MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

NYAYAKUSUMANJALI Full_CartoonFilm.mp4

Collection

Part 10 · VIDEHA MITHILA MAITHILI DISCUSSION CRITICISM SERIES PART 10

Status

asr-draft

Human verified

No

Editorial review

not-reviewed

ASR model

small

Detected language

en (0.995413)

Duration

57:54

Source

Open preserved recording

Timestamped machine output

1. 0:09–0:39विःवो आगिमण अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रि
2. 0:39–0:44the doctrines they am about to set before you, proofs of God's existence, reasonings tested
3. 0:44–0:49against their opposites, inferences that do not break under any count of law, neither will
4. 0:49–0:55wither in their hands cultivate this knowledge, and suffering itself loses its hold on you.
5. 0:55–0:59Asterisk definition of the subject of inquiry. Asterisk.
6. 0:59–1:04I mean then to make plain the nature of that Lord, the transcendent self, whose worship
7. 1:04–1:07will learn a call erode to heaven and to freedom.
8. 1:07–1:11Indiana, why asterisk inquire asterisk? The Vedha already sings of him. Every tradition
9. 1:11–1:16in this hall already has its God under a different name. What doubt remains to open an inquiry.
10. 1:16–1:22None, and that is exactly my point, friend, and exactly my problem. Look at this assembly.
11. 1:22–1:28The follower of the UP at NILeta 1 E 6 3 a DS calls him pure consciousness. Capillus
12. 1:28–1:33people call him eternal and conscious, but not the maker. Petanjali Joggins called
13. 1:33–1:39himself untouched by affliction, who wears a body only to teach. The past parts call him free even
14. 1:39–1:44Even of the rules that bind us, savers call him saver.
15. 1:44–1:50V-I letter 1 E-6-3 letter 1 E-4-7 and V-A-S.
16. 1:50–1:58V-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
17. 1:58–2:00are called in grand sire of all.
18. 2:00–2:04The ritualist calls him the one, even the oblation is poured.
19. 2:04–2:07The Dignbar calls him one freed of body and of ignorance.
20. 2:07–2:14The M, a Macron M, a Macron little one E4-3S, a K calls the deities of the mantras themselves,
21. 2:14–2:15God.
22. 2:15–2:20Even you, Garbierter, had some word for what ordinary people mean by God.
23. 2:20–2:21A word, not a belief.
24. 2:21–2:23Even a word is data.
25. 2:23–2:28Friend, my point stands, everyone in this hall already agrees, asked risk, that asked risk,
26. 2:28–2:30something is meant by God.
27. 2:30–2:36and disagrees completely on estrusk what estrusk, that is not the ground for silence,
28. 2:36–2:38that is the very ground that demands inquiry.
29. 2:38–2:42We have heard enough from Scripture, it is time now to reason.
30. 2:42–2:48The Veddo itself says, first hear, then reflect, and the Elders add, through hearing, through
31. 2:48–2:54reasoning, through the quiet practice of meditation, a soul comes at last to see itself
32. 2:54–2:55truly.
33. 2:55–2:57So, reflection begins.
34. 2:57–3:01Let me be honest about what stands against me before I offer a single proof.
35. 3:01–3:05Five doubts, and I will take them one by one across this bouquet.
36. 3:05–3:061.
37. 3:06–3:09There is no unseen, supernatural cause behind our fate in the next world at all.
38. 3:09–3:102.
39. 3:10–3:15Even without such a cause, plain human striding is enough to explain ritual and its fruit.
40. 3:15–3:163.
41. 3:16–3:19There is positive evidence that God does asterisk, not asterisk exists.
42. 3:19–3:204.
43. 3:20–3:23Even if some proof of God is offered, that very proof will turn out invalid.
44. 3:23–3:245.
45. 3:24–3:31proof of God exists at all, valid or not. Good. Say them plainly, that is fair debate. Take the first,
46. 3:31–3:38then. Look at how differently people act. Two men, same circumstance. Choose opposite paths.
47. 3:38–3:44One turns to ritual. One to indulgence. One to renunciation. That difference in tendency has
48. 3:44–3:50asked risk, causes asked risk. And the chain of those causes has no first link we can point to.
49. 3:50–3:54and whatever a man reaps in his own person, not in others.
50. 3:54–3:59So something unseen must connect this light's action to a fruit received beyond it.
51. 3:59–4:05This world, thick with every kind of suffering unequally dealt out, cannot be uncaused.
52. 4:05–4:08An uncaused thing either exists always or never.
53. 4:08–4:12It does not arise here, cease there on no schedule at all.
54. 4:12–4:19Yet plainly this world of ours does asterisk arise and cease on a schedule none of a set.
55. 4:19–4:25some cause beyond the scene.
56. 4:25–4:31Say what you mean by accident, and I will show you it collapses into one of four things
57. 4:31–4:33no cause at all.
58. 4:33–4:38Self-production, production from nothing, are merely a fact about the things of nature,
59. 4:38–4:40none of the four sermons.
60. 4:40–4:44Every effect that comes to be has a clear earlier limit, the moment before which
61. 4:44–4:49it was not, and a clear later limit, the moment after which it will not be.
62. 4:49–4:55As it is, nothing marks asterisk that asterisk limit at asterisk that asterisk moment, except
63. 4:55–4:56it cause acting then.
64. 4:56–5:00But suppose the moment itself needs no further explanation.
65. 5:00–5:04I think simply asterisk has asterisk the property of beginning to exist on this day
66. 5:04–5:08rather than another, but waste space simply has the property of being eternal.
67. 5:08–5:13A property shared by asterisk everything asterisk explains nothing about why asterisk
68. 5:13–5:17this asterisk thing on asterisk this asterisk day.
69. 5:17–5:22If beginning to exist whenever it does, adjust each things, bare nature, with no cause behind
70. 5:22–5:28it, the very question, why then and not earlier would return, endlessly, and answer nothing.
71. 5:28–5:29No.
72. 5:29–5:31Production needs a producer.
73. 5:31–5:35Chance is not an answer, it is the question wearing a disguise.
74. 5:35–5:40Then tell me why the asterisk same asterisk kind of cause, say, fire, arises from such
75. 5:40–5:44different means, dry grass rubbed, wood churn, sunlight gathered through a lens.
76. 5:44–5:49If cause determines effects strictly, how does one effect come from three unlike origins?
77. 5:49–5:54Because causal powers known through asterisk observed asterisk correlation in each distinct
78. 5:54–6:01context not proclaimed once for all contexts at once grinding, churning, focusing, three
79. 6:01–6:07different causal complexes, each independently verified to yield fire under its own conditions.
80. 6:07–6:11Nothing in that a variety damages the rule that asterisk and asterisk effect requires
81. 6:11–6:17asterisk and asterisk a sufficient cause. It only shows that sufficient cause can be realized
82. 6:17–6:22more than one way. The rule survives. Only your picture of it was too narrow.
83. 6:22–6:27Grant all that. Why must the unseen, married, and demerit asterisk a d letter 1e5b letter
84. 6:27–6:351e6 3 letter 1e6 d a asterisk be the missing cause? Why not simply say ordinary, visible auxiliary
85. 6:35–6:41causes strung together, explain all the diversity we see? Because of visible chains of cause alone
86. 6:41–6:46explained everything, no one would trouble to perform a single unrewarded ritual, and yet
87. 6:46–6:50people do, expecting nothing here, only hereafter.
88. 6:50–6:54Ask asterisk why asterisk they persist, not for pleasure.
89. 6:54–6:59The unbeliever seeks pleasure more directly and skips the ritual, not for reputation
90. 6:59–7:05alone, that fails to explain private devotion no one sees, not because elders deceive
91. 7:05–7:09the young, for the elders themselves keep the observance, and a deceiver does not
92. 7:09–7:15Not usually deceived himself first, some cunning founder inventing it all for his own gain,
93. 7:15–7:18then a eloned should have grown rich and free.
94. 7:18–7:23Giving nothing away, yet the pattern runs the other direction entirely the sincere give
95. 7:23–7:25asterisk away asterisk with the heth.
96. 7:25–7:30No exhaustive account without an unseen throat survives scrutiny.
