MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

NYAYAKUSUMANJALI Full_RadioPlay.mp3

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 (0.995826)

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 eJournal www.vidat.co.in
3. 0:17–0:28Before argument and offering, understand these words in two senses at once, as one speaks of flowers and in the same breath of doctrine.
4. 0:28–0:34May this bouquet, gathered honestly, kept fresh, never crushed, to wilting though the hand presses
5. 0:34–0:39hard upon it, be laid at the two feet of the Lord, and made my mind, in that offering,
6. 0:39–0:46no adjoining now grief can follow, and understand me twice over, friends, I speak of flowers.
7. 0:46–0:50I also speak of the doctrines I am about to set before you,
8. 0:50–0:54proofs of God's existence, reasonings tested against their opposites,
9. 0:54–0:57inferences that do not break under any count of woe.
10. 0:57–1:02Neither 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. 1:08–1:13I mean, then, to make plain the nature of that Lord, that transcend itself, whose worship
14. 1:13–1:16the learned call erode to heaven and to freedom.
15. 1:16–1:19Udayana, why asterisk inquire asterisk?
16. 1:19–1:20The Vedta 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. 1:26–1:31None, and that is exactly my point, friend, and exactly my problem.
20. 1:31–1:32Look at this assembly.
21. 1:32–1:34The follower of the UP at N.I.
22. 1:34–1:38Letter 1 E6-3, a DS, calls him pure consciousness.
23. 1:38–1:42Capitalist people call him eternal and conscious, but not the maker.
24. 1:42–1:47Pat and Jolly Joggins call him a self untouched by affliction, who wears a body only to teach.
25. 1:47–1:51The passers-parters call him free even of the rules that bind us.
26. 1:51–1:54Sabers call him saver.
27. 1:54–2:03V I letter 1 E 6 3 letter 1 E 4 7 and V A S V I letter 1 E 6 3 letter 1 E 4 7 U the
28. 2:03–2:11tellers of P U or a macron letter 1 E 4 7 I called him grand sire of all the ritualist
29. 2:11–2:16calls him the one even the oblation is poured the digimbar calls him one freed of body
30. 2:16–2:22and a vigorous the M a macron M a macron letter 1 E 4 3 S a K calls the deities
31. 2:22–2:29the mantras themselves, God. Even you, Garbierker, had some word for what ordinary people mean
32. 2:29–2:30by God.
33. 2:30–2:32A word, not a belief.
34. 2:32–2:37Even a word is data. Friend, my point stands, everyone in this hall already agrees, asterisk,
35. 2:37–2:44that asterisk something is meant by God, and disagrees completely on asterisk, what asterisk?
36. 2:44–2:49That is not the ground for silence. That is the very ground that demands inquiry.
37. 2:49–2:50We have heard enough from Scripture.
38. 2:50–2:51It is time.
39. 2:51–2:52Now to reason.
40. 2:52–2:59The Veddo itself says, first hear, then reflect, and the elders add, through hearing, through
41. 2:59–3:06reasoning, through the quiet practice of meditation, a soul comes at last to seal itself truly.
42. 3:06–3:08So, reflection begins.
43. 3:08–3:12Let me be honest about what stands against me before I offer a single proof.
44. 3:12–3:16Five doubts, and I will take them one by one across this bouquet.
45. 3:16–3:17One.
46. 3:17–3:18There is no unseen.
47. 3:18–3:21natural cause behind our fate in the next world at all.
48. 3:21–3:252. Even without such a cause, plain human striding is enough to explain ritual and its
49. 3:25–3:28fruit. 3. There is positive evidence that God does
50. 3:28–3:33asterisk, not asterisk exists. 4. Even if some proof of God is offered, that
51. 3:33–3:38very proof will turn out invalid. 5. No authoritative proof of God exists at all, valid
52. 3:38–3:39or not.
53. 3:39–3:44Good. Say them plainly. That is fair debate. Take the first, then.
54. 3:44–3:50Look at how differently people act. Two men, same circumstance. Choose opposite paths.
55. 3:50–3:56One turns to ritual. One to indulgence. One to renunciation. That difference in tendency
56. 3:56–4:01has asked risk, causes asked risk. And a chain of those causes has no first link we can point
57. 4:01–4:07to. And whatever a man reads, he reaps in his own person, not in others. So something
58. 4:07–4:12unseen must connect this light's action to a fruit received beyond it. This world
59. 4:12–4:15thick with every kind of suffering unequally dealt out.
60. 4:15–4:17Can I be uncaused?
61. 4:17–4:20An uncaused thing either exists always or never.
62. 4:20–4:24It does not arise here, cease there on no schedule at all.
63. 4:24–4:29Yet plainly this world of ours, asterisk, does asterisk arise and cease on a schedule none
64. 4:29–4:30of a set.
65. 4:30–4:33Therefore, some cause beyond the scene.
66. 4:33–4:37Unless the effect simply derows asterisk by accident asterisk, no cause needed at
67. 4:37–4:38all.
68. 4:38–4:44what you mean by accident, and I will show you it collapses into one of four things, no
69. 4:44–4:50cause at all. Self-production, production from nothing, are merely a fact about the things
70. 4:50–4:53own nature. None of the four survives.
71. 4:53–4:56Every effect that comes to be has a clear earlier limit, the moment before which it
72. 4:56–5:02was not, and a clear later limit, the moment after which it will not be, as it is. Nothing
73. 5:02–5:08Everything marks asterisk that asterisk limit, at asterisk that asterisk moment, except
74. 5:08–5:09to cause acting then.
75. 5:09–5:13But suppose the moment itself needs no further explanation.
76. 5:13–5:17I think simply asterisk has asterisk the property of beginning to exist on this day rather than
77. 5:17–5:18another.
78. 5:18–5:21The way space simply has the property of being eternal.
79. 5:21–5:26A property shared by asterisk, everything asterisk explains, nothing about why asterisk this
80. 5:26–5:30asterisk thing on asterisk, this asterisk day.
81. 5:30–5:35The beginning to exist whenever it does adjust each things, bare nature, with no cause behind
82. 5:35–5:36it.
83. 5:36–5:39The very question, why then and not earlier would return?
84. 5:39–5:41Endlessly, an answer nothing.
85. 5:41–5:42No.
86. 5:42–5:44Production needs a producer.
87. 5:44–5:46Chance is not an answer.
88. 5:46–5:48It is the question wearing a disguise.
89. 5:48–5:51Then tell me why the asterisk same asterisk kind of cause.
90. 5:51–5:56Say, fire, rises from such different means, dry grass rubbed, wood churned, sunlight
91. 5:56–5:58gathered through a lens.
92. 5:58–6:02cause determines effects strictly. How does one effect come from three unlike origins?
93. 6:02–6:08Because causal powers known through asterisk observed asterisk correlation in each distinct
94. 6:08–6:14context, not proclaimed once for all contexts at once, grinding, churning, focusing,
95. 6:14–6:21three different causal complexes, each independently verified to yield fire under its own conditions.
96. 6:21–6:26Nothing in that a variety damages the rule that asterisk and asterisk effect requires asterisk
97. 6:26–6:31asterisk, sufficient cause. It only shows that sufficient cause can be realized more
98. 6:31–6:37than one way. The rule survives. Only your picture of it was too narrow.
99. 6:37–6:42Grant all that. Why must the unseen, merit and demerit asterisk a D letter 1 E 5 B letter
100. 6:42–6:491 E 6 3 letter 1 E 6 D A asterisk be the missing cause? Why not simply say ordinary,
101. 6:49–6:54visible auxiliary causes strung together, explain all the diversity we see?
102. 6:54–6:57These invisible chains of cause alone explained everything.
103. 6:57–7:03No one would trouble to perform a single unrewarded ritual, and yet people do, expecting nothing
104. 7:03–7:05here, only hereafter.
105. 7:05–7:08Ask, ask, risk, why ask, risk, they persist.
106. 7:08–7:09Not for pleasure.
107. 7:09–7:14The unbeliever seeks pleasure more directly and skips the ritual, not for reputation
108. 7:14–7:18alone that fails to explain private devotion no one sees.
109. 7:18–7:23Not because elders deceive the young, for the elders themselves keep the observance
110. 7:23–7:29and a deceiver does not usually deceive himself first, some cunning founder, embedding it all for his own gain,
111. 7:29–7:36then a eloned should have grown rich and free, giving nothing away, yet the pattern runs the other direction,
112. 7:36–7:44entirely the sincere give a asterisk away asterisk what they have, no exhaustive account without an unseen throat survives scrutiny,
113. 7:44–7:51Something unseen, some asterisk a d-little-one e5b-little-one e6-3-little-one e6-d asterisk
114. 7:51–7:55must be admitted as the real cause-connecting-ness act to that throat.
115. 7:55–8:00Even so, must this potency you speak of be some separate reality over and above the visible
116. 8:00–8:05substances that act could not mere asterisk absence asterisk of an obstruction be doing
117. 8:05–8:08the causal work with nothing further needed.
118. 8:08–8:10Absence can remove a hindrance.
119. 8:10–8:12It cannot, by itself.
