–48:37seen before. Fire is inferred from smoke regardless of estrusc, which estrusc fuel burned. A
671. 48:37–48:43maker is inferred from a maid, world regardless of whether that maker wears a body. Embodied
672. 48:43–48:48was never the low-bearing part of my proof. You have argued against a word I did not need.
673. 48:48–48:53Consider the atoms themselves, then, before they ever became a world at all. At creation's
674. 48:53–48:58first instant, atoms that had never before moved began to move, and combine what is
675. 48:58–49:02As an earth cannot move itself, a spade does not swing itself into the earth.
676. 49:02–49:04Something conscious must impel it.
677. 49:04–49:10Destiny alone might account for that first motion without any conscious impeller at all.
678. 49:10–49:15Destiny is one cause among several needed, teacher, not a cause that crowds out all
679. 49:15–49:16the others.
680. 49:16–49:21An inert thing precisely because it is an earth needs a locus of consciousness to
681. 49:21–49:24set it moving exactly as a spade needs a hand.
682. 49:24–49:29You may call a specific motion of a living body different in time from the first motion
683. 49:29–49:35of an atom, if you like, but define bodily motion any way you choose.
684. 49:35–49:40And you will find the definition already assumes exactly what I am arguing a special
685. 49:40–49:43motion produced by a conscious agent.
686. 49:43–49:47You cannot use the very thing under dispute to disqualify the inference that establishes
687. 49:47–49:48it.
688. 49:48–49:54world, immense and heavy as it is, does not fall, as a bird's weight, weight, does not
689. 49:54–49:57fall, sustained by its own effort in flight.
690. 49:57–50:01Something sustains the whole of it, moment to moment, the way effort sustains a living
691. 50:01–50:02body.
692. 50:02–50:07And when that same world is later destroyed, down to the smallest indivisible pair of
693. 50:07–50:14atoms, destruction, too, requires an agent capable of it, precisely as cloth is destroyed
694. 50:14–50:17only by the tearing hand, not by nothing.
695. 50:17–50:23Destiny, again, might account for both, stability without a sustainer, dissolution without a destroyer.
696. 50:23–50:29Destiny is real, and I have never denied it, but a cause acknowledged is not every cause excluded.
697. 50:29–50:35If Destiny alone explained the body's substance, effort itself would have no work left to do
698. 50:35–50:41including a living creature upright, which is plainly false, as any of us standing in this hall
699. 50:41–50:45could tell you, sustaining and destroying are each one.
700. 50:45–50:55Effects. Effects need agents. The world's vastness is no exemption from a ruling deviance. Every smaller thing we have ever watched rise and fall.
701. 50:55–51:01Consider something closer to home than atoms. The very conventions by which any of us here understands the other.
702. 51:01–51:10A potter's craft is learned from another potter of weavers. From another weaver, a child learns the alphabet from a teacher who learned it from a teacher before.
703. 51:10–51:17Trace the chain back far enough, and you reach a first link, a first potter with no product to learn from,
704. 51:17–51:21a first speaker with no language yet spoken to be taught in.
705. 51:21–51:28Perhaps the chain simply has no first link, beginningless, like the round of rebirth itself.
706. 51:28–51:34The asterisk cycle asterisk of creation and dissolution is beginningless, month.
707. 51:35–51:39I do not dispute that, but within any asterisk one asterisk cycle,
708. 51:39–51:44at its own fresh dawn, there are no fallen or ordinary human beings yet available to have
709. 51:44–51:50originated anything. Something must set the very first convention moving in each new beginning,
710. 51:50–51:55the way a puppeteer's gesture, a chord-pulled, a hand-pointed, teaches a watching child the
711. 51:55–52:00meaning of a word before any word has yet been spoken between them. That first teacher need
712. 52:00–52:06not keep a body permanently, a scripture itself records a being who takes form again and again
713. 52:06–52:09precisely, to renew what would otherwise be lost.
714. 52:09–52:14Then let me meet you on my own ground one final time. You say the Vedic tradition's
715. 52:14–52:20asterisk validity asterisk itself proves the source behind it, but validity on my scores,
716. 52:20–52:25teaching needs no external guarantee, it is simply what the proper cause cognition already is.
717. 52:26–52:31And if every cognition's validity needed a further cognition to certify it,
718. 52:31–52:35we would face the same regress that has followed us since the second Bakae,
719. 52:35–52:41I regress. I answer then, and answer again now a tradition this vast, this stable, held
720. 52:41–52:46by learned people across every generation, is not the kind of thing a single limited person
721. 52:46–52:51invents from nothing. It requires, at its root, one being of the requisite excellence
722. 52:51–52:56to originate it truly. And Scripture does not merely imply such a source. It names
723. 52:56–53:01one in passage after passage, unprompted by any need for praise. The Vetter speaks of
724. 53:01–53:07itself as issuing from a knowing mouth viz. better issues for me in every cycle and a collection
725. 53:07–53:14of sentences accepted on its own authority by every knowledgeable person who has ever studied it.
726. 53:14–53:18Resting on nothing beyond itself is not the same thing as an ordinary human
727. 53:18–53:20composition whose author really goes unnamed.
728. 53:22–53:27You have carried that thread across four briquettes to reach here. I recognize the shape
729. 53:27–53:30of the argument even if I have not yet fully laid down my own.
730. 53:30–53:33That is honest, and it is enough for tonight.
731. 53:33–53:38Once I do have not yet pulled, Udayana, scripture does not merely describe
732. 53:38–53:44a dasturist commands asterisk. The self should be known. What is a command, if not simply an action, or a desire,
733. 53:44–53:47already present in the listener without need of any speaker behind it?
734. 53:47–53:53Neither will serve, not action, for know the self commands nothing that moves through space at all,
735. 53:53–53:59and any command reduced to mere action collates into every ordinary sentence describing a person
736. 53:59–54:07working to market, not desire either. For the very desire to act arises, only asterisk from asterisk
737. 54:07–54:12cognizing the command's meaning make desire the meaning of the command and desire becomes both
738. 54:12–54:18cause and effective itself, circular and empty. What a command actually conveys is a speaker's
739. 54:18–54:24as to risk, intention as to risk, that the listener act, and an intention requires, by
740. 54:24–54:29its very grammar, an intent. You should do this as meaningless without someone whose
741. 54:29–54:33desired express is concerning you. Every injunction in scripture examined honestly
742. 54:33–54:38down to its grammar points back to a speaker standing behind the verb.