97. 7:30–7:34Something unseen, some asterisk a d little one e five b little one e six three little
98. 7:34–7:40one E-60 asterisk must be admitted as the real cause-connecting-ness act to that
99. 7:40–7:45throat. Even so, must this potency you speak of be some separate reality? Over and
100. 7:45–7:49above the visible substances that act could not mere asterisk absence asterisk
101. 7:49–7:52of an obstruction be doing the causal work with nothing further needed.
102. 7:52–7:58Absence can remove a hindrance it cannot by itself. Asterisk produce asterisk
103. 7:58–8:02a positive effect to make bricks into a house you need not only the absence
104. 8:02–8:06of the builder's laziness, but the masons hand.
105. 8:06–8:12Ritual, likewise, does not merely clear a path, lays down something, a residual potency
106. 8:12–8:19in the agent, that ripens later into fruiting, that residue is real, though unseen its reality,
107. 8:19–8:25is asterisk inferred asterisk, exactly as we infer fire from smoke, by its necessary
108. 8:25–8:28connection with an effect that has no other adequate explanation.
109. 8:28–8:35This is the same style of reasoning that will, in time, carry us all away to God, an inference
110. 8:35–8:39from effect to a cause required by the effect.
111. 8:39–8:41Nothing mystical, nothing merely asserted.
112. 8:41–8:46Let me offer our school's account, since it touches your very question.
113. 8:46–8:54We hold that PRK letter 1E5BTI, primordial nature, unconscious but active, woven of the
114. 8:54–9:00The three G.U. letter 1E47S undertakes all transformation of the world unaided.
115. 9:00–9:07For the sake of P.U.R.U. letter 1E6-3AS liberation, no further cars.
116. 9:07–9:14Unseen marriage or God is required with PRK letter 1E5-BTI alone suffices as the ground
117. 9:14–9:17of ritual's power in the world's unfolding.
118. 9:17–9:22In the ELECTRON system, teacher and I will grant it much, but consider PRK let-a-one
119. 9:22–9:24E5 BTI.
120. 9:24–9:31As you describe her, is asterisk one asterisk, undifferentiated at the route, acting always
121. 9:31–9:38by the same essential nature, a single uniform cause, left to itself, cannot by itself explain
122. 9:38–9:44asterisk sequence asterisk of unlike effects arising one after another, each waiting its
123. 9:44–9:50turn if she produces successively, something must account for the order of that succession,
124. 9:50–9:55and that something is exactly the kind of unseen, individuating cause I am arguing for.
125. 9:55–9:59Grant me that much, and we are no longer very far apart.
126. 9:59–10:02You have simply not yet given in the name I give it.
127. 10:02–10:06We will not settle that today, but I concede the difficulty is real.
128. 10:06–10:07Enough delicacy.
129. 10:07–10:09There is no unseen anything.
130. 10:09–10:13What is not seen, touched, or reasoned from direct perception is simply not there to reason
131. 10:13–10:14about.
132. 10:14–10:15habit.
133. 10:15–10:18The next world is a story told to keep the poor obedient.
134. 10:18–10:23Then answer me plainly, Carvokra, why do sincere people perform rights that cost them that bring
135. 10:23–10:28them no worldly return, that they could abandon at no cost to their reputation?
136. 10:28–10:31Still they persist quietly, without display.
137. 10:31–10:36You have called it habit, but habit needs a first cause too.
138. 10:36–10:42In every account you offer, pleasure, custom, deception, a founder's cunning, collapses
139. 10:42–10:47the moment it is tested, as I have already shown this assembly. What is not directly seen
140. 10:47–10:52is not thereby proven false. It is simply what must be established by inference, which is the
141. 10:52–10:57very tool you yourself use to walk from smoke to fire, though you have never seen the two
142. 10:57–10:58joined at the source.
143. 10:58–11:01Inference I permit. Faith I do not.
144. 11:01–11:06Then let us continue by inference alone. That is all I have asked of anyone in this hall.
145. 11:06–11:12Udayana, your whole argument leans on things that asterisk ender asterisk, an agent who
146. 11:12–11:18ritually acts today and reaps tomorrow, a self that persists to receive the fruit.
147. 11:18–11:20But nothing endures.
148. 11:20–11:27Every existent is momentary, arising and perishing in the same instant it appears.
149. 11:27–11:33What you call the same person tomorrow is only a causal series, each moment new.
150. 11:33–11:38Then tell me, on your own doctrine, who reaps what was sown by a moment that no longer exists
151. 11:38–11:40at the time of reaping?
152. 11:40–11:45If nothing endures even an instant longer than its arising, the doer of the deed and the
153. 11:45–11:50receiver of the fruiting or, by your own account, two different, unconnected momentary
154. 11:50–11:54existence, moral responsibility itself, dissolves?
155. 11:54–11:56Consider, too, how ordinary recognition works.
156. 11:56–12:02I see a jar today, and know it as the asterisk, sane asterisk, jar I saw yesterday, not
157. 12:02–12:07What I knew, Jor, resembling the old, if that recognition of identity were always illusion,
158. 12:07–12:13no cognition of asterisk, difference asterisk between two moments, could stand as reliable
159. 12:13–12:19either since both rest on the same faculty of comparing across time.
160. 12:19–12:23Denied persistence route in branch, and you cannot even trust the doubt you had just
161. 12:23–12:27raised against me for even raising a doubt requires that the one who doubted the moment
162. 12:27–12:32I go and the one who now speaks are the same continuing self.
163. 12:32–12:36We say the continuity is causal, not substantial.
164. 12:36–12:40An Eccartal Series, sufficiently unified to carry karmic fruited cross-time is, in every
165. 12:40–12:44respect that matters here, what I mean by an enduring self.
166. 12:44–12:47We may be closer in substance than in vocabulary.
167. 12:47–12:50Monk, let something persists.
168. 12:50–12:52On that, this bouquet cannot yield.
169. 12:52–12:53Grant persistence, then.
170. 12:53–12:55Sell, if an object's very nature.
171. 12:55–12:57Asterisk is asterisk to be a cause.
172. 12:57–12:59Must it not cause its effect always?
173. 12:59–13:00Everywhere.
174. 13:00–13:01The moment it exists.
175. 13:01–13:06way blue is always blue, yet an eternal, all-pervading self is not seen to produce pleasure and pain
176. 13:06–13:11at every moment. How, then, can causality and an eternal self dereconcise of it all?
177. 13:11–13:18Because causality is not any object, automatically produces any effect it is capable of. Always
178. 13:18–13:23is the asterisk, unobstructed in a sudden asterisk of a cause relative to its effect,
179. 13:23–13:28ascertains sometimes by matching agreement and difference, where that fails as with
180. 13:28–13:32something eternal and everywhere present, which cannot be absent anywhere to test the
181. 13:32–13:37different side, ascertained instead, through a reason that establishes the causal relation
182. 13:37–13:42directly. The self produces pleasure and pain only in conjunction with its proper
183. 13:42–13:48auxiliary conditions, mind, body, the ripening of that same unseen potency we spoke of
184. 13:48–13:53earlier. Not everything blue produces every blue thing affects at all times either.
185. 13:53–14:00A particular cause, with its particular auxiliaries present, produces its particular effect that
186. 14:00–14:04is simply what causality asterisk means asterisk.
187. 14:04–14:10Once stated carefully, an ordinary experience confirms that at every turn asterisk concluding
188. 14:10–14:15prayer dot asterisk, the hidden power of the supreme Lord which deals each soul its
189. 14:15–14:23portion. Call it, Mayor, since the mind cannot grasp it whole. Call it P. R. K. Leto 1-E-5-V-T-I.
190. 14:23–14:29Since all creation springs from it, call it aviar, since knowledge alone dissolves it.
191. 14:29–14:33May that Lord standing beyond the whole disorder churn of this creation,