120. 8:12–8:17Asterisk produce asterisk a positive effect, to make bricks into a house you need not only
121. 8:17–8:23the absence of the builder's laziness, but the masons hand. Ritual, likewise, does not merely
122. 8:23–8:30clear a path. It lays down something, a residual potency in the agent, that ripens later into
123. 8:30–8:37fruiting, that residue is real, though unseen its reality, is asterisk inferred asterisk,
124. 8:37–8:42exactly as we infer far from smoke, by its necessary connection with an effect that
125. 8:42–8:48is no other adequate explanation. This is the same style of reasoning that will, in time,
126. 8:48–8:54carry us all the way to God, an inference from effect to a cause required by the effect,
127. 8:54–8:59nothing mystical, nothing merely asserted. Let me offer our school's account, since
128. 8:59–9:06it touches your very question. We hold that PRK let a 1.5 BTI, primordial
129. 9:06–9:13nature, unconscious but active. Woven of the Three G. U. Letter 1 E. 47 S.
130. 9:13–9:18Undertakes all transformation of the world unaided. For the sake of P. U. R. U. Letter
131. 9:18–9:251 E. 6 D. Rhea S. Liberation. No further cars. Unseen marriage or God. Is required with P.
132. 9:25–9:31R. K. Letter 1 E. 5 B. T. I. Alone suffices as the ground of ritual's power in the world's
133. 9:31–9:32unfolding.
134. 9:32–9:40An elegant system, teacher and I will grant it much, but consider PRK let-a-one E5 BTI
135. 9:40–9:47as you describe her as asterisk when asterisk, undifferentiated throughout, acting always
136. 9:47–9:54by the same essential nature, a single, uniform cause, left to itself, cannot by itself
137. 9:54–10:00explain asterisk sequence asterisk of unlike effects arising one after another, each
138. 10:00–10:05waiting its turn. If she preuses successively, something must account for the order of that
139. 10:05–10:11succession, and that something is exactly the kind of unseen, individuating cause I am arguing
140. 10:11–10:17for. Grant me that much, and we are no longer very far apart. You have simply not yet divin'd
141. 10:17–10:22the name I give it. We will not settle that today, but I concede the difficulty is real.
142. 10:23–10:27Enough delicacy. There is no unseen anything. What is not seen, touched, or reason from
143. 10:27–10:30direct perception is simply not there to reason about.
144. 10:30–10:31Ritual is habit.
145. 10:31–10:35The next world is a story told to keep the poor obedient.
146. 10:35–10:40Then answer me plainly, Carvokra, why do sincere people perform rites that cost them that bring
147. 10:40–10:45them no worldly return, that they could abandon at no cost to their reputation?
148. 10:45–10:48Still they persist quietly, without display.
149. 10:48–10:53You have called it habit, but habit needs a first cause too.
150. 10:53–10:59In every account you offer, pleasure, custom, deception, a founder's cunning, collapses
151. 10:59–11:03the moment it is tested as I have already shunned this assembly.
152. 11:03–11:05What is not directly seen is not thereby proven false.
153. 11:05–11:10It is simply what must be established by inference, which is the very tool you yourself
154. 11:10–11:16use to walk from smoke to fire, though you have never seen the two joined at the source.
155. 11:16–11:17Inference I permit.
156. 11:17–11:18Faith, I do not.
157. 11:18–11:23let us continue by inference alone, that is all I have asked of anyone in this hall.
158. 11:23–11:30Udayana, your whole argument leans on things that asterisk endure asterisk, an agent who
159. 11:30–11:36ritually acts today and reaps tomorrow, a self that persists to receive the fruit.
160. 11:36–11:43But nothing endures. Every existent is momentary, arising and perishing in the same instant it
161. 11:43–11:51appears. What you call the same person tomorrow is only a causal series, each moment new.
162. 11:51–11:57Then tell me, on your own doctrine, who reaps what was sown by a moment that no longer exists
163. 11:57–12:02at the time of reaping? If nothing endures even an instant longer than its arising, the
164. 12:02–12:07doer of the deed and the receiver of the fruiting or, by your own account, two different,
165. 12:07–12:13unconnected momentary existence, moral responsibility itself dissolves? Consider, too, how ordinary
166. 12:13–12:19Very recognition works. I see a jar today and know it as the asterisk, same asterisk jar
167. 12:19–12:24I saw yesterday. Not a new jar resembling the old. If that recognition of identity were
168. 12:24–12:30always illusion, no cognition of asterisk, difference asterisk between two moments could
169. 12:30–12:37stand as reliable either since both rest on the same faculty of comparing across time.
170. 12:37–12:41Deny persistence route in branch and you cannot even trust the doubt you had just
171. 12:41–12:47raised against me for even raising a doubt requires that the one who doubted a moment ago,
172. 12:47–12:50and the one who now speaks, are the same continuing self.
173. 12:50–12:55We say the continuity is causal, not substantial.
174. 12:55–12:59And a carnal series sufficiently unified to carry karmic fraud across time is, in every
175. 12:59–13:03respect that matters here, what I mean by an enduring self.
176. 13:03–13:06We may be closer in substance than in vocabulary.
177. 13:06–13:08Monk, let something persists.
178. 13:08–13:11On that, this bouquet cannot yield.
179. 13:11–13:16Grant persistence, then, sell, if an object's very nature, asterisk is asterisk to be a
180. 13:16–13:17cause.
181. 13:17–13:21Must it not cause its effect always, everywhere, the moment it exists, the way blue is always
182. 13:21–13:22blue.
183. 13:22–13:26Yet an eternal, all-pervading self is not seen to produce pleasure and pain at every
184. 13:26–13:27moment.
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. 13:37–13:43is the asterisk. Unobstructed and a sudden asterisk of a cause relative to its effect
188. 13:43–13:48ascertains sometimes by matching agreement and difference, where that feels as if something
189. 13:48–13:53eternal and everywhere present, which cannot be absent anywhere to test the different side
190. 13:53–13:58ascertained 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 ribening of that same 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. 14:29–14:31Asterisk conclude in prayer, Dot Asterisk.
198. 14:31–14:37The hidden power of the Supreme Lord which deals each soul its portion.
199. 14:37–14:40Call it, Mayor, since the mind cannot grasp it whole.
200. 14:40–14:41Call it, P. R.K.
201. 14:41–14:46Let-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
204. 14:54–14:55perfect peace.
205. 14:55–15:06devotion in my heart, and stand as witness visibly to what I offer here. We have established
206. 15:06–15:11across the first bouquet that an unseen destiny governs the fruit of every act, but destiny
207. 15:11–15:17itself must have some cause, and no creature among us can perceive that cause directly.
208. 15:17–15:23No one acts purposefully toward what lies wholly beyond cognition, so some extraordinary
209. 15:23–15:29omniscient being must exist, able to hand down to us true knowledge of that hidden causal link
210. 15:29–15:35so that we may act rightly at all. Why reach for an omnipotent God? Udayana, when the beginningless,
211. 15:35–15:40unbroken chain of Vedic tradition already carries that knowledge to us. What if you distrust an
212. 15:40–15:44ortholous Vedder, the sage Kapila, and others attained omniscience through yoga and discipline
213. 15:44–15:51alone neither requires you God? Because valid cognition depends on causes outside itself,
214. 15:51–15:57and the world is not, on any account, unbroken. It dissolves periodically, entirely. When it
215. 15:57–16:04dissolves, the unbroken transmission of the better dissolves with it. There is no teacher, no student,
216. 16:04–16:10no sound in the air. Nor can we rest the whole edifice on sages like Kepler, whose access to
217. 16:10–16:15hidden truths I intend to test directly before this bouquet closes. Something must renew the
218. 16:15–16:19tradition after every dissolution. That is the thread I mean to follow now.
219. 16:19–16:25Before you reach for God, settle a smaller question first, one my school and yours have long disputed.
220. 16:25–16:31When a cognition arises, is his asterisk truth asterisk known automatically in the very arising of it?
221. 16:31–16:36I say yes to cognize something at all simple asterisk is asterisk to take it as true.
222. 16:36–16:40What later proves false was on inspection, never truly a cognition.
223. 16:40–16:47Then explained out, M, I'm Macron M, amacron leta 1a43s at K, if validity announced itself
224. 16:47–16:52the instant a cognition arose, no cognition could ever be doubted.
225. 16:52–16:57Yet we doubt constantly, the moment a cognition doesn't resemble others, already confirmed
226. 16:57–17:03true, validity, like invalidity, is known by something asterisk, external asterisk
227. 17:03–17:09to the bare fact of cognizing a further mark, a further inference, a test in successful
228. 17:09–17:12action. But your external test invites its own
229. 17:12–17:17regress. If a second cognition is needed to certify the first, a third is needed to certify
230. 17:17–17:22the second, so on without end. Not so, because most of the time certifying
231. 17:22–17:27the levity is simply unnecessary, where there is neither doubt nor reason for doubt,
232. 17:27–17:32belief, in an object arises, and we act on it without any separate act of certification.
233. 17:32–17:37Only where doubt genuinely arises does the further inference come in,
234. 17:37–17:42and there it terminates. Because the regressory fear threatens during intrinsic validity doctrine
235. 17:42–17:48exactly as much as mine. You too must postulate that a cognition is being known as itself validly
236. 17:48–17:53postulated. Prove asterisk that asterisk and you are inferring all over again.
237. 17:54–17:55A fat hit.