743. 54:38–54:44And last, the strangest end to my mind, the most delicate of the eight, a pair of
744. 54:44–54:50atoms has a certain magnitude triad. A magnitude far greater, too great to be explained by atomic
745. 54:50–54:57size alum for a mere multiplication of atoms explained at two atoms together should already show
746. 54:57–55:02that same gross size and they cleanly do not. Something beyond their aggregation,
747. 55:02–55:08a numbering, a asterisk counting asterisk, must operate even here at a scale no eye in this
748. 55:08–55:10this hall could ever proceed directly.
749. 55:10–55:13Tunus is not a property, lying passively in the pair,
750. 55:13–55:17it arises through an act of asterisk, enumeration asterisk,
751. 55:17–55:20and atoms are, by their very nature,
752. 55:20–55:22invisible to every one of us.
753. 55:22–55:26Whose enumeration, then, tives the diet of its tunus.
754. 55:26–55:29If no finite creature has ever counted a single item
755. 55:29–55:30in its life.
756. 55:30–55:32Only an omniscient counter.
757. 55:32–55:33Only an omniscient counter.
758. 55:33–55:36Ape, poose, friend, the world is effect,
759. 55:36–55:42the atom's first motion, its sustaining, its destruction, the first teaching of every word
760. 55:42–55:48we speak, the validity of an ancient trust, Scripture's own testimony to its source, and
761. 55:48–55:52now number itself, present in what none of us could ever count alone.
762. 55:52–55:57I did not claim any single one of these, standing, by itself, could not be picked
763. 55:57–56:02at by a patient enough upon it across another whole evening, yet show me tonight exactly
764. 56:02–56:03how patient this hall can be.
765. 56:03–56:08I claim only that eight independent lines, converging on the same conclusion from eight
766. 56:08–56:13different directions, no one of them borrowed from the others, are not eight coincidences.
767. 56:13–56:18That is what a bouquet is in the end, not one unbreakable flower, but many gathered
768. 56:18–56:23together so that even if one petal bruises, the bouquet itself still stands whole in
769. 56:23–56:24your hand.
770. 56:24–56:28And is there truly no way to know him except by chains of reasoning?
771. 56:28–56:33Udayana, eight proofs each requiring a whole like this one and an evening like this one to walk through.
772. 56:58–57:01for the vividness of a true dream.
773. 57:01–57:04I have not asked this hall to take that on face to night.
774. 57:04–57:09I have only walked to you, proof by proof, toward the point where faith and reason arrive
775. 57:09–57:12at the same door from different roads.
776. 57:12–57:19If even this, eight proofs offered honestly, tested honestly, cannot move the mind that
777. 57:19–57:23mine is stone, and no bouquet of arguments will solve in stone.
778. 57:23–57:25So I do not pray for victory here.
779. 57:25–57:31act pray instead, may this bouquet of reasoning perfume both nostrils equally, may it satisfy
780. 57:31–57:37the theist who came already believing, and, in its own time, reach even the a theist who
781. 57:37–57:38came to break it.
782. 57:38–57:44And if it cannot do even that much, then let it rest simply as an offering gathered honestly,
783. 57:44–57:48kept fresh, laid without expectation at the feet of the Lord of Teachers, who alone
784. 57:48–57:53knows whether the mind that hears it tonight will find its way home sooner or only later,
785. 57:53–58:14by some other row than this halls entirely.

Plain text

Based on Sanskrit to Maitrely translation by Gajendra Thakkar, copyright Gajendra Thakkar, edit at Vidat Maitrely e-journal www.vidat.co.in Before argument and offering, understand these words in two senses at once, as one speaks of flowers and in the same breath of doctrine. May this bouquet, gathered honestly, kept fresh, never crushed to wilting though the hand presses hard upon it, be laid at the two feet of the Lord and made my mind, in that offering, no joy, no grief can follow, and understand me twice over, friends, I speak of flowers. I also speak of the doctrines I am about to set before you, proofs of God's existence, reasonings tested against their opposites, inferences that do not break under any countable lo. Neither will wither in your hands. Cultivate this knowledge, and suffering itself loses its hold on you." Asterisk definition of the subject of Inquiry, Dot Asterisk. "...I mean then to make plain the nature of that Lord, the transcendent self, whose worship the learned call erode to heaven and to freedom." Udeana, why Asterisk inquire Asterisk? The Vedda already sings of him. Every tradition in this hall already has its God under a different name. What doubt remains to open an inquiry. "...None, and that is exactly my point, friend, and exactly my problem. at this assembly. The follower of the UP at NI letter 1 E 6 3 a DS calls him pure consciousness. Capillus people call him eternal and conscious, but not the maker. Pat and Jolly Joggins call him a self untouched by affliction, who wears a body only to teach. The passiparers call him free even of the rules that bind us. Sabers call him Savor, V and I letter 1 1. E63-1. E47-V. A. S. VI. E63-1. E47-U. The tellers of P. U. R. A. Macron. 1. E47-A. Call him grand sire of all. The ritualist calls him the one. Even the oblation is port. The digimbar calls him one freed of body and of ignorance. The M. A. Macron. A. Macron. 1. E43-S. A. Garbier-Archer had some word for what ordinary people mean by God. A word, not a belief. Even a word is data. Friend, my point stands everyone in this hall already agrees, asterisk, that asterisk something is meant by God and disagrees completely on asterisk what asterisk, that is not the ground for silence, that is the very ground that demands inquiry. We have heard enough from Scripture, it is time not a reason. The Veddo itself says, first hear, then reflect, and the Elders add, through hearing, through reasoning, through the quiet practice of meditation, a soul comes at last to seal itself truly. So, reflection begins. Let me be honest about what stands against me before I offer a single proof. Five doubts, and I will take them one by one across this bouquet. 1. There is no unseen. Supernatural cause behind our fate in the next world at all. 2. cause, plain human striding is enough to explain ritual and its fruit. 3. There is positive evidence that God does asterisk, not asterisk exists. 4. Even if some proof of God is offered, that very proof will turn out invalid. 5. No authoritative proof of God exists at all, valid or not. Good. Say them plainly. That is fair debate. Take the first, then. Look at how differently people act. Two men, same circumstance. Choose opposite paths. One turns to ritual, one to indulgence, one to renunciation. That difference in tendency has asked risk, causes asked risk. And a chain of those causes has no first link we can point to. And whatever a man reaps, he reaps in his own person, not in others. So something unseen must connect this light's action to a fruit received beyond it. This world, thick with every kind of suffering unequally dealt out, cannot be uncaused. An uncaused thing either exists always or never. It does not arise here, cease there on no schedule at all. Yet plainly this world of ours, asterisk, does asterisk arise and cease on a schedule run of a set. Therefore, some cause beyond the scene. Unless the effect simply derows asterisk by accident asterisk, no cause needed at all. Say what you mean by accident, and I will show you it collapses into one of four things no cause at all. production, production from nothing, are merely a fact about the thing's own nature. None of the four survives. Every effect that comes to be has a clear earlier limit, the moment before which it was not, and a clear later limit, the moment after which it will not be, as it is. Nothing marks asterisk that asterisk limit, that asterisk that asterisk moment, except it cause acting then. But suppose the moment itself needs no further explanation. A thing simply asterisk has asterisk the property of beginning to exist on this day rather than another, the waste space simply has the property of being eternal. A property shared by asterisk, everything asterisk explains nothing about why asterisk, this asterisk thing, when asterisk, this asterisk