192. 14:33–14:39resting in perfect peace, wait devotion in my heart, and stay in his witness visibly
193. 14:39–14:56to what I offer here. We have established, cross the first bouquet, that an unseen destiny governs
194. 14:56–15:03the fruit of every act, but destiny itself must have some cause, and no creature among us can
195. 15:03–15:08perceive that cause directly. No one acts purposefully toward what lies wholly beyond cognition,
196. 15:08–15:15so some extraordinary omission being must exist, able to hand down to us true knowledge of that
197. 15:15–15:19That hidden causal link so that we may act rightly at all.
198. 15:19–15:21Why reach for an omnipotent God?
199. 15:21–15:25Udayana, when the beginningless, unbroken chain of Vedic tradition already carries that knowledge
200. 15:25–15:26to us.
201. 15:26–15:30What if you distrust an awfulous Vedda, the sage Kapila and others attain omniscience
202. 15:30–15:33through yoga and discipline alone, neither requires your God?
203. 15:33–15:39Because valid cognition depends on causes outside itself and the world is not on any
204. 15:39–15:41account unbroken.
205. 15:41–15:47When it dissolves periodically, entirely, when it dissolves, the unbroken transmission of
206. 15:47–15:48the better dissolves with it.
207. 15:48–15:52There is no teacher, no student, no sound in the air.
208. 15:52–15:57Nor can we rest the whole edifice on sages like Capillur whose access to hidden truths
209. 15:57–16:01I intend to test directly before this bouquet closes.
210. 16:01–16:04Something must renew the tradition after every dissolution.
211. 16:04–16:06That is the thread I mean to follow now.
212. 16:06–16:10Before you reach for God, settle a smaller question first, one my school, and yours
213. 16:10–16:16have long disputed. When a cognition arises, is this asterisk truth asterisk known automatically
214. 16:16–16:21in the very arising of it? I say yes to cognize something at all simple asterisk is asterisk
215. 16:21–16:26to take it as true. What later proves false was on inspection, never truly a cognition.
216. 16:26–16:33Then explained out, M, I'm Macron, M, a Macron letter 1A43SK, if validity announced itself
217. 16:33–16:40the instant a cognition arose, no cognition could ever be doubted. Yet we doubt constantly,
218. 16:40–16:46The moment a cognition doesn't resemble others, already confirmed true, validity, like invalidity,
219. 16:46–16:52is known by something asterisk, external asterisk to the bare fact of cognizing a further mark,
220. 16:52–16:55a further inference, a test in successful action.
221. 16:55–17:00But your external test invites its own regress. If a second cognition is needed to certify the
222. 17:00–17:04first, a third is needed to certify the second, so on without end.
223. 17:04–17:10Not so, because most of the time, certifying the levity is simply unnecessary, where there
224. 17:10–17:13is neither doubt nor reason for doubt.
225. 17:13–17:18Belief in an object arises, and we act on it without any separate act of certification.
226. 17:18–17:23Only where doubt genuinely arises, does the further inference come in, and there it
227. 17:23–17:24terminates.
228. 17:24–17:28Because the regress you fear threatens, your intrinsic levity doctrine exactly as much
229. 17:28–17:29as mine.
230. 17:29–17:35who must postulate that a cognition is being known as itself validly postulated.
231. 17:35–17:40Prove asterisk that asterisk and you are inferring all over again.
232. 17:40–17:44Consider the thirst demand who drinks the moment he sees water.
233. 17:44–17:49You'd say he asterisk directly asterisk perceives water as power to quench thirst.
234. 17:49–17:53Since he acts without hesitation, he just not that power is inferred.
235. 17:53–17:59Instantly and unconsciously, from past experience, the way desire itself is born from
236. 17:59–18:04a swift, silent inference that a certain action gets a certain result.
237. 18:04–18:06Swiftness is not saying this.
238. 18:06–18:10Extrinsic test, taken quickly, still remains extrinsic.
239. 18:10–18:13Then tell me how any of us tells waking from dreaming at all.
240. 18:13–18:15Udayana, if validity is never simply given.
241. 18:15–18:17I dream I am drowning in a pond.
242. 18:17–18:21The terror is total and distinguishable in the moment from any waking terror, until
243. 18:21–18:23I wake and find no water anywhere.
244. 18:23–18:26In the moment you wake, the two states stand in sharp.
245. 18:26–18:31undeniable opposition, the dim memory of the dream against the vivid immediacy of waking.
246. 18:31–18:37At contrast is itself a criterion, it does not need to be imported from anywhere else,
247. 18:37–18:41because waking experience supplies its own standard against which the dream is measured
248. 18:41–18:42and found one in.
249. 18:42–18:45The Western logicians raise a sharper doubt still.
250. 18:45–18:49A philosopher, Murr, they call him, held up both his hands before a halt and said,
251. 18:49–18:53Here is one hand, here is another, therefore external objects are real.
252. 18:53–18:58His critics answered, if your very eyes could be doubted, showing us your hands proves nothing.
253. 18:58–18:59Let them doubt, Rowan.
254. 18:59–19:04A bare estrus, logical possibility, estrus that evidence, might some disservice against
255. 19:04–19:08a fact, is not the same as evidence that has surfaced.
256. 19:08–19:14Push that skepticism to its route, and you land on a wall of non-contradiction itself.
257. 19:14–19:18Call it a tautology if you like empty of content, but even the skeptic must stand
258. 19:18–19:21on it to say anything at all, including his doubt.
259. 19:21–19:25I do not need certainty invulnerable to every conceivable future.
260. 19:25–19:31I need what any reasonable inquiry needs, the balance of evidence, honestly weight, and
261. 19:31–19:33all net balance.
262. 19:33–19:38Nyer's account of validity, known through Marx's external-to-bear cognition, confirmed
263. 19:38–19:44to finally, by successful action, carries the greater weight, illusion, and error-undeniable
264. 19:44–19:46facts of experience.
265. 19:46–19:51If, as you am, I'm Macron am a Macron little one-e-four-three s-a-t-a-t-s-a-t.
266. 19:51–19:53Everything cognized is thereby true.
267. 19:53–19:56What, then, or illusion and error?
268. 19:56–19:57You have no answer for that.
269. 19:57–20:00Grant me this much, then, and let me change ground.
270. 20:00–20:03Even without your God, the Vedda need not be authored at all.
271. 20:03–20:07The Vedda, and the very sound it is made of, may simply be eternal, requiring no fault
272. 20:07–20:10or speaker, and no author to answer for.
273. 20:10–20:15Then I must take that from you, too, friend, and I will do it from plain hearing.
274. 20:15–20:20We say, every day that sound has stopped, the drum was struck and now it is silent.
275. 20:20–20:25That is a direct cognition of sound's asterisk, destruction asterisk.
276. 20:25–20:28Sound cannot have merely moved elsewhere, being formless.
277. 20:28–20:33It cannot have been covered over, for covering the lungs to things with shape is not merely
278. 20:33–20:37grown too faint for us, for the same excuse would prove that a shattered pot is not really
279. 20:37–20:40broken, only become invisible.
280. 20:40–20:43But the ear cannot perceive the absence directly, it substrates them.
281. 20:43–20:45can not be perceived at all.
282. 20:45–20:48The ear need not perceived either to perceive the
283. 20:48–20:53estrus absence of sound and the ear estrus precisely as darkness is perceived as the
284. 20:53–20:58absence of light without anyone perceiving the invisible particles that would be at its
285. 20:58–21:05locus and listen to the sound itself pitch rises falls loudens softens one and the same
286. 21:05–21:11eternal thing to not bear opposed to qualities at once what you call the same word recognized
287. 21:11–21:17again is a flame recognized again, new fuel, new light, each moment, called by one name