238. 17:55–18:00Consider the thirst demand who drinks the moment he sees water. You'd say he asterisk
239. 18:00–18:06directly asterisk perceives water is powered quench thirst. Since he acts without hesitation,
240. 18:06–18:12He is not. The power is inferred. Instantly and unconsciously, from past experience,
241. 18:12–18:18the way desire itself is born from a swift, silent inference that a certain action gets a certain result,
242. 18:18–18:25swiftness is not saying this. An extrinsic test, taken quickly, still remains extrinsic.
243. 18:25–18:29Then tell me how any of us tells waking from dreaming at all. Udayana, if I let it be,
244. 18:29–18:33is never simply given. I dream I am drowning in a pond. The terror is total,
245. 18:33–18:38and distinguishable in the moment from any waking terror, until I wake and find no water anywhere.
246. 18:38–18:45The moment you wake, the two states stand in sharp, undeniable opposition. The dim memory of the dream
247. 18:45–18:50against the vivid immediacy of waking, at contrast is itself the criterion, it does not need to be
248. 18:50–18:56imported from anywhere else, because waking experience supplies its own standard against
249. 18:56–19:00which the dream is measured and found wanting. The western logicians raise a sharper doubt
250. 19:00–19:05still. A philosopher, Mer, they call him, held up both his hands before a halt, and said,
251. 19:05–19:10Here is one hand, here is another, therefore external objects are real. His critics answered,
252. 19:10–19:13If your very eyes could be doubted, showing us your hands proves nothing.
253. 19:14–19:19Let them doubt, Rowan. A bare estrus, logical possibility, estrus, that evidence,
254. 19:19–19:24might some disservice against a fact, is not the same as evidence that is surfaced.
255. 19:24–19:29Push that skepticism to its route, and you land on a wall of non-contradiction itself,
256. 19:29–19:34itself. Call it a tautology if you like, empty of content, but even the
257. 19:34–19:38skeptic must stand on it to say anything at all, including his doubt. I do not
258. 19:38–19:43need certainty invulnerable to every conceivable future. I need what any
259. 19:43–19:48reasonable inquiry needs, the balance of evidence, honestly weight, and
260. 19:48–19:53all-night balance. Nyer's account of validity, known through marks, external to
261. 19:53–19:58bear cognition, confirmed to finally, by successful action, carries the
262. 19:58–20:04greater weight, illusion and error are undeniable facts of experience. If, as you am a Macron
263. 20:04–20:12M, a Macron little 1-4-3-S-S-K-S-C, everything cognized is thereby true, what, then, or illusion
264. 20:12–20:14and error, you have no answer for that.
265. 20:14–20:17Grant me this much, then, and let me change ground.
266. 20:17–20:21Even without your God, the Vedda need not be authored at all, the Vedda, and the very
267. 20:21–20:26sand it is made of may simply be eternal, requiring no fault of speaker, and no author
268. 20:26–20:27to answer for.
269. 20:27–20:32And 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 sound's asterisk, destruction asterisk.
272. 20:42–20:45Sound cannot have merely moved elsewhere, being formless.
273. 20:45–20:50It cannot have been covered over, for covering the lungs to things with shape is not merely
274. 20:50–20:54grown too faint for us, for the same excuse would prove that a shattered pot is not
275. 20:54–20:57really broken, only become invisible.
276. 20:57–21:02the ear cannot perceive the absence directly, its substratum, ether cannot be perceived at all.
277. 21:03–21:09The ear need not perceive either to perceive the estrusc absence of sound in the ear estrusc,
278. 21:09–21:15precisely as darkness is perceived as the absence of light. Without anyone perceiving the invisible
279. 21:15–21:20particles that would be at its locus, and listen to the sound itself, pitch rises, falls,
280. 21:20–21:26loudens, softens, one and the same eternal thing to not bear opposed qualities at once,
281. 21:26–21:33What you call the same word, recognized again as a flame recognized again, new fuel, new light, each moment,
282. 21:33–21:35called by one name out of habit.
283. 21:35–21:41Production and destruction, not eternity, is what Dronir tells you if you will trust it.
284. 21:41–21:45The tradition will need to answer you on this length elsewhere.
285. 21:45–21:49Yeah, well, for now it is enough that sound end with it.
286. 21:49–21:53The spoken there is produced and what is produced can be lost,
287. 21:53–21:57which returns us to the question who restores it each time the world dissolves and forgets.
288. 21:58–22:04Suppose I grant dissolution during dissolution when your own account nothing moves, nothing acts,
289. 22:04–22:08the sky itself stands empty and still. What, then, could possibly initiate a
290. 22:08–22:11asterisk-new asterisk creation out of absolute stillness?
291. 22:12–22:16Consider deep sleep first as a smaller case of the same puzzle. In dreamless,
292. 22:16–22:22sleep the self's cognition, desire, pleasure, and pain all fall silent together, yet the
293. 22:22–22:25body's breath continues.
294. 22:25–22:28Faint and the self wakes again, undamaged.
295. 22:28–22:34So to a cosmic dissolution and extremely slow motion persists in the atoms of the four elements
296. 22:34–22:39to find to register as a world, until its final stage marks the moment and becomes the
297. 22:39–22:41seed of new creation.
298. 22:41–22:45It is not that a day must always be preceded by another day of its own kind.
299. 22:45–22:49The first day of the month soon is preceded by the last day of summer, not by another
300. 22:49–22:50rainy day.
301. 22:50–22:56So to the first day of a new creation is preceded by dissolution, not by another day of an old
302. 22:56–22:57world.
303. 22:57–23:01And the first human beings, the first Brahmins, the first speakers of any tongue at all, no
304. 23:01–23:04parent taught them to speak, for there was no one yet to teach.
305. 23:04–23:11As the first Scorpion arises from rotten dung, not from a Scorpion parent, and only later,
306. 23:11–23:15generations breed true, so the Supreme Lord may himself take the forms of teacher and
307. 23:15–23:21people of the world's dawn, gesture as a puppeteer moves a puppet's hand toward a distant object,
308. 23:21–23:25and in that gesture teach the very first convention of word and meaning.
309. 23:25–23:30From that first instruction the whole chain, potter to potter, weaver to weaver, teacher
310. 23:30–23:36to student, descends unbroken until the limits to solution breaks it again, and do not
311. 23:36–23:40imagine the chain is holding as firmly today as it once did.
312. 23:40–23:45Look honestly at what is already frayed, writes once performed to a full memory of thousands
313. 23:45–23:50of Vedic branches now survive, if at all, through a single branch imperfectly kitt.
314. 23:50–23:56The member who wants to it on four legs are sterity, knowledge, sacrifice, charity.
315. 23:56–23:58Or sterity fell.
316. 23:58–23:59Two legs remained.
317. 23:59–24:00Knowledge fell.
318. 24:00–24:01One leg, charity.
319. 24:01–24:03There is the whole weight now.
320. 24:03–24:05And even that leg is wounded.
321. 24:05–24:08Then say plainly what you are building toward.
322. 24:08–24:10That scripture is not self-sustaining.
323. 24:10–24:15This authority depends on the better, not on the general good conduct of virtuous people
324. 24:15–24:16copying one another.
325. 24:16–24:21For a virtuous conduct alone were sufficient to make an act obligatory, no scriptural
326. 24:21–24:24indumption would be needed at all.
327. 24:24–24:29And yet we all know rights that have lapsed entirely with no living witness.
328. 24:29–24:34That must one day be asterisk restored asterisk, not merely remembered.
329. 24:34–24:38Restoration needs a knower in faith, and Scripture merely asterisk recognizes asterisk
330. 24:38–24:39truth.
331. 24:39–24:43not manufacture it once the original cause is gone.
332. 24:43–24:49Then let Capilla serve as that Noah, a sage of direct perception, purified by yoga, moved
333. 24:49–24:54by compassion for suffering creatures capable of reviving what scripture has lost.
334. 24:54–24:59Test the claim as carefully as you tested mine, friend, meditation may indeed be a means
335. 24:59–25:01of knowing what is otherwise hidden.
336. 25:01–25:06I did not deny it wholesale, but meditation does not automatically yield knowledge the
337. 25:06–25:07instant it is practiced.
338. 25:07–25:12It needs some other means to confirm what it has found, what confirms Tappella's meditation
339. 25:12–25:19on compassion and non-violence. This fruits no one has ever seen at risk. A coward meditates
340. 25:19–25:24fruitfully on a snake only because he has met a snake before. No one has met the frow of the
341. 25:24–25:29yogurt directly. In this life are between two lies, for the body that acts in this birth
342. 25:29–25:34and the body that reaps the frow and the next are not even the same body, without some experienced
343. 25:34–25:38Link joining the two. The connection cannot be verified at all.
344. 25:38–25:41It is said some remember Fauna Biss.
345. 25:41–25:47It is said, but not established, a teacher who falls asleep on a holiday night and resumes
346. 25:47–25:53yesterday's lesson at dawn proves only that memory holds estrus within estrus one life,
347. 25:53–25:58not across the gulf between two. And consider the very first params at creation's
348. 25:58–26:02dawn by what memory could they have known their own lineage. If no one had yet been
349. 26:02–26:08born to remember it, no power travel between worlds is proven either that might have carried
350. 26:08–26:14settlers in Berenade caste system readymade. It is, in the end, simpler and more reasonable
351. 26:14–26:20to accept one omission of an omnipotent being who needs nobody, no untested memory, no
352. 26:20–26:26unproven journey between worlds, then to multiply unproven half omissioned sages to
353. 26:26–26:28do the same work badly.