day, if beginning to exist whenever it does, readjust each things, bear nature, with no cause behind it, the very question, why then and not earlier would return, endlessly, and answer nothing. No, production needs a producer. Chance is not an answer. It is the question wearing a disguise. Then tell me why the asterisk same asterisk kind of cause, say fire, rises from such different means, dry grass rubbed, wood churn, sunlight gathered through a lens. If cause determines effects strictly, how does one effect come from three unlike origins? Because causal powers known through asterisk observed asterisk correlation in each distinct context, not proclaimed once for all contexts at once. Grinding, churning, focusing, three different causal complexes, each independently verified to yield fire under its own conditions. Nothing in that a variety damages the rule that asterisk and asterisk effect requires asterisk and asterisk sufficient cause. It only shows that sufficient costs can be realized more than one way the rule survives. Only your picture of it was too narrow. Grant all that. Why must the unseen, merit and demerit, asterisk a D letter 1 E5 B letter 1 E6 3 letter 1 E6 DA asterisk be the missing cause? Why not simply say ordinary, visible auxiliary causes strung together, explain all the diversity we see? Because of visible chains of cause alone explained everything, no one would trouble to perform a single unrewarded ritual, and yet people do expecting nothing here, only hereafter. at risk, why at risk they persist. Not for pleasure. The unbeliever seeks pleasure more directly and skips the ritual, not for reputation alone, that fails to explain private devotion no one sees. Not because elders deceive the young, for the elders themselves keep the observance, and a deceiver does not usually deceive himself first, some cunning founder, inventing it all for his own gain. Then a alohmed should have grown rich and free, giving nothing yet the pattern runs the other direction entirely the sincere give a asterisk away asterisk with the hath no exhaustive account without an unseen throat survives scrutiny something unseen some asterisk a d little one e5 b little one e6 three little one e6 d asterisk must be admitted as the real cause connecting this act to that throat even so must this potency you speak of be some separate reality over and above the visible substances that act could not mirror asterisk absence asterisk of an obstruction be doing the causal work, with nothing further needed. Absence can remove a hindrance, it cannot, by itself. Asterisk produce asterisk a positive effect, to make bricks into a house you need not only the absence of the builder's laziness, but the masons hand. Ritual, likewise, does not merely clear a path, it lays down something, a residual potency in the agent, that ripens later into frout, that residue is real, though unseen its reality is asterisk inferred asterisk exactly as we infer far from smoke by its necessary connection with an effect that is no other adequate explanation. This is the same style of reasoning that will, in time, carry us all the way to God, an inference from effect to a cause required by the effect nothing mystical, nothing merely asserted. Let me offer our school's account, since it touches your very question. We hold that PRK letter 1E5BTI, Promortal Nature, Unconscious but Active, Woven of the 3G, U letter 1E47S, Undertakes all transformation of the world unaided, For the sake of PUR, U letter 1E6RIA, S Liberation, No further cars, Unseen marriage or God, Is required that PRK letter 1E5BTI alone suffices as the ground of ritual's power in the world's unfolding. An elitist system, teacher and I will grant it much, but consider P.R.K. letter 1 E5 B.T.I. as you describe her as asterisk when asterisk, undifferentiated at the route, acting always by the same essential nature, a single, uniform cause, left to itself, cannot by itself explain asterisk, sequence asterisk of unlike effects arising one after another, each waiting its turn. If she preuses successively, something must account for the order of that succession, and that something is exactly the kind of unseen, individuating cause I am arguing for. Grant me that much, and we are no longer very far apart. You have simply not yet divin'd the name I give it. We will not settle that today, but I concede the difficulty is real. Delicacy. There is no unseen anything. What is not seen, touched or reason from direct perception is simply not there to reason about. Ritual is habit. The next world is a story told to keep the poor obedient. Then answer me plainly. Carvokra, my two sincere people perform rites that cost them that bring them no worldly return, that they could abandon at no cost to their reputation. And still they persist quietly, without display. You have called it habit, but habit needs a first cause too. In every account you offer, pleasure, custom, deception, a founder's cunning, collapses the moment it is tested as I have already shown this assembly. What is not directly seen is not thereby proven false. It is simply what must be established by inference, which is the very tool you yourself use to walk from smoke to fire, though you have never seen the two joined at the source. Then let us continue by inference alone, that is all I have asked of anyone in this hall. person tomorrow is only a causal series, each moment new. Then tell me. On your own doctrine, who reaps what was sown by a moment that no longer exists at the time of reaping, if nothing endures even an instant longer than its arising, the doer of the deed and the receiver of the fruiting or, by your own account, two different, unconnected momentary existence, moral responsibility itself, dissolves. Number 2. How ordinary recognition works. I see a jar today and know it as the asterisk same asterisk jar I saw yesterday. Not a new jar resembling the old. If that recognition of identity were always illusion. No cognition of asterisk difference asterisk between two moments could stand as reliable either since both rest on the same faculty of comparing it cross time. Denied persistence route in branch and you cannot even trust the doubt you had just raised against me, for even raising a doubt requires that the one who doubted a moment ago, and the one who now speaks, are the same continuing self. We say the continuity is causal, not substantial. An occultal series, sufficiently unified to carry karmic fraud across time is, in every respect that matters here, what I mean by an enduring self. We may be closer in substance than in vocabulary. Monk, let something persists. On that, this bouquet cannot yield. Grant persistence, then, sell, if an object's very nature asterisk is asterisk to be a cause. Must it not cause its effect always, everywhere, the moment it exists, the way blue is always blue, yet an eternal, all-pervading self is not seen to produce pleasure and pain at every moment. How, then, can causality in an eternal self dereconciled at all? Because causality is not any object, automatically produces any effect it is capable of. is the asterisk, unobstructed and a sudden asterisk of a cause relative to its effect ascertained sometimes by matching agreement and difference, where that feels as with something eternal and everywhere present, which cannot be absent anywhere to test the different side ascertained instead through a reason that establishes the causal relation directly. The self produces pleasure and pain only in conjunction with its proper auxiliary conditions, mind, body, the ripening of that sane, unseen potency we spoke of earlier. Not everything blue produces every blue thing affects at all times either. A particular cause, with its particular auxiliaries present, produces its particular effect that is simply what causality asterisk means asterisk. Once stated tearfully, an ordinary experience confirms that at every turn asterisk conclude in prayer dot asterisk. With hidden power of the Supreme Lord which deals each soul its portion, call it, Mayor, since the mind cannot grasp it whole. Call it P. R.K. Let-a-1-D-5-V-T-I, since all creation springs from it. Call it, Advier, since knowledge alone dissolves it. May that Lord standing beyond the whole disorder churn of this creation, resting