288. 21:17–21:18out of habit.
289. 21:18–21:23Production and destruction, not eternity, is what your own ear tells you, if you will
290. 21:23–21:24trust it.
291. 21:24–21:27The tradition will need to answer you on this length elsewhere.
292. 21:27–21:31Yeah, well, for now, it is enough that sound end with it.
293. 21:31–21:35The spoken better is produced, and what is produced can be lost, which returns us to
294. 21:35–21:40the question who restores it each time the world dissolves and forgets.
295. 21:40–21:41I grant dissolution.
296. 21:41–21:46During dissolution, when your own account, nothing moves, nothing acts, the sky itself
297. 21:46–21:47stands empty and still.
298. 21:47–21:53What then could possibly initiate a de-asterous, new-asterous creation out of absolute stillness?
299. 21:53–21:56Consider deep sleep first as a smaller case of the same puzzle.
300. 21:56–22:02In dreamless, sleep the self's cognition, desire, pleasure, and pain all fall silent
301. 22:02–22:03together.
302. 22:03–22:05Yet the body's breath continues.
303. 22:05–22:11Faint and the self wakes again undamaged, so too a cosmic dissolution and extremely so
304. 22:11–22:17emotion persists in the atoms of the four elements to find to register as a world until
305. 22:17–22:21its final stage marks the moment and becomes the seed of new creation.
306. 22:21–22:26It is not that a day must always be preceded by another day of its own kind, the first
307. 22:26–22:30day of the month soon is preceded by the last day of summer, not by another rainy
308. 22:30–22:31day.
309. 22:31–22:36The first day of a new creation is preceded by dissolution, not by another day of an old
310. 22:36–22:37world.
311. 22:37–22:41And the first human beings, the first brahmens, the first speakers of any tongue at all, no
312. 22:41–22:44parent taught them to speak, for there was no one yet to teach.
313. 22:44–22:51As the first scorpion arises from rotten dung, not from a scorpion parent, and only later,
314. 22:51–22:56generations breed true, so the supreme Lord may himself take the forms of teacher and
315. 22:56–22:58pupil of the world's door.
316. 22:58–23:03as a puppeteer moves a puppet's hand toward a distant object, and a med gesture teaches
317. 23:03–23:08the very first convention of word and meaning. From that first instruction, the whole chain,
318. 23:08–23:14potter to potter, weaver to weaver, teacher to student, descends unbroken until the
319. 23:14–23:19mix dissolution breaks it again, and do not imagine the chain is holding as firmly
320. 23:19–23:23today as it once did. Look honestly at what is already freight, right's months performed
321. 23:23–23:29with full memory of thousands of Vedic branches now survive, if at all, through a single branch
322. 23:29–23:30imperfectly kept.
323. 23:30–23:37The number one student on four legs are austerity, knowledge, sacrifice, charity.
324. 23:37–23:38Ars-ter-ity fell.
325. 23:38–23:39Two legs remained.
326. 23:39–23:40Knowledge fell.
327. 23:40–23:43One leg, charity, bears the whole weight now.
328. 23:43–23:45And even that leg is wounded.
329. 23:45–23:47Then say plainly what you are building toward.
330. 23:47–23:49That scripture is not self-sustaining.
331. 23:49–23:54This authority depends on the better, not on the general good conduct of virtuous people
332. 23:54–23:55copying one another.
333. 23:55–24:00For a virtuous conduct alone were sufficient to make an act obligatory, no scriptural
334. 24:00–24:03indumption would be needed at all.
335. 24:03–24:08And yet we all know rights that have lapsed entirely with no living witness.
336. 24:08–24:13That must one day be asterisk restored asterisk, not merely remembered.
337. 24:13–24:19Restoration needs a knower, in faith in scripture merely asterisk recognizes asterisk truth.
338. 24:19–24:22cannot manufacture it once the original cause is gone.
339. 24:22–24:28Then let Capilla serve as that Noah, a sage of direct perception, purified by yoga, moved
340. 24:28–24:33by compassion for suffering creatures, capable of reviving what scripture has lost.
341. 24:33–24:38Test the claim as carefully as you tested mine, friend, meditation may indeed be a means
342. 24:38–24:39of knowing what is otherwise hidden.
343. 24:39–24:44I did not deny it wholesale, but meditation does not automatically yield knowledge the
344. 24:44–24:45instant it is practiced.
345. 24:45–24:50It needs some other means to confirm what it has found. What confirms Tapela's meditation
346. 24:50–24:57on compassion and non-violence? This fruits no one has ever seen at risk. A coward meditates
347. 24:57–25:02fruitfully on a snake only because he has met a snake before. No one has met the fruit of
348. 25:02–25:08yoga directly. In this life are between two lies. For the body that acts in this birth
349. 25:08–25:12and the body that reaps the fruit and the next are not even the same body. Without some
350. 25:12–25:17experienced Link joining the two. The connection cannot be verified at all.
351. 25:17–25:22It is said some remember Fournibus. It is said, but not established. A teacher
352. 25:22–25:27who falls asleep on a holiday night and resumes yesterday's lesson at Dorn proves
353. 25:27–25:33only that memory holds estrus within estrus one life, not across the gulf between two.
354. 25:33–25:38And consider the very first params at creation's Dorn by what memory could they have known their
355. 25:38–25:44own limited edge. If no one had yet been born to remember it, no power travel between worlds
356. 25:44–25:49is proven either that might have carried settlers in Berenet Castle system-redimied. It is, in
357. 25:49–25:57the end, simpler and more reasonable to accept one omissioned being who needs nobody, no untested
358. 25:57–26:03memory, no unproven journey between worlds, than to multiply unproven half omissioned
359. 26:03–26:05sages to do the same work badly.
360. 26:05–26:10I will carry the question forward, you Deanna. I do not yet carry your conclusion.
361. 26:10–26:15That is exactly as debate should stand. At the end of its second round, made my heart hold
362. 26:15–26:21fast to Sivir until light's last moment. You, aided by the destinies of ever-beating,
363. 26:21–26:27builds this astonishing world again and again, and, like a magician and doing his own trick,
364. 26:27–26:31amix it again, his will runs imposed through the whole of the cosmos, whose its final
365. 26:31–26:47cause on that lord alone let my devotion rest amout.
366. 26:47–26:50You have spent two bouquets building toward a maker of the world, Uteana.
367. 26:50–26:52I will spend this one demolishing the foundation.
368. 26:52–26:56If God existed, he ought to be noble as a cow's horn is knowable by its shape and color.
369. 26:56–27:01He is not known, therefore he does not exist, exactly as a hare's horn does not exist,
370. 27:01–27:04precisely because, though its asterisk shape asterisk would be knowable if it were there,
371. 27:04–27:06no one has ever perceived one.
372. 27:06–27:09A clean argument and cleanly wrong at its first step.
373. 27:09–27:16inference works, only where the object was asterisk, already granted to be perceptible asterisk.
374. 27:16–27:20The hare's horn fails the test of perception that was always eligible to sit.
375. 27:20–27:24God was never claimed by any theist in this hall to be an object of ordinary perception
376. 27:24–27:25at all.
377. 27:25–27:29You cannot fault an unseen thing for failing a test it was never entered into.
378. 27:29–27:32Then how is he known, if not by the one method you now exempt him from?
379. 27:32–27:34By inference.
380. 27:34–27:37Which is precisely what these five of the case exist to supply.
381. 27:37–27:42Sage's strongest objection for the fifth, when the inferences themselves stand before
382. 27:42–27:43you.
383. 27:43–27:47For now I only clear the ground in non-apprehension of a thing never claimed to be apprehensible
384. 27:47–27:48proves nothing.
385. 27:48–27:50Consider your own self, then, as a test case.