354. 26:28–26:30I will carry the question forward, you Deanna.
355. 26:30–26:33I did not yet carry your conclusion.
356. 26:33–26:38That is exactly as debate should stand at the end of its second round.
357. 26:38–26:41Made my heart hold fast to see ver until light's last moment.
358. 26:41–26:47You, aided by the destinies of ever-beating, builds this astonishing world again and again,
359. 26:47–26:52and like a magician and doing his own trick, amix it again, his will runs and posed through
360. 26:52–26:57the whole of the cosmos, whose its final cause, on that Lord alone.
361. 26:57–27:02my devotion rests on Mood.
362. 27:02–27:06You have spent two bouquets building toward a maker of the world, Yudaeana, I will spend
363. 27:06–27:08this one demolishing the foundation.
364. 27:08–27:12If God existed, He ought to be knowable as a cow's horn is knowable by its shape and
365. 27:12–27:13color.
366. 27:13–27:16He is not known, therefore He does not exist, exactly as a hare's horn does not exist,
367. 27:16–27:20precisely because, though its asterisk shape asterisk would be knowable if it were
368. 27:20–27:22there, no one has ever perceived one.
369. 27:22–27:25A clean argument and cleanly wrong at its first step.
370. 27:25–27:31inference works, only where the object was asterisk already granted to be perceptible asterisk.
371. 27:31–27:36The hare's horn fails the test of perception that was always eligible to sit.
372. 27:36–27:40God was never claimed by any theist in this hall to be an object of ordinary perception
373. 27:40–27:41at all.
374. 27:41–27:45You cannot fault a non-seen thing for failing a test it was never entered into.
375. 27:45–27:49Then how is he known, if not by the one method you now exempt him from?
376. 27:49–27:50By inference.
377. 27:50–27:54Which is precisely what these five cases exist to supply.
378. 27:54–27:59your strongest objection for the fifth, when the inferences themselves stand before you.
379. 27:59–28:03For now I only clear the ground in non-apprehension of a thing never claimed to be apprehensible
380. 28:03–28:05proves nothing.
381. 28:05–28:07Consider your own self, then, as a test case.
382. 28:07–28:11In dreamless sleep you do not apprehend your own self, yet you do not conclude, on waking,
383. 28:11–28:13that you had ceased to exist.
384. 28:13–28:16Why does the same silence, applied to God, not equally prove asterisk his asterisk
385. 28:16–28:18absence?
386. 28:18–28:22Because in sleep the causes that would produce self-cognition are simply not assembled,
387. 28:22–28:27mind has whipped her on from the senses not because the self has vanished but because the
388. 28:27–28:29instrument of noticing it has gone quiet.
389. 28:29–28:35The very fact you rely on that no one doubts their own continued existence to a dreamless
390. 28:35–28:40night is itself proof that non-apprehension does not entail non-existence.
391. 28:40–28:43You have refuted your own method with your own example.
392. 28:43–28:44Then try this instead.
393. 28:44–28:48A conscious being ought to show bodily activity as the sprouting seed shows the gardener's
394. 28:48–28:49hand.
395. 28:49–28:52No divine activity is seen before a single sprout appears.
396. 28:52–29:18activity, no agent.
397. 29:18–29:20Let me strip this den further than the atheist dares.
398. 29:20–29:23I do not even require noble but unknown as your loophole.
399. 29:23–29:24My rule is simpler.
400. 29:24–29:28What is not known in asterisk any asterisk sense does not exist.
401. 29:28–29:29What is known exists.
402. 29:29–29:30God is never known.
403. 29:30–29:31Finish.
404. 29:31–29:35Then finish it tear barter and see where it leads you on your rule.
405. 29:35–29:40The moment you step outside your own house you no longer perceive your wife your children
406. 29:40–29:45your stored grain by your own law they must be judged destroy the instant your eyes
407. 29:45–29:50leave them do you believe that memory shows me they remain memory assures you are
408. 29:50–29:56of many destroyed things too. A childhood house long since fallen, a friend long dead, memory
409. 29:56–30:01alone cannot certify present existence. The instant you lean on memory to save your family
410. 30:01–30:07from your own rule, you have conceded exactly what I need in non-apprehension, it does not
411. 30:07–30:12prove non-existence, and consider the eye itself. The very organ you're seeing depends
412. 30:12–30:17on is never itself seen, yet you do not doubt it exists, or rule.
413. 30:17–30:21honestly destroys your own instrument of doubting.
414. 30:21–30:23Ordinary conduct does not need certainty.
415. 30:23–30:27It runs on probability, general agreement, tested by use.
416. 30:27–30:32Then where does probability, asterisk, live asterisk, on your account?
417. 30:32–30:35If a thing is seen, you say its existence is certain.
418. 30:35–30:37If unseen, its absence is certain.
419. 30:37–30:41You have left no middle ground for probability to stand on at all.
420. 30:41–30:45You have described a doctrine with no room for the very mode of belief.
421. 30:45–30:47You say it rests on.
422. 30:47–30:51influence some ground then if you insist but how is doubt about it ever finally
423. 30:51–30:54removed every observed pattern might break tomorrow or a mile from here or
424. 30:54–30:59under some condition we haven't thought to check that threat never closes it
425. 30:59–31:02closes the moment you notice something you have already conceded it to asterisk
426. 31:02–31:07doubt asterisk a future deviation you must already be able to think about
427. 31:07–31:12the future and that very capacity is inference extended from present time to
428. 31:12–31:14hour, day, and season.
429. 31:14–31:17You cannot use inference to attack inference without
430. 31:17–31:20burying the very tool you are trying to disqualify.
431. 31:20–31:24And practically, doubt ends where a counterfactual would trap the
432. 31:24–31:27dower in his own contradiction to neither that cause nor effect,
433. 31:27–31:31a reliably connected and the very act of doubting itself and
434. 31:31–31:34effect could never have arisen in you at all.
435. 31:34–31:37A reasonable mind does not chase every conceivable exception
436. 31:37–31:38forever.
437. 31:38–31:43A reason this provision has been tested and holds and acts
438. 31:43–31:50Carry it forward then I will listen to the rest one more avenue you deanna before you move on some hold comparison
439. 31:51–31:55Cognition through observed similarity to be its own independent means of knowledge
440. 31:55–32:00distinct from perception and inference if so a difficulty for you follows
441. 32:01–32:03Everything known resembles something else already known
442. 32:03–32:07but the God you describe has nothing else similar to him anywhere.
443. 32:07–32:12Could comparison then prove his asterisk absence asterisk by that very singularity?
444. 32:12–32:18Only if similarity were some third kind of entity, neither being nor non-being, and
445. 32:18–32:24no such third kind exists, beating and non-beating exhaust the field to nigh one, and you have
446. 32:24–32:26thereby affirmed the other.
447. 32:26–32:31Similarity is simply a property of things that already are, sorted under one or the
448. 32:31–32:36other of those two categories, it needs no independent status and therefore yields no
449. 32:36–32:41independent weapon against a being who happens by his nature to be singular.
450. 32:41–32:47Uniqueness is not a defect that argument can weaponize, it is simply a fact some subjects have and others don't.
451. 32:48–32:52Then let me press you on testimony itself since this whole bouquet circles back to whether
452. 32:52–33:00the Vedder needs an author at all. The VI-SQT letter 1 E6-3 Ikea treats an ordinary sentence
453. 33:00–33:05meaning as something asterisk inferred asterisk from the speaker's intention.
454. 33:05–33:10Testimony reduced to a kind of inference. My own school's Prabhakara branch goes further,
455. 33:10–33:16only the Vedda, being awful, carries independent authority. An ordinary human sentence is
456. 33:16–33:20trust where the only once inference has certified the speaker reliable.
457. 33:20–33:26Both positions ask testimony to do more work than it needs to. The moment you already know
458. 33:26–33:31In no words expressive power, the sentences meaning a rise, with a hearing of it, no separate
459. 33:31–33:37inferential step, no prior certification of the speaker's reliability, is required for
460. 33:37–33:39comprehension to occur at all.
461. 33:39–33:44A child who is not yet know whether the Vedder has an author still understands the Vedic
462. 33:44–33:48sentence perfectly well the moment he hears it, that alone shows understanding does
463. 33:48–33:51not wait on settling authorship first.
464. 33:51–33:56Only is its own means of knowledge standing beside perception and inference, not smuggled
465. 33:56–33:59inference wearing a disguise.
466. 33:59–34:03Then consider the sharper objections and raise directly against you if an asterisk omniscient
467. 34:03–34:08asterisk creator composed even human language itself at the world's dawn, teaching the
468. 34:08–34:12first speaker's word by word how could such teaching ever get off the ground, with no
469. 34:12–34:18shared word yet existing between teacher and pupil to teach asterisk with asterisk.
470. 34:18–34:24As I have already shown you in the second bouquet through gesture before word exactly
471. 34:24–34:29as a puppeteer's cord makes a puppet's hand point at a distant thing and the watching
472. 34:29–34:33child infers meaning from the pointing before any word is spoken at all.
473. 34:33–34:36Instruction need not presuppose language completed.
474. 34:36–34:39It can asterisk begin asterisk language.
475. 34:39–34:40Gesture first.
476. 34:40–34:41Word following.
477. 34:41–34:44I do not ask you to accept this today.