in perfect peace, wait devotion in my heart and stand as witness visibly to what I offer here. have established, cross the first bouquet, that an unseen destiny governs the fruit of every act, but destiny itself must have some cause, and no creature among us can perceive that cause directly. No one acts purposefully toward what lies wholly beyond cognition, so some extraordinary omission being must exist, able to hand down to us true knowledge of that hidden causal link, so that we may act rightly at all. reach for an omnipotent God, Udayana, when the beginningless, unbroken chain of Vedic tradition already carries that knowledge to us. But if you distrust an ortholous Vedder, the sage Kapila and others attain omniscience through yoga and discipline alone, neither requires your God. Because valid cognition depends and causes outside itself, and the world is not on any account unbroken. It dissolves periodically, entirely. When it dissolves, the unbroken transmission of the better dissolves with it. There is no teacher, no student, no sound in the air. Nor can we rest the whole edifice on sages like Capillar, whose access to hidden truths I intend to test directly before this bouquet closes. Something must renew the tradition after every dissolution. That is the thread I mean to follow now. Before you reach for God, settle a smaller question first, one, my school, and yours have long disputed. When a cognition arises, is his asterisk truth asterisk known automatically in the very arising of it. I say yes to cognize something, at all simple, asterisk is asterisk to take it is true. What later proves false was on inspection, never truly a cognition. Then explained out M, I'm Macron M, a Macron little 1A43SK, if validity announced itself the instant a cognition arose, no cognition could ever be doubted. Yet we doubt constantly, the moment a cognition doesn't resemble others, Already confirmed true, validity, like invalidity, is known by something asterisk, external asterisk to the bare fact of cognizing a further mark, a further inference, a test in successful action. But your external test invites its own regress. If a second commission is needed to certify the first, a third is needed to certify the second, so on without end. Not so, because most of the time, certifying validity is simply unnecessary, where there There is neither doubt nor reason for doubt. Belief in an object arises and we act on it without any separate act of certification. Only when doubt genuinely arises does the further inference come in and there it terminates. Because it regresses your fear of threatens during intrinsic validity doctrine exactly as much as mine. You too must postulate that a cognitions being known as itself validly postulated. Prove asterisk that asterisk and you are inferring all over again. a fair hit. remains extrinsic. Then tell me how any of us tells Waking from dreaming at all. Udayana, if LED is never simply given, I dream I am drowning in a pond. The terror is total and distinguishable in the moment from any waking terror, until I wake and find no water anywhere. In the moment you wake, the two states stand in sharp. Undeniable opposition, the dim memory of the dream against the vivid immediacy of waking, at contrast is itself a criterion. It does not need to be imported from anywhere else. his waking experience supplies its own standard against which the dream is measured and found one in. The Western logicians raise a sharper doubt still. A philosopher, Mer, they call him, held up both his hands before a halt and said, Here is one hand, here is another, therefore external objects are real. His critics answered, If your very eyes could be doubted, showing us your hands proves nothing. Let them doubt one. A bare estrusc lodge will possibly estrusc that evidence, might some disservice against of fact is not the same as evidence that has surfaced. Push that skepticism to its route, and you land on a wall of non-contradiction itself. Call it a tautology if you like, empty of content, but either the skeptic must stand on it to say anything at all, including his doubt. I do not need certainty invulnerable to every conceivable future. I need what any reasonable inquiry needs, the balance of evidence, honestly weight, and on that balance, Nyer's account of validity, known through marks, external to bare cognition, confirmed to finally, by successful action, carries the greater weight, illusion and error are undeniable facts of experience. If, as you am on Macron M, a Macron lit. 1-4-3-S-S-S-A, everything cognized is thereby true, what, then, or illusion and error, you have no answer for that. Ground me this much then, and let me change ground. Even without your God, the Vedda need not be authored at all, the Vedda, and the very sound it is made of may simply be eternal, requiring no faultless speaker and no author to answer for. Then I must take that from you too, friend, and I will do it from plain hearing. We say, every day that sound has stopped, the drum was struck, and now it is silent. That is a direct cognition of sounds, asterisk, destruction, asterisk. Sound cannot have merely moved elsewhere, being formless. It cannot have been covered over, for covering the longs to things with shape is not merely grown too faint for us, for the same excuse would prove that a shattered pot is not really broken, only become invisible. But the ear cannot perceive the absence directly, its substratum, ether cannot be perceived at all. The ear need not proceed either to perceive the estrusc absence of sound in the ear estrusc, precisely as darkness is perceived as the absence of light, without anyone perceiving the invisible particles that would be at its locus, and listen to the sound itself pitch rises, falls, loudens, softens, one and the same eternal thing to not bear opposed to qualities at once. What you call the same word, recognized again as a flame, recognized again, new fuel, new light, each moment, called by one name out of of habit. Production and destruction, not eternity, is what your own near tells you, if you will trust it. The tradition will need to answer you on this length elsewhere. Yeah, well, for now it is enough that sound and with it, the spoken better is produced, and what is produced can be lost, which returns us to the question who restores it each time the world dissolves and forgets. Suppose I grant dissolution. During dissolution, your own account. Nothing moves. Nothing acts. The sky itself stands empty and still. What, then, could possibly initiate a de-asterous, new-asterous creation out of absolute stillness? Consider deep sleep first as a smaller case of the same puzzle. In dreamless sleep the self's cognition, desire, pleasure, and pain all fall silent together. Yet the body's breath continues. Faint and the self wakes again, undamaged. So to a cosmic dissolution and extremely so emotion persists in the atoms of the four elements to find to register as a world until its final stage marks the moment and becomes the seed of new creation. It is not that a day must always be preceded by another day of its own kind, the first day of the monsoon is preceded by the last day of summer, not by another rainy day. So to the first day of a new creation is preceded by dissolution, not by another day of an old world. And the first human beings, the first Brahmins, the first speakers of any tongue at all. No parent taught them to speak, for there was no one yet to teach. As the first Scorpion arises from rotten dumb, not from a Scorpion parent, and only later, generations breed true, so the Supreme Lord may himself take the forms of teacher and pupil of the world's door. Gesture is a puppeteer moves a puppet's hand toward a distant object, and in that gesture teach the very first convention of word and meaning. From that first instruction the whole chain, potter to potter, weaver to weaver, teacher to student, descends unbroken until the mixed dissolution breaks it again, and do not imagine the chain is holding as firmly today as it once did. Look honestly at what is already frayed. Right? One's performed with full memory of thousands of Vedic branches now survive, if at all, through a single branch imperfectly kitt. The member wants to do it on four legs. Arsteity, knowledge, sacrifice, charity. Arsteity