386. 27:50–27:54In dreamless sleep you do not apprehend your own self, yet you do not conclude, on waking,
387. 27:54–27:56that you had ceased to exist.
388. 27:56–28:01Why does the same silence, applied to God, not equally prove asterisk is asterisk absence?
389. 28:01–28:05Because in sleep the causes that would produce self-cognition are simply not assembled,
390. 28:05–28:10mind has whipped her on from the senses not because the self has vanished, but because the
391. 28:10–28:12instrument of noticing it has been quiet.
392. 28:12–28:17The very fact you rely on, that no one doubts their own continued existence through a dreamless
393. 28:17–28:22night is itself proof that non-apprehension does not entail non-existence.
394. 28:22–28:25You have refuted your own method with your own example.
395. 28:25–28:27Then try this instead.
396. 28:27–28:31A conscious being ought to show bodily activity as the sprouting seed shows the gardener's
397. 28:31–28:32hand.
398. 28:32–28:34No divine activity is seen before a single sprout appears.
399. 28:34–29:00No activity, no agent.
400. 29:00–29:02Let me strip this damn further than the atheist dares.
401. 29:02–29:05I do not even require noble but unknown as your loophole.
402. 29:05–29:06My rule is simpler.
403. 29:06–29:10What is not known in asterisk any asterisk sense does not exist.
404. 29:10–29:11What is known exists.
405. 29:11–29:12God is never known.
406. 29:12–29:13Finish.
407. 29:13–29:17Then finish it tear barter and see where it leads you on your rule.
408. 29:17–29:22The moment you step outside your own house you no longer perceive your wife your children
409. 29:22–29:27your stored grain by your own lawn they must be judged destroy the instant your eyes
410. 29:27–29:31leave them do you believe that memory as shows me they remain memory as sure as you
411. 29:31–29:33You have many destroyed things too.
412. 29:33–29:35A childhood house long since fallen.
413. 29:35–29:37A friend long dead.
414. 29:37–29:40Memory alone cannot certify present existence.
415. 29:40–29:44The instant you lean on memory to save your family from your own rule, you have conceded
416. 29:44–29:49exactly what I need in non-apprehension, it does not prove non-existence.
417. 29:49–29:51And consider the eye itself.
418. 29:51–29:55The very organ you're seeing depends on is never itself seen.
419. 29:55–29:57Yet, you do not doubt it exists.
420. 29:57–29:58A rule.
421. 29:58–30:02honestly destroys your own instrument of doubting.
422. 30:02–30:04Ordinary conduct does not need certainty.
423. 30:04–30:07It runs on probability, general agreement tested by use.
424. 30:07–30:12Then where does probability estrusc live estrusc on your account?
425. 30:12–30:16If a thing is seen, you say its existence is certain.
426. 30:16–30:18If unseen, its absence is certain.
427. 30:18–30:22You have left no middle ground for probability to stand on at all.
428. 30:22–30:25You have described a doctrine with no room for the very mode of belief.
429. 30:25–30:27You say it rests on.
430. 30:27–30:28Grants inference some ground.
431. 30:28–30:32if you insist. But how is doubt about it ever finally removed? Every observed pattern might
432. 30:32–30:37break tomorrow, or a mile from here, or under some condition we haven't thought to check. That threat
433. 30:37–30:41never closes. It closes the moment you notice something you have already conceded due to
434. 30:41–30:47asterisk, doubt, asterisk, a future deviation. You must already be able to think about the
435. 30:47–30:53future and that very capacity is inference extended from present time to hour, day, and
436. 30:53–30:58season. You cannot use inference to attack inference without burying the very tool you are trying to
437. 30:58–31:04disqualify. And practically, doubt ends where a counterfactual would trap the doubter in his own
438. 31:04–31:10contradiction to deny that cause and effect are reliably connected and the very act of doubting
439. 31:10–31:15itself and effect could never have arisen in you at all. A reasonable mind does not chase
440. 31:15–31:21every conceivable exception forever. It follows a reason this provision has been tested and
441. 31:21–31:23holds. It acts.
442. 31:23–31:25Carry it forward, then. I will listen to the rest.
443. 31:25–31:31One more avenue, Udayana, before you move on. Some hold comparison, cognition through observed
444. 31:31–31:36similarity, to be its own independent means of knowledge, distinct from perception and
445. 31:36–31:41inference, if so. A difficulty for you follows. Everything known resembles something else
446. 31:41–31:46already known, but the God you describe has nothing else similar to him anywhere. Could
447. 31:46–31:51comparison than prove his asterisk absence asterisk by that very singularity.
448. 31:51–31:57Only if similarity were some third kind of entity, neither being nor non-being, and no
449. 31:57–32:03such third kind exists, beating and non-beating exhaust the field to nigh one, and you have
450. 32:03–32:05thereby affirmed the other.
451. 32:05–32:10Similarity is simply a property of things that already are, sorted under one or the
452. 32:10–32:12other of those two categories.
453. 32:12–32:17It needs no independent status and therefore yields no independent weapon against a being
454. 32:17–32:22who happens, but his nature, to be singular, uniqueness, is not a defect that argument can
455. 32:22–32:27weaponize, it is simply a fact some subjects have and others don't.
456. 32:27–32:31Then let me press you on testimony itself since this whole bouquet circles back to whether
457. 32:31–32:32the Vedder needs an author at all.
458. 32:32–32:39The V.I.S.Q.T. letter 1 E6-3 I.K.A treats an ordinary sentence as meaning as something
459. 32:39–32:46asterisk inferred asterisk from the speaker's intention. Testimony reduced to a kind of inference.
460. 32:46–32:52My own school's Prabhakara branch goes further, only the Vedda, being awful, carries independent
461. 32:52–32:57authority. An ordinary human sentence is trust where the only once inference has certified
462. 32:57–33:03the speaker reliable. Both positions ask testimony to do more work than it needs to. The moment
463. 33:03–33:09you already know a word's expressive power, the sentences meaning arrives. With a hearing of it,
464. 33:09–33:15no separate inferential step, no prior certification of the speaker's reliability, is required
465. 33:15–33:20for comprehension to occur at all. A child who is not yet know whether the vetter has
466. 33:20–33:24an author still understands the Vedic sentence perfectly well the moment he hears it,
467. 33:24–33:29that alone shows understanding does not wait on settling authorship first.
468. 33:29–33:34Testimony is its own means of knowledge, standing beside perception and inference,
469. 33:34–33:38not smuggled inference, wearing a disguise. Then consider the sharper objections from raised
470. 33:38–33:43directly against you if an asterisk omniscient asterisk creator composed even human language
471. 33:43–33:49itself at the world's dawn teaching the first speakers word by word how could such teaching
472. 33:49–33:53ever get off the ground with no shared word yet existing between teacher and pupil to
473. 33:53–33:55teach asterisk with asterisk.
474. 33:55–34:01As I have already shown you in the second bouquet through gesture before word exactly
475. 34:01–34:06as a puppeteer's cord makes a puppet's hand point at a distant thing and the watching
476. 34:06–34:11child infers meaning from the pointing before any word is spoken at all. Instruction need
477. 34:11–34:18not presuppose language completed. It can asterisk begin asterisk language. Gesture first. Word
478. 34:18–34:23following. I do not ask you to accept this today. I only ask you to notice that the objection
479. 34:23–34:29however sharp it sounds has already been met. Asterisk examination of postulation as an
480. 34:29–34:35independent means of knowledge. Examination of non-apprehension as an independent means of