478. 34:44–34:49I only ask you to notice that the objection, however sharp it sounds, has already been met.
479. 34:49–34:55Astorisk examination of postulation as an independent means of knowledge, examination
480. 34:55–35:01of non-apprehension as an independent means of knowledge, and further examination of
481. 35:01–35:03the same daughter's turrisque.
482. 35:03–35:05One and then the other.
483. 35:05–35:08Udayana, since you have answered comparison and testimony.
484. 35:08–35:12Postulation, first, the inference forced on us when a known fact makes no sense otherwise.
485. 35:12–35:16postulation nut, in some case, force us to explain the world asterisk without asterisk
486. 35:16–35:18God and so crowd him out?
487. 35:18–35:23Show me the fact that only makes sense without a maker, and I will answer it directly, but
488. 35:23–35:26no one in this hall has yet produced one.
489. 35:26–35:31Every alleged case of postulation that Ansky turns out, on inspection, to be an ordinary
490. 35:31–35:37inference wearing postulation's name, an ordinary inference I have already answered
491. 35:37–35:38at length.
492. 35:38–35:43In non-apprehension once more, in its fullest form, not merely, I have not seen him, which
493. 35:43–35:47you answered in the first scene, but the deeper M. I. Macron M. A. Macron Letter 1 E. 4 3 S.
494. 35:47–35:51A. Macron claim that non-apprehension is asterisk itself, asterisk a distinct sense-born means
495. 35:51–35:56of knowledge, and that its silence regarding God should count as positive evidence.
496. 35:56–36:01Trace it carefully and it collapses into perception after all, a normal, unimpaired
497. 36:01–36:06sense produces the determinate cognition no-pot here by apprehending the asterisk
498. 36:06–36:11place at risk where the pot would be, not by some free-floating faculty of noticing
499. 36:11–36:15absences in general, and a faculty that is at bottom.
500. 36:15–36:20Perception in another guy's inherits exactly the limit perception already had that can
501. 36:20–36:24report the absence only of what it was ever fit to detect in the first place.
502. 36:24–36:26God was never within that fitness.
503. 36:26–36:29The silence proves nothing new at only restates.
504. 36:29–36:34For the third time this bouquet, the very first answer I gave you.
505. 36:34–36:39When I have exhausted perception, inference by non-apprehension, comparison, testimony,
506. 36:39–36:42and postulation, and none of them has delivered me your absence,
507. 36:42–36:47Not exhausted, a friend, only tested, fairly, one at a time.
508. 36:47–36:51That is all I have asked of anyone across this whole bouquet.
509. 36:51–36:55With full devotion we bow as they guide our gods, worshiped across every tradition in
510. 36:55–37:01this hall under a hundred names, whose quiet, festive, loveless, no rival joy equals, whose
511. 37:01–37:08reality no perception can catch and discard, no inference overturn, no other means of knowledge
512. 37:08–37:14unseat, and on whom, in the end, every one of those means of knowledge itself depends to be
513. 37:14–37:22trustworthy at all. One more difficulty, you Diana, and it strikes at the roots of everything
514. 37:22–37:27you have built. You call God omission, but valid cognition by definition must know something
515. 37:27–37:32asterisk not already known asterisk, otherwise memory itself would count as a valid means of
516. 37:32–37:37knowledge, which no one accepts. God's knowledge is total, nothing is ever new to Him. If nothing
517. 37:37–37:42is ever new to Him on your own definition, nothing he knows can count as asterisk valid asterisk
518. 37:42–37:47knowledge at all. And if his knowledge is not valid, he is no trust with the author of anything,
519. 37:47–37:52including the veda you have spent free becase defending. Then the floor is in that definition,
520. 37:52–37:57not in God. Knowing what was not known before cannot be what makes a cognition true, it is
521. 37:57–38:03both too narrow and too wide. Too narrow see the same jar twice, and the second seeding
522. 38:03–38:08is every bit as true as the first, though nothing is new in it. Too wide an illusion may present
523. 38:08–38:14something never seen before and still be false. Novelty tracks neither truth nor falsehood.
524. 38:14–38:19What makes a cognition true is simply this, that an asterisk corresponds to how the thing
525. 38:19–38:25actually is asterisk. By that measure, God's cognition, being total and never in error,
526. 38:25–38:30is as true as any cognition could be, whether or not any of it is new to him.
527. 38:30–38:34Then how do you distinguish a second true seeding of the same jar from mere memory?
528. 38:34–38:37We do not call memory a means of knowledge.
529. 38:37–38:42Because memory depends entirely on a prior cognition to borrow its content from, it
530. 38:42–38:43cannot arise from nothing.
531. 38:43–38:48A fresh seeding of the same jar depends on the jar being asked to risk presently
532. 38:48–38:52there asked to risk, seen again through its own causes, not recalled from a store.
533. 38:52–38:56In God's case, as simple as still then either this cognition of the whole universe is a
534. 38:56–39:03single, self-identical act, dependent on no other cognition before it needing no second
535. 39:03–39:05glance at anything.
536. 39:05–39:09Call it neither new nor old, it simply is entire, all at once.
537. 39:09–39:12Let me try a different door then.
538. 39:12–39:17Surely cognition does asterisk something asterisk to its object leaves some mark on it.
539. 39:17–39:20We call this mark known as the property an object gained simply by being known
540. 39:20–39:25the Vasterisk having been Asterisk known. Without it being produced in your own inference for
541. 39:25–39:30a Divine Maker becomes entrust with you, because an agent who leaves no trace on what he touches
542. 39:30–39:33can hardly be said to know his own materials.
543. 39:33–39:40Three ways to argue for such a mark in non-survive testing. First, that cognition, being an action,
544. 39:40–39:45must yield a result the way any action yields a result. And that result is knownness, but
545. 39:45–39:48an arrow shut of the empty sky produces no result.
546. 39:48–39:54Asterisk in the sky, asterisk, cognition, maybe light that arrow, real motion, no mark
547. 39:54–39:55left beyond.
548. 39:55–40:00Second, that we say the putt is known, and this phrase itself proves some new property
549. 40:00–40:01sits on the pot.
550. 40:01–40:05But we equally say the pot was destroyed of a pot that no longer exists to receive
551. 40:05–40:08any property at all.
552. 40:08–40:11Language describing a relation to an act is not.
553. 40:11–40:14By itself, prove a real recipe in the object.
554. 40:14–40:20Third, that the very fact we can asterisk talk about asterisk cognition proves some perceptible
555. 40:20–40:25trace it leads, but the causes that let us talk about a cognition are the very same causes
556. 40:25–40:29that produced the cognition in the first place.
557. 40:29–40:32Nothing further needs to be posited to explain the talk.
558. 40:32–40:36Then Nonus explains nothing that cognition's own nature doesn't already explain on its
559. 40:36–40:37own.
560. 40:37–40:43Just so, the cognition of a pot is a cognition of potbite's own nature, exactly as an effort
561. 40:43–40:49to lift a stone is an effort concerning that stone by its own nature without either one,
562. 40:49–40:52depositing some third thing into what it touches.
563. 40:52–40:56Set the object aside then and turn the question on cognition itself.
564. 40:56–41:01How do you even know a cognition has occurred if not through some further cognition, perceiving
565. 41:01–41:04it endlessly one behind the next?
566. 41:04–41:05Not endlessly, directly.
567. 41:05–41:10The moment an indeterminate awareness of some external thing arises, the very asterisk
568. 41:10–41:15fact of being a cognition, asterisk, is already faintly present alongside it to the mind.
569. 41:15–41:21On the next moment, when a further cognition of that same object arises, the mind turns
570. 41:21–41:26and knows the earlier cognition determinately, the way a first fire recognized in one's own
571. 41:26–41:30kitchen lets one recognize, by the same mark.
572. 41:30–41:34A second fire blinks later on a distant hill through its smoke.
573. 41:34–41:38Cognition is not itself perceived through some second, separate cognition standing
574. 41:38–41:43outside it, the mind's direct relation to the self, in whom cognition in here's is enough.
575. 41:44–41:45Then answer the harder form of the question.
576. 41:46–41:51On your school's own account, a cognition lasts barely two or three moments before it perishes.
577. 41:51–41:55If it is that brief, how does it last long enough both to reveal its object asterisk
578. 41:55–41:59and asterisk to be caught, itself by the mind looking back at it, and does that fleeting
579. 41:59–42:04cognition in its second moment still grasp the very same object it grasped in the first,
580. 42:04–42:07or has the object in the instant already changed?
581. 42:07–42:12The same object held across both moments, nothing stranger is required than branding that a
582. 42:12–42:19cognition, once arisen, persists briefly enough to do both jobs without contradiction to disclose
583. 42:19–42:26its object, and to become, in turn, an object for the mind's next glance. Chase the alternative
584. 42:26–42:31digest-ranked toward that each vanishing instant would need its own vanishing-knownness
585. 42:31–42:37to certify it, and that knownness it's owned further knownness to certify asterisk at asterisk,
586. 42:37–42:43and you have simply reproduced one level up. The same infinite regress you were trying to rescue
587. 42:43–42:48knownness affirm in the first place. Simplicity favors dropping the extra entity, not multiplying
588. 42:48–42:53it. Grant everything so far. Sell every means of knowledge we have ever named is defined by
589. 42:53–42:58asterisk doing asterisk something. The eye acts upon light. An inference acts through a
590. 42:58–43:03a middle term. A word acts through a speaker's utterance. God, on your account, does none
591. 43:03–43:08of this. No sense contact. No middle term. No speech act producing his knowledge. I would
592. 43:08–43:13write, then, do you still call him an asterisk nor asterisk at all, using a word built entirely
593. 43:13–43:14out of agency?