fell. Two legs remained. Knowledge fell. One leg, charity. There's the whole weight now. And even that leg is wounded. Then say plainly what you're building toward. That scripture is not self-sustaining. Its authority depends on the better, not on the general good conduct of virtuous people copying one another. For a virtuous conduct alone were sufficient to make an act obligatory, no scriptural indumption would be needed at all. And yet we all know rights that have lapsed entirely with no living witness. That must one day be asterisk restored asterisk, not merely remembered. Restoration needs a knower in faith, and Scripture merely asterisk recognizes asterisk truth. not manufacture it once the original cause is gone. Then let Capilla serve as that Noah, a sage of direct perception, purified by yoga, moved by compassion for suffering creatures capable of reviving what scripture has lost. Test the claim as carefully as you tested mine, friend, meditation may indeed be a means of knowing what is otherwise hidden. I did not deny it wholesale, but meditation does not automatically yield knowledge the instant it is practiced. It needs some other means to confirm what it has found, what confirms Tappella's meditation on compassion and non-violence. This fruits no one has ever seen a strisk. A coward meditates fruitfully on a snake only because he has met a snake before. No one has met the frow of the over directly. In this life are between two lies, for the body that acts in this birth and the body that reaps the frow and the next are not even the same body, without some experienced link joining the two. The connection cannot be verified at all. It is said some remember Fauna Biss. It is said, but not established, a teacher who falls asleep on a holiday night and resumes yesterday's lesson at dawn proves only that memory holds estrus within estrus one life, not across the gulf between two. And consider the very first params at creation's dawn by what memory could they have known their own lineage. If no one had yet been born to remember it, no power travel between worlds is proven either that might have carried settlers in Berenade cast system redamade. It is, in the end, simpler and more reasonable to accept one omission of an omnipotent being who needs nobody, no untested memory, no unproven journey between worlds, then to multiply unproven half omissioned sages to do the same work badly. I will carry the question forward, you Deanna. I do not yet carry your conclusion. That is exactly as debate should stand at the end of its second round. Made my heart hold fast to see ver until light's last moment, he who, aided by the destinies of ever-beating, builds this astonishing world again and again, and, like a magician and doing his own trick, amix it again, his will runs imposed through the whole of the cosmos, whose its final cause, on that Lord alone, let my devotion rest amoot. You have spent two bouquets building toward a maker of the world, Ute Ana, I will spend this one demolishing the foundation. If God existed, he ought to be knowable, as a cow's horn is knowable by its shape and color. He is not known, therefore he does not exist, exactly as a hare's horn does not exist, precisely because, though its asterisk shape asterisk would be knowable if it were there, no one has ever perceived one. A clean argument and cleanly wrong at its first step. Your inference works. Only where the object was asterisk already granted to be perceptible asterisk. The hare's horn fails the test of perception that was always eligible to sit. God was never claimed by any theist in this hall to be an object of ordinary perception at all. You cannot fault a non-seen thing for failing a test it was never entered into. Then how is he known, if not by the one method you now exempt him from? By inference. Which is precisely what these five cases exist to supply. Sage your strongest objection for the fifth. When the inferences themselves stand before you, for now I only clear the ground in non-apprehension of a thing never claimed to be apprehensible proves nothing. Consider your own self, then, as a test case. In dreamless sleep you do not apprehend your own self, yet you do not conclude, on waking, that you had ceased to exist. Why does the same silence, applied to God, not equally prove asterisk his asterisk absence? Because in sleep the causes that would produce self-cognition are simply not assembled, the mind has withdrawn from the senses not because the self has vanished, but because As the instrument of noticing it has gone quiet, the very fact you rely on, that no one doubts their own continued existence to a dreamless night is a self-proof that non-apprehension does not entail nonexistence. You have refuted your own method with your own example. Then try this instead, a conscious being ought to show bodily activity, as the sprouting seed shows the gardener's hand. No divine activity is seen before a single sprout appears. No activity, no agent. pot needs an embodied potter, the world does not thereby need an embodied maker of the identical kind. The self persists, a-moving, too-sleep, too-feigning, to the stillness of poison or extreme cold. Without any bodily sign at all, different effects proceed from different kinds of causes, and there is no law binding asterisk, every asterisk, maker to a visible hand. Let me strip this den further than the atheist dares. I do not even require noble but unknown as your loophole. My rule is simpler. What is not known. In asterisk, any asterisk sense does not exist. What is known exists. God is never known. Finnith. Then finish it, tear barter and see where it leads you. On your rule, the moment you step outside your own house, you no longer perceive your wife, your children, your stored grain, by your own law. They must be judged. Destroy the instant your eyes leave them. Do you believe that? memory shows me they remain memory assures you have many destroyed things too a childhood house long since fallen a friend long dead memory alone cannot certify present existence the instant you lean on memory to save your family from your own rule you've conceded exactly what I need non-apprehension is not proved non-existence and consider the eye itself the very organ you're seeing depends on is never itself seen yet you do not doubt it exists or or rule. Followed honestly, destroys your own instrument of doubting. Ordinary conduct does not need certainty. It runs on probability, general agreement tested by use. Then where does probability estrusc live estrusc? On your account, if a thing is seen, you say its existence is certain, if unseen, its absence is certain. You have left no middle ground for probability to stand on at all. You have described a doctrine with no room for the very mode of belief, you say it rests on. Grants inference some ground, then, if you insist. But how is doubt about it ever finally removed? Every observed pattern might break tomorrow, or a mile from here, or under some condition we haven't thought to check. That threat never closes. It closes the moment you notice something you have already conceded to to asterisk, doubt, asterisk, a future deviation. You must already be able to think about the future, and that very capacity is inference, extended from present time to hour, day, and season. You cannot use inference to attack inference without burying the very tool you are trying to disqualify. And practically, doubt ends where counterfactual would trap the dower in his own contradiction to nigh that cause an effect, a reliably connected, and the very act of doubting itself an effect, could never have arisen in you at all. A reasonable mind does not chase every conceivable exception forever, it follows a reason this provision has been tested and holds and acts. Carry it forward, then. I will listen to the rest. One more avenue, Udayana, before you move on. Some hold comparison, cognition through observed similarity, to be its own independent means of knowledge, distinct from perception and inference, if so. A difficulty for you follows. Everything known resembles something else already known, but the God you describe has nothing else similar to him anywhere. comparison than prove his asterisk absence asterisk, but at very