481. 34:35–34:39knowledge and further examination of the same daughter's
482. 34:39–34:44risk. One and then the other, Udayana, since you have answered comparison and
483. 34:44–34:47testimony. Postulation, first, the inference forced on us when a known fact
484. 34:47–34:51makes no sense otherwise. Does postulation not, in some case,
485. 34:51–34:54force us to explain the world asterisk without asterisk God and so crowd him
486. 34:54–34:58out? Show me the fact that only makes sense without a maker,
487. 34:58–35:02and I will answer it directly, but no one in this hall has yet produced one.
488. 35:02–35:08Every alleged case of postulation that Ansky turns out, on inspection, to be an ordinary
489. 35:08–35:14inference wearing postulation's name, an ordinary inference I have already answered at length.
490. 35:14–35:18Then non-apprehension once more, in its fullest form, not merely I have not seen him,
491. 35:18–35:23which you answered in the first scene, but the deeper M I Macron M a Macron letter 1 E4 3 S
492. 35:23–35:27a Macron claim that non-apprehension is asterisk itself, asterisk a distinct sense-born means
493. 35:27–35:31of knowledge, and that its silence regarding God should count as positive evidence.
494. 35:31–35:35Trace it carefully and it collapses into perception after all.
495. 35:35–35:41A normal, unimpaired sense produces the determinate cognition no-pot here by apprehending the
496. 35:41–35:47estrusque place estrusque where the pot would be, not by some free-floating faculty of noticing
497. 35:47–35:52absences in general. And a faculty that is at bottom. Perception in another guy's
498. 35:52–35:57inherits exactly the limit perception already had that can report the absence only of what
499. 35:57–36:03it was ever fit to detect in the first place. God was never within that fitness. The silence proves
500. 36:03–36:09nothing new at only restates. For the third time this bouquet, the very first answer I gave you.
501. 36:09–36:14Then I have exhausted perception, inference by non-apprehension, comparison, testimony,
502. 36:14–36:18and postulation, and none of them has delivered me your absence. Not exhausted,
503. 36:19–36:25friend, only tested, fairly, one at a time. That is all I have asked of anyone across this whole
504. 36:25–36:30bouquet, with full devotion we bow as the God of Gods, worshiped across every tradition
505. 36:30–36:36in this hall under a hundred names, whose quiet, festive, loveless, no rival joy equals, whose
506. 36:36–36:43reality, no perception, can catch and discard, no inference overturn, no other means of knowledge
507. 36:43–36:49unseat, and unwhom, in the end, every one of those means of knowledge itself depends
508. 36:49–37:01to be trustworthy at all.
509. 37:01–37:05One more difficulty, you Diana, and it strikes at the root of everything you have built,
510. 37:05–37:09You call God omission, but valid cognition by definition.
511. 37:09–37:12Must know something asterisk not already known asterisk,
512. 37:12–37:16otherwise memory itself would count as a valid means of knowledge, which no one accepts.
513. 37:16–37:19God's knowledge is total, nothing is ever new to him.
514. 37:19–37:22If nothing is ever new to him, on your own definition,
515. 37:22–37:25nothing he knows can count as asterisk valid asterisk knowledge at all.
516. 37:25–37:29And if his knowledge is not valid, he is no trust with the author of anything,
517. 37:29–37:32including the veda you have spent free becase defending.
518. 37:32–37:35Then the floor is in that definition, not in God.
519. 37:35–37:41Knowing what was not known before cannot be what makes a cognition true. It is both too narrow and too wide
520. 37:41–37:46Too narrow see the same jar twice and the second seeing is every bit as true as the first
521. 37:46–37:52Though nothing is new in it too wide an illusion may present something never seen before and still be false
522. 37:53–37:59novelty tracks neither truth nor falsehood what makes a cognition true is simply this that it asterisk
523. 37:59–38:16is
524. 38:16–38:21not call memory a means of knowledge. Because memory depends entirely on a prior cognition
525. 38:21–38:27to borrow its content from, it cannot arise from nothing. A fresh seeing of the same jar
526. 38:27–38:31depends on the jar being asked to risk presently there asked to risk, seen again through its own
527. 38:31–38:37causes, not recalled from a store. And God's case is simpler still than either his cognition of the
528. 38:37–38:44whole universe is a single, self-identical act dependent on no other cognition before it needing
529. 38:44–38:50no second glance at anything. Call it neither new nor old, it simply is entire, all at once.
530. 38:50–38:52Let me try a different door then.
531. 38:53–38:58Surely cognition does asterisk something asterisk to its object leaves some mark on it. We call
532. 38:58–39:02this mark known as the property an object gained simply by being known of asterisk having been
533. 39:02–39:07asterisk known without it being produced in your own inference for a divine maker becomes
534. 39:07–39:12entrust with you because an agent who leaves no trace on what he touches can hardly be said
535. 39:12–39:14to know his own materials.
536. 39:14–39:17Three ways to argue for such a mark in non-survive testing.
537. 39:17–39:23First, that cognition, being an action, must yield a result the way any action yields a
538. 39:23–39:24result.
539. 39:24–39:29And that result is knownness, but an arrow shot at the empty sky produces no result.
540. 39:29–39:34Asterisk in the sky, asterisk, cognition, may be like that arrow, real motion.
541. 39:34–39:36No mark left beyond.
542. 39:36–39:41Second, that we say the putt is known, and this phrase itself proves some new property
543. 39:41–39:46sits on the pot, but we equally say the pot was destroyed of a pot that no longer exists
544. 39:46–39:48to receive any property at all.
545. 39:48–39:51Language describing a relation to an act is not.
546. 39:51–39:53By itself.
547. 39:53–39:55Prove a real residue in the object.
548. 39:55–40:00Third, that the very fact we can asterisk talk about asterisk cognition proves some
549. 40:00–40:02perceptible trace that leads.
550. 40:02–40:06But the causes that let us talk about a cognition are the very same causes that
551. 40:06–40:10produced the cognition in the first place.
552. 40:10–40:14further needs to be positive to explain the talk. Then, no one else explains nothing that
553. 40:14–40:19cognition's own nature doesn't already explain on its own. Just so, the cognition of a part
554. 40:19–40:24is a cognition of a part by its own nature, exactly as an effort to lift a stone is an
555. 40:24–40:31effort concerning that stone by its own nature without either one depositing some third thing
556. 40:31–40:35into what it touches. Set the object aside then and turn the question on the cognition
557. 40:35–40:40itself. How do you even know a cognition has occurred if not through some further cognition,
558. 40:40–40:46perceiving it endlessly, one behind the next? Not endlessly. Directly. The moment an indeterminate
559. 40:46–40:52awareness of some external thing arises. The very asterisk fact of being a cognition asterisk
560. 40:52–40:57is already faintly present alongside it to the mind. On the next moment, when a further
561. 40:57–41:02cognition of that same object arises, the mind turns and knows the earlier cognition
562. 41:02–41:08and determinately, the way a first fire recognized in one's own kitchen lets one recognize that
563. 41:08–41:09the same war.
564. 41:09–41:13A second fire blinks later on a distant hill through its smoke.
565. 41:13–41:18Cognition is not itself perceived through some second, separate cognition standing outside
566. 41:18–41:19it.
567. 41:19–41:23The mind's direct relation to the self, in whom cognition in hears, is enough.
568. 41:23–41:25Then answer the harder form of the question.
569. 41:25–41:29On your school's own account, a cognition lasts barely two or three moments before it