594. 43:14–43:21Because ordinary etymology gives only the asterisk common asterisk route of a word's meaning.
595. 43:21–43:25Not the whole of how it is actually used. We call sense faculty a means of knowledge
596. 43:25–43:30because of his costly asterisk involved asterisk in producing cognition.
597. 43:30–43:34We call God a Knower for different equally legitimate reasons.
598. 43:34–43:40Cognition simply asterisk resides asterisk in him as a permanent feature of what he is without
599. 43:40–43:45needing to be produced by anything at all. A person to be a Knower without at this instant
600. 43:45–43:50being an agent of anything knowing does not require doing nor need a claim.
601. 43:50–43:55This cognition is some fifth undiscovered means of knowledge alongside perception
602. 43:55–44:01inference, testimony, and the rest. Broadened perception to mean simply asterisk direct
603. 44:01–44:08uninterrupted awareness of an object asterisk. Not perception through sense contact specifically
604. 44:08–44:14and that's knowing false naturally under that wider sense without forcing a new category into being.
605. 44:14–44:18One last thrust and then I yield this bouquet. If God is omniscient,
606. 44:18–44:23he knows every false belief every creature has ever held, every illusion, every mistaken inference,
607. 44:23–44:28every dream, but then the asterisk objects asterisk of all our errors art in some sense present
608. 44:28–44:32within his own cognition too, does that not make his cognition itself shot through with error.
609. 44:33–44:38And if his knowledge already contains our mistakes, what uses his teaching in dispelling them?
610. 44:38–44:43You have confused the error with the asterisk knowledge of asterisk the error, friend,
611. 44:43–44:49and that confusion is exactly the kind of mistake God's cognition, unlike ours, never makes.
612. 44:49–44:55and illusion is false, but a true cognition, estrusc, that identifies estrusc and illusion,
613. 44:55–45:02as illusion, this is a false cognition, is not itself false, it is precisely the opposite clarity
614. 45:02–45:09about falsehood, not participation in it. God knows every error exactly as it actually is as error,
615. 45:09–45:13and a cognition that correctly sees error as error is. By the very definition we settled at
616. 45:13–45:18the start of this bouquet, true, far from when the mind is teaching, that is the only thing
617. 45:18–45:23that makes us teaching worth anything and all he does not merely hold our mistakes alongside
618. 45:23–45:28his own truths. He sees them as stricke as asterisk's mistakes, which is precisely what
619. 45:28–45:32we, still caught inside them, cannot yet do for ourselves."
620. 45:32–45:37I have carried for be case of doubting to this whole, you Deanna, and you have met every
621. 45:37–45:39one of them without once raising your voice.
622. 45:39–45:44I do not yet call myself answered in full, but I no longer call myself your opponent
623. 45:44–45:46either, only your most stubborn student.
624. 45:46–45:49The debate is no better outcome than that, friend.
625. 45:49–45:51Sit and rest a moment.
626. 45:51–45:54What remains is not defense any longer.
627. 45:54–45:57Three bouquets of defense are behind this hall now.
628. 45:57–46:00The doubt that no unseen cause exists.
629. 46:00–46:02The doubt that ritual needs no God.
630. 46:02–46:05The claim that God can be disproved outright.
631. 46:05–46:10And in this fourth and shortest bouquet, the question of what it even means to call
632. 46:10–46:13so still a being a knower.
633. 46:13–46:16Every doubt raised against him has been met and turned.
634. 46:16–46:19One task remains, greater than all the rest.
635. 46:19–46:22Not merely to defend the Citadel, but to build it.
636. 46:22–46:28Eight proofs standing on their own feet, requiring no opponent's first move at all.
637. 46:28–46:36That is the fifth bouquet, and the summit of this whole garden.
638. 46:36–46:40Four bouquets, and I have done nothing yet but clear ground.
639. 46:40–46:44Answering doubt, refuting attack, defending the possibility of a maker.
640. 46:44–46:51I stop defending, ain't proof stand before you. Each, sufficient on its own, meeting
641. 46:51–46:56no opponents first move to exist at all that the world is an asterisk, effect asterisk,
642. 46:56–47:01that the first motion in the arms requires a mover, that the world is asterisk, sustained
643. 47:01–47:06asterisk, that it is asterisk, destroyed asterisk, that the very conventions of
644. 47:06–47:11word and craft required a first teacher, that the asterisk, validity asterisk of
645. 47:11–47:15the scriptural tradition demands a trustworthy source.
646. 47:15–47:22The scripture itself testifies to its author that even bear estrusc, number estrusc, tunis,
647. 47:22–47:28threenis, and things too small for any of us to count, bears the mark of a counting mind.
648. 47:28–47:31Test each one as heartily as you have tested everything else.
649. 47:31–47:33I have said this evening.
650. 47:33–47:37I ask only that you test them one at a time on their own ground.
651. 47:37–47:38Begin then.
652. 47:38–47:41I have not conceded easily tonight and I will not begin now.
653. 47:41–47:45That is exactly how this should end.
654. 47:45–47:51The air of the mountains, the bodies we sit in, all that is asterisk, produced asterisk,
655. 47:51–47:56exactly as a pot is produced, and nothing produced lacks a producer, therefore the world has a
656. 47:56–47:57maker.
657. 47:57–48:01Then that maker has a body as every potter does, and if he has a body, he is not the
658. 48:01–48:04bodiless god you have been building toward for four bukeis.
659. 48:04–48:08Press that objection and watch it fall through your own hands, either you are claiming
660. 48:08–48:13dead as a body, in which case you have already granted he exists, and merely quibble above
661. 48:13–48:14his shade.
662. 48:14–48:19Or you are claiming the world was estrusk, not estrusk, made by an body being inconglueed
663. 48:19–48:22from that alone that it was not made at all.
664. 48:22–48:25Which contradicts the very inference you are supposedly answering.
665. 48:25–48:30A general cause need not share every feature of the particular, causes we happen to have
666. 48:30–48:31seen before.
667. 48:31–48:37Fire is inferred from smoke, regardless of estrusk, which estrusk fuel burned.
668. 48:37–48:42A maker is inferred from a maid, world regardless of whether that maker wears a body.
669. 48:42–48:45Embodied was never the low-bearing part of my proof.
670. 48:45–48:48You have argued against a word I did not need.
671. 48:48–48:52Consider the atoms themselves, then, before they ever became a world at all.
672. 48:52–48:58At creation's first instant, atoms that had never before moved began to move, and combine.
673. 48:58–49:02What is an earth cannot move itself, a spey does not swing itself into the earth.
674. 49:02–49:04Something conscious must impell it.
675. 49:04–49:10the loam might account for that first motion, without any conscious impeller at all.
676. 49:10–49:15Destiny is one pause among several needed, teacher, not a cause that crowds out all
677. 49:15–49:19the others, and inert thing precisely because it is inert.
678. 49:19–49:24Needs a locus of consciousness to set it moving exactly as a spade needs a hand.
679. 49:24–49:29You may call a specific motion of a living body different in time from the first motion
680. 49:29–49:35of an atom, if you like, but define bodily motion any way you choose.
681. 49:35–49:41And you will find the definition already assumes exactly what I am arguing a special motion
682. 49:41–49:43produced by a conscious agent.
683. 49:43–49:47You cannot use the very thing under dispute to disqualify the inference that establishes
684. 49:47–49:48it.
685. 49:48–49:54The world, immense and heavy as it is, does not fall, as a bird's weight does not
686. 49:54–49:57fall, sustained by its own effort in flight.
687. 49:57–50:02sustains the whole of it moment to moment, the way effort sustains a living body.
688. 50:02–50:09And when that same world is later destroyed, down to the smallest indivisible pair of atoms,
689. 50:09–50:14destruction, too, requires an agent capable of it, precisely as cloth is destroyed only
690. 50:14–50:18by the tearing hand, not by nothing.
691. 50:18–50:22Destiny again might account for both, stability without a sustainer, dissolution without
692. 50:22–50:23a destroyer.
693. 50:23–50:30is real, and I have never denied it, but a cause acknowledged is not every cause excluded.
694. 50:30–50:35If destiny alone explained the body's substance, effort itself would have no work left to do
695. 50:35–50:40in keeping a living creature upright, which is plainly false, as any of us standing in
696. 50:40–50:42this hall could tell you.
697. 50:42–50:46Sustaining and destroying are each one.
698. 50:46–50:47Effects.
699. 50:47–50:48Effects need agents.
700. 50:48–50:52The world's vastness is no exemption from a ruling devance.
701. 50:52–50:57smaller thing we have ever watched rise and fall. Consider something closer to home than
702. 50:57–51:02Adams, the very conventions by which any of us here understands the other. A potter's
703. 51:02–51:08craft is learned from another potter, a weaver's. From another weaver, a child learns the alphabet
704. 51:08–51:13from a teacher who learned it from a teacher before. Trace the chain back far enough
705. 51:13–51:19and you reach a first link, a first potter with no product to learn from, a first speaker
706. 51:19–51:21with no language yet spoken to be taught in.