singularity. Only if similarity were some third kind of entity, neither being nor non-being, and no such third kind exists, beating and non-beating exhaust the field to nine one, and you have thereby affirmed the other. Similarity is simply a property of things that already are, sorted under one or the other of those two categories, it needs no independent status, and therefore yields no independent weapon against a being who happens, but his nature to be singular, uniqueness, is not a defect that argument can weaponize, it is simply a fact some subjects have and others don't. Then let me press you on testimony itself since this whole bouquet circles back to whether the Vedder needs an author at all. The V.I.S.Q.T. letter 1 E6-3 I.K.O. treats an ordinary sentence meaning as something asterisk inferred asterisk from the speaker's intention. Testimony reduced to a kind of inference. My own school's prior Baccaro branch goes further, only the Veda, being awful, carries independent authority. An ordinary human sentence is trust where the only once inference has certified the speaker reliable. Both positions ask testimony to do more work than it needs to. The moment you already know words express of power, the sentences meaning a rise, with a hearing of it, no separate inferential step, no prior certification of the speaker's reliability, is required for comprehension to occur at all. A child who is not yet know whether the vetter has an author still understands the Vedic sentence perfectly well the moment he hears it, that alone shows understanding does not wait on settling authorship first. Only is its own means of knowledge standing beside perception and inference, not smuggled inference wearing a disguise. Then consider the sharper objections some raised directly against you if an asterisk omniscient asterisk creator composed even human language itself at the world's dawn, teaching the first speaker's word by word how could such teaching ever get off the ground with no shared word yet existing between teacher and pupil to teach asterisk with asterisk. As I have already shown you in the second bouquet through gesture before a word exactly as a puppeteer's cord makes a puppet's hand point at a distant thing and the watching child infers meaning from the pointing before any word is spoken at all. Instruction need not presuppose language completed. It can asterisk begin asterisk language. Gesture first. Word following. I do not ask you to accept this today. I only ask you to notice that the objection, however sharp it sounds, has already been met. Astorisk examination of postulation as an independent means of knowledge, examination of non-apprehension as an independent means of knowledge, and further examination of the same daughter's turrisque. One and then the other. Udayana, since you have answered comparison and testimony. Postulation, first, the inference forced on us when a known fact makes no sense otherwise. postulation nut, in some case, force us to explain the world asterisk without asterisk God and so crowd him out? Show me the fact that only makes sense without a maker, and I will answer it directly, but no one in this hall has yet produced one. Every alleged case of postulation that Ansky turns out, on inspection, to be an ordinary inference wearing postulation's name, an ordinary inference I have already answered at length. Then non-Aprihension once more, in its fullest form, not merely, I have not seen him, which you answered in the first scene, but the deeper M.I. Macron M.A. Macron letter 1 E4 3 S.A. Macron claim that non-Aprihension is asterisk itself, asterisk a distinct sense-born means of knowledge, and that its silence regarding God should count as positive evidence. Trace it carefully and it collapses into perception after all, a normal, unimpaired sense produces the determinate cognition no-pot here by apprehending the asterisk place Then I have exhausted perception, inference by non-application, and I have exhausted perception, inference by non-application. I have been able to understand the existence of the mind, the essence of the mind, and the essence of the mind. I have been able to understand the essence of the mind, the essence of the mind, the essence of the mind, the essence of the mind, the essence of the mind, the essence of the mind. I have been able to understand the essence of the mind, the essence of the mind, the essence of the mind. Then I have exhausted perception, inference by non-apprehension, comparison, testimony, and postulation, and none of them has delivered me your absence. Not exhausted, a friend, only tested, fairly, one at a time. That is all I have asked of anyone across this whole bouquet. With full devotion we bow as they guide our gods, worshipped across every tradition in this hall under a hundred names, whose quiet, festive, loveless, no rival joy equals, whose reality, no perception can catch and discard, no inference overturn, no other means of knowledge unseat, and on whom, in the end, every one of those means of knowledge itself depends to be trustworthy at all. One more difficulty, Udayana, and it strikes at the roots of everything you have built. You call God omission, but valid cognition by definition must know something asterisk not already known asterisk, otherwise memory itself would count as a valid means of knowledge which no one accepts. knowledge is totaled, nothing is ever new to him. If nothing is ever new to him on your own definition, nothing he knows can count as asterisk valid asterisk knowledge at all. And if his knowledge is not valid, he is no trust with the author of anything, including the veda you have spent free becase defending. Then the floor is in that definition, not in God. Knowing what was not known, a floor cannot be what makes a cognition true. It is both too narrow and too wide. Too narrow, see the same jar twice, and the second seeding is every bit as true as the first, though nothing is new in it. Too wide an illusion may present something never seen before and still be false. Novelty tracks neither truth nor falsehood. What makes a cognition true is simply this, that an asterisk corresponds to how the thing actually is asterisk. By that measure, God's cognition, being total and never in error, is as true as any cognition could be, whether or not any of it is new to him. Then how do you distinguish a second true seething of the same, jar from mere memory? We do not call memory a means of knowledge. Because memory depends entirely on a prior cognition to borrow its content from, it cannot arise from nothing. A fresh seeing of the same jar depends on the jar being asked to risk presently their asked to risk seen again through its own causes, not recalled from a store. The gods case is simple of still then either this cognition of the whole universe is a single, self identical act, dependent on no other cognition before it needing no second glance at anything. Call it neither new nor old, it simply is entire, all at once. Let me try a different door then. Surely cognition does asterisk something asterisk to its object leaves some mark on it. We call this mark known as the property an object gained simply by being known that of asterisk having been asterisk known. Without it, being produced in your own inference for a divine maker becomes entrust with you, because an agent who leaves no trace on what he touches can hardly be said to know his own materials. Three ways to argue for such a mark in non-survive testing. First, that cognition, being an action, must yield a result the way any action yields a result. And that result is knownness, but an arrow shot of the empty sky produces no result asterisk in the sky asterisk. Cognition may be like that arrow real motion. No mark left beyond. Second, that we say the pot is known, and this phrase itself proves some new property sits on the pot. But we equally say the pot was destroyed of a pot that no longer exists to receive any property at all. Language describing a relation to an act is not. By itself, prove a real recipe in the object. Third, that the very fact we can asterisk talk about asterisk cognition proves some perceptible trace that leads, but the causes that let us talk about a cognition are the very same causes that produced the cognition in the