570. 41:29–41:30perishes.
571. 41:30–41:34is that brief how does it last long enough both to reveal its object asterisk and asterisk
572. 41:34–41:39to be caught itself by the mind looking back at it, and does that fleeting cognition in
573. 41:39–41:43its second moment still grasp the very same object it grasps in the first, or has the
574. 41:43–41:46object in the instant already changed?
575. 41:46–41:51The same object held across both moments, nothing stranger is required than granting
576. 41:51–41:57that a cognition, once arisen, persists briefly enough to do both jobs without
577. 41:57–42:02contradiction to disclose its object and to become, in turn, an object for the mind's
578. 42:02–42:04next glance.
579. 42:04–42:09Chase the alternative digest-ranked toward that each vanishing instant would need its
580. 42:09–42:13own vanishing-knownness to certify it, and that knownness its own further-knownness to
581. 42:13–42:19certify asterisk at asterisk, and you have simply reproduced one level up, the same
582. 42:19–42:24infinite regress you were trying to rescue-knownness from in the first place.
583. 42:24–42:28favors dropping the extra entity, not multiplying it.
584. 42:28–42:29Grant everything so far.
585. 42:29–42:30Sell.
586. 42:30–42:34Every means of knowledge we have ever named is defined by asterisk doing asterisk something.
587. 42:34–42:36The eye acts upon light.
588. 42:36–42:37An inference acts through a middle term.
589. 42:37–42:40A word acts through a speaker's utterance.
590. 42:40–42:42God, on your account, does none of this.
591. 42:42–42:43No sense contact.
592. 42:43–42:44No middle term.
593. 42:44–42:46No speech act producing his knowledge.
594. 42:46–42:50I would write, then, do you still call him a asterisk nor asterisk at all, using
595. 42:50–42:53a word built entirely out of agency?
596. 42:53–42:59His ordinary etymology gives only the estrusc common estrusc route of a words meaning.
597. 42:59–43:01Not the whole of how it is actually used.
598. 43:01–43:07We call sense faculty a means of knowledge because it is costfully estrusc involved estrusc
599. 43:07–43:08in producing cognition.
600. 43:08–43:14We call God a knower for different, equally legitimate reasons cognition simply estrusc
601. 43:14–43:19resides estrusc in him as a permanent feature of what he is without needing to be produced
602. 43:19–43:25by anything at all, a person to be a knower without, at this instant, being an agent
603. 43:25–43:31of anything, knowing it is not required doing, nor need a claim as cognition to some fifth,
604. 43:31–43:37undiscovered means of knowledge alongside perception, inference, testimony, and the rest.
605. 43:37–43:42Broadened perception to mean simply asterisk direct uninterrupted awareness of an object
606. 43:42–43:48asterisk, not perception through sense contact specifically, and that's knowing false,
607. 43:48–43:52naturally under that wider sense without forcing a new category into being.
608. 43:52–43:55One last thrust and then I yield this bouquet.
609. 43:55–44:00If God is a missing, he knows every false belief every creature has ever held, every illusion,
610. 44:00–44:03every mistake and inference, every dream.
611. 44:03–44:06But then the asterisk objects asterisk of all our errors art in some sense present
612. 44:06–44:08within his own cognition too.
613. 44:08–44:11Does that not make his cognition itself shot through with error?
614. 44:11–44:15And if his knowledge already contains our mistakes, what use is his teaching in dispelling
615. 44:15–44:16them?
616. 44:16–44:22the error with the asterisk, knowledge of asterisk, the error friend. And that confusion is exactly the
617. 44:22–44:28kind of mistake God's cognition, unlike ours, never makes. And illusion is false, but a true
618. 44:28–44:35cognition, asterisk, that identifies asterisk and illusion as illusion, this is a false cognition,
619. 44:35–44:42is not itself false. It is precisely the opposite clarity about falsehood, not participation
620. 44:42–44:47in it. God knows every error exactly as it actually is as error, and a cognition that
621. 44:47–44:52correctly sees error as error is. By the very definition we settled at the start of this bouquet,
622. 44:52–44:57true, far from when the mind is teaching, that is the only thing that makes us teaching worth
623. 44:57–45:02anything and all he is not merely hold our mistakes alongside his own truths. He sees them
624. 45:02–45:08as treacherous as a treacherous mistakes, which is precisely what we still caught inside them,
625. 45:08–45:13cannot yet do for ourselves. I have carried for be case of doubting to this hall,
626. 45:13–45:17you Diana, and you have met every one of them without once raising your voice.
627. 45:17–45:21I do not yet call myself answered in full, but I no longer call myself your opponent either,
628. 45:21–45:26only your most stubborn student. The debate is no better outcome than that, friend.
629. 45:26–45:31Sit and rest a moment. What remains is not defense any longer.
630. 45:31–45:36Pre-be case of defense are behind this hall now. The doubt that no unseen cause exists.
631. 45:36–45:43The doubt that Ritual needs no God, the claim that God can be disproved outright, and in this
632. 45:43–45:49fourth and shortest bouquet, the question of what it even means to call so still a being a Noah.
633. 45:49–45:55Every doubt raised against him has been met and turned. One task remains, greater than all the
634. 45:55–46:01rest, not merely to defend the Citadel but to build it. Eight proofs standing on their own feet,
635. 46:01–46:08requiring no opponent's first move at all. That is the fifth bouquet and the summit of this whole garden.
636. 46:19–46:25Four bouquets and I have done nothing yet but clear ground answering doubt,
637. 46:25–46:30refuting attack, defending the possibility of a maker. Tonight I stopped defending.
638. 46:30–46:36Eight proofs stand before you. Each sufficient on its own, needing no opponent's first move
639. 46:36–46:41to exist at all that the world is in estrusc effect estrusc. That the first motion in the
640. 46:41–46:48arms requires a mover. That the world is asterisk, sustained asterisk. That it is asterisk, destroyed
641. 46:48–46:54asterisk. That the very conventions of word and craft required a first teacher. That the asterisk,
642. 46:54–46:59validity asterisk of the scriptural tradition demands a trustworthy source. That scripture
643. 46:59–47:07itself testifies to its author. That even bear asterisk, number asterisk, two-ness, three-ness,
644. 47:07–47:09and things too small for any of us to count.
645. 47:09–47:11There's the mark of a counting mind.
646. 47:11–47:15Test each one as heartily as you have tested everything else.
647. 47:15–47:17I have said this evening.
648. 47:17–47:20I ask only that you test them one at a time on their own ground.
649. 47:20–47:21Begin then.
650. 47:21–47:24I have not conceded easily tonight and I will not begin now.
651. 47:26–47:28That is exactly how this should end.
652. 47:28–47:31The air of the mountains, the bodies we sit in,
653. 47:31–47:36all of it is asterisk, produced asterisk, exactly as a pot is produced,
654. 47:36–47:40and nothing produced to max a producer. Therefore the world has a maker.
655. 47:40–47:43The net maker has a body as every potter does, and if he has a body,
656. 47:43–47:47he is not the bodiless god you have been building toward for four bukhaz.
657. 47:47–47:50Press that objection and watch it fall through your own hands.
658. 47:50–47:55Either you are claiming death as a body, in which case you have already granted he exists,
659. 47:55–47:59and merely quibble above the shade. Or you are claiming the world was asterisk,
660. 47:59–48:04not asterisk, made by an body being inconglueed from that alone that it was not made at all,
661. 48:04–48:07which contradicts the very inference you are supposedly answering.
662. 48:07–48:11A general cause need not share every feature of the particular