707. 51:21–51:29Perhaps the chain simply has no first link, beginningless, like the round of rebirth itself.
708. 51:29–51:35The asterisk cycle asterisk of creation and dissolution is beginningless, month.
709. 51:35–51:41I do not dispute that, but within any asterisk one asterisk cycle, at its own fresh dawn,
710. 51:41–51:46there are no fallen or ordinary human beings yet available to have originated anything.
711. 51:46–51:51Something must set the very first convention moving in each new beginning, the way a puppeteer's
712. 51:51–51:57gesture, a chord pulled, a hand pointed, teaches of watching child the meaning of a word before
713. 51:57–52:02any word has yet been spoken between them. That first teacher need not keep a body permanently,
714. 52:02–52:08scripture itself records a being who takes form again and again precisely to renew what would
715. 52:08–52:14otherwise be lost. Then let me meet you on my own ground one final time. You say the Vedic
716. 52:14–52:19traditions, asterisk, validity, asterisk itself proves the source behind it, but validity
717. 52:19–52:24on my school's teaching needs no external guarantee it is simply what the proper cause cognition
718. 52:24–52:31already is. And if every cognition's validity needed a further cognition to certify it, we would face
719. 52:31–52:37the same regress that has followed us since the second bouquet. A regress I answered then,
720. 52:37–52:43and answer again now a tradition this vast, this stable, held by learned people across every
721. 52:43–52:48generation is not the kind of thing a single limited person invents from nothing it requires
722. 52:48–52:53at its root, one being of the requisite excellence to originate it truly. And Scripture does not
723. 52:53–53:01merely imply such a source. It names one in passage after passage, unprompted by any need for praise.
724. 53:01–53:05The Vitter speaks of itself as issuing from a knowing mouth this Vitter issues from me,
725. 53:05–53:10in every cycle and a collection of sentences accepted on its own authority,
726. 53:10–53:16by every knowledgeable person who has ever studied it, resting on nothing beyond itself,
727. 53:16–53:20is not the same thing as an ordinary human composition whose author really goes unnamed.
728. 53:22–53:28You have carried that thread across four brocades to reach here. I recognize the shape of the argument,
729. 53:28–53:34even if I have not yet fully laid down my own. That is honest, and it is enough for tonight.
730. 53:34–53:38Once I do have not yet pulled, Udayana, scripture does not merely describe,
731. 53:38–53:43hadasterisk commands asterisk, the self should be known. What is a command, if not simply an
732. 53:43–53:48action or a desire already present in the listener without need of any speaker behind it.
733. 53:48–53:54Neither will serve, not action, for no the self commands, nothing that moves through space at all,
734. 53:54–53:59and any command reduced to mere action collates into every ordinary sentence describing a person
735. 53:59–54:07working to market, not desire either. For the very desire to act arises, only asterisk from asterisk
736. 54:07–54:12cognizing the command's meaning, make desire the meaning of the command, and desire becomes both
737. 54:12–54:18cause and effect of itself circular and empty. What a command actually conveys is a speaker's
738. 54:18–54:24asterisk, intention asterisk, of the listener act, and an intention requires, by its very
739. 54:24–54:29grammar, an intended. You should do this as meaningless without someone whose desired
740. 54:29–54:34express is concerning you. Every injunction in Scripture examined honestly down to its
741. 54:34–54:40grammar points back to a speaker standing behind the verb. And last, the strangest
742. 54:40–54:46to my mind, the most delicate of the eight. A pair of atoms has a certain magnitude. Try it.
743. 54:46–54:53A magnitude far greater, too great to be explained by atomic size alum for a mere multiplication of
744. 54:53–54:59atoms explained at two atoms together should already show that same gross size and they
745. 54:59–55:04cleanly do not. Something beyond their aggregation, a numbering, a asterisk counting asterisk,
746. 55:04–55:10must operate even here at a scale no eye in this hall could ever proceed directly. Tunis
747. 55:10–55:16is not a property lying passively in the pair, it arises through an act of asterisk enumeration
748. 55:16–55:23asterisk, and atoms are, by their very nature, invisible to every one of us, whose enumeration,
749. 55:23–55:29then, tives the diet its to nests. If no finite creature has ever counted a single atom in its
750. 55:29–55:35life, only an omniscient counter, only an omniscient counter, a poose friend, the world
751. 55:35–55:41this effect, the atom's first motion, its sustaining, its destruction, the first teaching
752. 55:41–55:47of every word we speak, the validity of an ancient trust, Scripture's own testimony to
753. 55:47–55:52its source, and our number itself, present in what none of us could ever count alone.
754. 55:52–55:57I did not claim any single one of these, standing, by itself, could not be picked
755. 55:57–56:02at by a patient enough opponent across another whole evening, yet shone me tonight exactly
756. 56:02–56:03how patient this hall can be.
757. 56:03–56:08I claim only that eight independent lines, converging on the same conclusion from eight different
758. 56:08–56:13directions, no one of them borrowed from the others, are not eight coincidences.
759. 56:13–56:18That is what a bouquet is in the end, not one unbreakable flower, but many gathered
760. 56:18–56:23together so that even if one petal bruises, the bouquet itself still stands whole in
761. 56:23–56:24your hand.
762. 56:24–56:28And is there truly no way to know him except by chains of reasoning?
763. 56:28–56:32Deanna, eight proofs each requiring a whole like this one and an evening like this one
764. 56:32–56:33to walk through.
765. 56:33–56:36Reasoning is not the only door.
766. 56:36–56:41Galgen's report direct inner knowing of him, the way dream sometimes shows in mind things
767. 56:41–56:43no external sense supplied it.
768. 56:43–56:46Not every dream is mere memory replayed.
769. 56:46–56:51Some carry the texture of genuine experience, through discipline, to the stilling of ordinary
770. 56:51–56:52restlessness.
771. 56:52–56:57That same kind of unmediated knowing is said to be possible for God as it is
772. 56:57–57:01in smaller measure for the vividness of a true dream.
773. 57:01–57:04I have not asked this hall to take that unfazed tonight.
774. 57:04–57:09I have only walked you, proof by proof, toward the point where faith and reason arrive at
775. 57:09–57:12the 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 soften 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 theists who came already believing, and, in its own time, reach even the atheists 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 eJournal 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 adjoining now 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 count of woe. 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, that transcend itself, whose worship the learned call erode to heaven and to freedom. Udayana, why asterisk inquire asterisk? The Vedta 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. Look at this assembly. The follower of the UP at N.I. Letter 1 E6-3, a DS, calls him pure consciousness. Capitalist 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 passers-parters call him free even of the rules that bind us. Sabers call him saver. V I letter 1 E 6 3 letter 1 E 4 7 and V A S V I letter 1 E 6 3 letter 1 E 4 7 U the tellers of P U or a macron letter 1 E 4 7 I called him grand sire of all the ritualist calls him the one even the oblation is poured the digimbar calls him one freed of body and a vigorous the M a macron M a macron letter 1 E 4 3 S a K calls the deities the mantras themselves, God. Even you, Garbierker, 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. Now to 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. One. There is no unseen. natural cause behind our fate in the next world at all. 2. Even without such a 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 reads, 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. Can I 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 none of a set. Therefore, some cause beyond the scene. Unless the effect simply derows asterisk by accident asterisk, no cause needed at all. what you mean by accident, and I will show you it collapses into one of four things, no cause at all. Self-production, production from nothing, are merely a fact about the things 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 Everything marks asterisk that asterisk limit, at asterisk that asterisk moment, except to cause acting then. But suppose the moment itself needs no further explanation. I think simply asterisk has asterisk the property of beginning to exist on this day rather than another. The way space simply has the property of being eternal. A property shared by asterisk, everything asterisk explains, nothing about why asterisk this asterisk thing on asterisk, this asterisk day. The beginning to exist whenever it does adjust each things, bare nature, with no cause behind it. The very question, why then and not earlier would return? Endlessly, an 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 churned, sunlight gathered through a lens. 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 asterisk, sufficient cause. It only shows that sufficient cause 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 E 5 B letter 1 E 6 3 letter 1 E 6 D A asterisk be the missing cause? Why not simply say ordinary, visible auxiliary causes strung together, explain all the diversity we see? These invisible 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. Ask, ask, risk, why ask, 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, embedding it all for his own gain, then a eloned should have grown rich and free, giving nothing away, yet the pattern runs the other direction, entirely the sincere give a asterisk away asterisk what they have, no exhaustive account without an unseen throat survives scrutiny, Something unseen, some asterisk a d-little-one e5b-little-one e6-3-little-one e6-d asterisk must be admitted as the real cause-connecting-ness 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 mere 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 fruiting, 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 let a 1.5 BTI, primordial nature, unconscious but active. Woven of the Three G. U. Letter 1 E. 47 S. Undertakes all transformation of the world unaided. For the sake of P. U. R. U. Letter 1 E. 6 D. Rhea S. Liberation. No further cars. Unseen marriage or God. Is required with P. R. K. Letter 1 E. 5 B. T. I. Alone suffices as the ground of ritual's power in the world's unfolding. An elegant system, teacher and I will grant it much, but consider PRK let-a-one E5 BTI as you describe her as asterisk when asterisk, undifferentiated throughout, 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. Enough 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, why do sincere people perform rites that cost them that bring them no worldly return, that they could abandon at no cost to their reputation? 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 shunned 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. Inference I permit. Faith, I do not. let us continue by inference alone, that is all I have asked of anyone in this hall. Udayana, your whole argument leans on things that asterisk endure asterisk, an agent who ritually acts today and reaps tomorrow, a self that persists to receive the fruit. But nothing endures. Every existent is momentary, arising and perishing in the same instant it appears. What you call the same 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? Consider, too, how ordinary Very 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 across time. Deny 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. And a carnal 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 ascertains sometimes by matching agreement and difference, where that feels as if 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 ribening of that same 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. The 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. devotion in my heart, and stand as witness visibly to what I offer here. We have established across 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 omniscient being must exist, able to hand down to us true knowledge of that hidden causal link so that we may act rightly at all. Why reach for an omnipotent God? Udayana, when the beginningless, unbroken chain of Vedic tradition already carries that knowledge to us. What if you distrust an ortholous Vedder, the sage Kapila, and others attained omniscience through yoga and discipline alone neither requires you God? Because valid cognition depends on 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 Kepler, 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 as true. What later proves false was on inspection, never truly a cognition. Then explained out, M, I'm Macron M, amacron leta 1a43s at K, 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 cognition 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 the levity is simply unnecessary, where 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 where doubt genuinely arises does the further inference come in, and there it terminates. Because the regressory fear threatens during intrinsic validity doctrine exactly as much as mine. You too must postulate that a cognition is being known as itself validly postulated. Prove asterisk that asterisk and you are inferring all over again. A fat hit. Consider the thirst demand who drinks the moment he sees water. You'd say he asterisk directly asterisk perceives water is powered quench thirst. Since he acts without hesitation, He is not. The power is inferred. Instantly and unconsciously, from past experience, the way desire itself is born from a swift, silent inference that a certain action gets a certain result, swiftness is not saying this. An extrinsic test, taken quickly, still remains extrinsic. Then tell me how any of us tells waking from dreaming at all. Udayana, if I let it be, 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. 