first place. Nothing further needs to be posited to explain the talk. Then Nonus explains nothing that cognition's own nature doesn't already explain on its own. Just so, the cognition of a pot is a cognition of potbite's own nature, exactly as an effort to lift a stone is an effort concerning that stone by its own nature, without either one, depositing some third thing into what it touches. Set the object aside then and turn the question on cognition itself. How do you even know a cognition has occurred if not through some further cognition, perceiving it endlessly, one behind the next? Not endlessly, directly. The moment an indeterminate awareness of some external thing arises, the very asterisk fact of being a cognition, asterisk, is already faintly present alongside it to the mind. On the next moment, when a further cognition of that same object arises, the mind turns and knows the earlier cognition determinately, the way a first fire recognized in one's own kitchen lets one recognize, but the same war. A second fire blinks later on a distant hill through its smoke. Cognition is not itself perceived through some second, separate cognition standing outside it, the mind's direct relation to the self, in whom cognition in hears is enough. Then answer the harder form of the question. On your school's own account, a cognition lasts barely two or three moments before it perishes. If it is that brief, how does it last long enough both to reveal its object asterisk and asterisk to be caught, itself by the mind looking back at it, and does that fleeting cognition in its second moment still grasp the very same object it grasped in the first, or has the object in the instant already changed? The same object held across both moments, nothing stranger is required than branding that a cognition, once arisen, persists briefly enough to do both jobs without contradiction to disclose its object and to become, in turn, an object for the mind's next glance. Chase the alternative digest-ranked toward that each vanishing instant would need its own vanishing-knownness to certify it, and that knownness it's owned further knownness to certify asterisk at asterisk, and you have simply reproduced one level up. The same infinite regress you were trying to rescue knownness from in the first place. Simplicity favors dropping the extra entity, not multiplying it. Grant everything so far. Sell every means of knowledge we have ever named is defined by asterisk doing asterisk something. The The eye acts upon light, and inference acts through a middle term. A word acts through a speaker's utterance. God, on your account, does none of this. No sense contact. No middle term. No speech act producing his knowledge. By what right, then, do you still call him an asterisk nor asterisk at all, using a word built entirely out of agency? Because ordinary etymology gives only the estrus-common estrus-groud of a word's meaning. Not the whole of how it is actually used. We call sense faculty a means of knowledge because of its costfully asterisk involved asterisk in producing cognition. We call God a knower for different, equally legitimate, reasoned cognition simply asterisk resides asterisk in him as a permanent feature of what he is without needing to be produced by anything at all. A person to be a knower without, at this instant, being an agent of anything knowing does not require doing. need acclaim this cognition to some fifth un-discovered means of knowledge alongside perception, inference, testimony, and the rest. Broadened perception to mean simply asterisk direct uninterrupted awareness of an object asterisk. Not perception through sense contact specifically and thus knowing false naturally under that wider sense without forcing a new category into being. One last thrust and then I yield this bouquet. If God is omniscient, He knows every false belief, every creature has ever held, every illusion, every mistake and inference, every dream. But then the asterisk objects asterisk of all our errors art in some sense present within his own cognition too, does that not make his cognition itself shot through with error. And if his knowledge already contains our mistakes, what uses his teaching in dispelling them? You have confused the error with the asterisk, knowledge of asterisk, the error, friend, that confusion is exactly the kind of mistake God's cognition, unlike ours, never makes. An illusion is false, but a true cognition, estrusc, that identifies estrusc and illusion as illusion, this is a false cognition, is not itself false, it is precisely the opposite clarity about falsehood, not participation in it. God knows every error exactly as it actually is as error, and a cognition that correctly sees error as error is. By the very definition we settled at the start of this bouquet, true, far from when the mind is teaching, that is the only thing that makes us teaching worth anything and all he is not merely hold our mistakes alongside his own truths. He sees them as dress, as asterisk mistakes, which is precisely what we, still caught inside them, cannot yet do for ourselves. I have carried four bouquets of doubt into this whole you day Anna, and you you have met every one of them without once raising your voice. I do not yet call myself answered in full, but I no longer call myself your opponent either, only your most stubborn student. The debate is no better outcome than that, friend. Sit and rest a moment. What remains is not defence any longer. Pre-Bukesub defence are behind this hall now, the doubt that no unseen cause exists, the doubt that ritual needs no God, the claim that God can be disproved outright, in this fourth and shortest bouquet, the question of what it even means to call so still a being a Noah. Every doubt raised against him has been met and turned. One task remains, greater than all the rest, not merely to defend the Citadel but to build it, eight proofs standing on their own feet, requiring no opponents first move at all. That is the fifth bouquet and the summit of this whole garden. I have done nothing yet but clear ground. Answering doubt, refuting attack, defending the possibility of a maker. Tonight, I stop defending. Eight proofs stand before you. Each, sufficient on its own, needing no opponents first move to exist at all that the world is in asterisk, effect asterisk. That the first motion in the arms requires a mover. That the world is asterisk, sustained asterisk. That it is asterisk destroyed asterisk. the very conventions of word and craft required a first teacher that the asterisk, validity, asterisk of the scriptural tradition demands a trustworthy source that scripture itself testifies to its author, that even their asterisk, number asterisk, tunis, threenis, and things too small for any of us to count, bears the mark of a counting mind. Test each one as heartily as you have tested everything else. I have said this evening. I ask only that you test them one at a time on their own ground. Begin then, I have not conceded easily tonight and I will not begin now. That is exactly how this should end. The air of the mountains, the bodies we sit in, all that is asterisk produced asterisk, exactly as a pot is produced, and nothing produced lacks a producer, therefore the world has a maker. Then that maker has a body as every potter does, and if he has a body, he is not the bodiless god you have been building tore for forebukes. Press that objection and watch it fall through your own hands, either you are claiming death as a body, in which case you have already granted he exists and merely quibble above the shade, or you are claiming the world was estrusk, not estrusk, made by an body being inconglue from that alone that it was not made at all, which contradicts the very inference you are supposedly answering. A general cause need not share every feature of the particular causes we happen to have seen before. Fire is inferred from smoke regardless of estrusc, which estrusc fuel burned. A maker is inferred from a maid, world regardless of whether that maker wears a body. Embodied was never the low-bearing part of my proof. You have argued against a word I did not need. Consider the atoms themselves, then, before they ever became a world at all. At creation's first instant, atoms that had never