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 the criterion, it does not need to be imported from anywhere else, because waking experience supplies its own standard against which the dream is measured and found wanting. 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, Rowan. A bare estrus, logical possibility, estrus, that evidence, might some disservice against a fact, is not the same as evidence that is surfaced. Push that skepticism to its route, and you land on a wall of non-contradiction itself, itself. Call it a tautology if you like, empty of content, but even 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 all-night balance. Nyer's account of validity, known through marks, external to bear cognition, confirmed to finally, by successful action, carries the greater weight, illusion and error are undeniable facts of experience. If, as you am a Macron M, a Macron little 1-4-3-S-S-K-S-C, everything cognized is thereby true, what, then, or illusion and error, you have no answer for that. Grant 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 sand it is made of may simply be eternal, requiring no fault of speaker, and no author to answer for. And 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 sound's asterisk, destruction asterisk. Sound cannot have merely moved elsewhere, being formless. It cannot have been covered over, for covering the lungs 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. the ear cannot perceive the absence directly, its substratum, ether cannot be perceived at all. The ear need not perceive 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 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 habit. Production and destruction, not eternity, is what Dronir 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 end with it. The spoken there 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 when your own account nothing moves, nothing acts, the sky itself stands empty and still. What, then, could possibly initiate a asterisk-new asterisk 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 slow motion 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 month soon 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 dung, not from a Scorpion parent, and only later, generations breed true, so the Supreme Lord may himself take the forms of teacher and people of the world's dawn, gesture as 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 limits to solution 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, writes once performed to a full memory of thousands of Vedic branches now survive, if at all, through a single branch imperfectly kitt. The member who wants to it on four legs are sterity, knowledge, sacrifice, charity. Or sterity fell. Two legs remained. Knowledge fell. One leg, charity. There is the whole weight now. And even that leg is wounded. Then say plainly what you are building toward. That scripture is not self-sustaining. This 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 at risk. A coward meditates fruitfully on a snake only because he has met a snake before. No one has met the frow of the yogurt 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 caste system readymade. 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 did 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. You, 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 and posed through the whole of the cosmos, whose its final cause, on that Lord alone. my devotion rests on Mood. You have spent two bouquets building toward a maker of the world, Yudaeana, 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. 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. 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, mind has whipped her on from the senses not because the self has vanished but because 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 itself proof that non-apprehension does not entail non-existence. 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. activity, no agent. 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. Finish. 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 are of 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 have conceded exactly what I need in non-apprehension, it does not prove 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 rule. 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, asterisk, live asterisk, 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. influence 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 it 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 a counterfactual would trap the dower in his own contradiction to neither that cause nor effect, a reliably connected and the very act of doubting itself and effect could never have arisen in you at all. A reasonable mind does not chase every conceivable exception forever. A reason this provision has been tested and holds and acts Carry it forward then I will listen to the rest one more avenue you deanna 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. Could comparison then prove his asterisk absence asterisk by that 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 nigh 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 by 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 VI-SQT letter 1 E6-3 Ikea 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 Prabhakara branch goes further, only the Vedda, 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 In no words expressive 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 Vedder 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 and raise 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 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. In non-apprehension 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 E. 4 3 S. A. Macron claim that non-apprehension 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 at risk where the pot would be, not by some free-floating faculty of noticing absences in general, and a faculty that is at bottom. Perception in another guy's inherits exactly the limit perception already had that can report the absence only of what it was ever fit to detect in the first place. God was never within that fitness. The silence proves nothing new at only restates. For the third time this bouquet, the very first answer I gave you. When 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, worshiped 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, you Diana, 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. God's knowledge is total, 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 before 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 seeding 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 seeding of the same jar depends on the jar being asked to risk presently there asked to risk, seen again through its own causes, not recalled from a store. In God's case, as simple as 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 the Vasterisk 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 shut of the empty sky produces no result. Asterisk in the sky, asterisk, cognition, maybe light that arrow, real motion, no mark left beyond. Second, that we say the putt 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 it 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, by the same mark. 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 here's 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 affirm 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 eye acts upon light. An inference acts through a 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. I would write, 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 asterisk common asterisk route of a word's meaning. Not the whole of how it is actually used. We call sense faculty a means of knowledge because of his costly asterisk involved asterisk in producing cognition. We call God a Knower for different equally legitimate reasons. 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 nor need a claim. This cognition is some fifth undiscovered 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 that's 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 mistaken 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, and that confusion is exactly the kind of mistake God's cognition, unlike ours, never makes. and 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 does not merely hold our mistakes alongside his own truths. He sees them as stricke as asterisk's mistakes, which is precisely what we, still caught inside them, cannot yet do for ourselves." I have carried for be case of doubting to this whole, you Deanna, and 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 defense any longer. Three bouquets of defense 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. And in this fourth and shortest bouquet, the question of what it even means to call so still a being a knower. 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 opponent's first move at all. That is the fifth bouquet, and the summit of this whole garden. Four bouquets, and I have done nothing yet but clear ground. Answering doubt, refuting attack, defending the possibility of a maker. I stop defending, ain't proof stand before you. Each, sufficient on its own, meeting no opponents first move to exist at all that the world is an 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, that the very conventions of word and craft required a first teacher, that the asterisk, validity asterisk of the scriptural tradition demands a trustworthy source. The scripture itself testifies to its author that even bear estrusc, number estrusc, 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 toward for four bukeis. Press that objection and watch it fall through your own hands, either you are claiming dead as a body, in which case you have already granted he exists, and merely quibble above his shade. Or you are claiming the world was estrusk, not estrusk, made by an body being inconglueed 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 estrusk, which estrusk 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 an earth cannot move itself, a spey does not swing itself into the earth. Something conscious must impell it. the loam might account for that first motion, without any conscious impeller at all. Destiny is one pause among several needed, teacher, not a cause that crowds out all the others, and inert thing precisely because it is inert. 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. The world, immense and heavy as it is, does not fall, as a bird's weight does not fall, sustained by its own effort in flight. 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. 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 in keeping 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 devance. smaller thing we have ever watched rise and fall. Consider something closer to home than Adams, the very conventions by which any of us here understands the other. A potter's craft is learned from another potter, a weaver's. 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 of 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, 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 traditions, asterisk, validity, asterisk itself proves the source behind it, but validity on my school's 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 bouquet. A regress I answered 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 Vitter speaks of itself as issuing from a knowing mouth this Vitter issues from 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 brocades 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, hadasterisk 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 no 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 effect of itself circular and empty. What a command actually conveys is a speaker's asterisk, intention asterisk, of the listener act, and an intention requires, by its very grammar, an intended. 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 to my mind, the most delicate of the eight. A pair of atoms has a certain magnitude. Try it. 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 hall could ever proceed directly. Tunis 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 its to nests. If no finite creature has ever counted a single atom in its life, only an omniscient counter, only an omniscient counter, a poose friend, the world this 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 our 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 opponent across another whole evening, yet shone 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? Deanna, eight proofs each requiring a whole like this one and an evening like this one to walk through. Reasoning is not the only door. Galgen's report direct inner knowing of him, the way dream sometimes shows in mind things no external sense supplied it. Not every dream is mere memory replayed. Some carry the texture of genuine experience, through discipline, to the stilling of ordinary restlessness. That same kind of unmediated knowing is said to be possible for God as it is in smaller measure for the vividness of a true dream. I have not asked this hall to take that unfazed tonight. I have only walked 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 soften 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 theists who came already believing, and, in its own time, reach even the atheists 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