before moved began to move, and combine what is As an earth cannot move itself, a spade does not swing itself into the earth. Something conscious must impel it. Destiny alone might account for that first motion without any conscious impeller at all. Destiny is one cause among several needed, teacher, not a cause that crowds out all the others. An inert thing precisely because it is an earth needs a locus of consciousness to set it moving exactly as a spade needs a hand. You may call a specific motion of a living body different in time from the first motion of an atom, if you like, but define bodily motion any way you choose. And you will find the definition already assumes exactly what I am arguing a special motion produced by a conscious agent. You cannot use the very thing under dispute to disqualify the inference that establishes it. world, immense and heavy as it is, does not fall, as a bird's weight, weight, does not fall, sustained by its own effort in flight. Something sustains the whole of it, moment to moment, the way effort sustains a living body. And when that same world is later destroyed, down to the smallest indivisible pair of atoms, destruction, too, requires an agent capable of it, precisely as cloth is destroyed only by the tearing hand, not by nothing. Destiny, again, might account for both, stability without a sustainer, dissolution without a destroyer. Destiny is real, and I have never denied it, but a cause acknowledged is not every cause excluded. If Destiny alone explained the body's substance, effort itself would have no work left to do including a living creature upright, which is plainly false, as any of us standing in this hall could tell you, sustaining and destroying are each one. Effects. Effects need agents. The world's vastness is no exemption from a ruling deviance. Every smaller thing we have ever watched rise and fall. Consider something closer to home than atoms. The very conventions by which any of us here understands the other. A potter's craft is learned from another potter of weavers. From another weaver, a child learns the alphabet from a teacher who learned it from a teacher before. Trace the chain back far enough, and you reach a first link, a first potter with no product to learn from, a first speaker with no language yet spoken to be taught in. Perhaps the chain simply has no first link, beginningless, like the round of rebirth itself. The asterisk cycle asterisk of creation and dissolution is beginningless, month. I do not dispute that, but within any asterisk one asterisk cycle, at its own fresh dawn, there are no fallen or ordinary human beings yet available to have originated anything. Something must set the very first convention moving in each new beginning, the way a puppeteer's gesture, a chord-pulled, a hand-pointed, teaches a watching child the meaning of a word before any word has yet been spoken between them. That first teacher need not keep a body permanently, a scripture itself records a being who takes form again and again precisely, to renew what would otherwise be lost. Then let me meet you on my own ground one final time. You say the Vedic tradition's asterisk validity asterisk itself proves the source behind it, but validity on my scores, teaching needs no external guarantee, it is simply what the proper cause cognition already is. And if every cognition's validity needed a further cognition to certify it, we would face the same regress that has followed us since the second Bakae, I regress. I answer then, and answer again now a tradition this vast, this stable, held by learned people across every generation, is not the kind of thing a single limited person invents from nothing. It requires, at its root, one being of the requisite excellence to originate it truly. And Scripture does not merely imply such a source. It names one in passage after passage, unprompted by any need for praise. The Vetter speaks of itself as issuing from a knowing mouth viz. better issues for me in every cycle and a collection of sentences accepted on its own authority by every knowledgeable person who has ever studied it. Resting on nothing beyond itself is not the same thing as an ordinary human composition whose author really goes unnamed. You have carried that thread across four briquettes to reach here. I recognize the shape of the argument even if I have not yet fully laid down my own. That is honest, and it is enough for tonight. Once I do have not yet pulled, Udayana, scripture does not merely describe a dasturist commands asterisk. The self should be known. What is a command, if not simply an action, or a desire, already present in the listener without need of any speaker behind it? Neither will serve, not action, for know the self commands nothing that moves through space at all, and any command reduced to mere action collates into every ordinary sentence describing a person working to market, not desire either. For the very desire to act arises, only asterisk from asterisk cognizing the command's meaning make desire the meaning of the command and desire becomes both cause and effective itself, circular and empty. What a command actually conveys is a speaker's as to risk, intention as to risk, that the listener act, and an intention requires, by its very grammar, an intent. You should do this as meaningless without someone whose desired express is concerning you. Every injunction in scripture examined honestly down to its grammar points back to a speaker standing behind the verb. And last, the strangest end to my mind, the most delicate of the eight, a pair of atoms has a certain magnitude triad. A magnitude far greater, too great to be explained by atomic size alum for a mere multiplication of atoms explained at two atoms together should already show that same gross size and they cleanly do not. Something beyond their aggregation, a numbering, a asterisk counting asterisk, must operate even here at a scale no eye in this this hall could ever proceed directly. Tunus is not a property, lying passively in the pair, it arises through an act of asterisk, enumeration asterisk, and atoms are, by their very nature, invisible to every one of us. Whose enumeration, then, tives the diet of its tunus. If no finite creature has ever counted a single item in its life. Only an omniscient counter. Only an omniscient counter. Ape, poose, friend, the world is effect, the atom's first motion, its sustaining, its destruction, the first teaching of every word we speak, the validity of an ancient trust, Scripture's own testimony to its source, and now number itself, present in what none of us could ever count alone. I did not claim any single one of these, standing, by itself, could not be picked at by a patient enough upon it across another whole evening, yet show me tonight exactly how patient this hall can be. I claim only that eight independent lines, converging on the same conclusion from eight different directions, no one of them borrowed from the others, are not eight coincidences. That is what a bouquet is in the end, not one unbreakable flower, but many gathered together so that even if one petal bruises, the bouquet itself still stands whole in your hand. And is there truly no way to know him except by chains of reasoning? Udayana, eight proofs each requiring a whole like this one and an evening like this one to walk through. for the vividness of a true dream. I have not asked this hall to take that on face to night. I have only walked to you, proof by proof, toward the point where faith and reason arrive at the same door from different roads. If even this, eight proofs offered honestly, tested honestly, cannot move the mind that mine is stone, and no bouquet of arguments will solve in stone. So I do not pray for victory here. act pray instead, may this bouquet of reasoning perfume both nostrils equally, may it satisfy the theist who came already believing, and, in its own time, reach even the a theist who came to break it. And if it cannot do even that much, then let it rest simply as an offering gathered honestly, kept fresh, laid without expectation at the feet of the Lord of Teachers, who alone knows whether the mind that hears it tonight will find its way home sooner or only later, by some other row than this halls entirely.

← Transcript index