663. 48:11–48:17causes we happen to have seen before. Fire is inferred from smoke regardless of estrusk,
664. 48:17–48:23which estrusk fuel burned. A maker is inferred from a maid, world regardless of whether that
665. 48:23–48:28maker wears a body. A body was never the low-bearing part of my proof. You have argued against a
666. 48:28–48:30to work I did not need.
667. 48:30–48:35Consider the atoms themselves, then, before they ever became a world at all.
668. 48:35–48:40At creation's first instant, atoms that had never before moved began to move, and combine.
669. 48:40–48:44What is inert cannot move itself, a spade does not swing itself into the earth.
670. 48:44–48:46Something conscious must impel it.
671. 48:46–48:51Destiny alone might account for that first motion, without any conscious impeller at
672. 48:51–48:52all.
673. 48:52–48:57Destiny is one cause among several needed, teacher, not a cause that crowds out all the others,
674. 48:57–49:01an inert thing precisely because it is inert.
675. 49:01–49:06Needs a locus of consciousness to set it moving exactly as a spade needs a hand.
676. 49:06–49:11You may call a specific motion of a living body different in kind from the first motion
677. 49:11–49:16of an atom, if you like, but define bodily motion any way you choose.
678. 49:16–49:22And you will find the definition already assumes exactly what I am arguing a special motion
679. 49:22–49:24produced by a conscious agent.
680. 49:24–49:29It cannot use the very thing under dispute to disqualify the inference that establishes
681. 49:29–49:30it.
682. 49:30–49:35The world, immense and heavy as it is, does not fall, as a bird's weight, weight, does
683. 49:35–49:39not fall, sustained by its own effort in flight.
684. 49:39–49:43Something sustains the whole of it, moment to moment, the way effort sustains a living
685. 49:43–49:44body.
686. 49:44–49:48And when that same world is later destroyed, down to the smallest indivisible pair of
687. 49:48–49:55with atoms. Destruction, too, requires an agent table-bullet. Precisely as cloth is destroyed
688. 49:55–49:59only by the tearing hand, not by nothing.
689. 49:59–50:03Destiny again might account for both, stability without a sustainer, dissolution without
690. 50:03–50:04a destroyer.
691. 50:04–50:09Destiny is real, and I have never denied it, but a cause acknowledged is not every cause
692. 50:09–50:15excluded. If Destiny alone explained the body's sustenance, I've heard itself would have
693. 50:15–50:20With no work left to do in keeping a living creature upright, which is plainly false,
694. 50:20–50:23as any of us standing in this hall could tell you.
695. 50:23–50:26Sustaining and destroying are each one.
696. 50:26–50:27Effects.
697. 50:27–50:29Effects need agents.
698. 50:29–50:33The world's vastness is no exemption from a ruling devance.
699. 50:33–50:36Every smaller thing we have ever watched rise and fall.
700. 50:36–50:38Consider something closer to home than atoms.
701. 50:38–50:41The very conventions by which any of us here understands the other.
702. 50:41–50:45Potter's craft is learned from another Potter of Weavers.
703. 50:45–50:50From another Weaver, a child learns the alphabet from a teacher who learned it from a teacher
704. 50:50–50:51before.
705. 50:51–50:56Trace the chain back far enough and you reach a first link, a first Potter with no product
706. 50:56–51:02to learn from, a first speaker with no language yet spoken to be taught in.
707. 51:02–51:08Perhaps the chain simply has no first link, beginningless, like the round of rebirth itself.
708. 51:08–51:14The asterisk cycle asterisk of creation and dissolution is beginningless, month.
709. 51:14–51:20I do not dispute that, but within any asterisk one asterisk cycle, at its own fresh dawn,
710. 51:20–51:26there are no fallen or ordinary human beings yet available to have originated anything.
711. 51:26–51:31Something must set the very first convention moving in each new beginning, the way a puppeteer's
712. 51:31–51:36gesture, a cord-pulled, a hand-pointed, teaches a watching child the meaning of a word before
713. 51:36–51:42any word has yet been spoken between them. That first teacher need not keep a body permanently.
714. 51:42–51:47Scripture itself records a being who takes form again and again precisely to renew what
715. 51:47–51:49would otherwise be lost.
716. 51:49–51:54Then let me meet you on my own ground one final time. You say the Vedic traditions,
717. 51:54–51:59asterisk, validity, asterisk itself proves the source behind it. But validity on my school's
718. 51:59–52:04teaching needs no external guarantee. It is simply what the proper cause cognition
719. 52:04–52:05already is.
720. 52:05–52:10And if every cognition's validity needed a further cognition to certify it, we would
721. 52:10–52:14face the same regress that has followed us since the Second Bacchae.
722. 52:14–52:20A regress I answered then, and answer again now a tradition this vast, this stable, held
723. 52:20–52:25by learned people across every generation, is not the kind of thing a single limited
724. 52:25–52:30person invents from nothing, it requires, at its root, one being of the requisite excellence
725. 52:30–52:32to originate it truly.
726. 52:32–52:38Scripture does not merely imply such a source. It names one in passage after passage, unprompted
727. 52:38–52:43by any need for praise. The Vitter speaks of itself as issuing from a knowing mouth this
728. 52:43–52:48better issues from me in every cycle in a collection of sentences accepted on its own
729. 52:48–52:54authority by every knowledgeable person who has ever studied it. Resting on nothing beyond
730. 52:54–52:59itself is not the same thing as an ordinary human composition whose author merely goes
731. 52:59–53:02unnamed. You have carried that thread across four
732. 53:02–53:08brukhese to reach here. I recognize the shape of the argument even if I have not yet fully
733. 53:08–53:12laid down my own. That is honest, and it is enough for tonight.
734. 53:12–53:17Once I do have not yet pulled, Udayana, scripture does not merely describe, a dasturist commands
735. 53:17–53:22asterisk. The self should be known. What is a command, if not simply an action, or
736. 53:22–53:26a desire, already present in the listener without need of any speaker behind it?
737. 53:26–53:31It will serve, not action, for no the self commands nothing that moves through space
738. 53:31–53:36at all, and any command reduced to mere action collates into every ordinary sentence describing
739. 53:36–53:43a person walking to market, not desire either, for the very desire to act arises only
740. 53:43–53:48at risk from at risk cognizing the command's meaning, make desire the meaning of the
741. 53:48–53:54command, and desire becomes both cause and effect of itself, circular and empty.
742. 53:54–53:59What a command actually conveys is a speaker's asterisk, intention asterisk, that the listener
743. 53:59–54:04act, and an intention requires, by its very grammar, an intent.
744. 54:04–54:09You should do this as meaningless without someone whose desired express is concerning you.
745. 54:09–54:14Every injunction in Scripture examined honestly down to its grammar points back to a speaker
746. 54:14–54:16standing behind the verb.
747. 54:16–54:21And last, the strangest end to my mind, the most delicate of the eight, a pair of
748. 54:21–54:28atoms has a certain magnitude. Try it. A magnitude far greater, too great to be explained by atomic
749. 54:28–54:34size alone, for a mere multiplication of atoms explained at two atoms together should already
750. 54:34–54:39show that same gross size and they cleanly do not. Something beyond their aggregation,
751. 54:39–54:45a numbering, a asterisk counting asterisk, must operate even here at a scale no eye in this
752. 54:45–54:51hall could ever proceed directly. Tunis is not a property, mind passively in the pair. It
753. 54:51–54:58arises through an act of asterisk enumeration asterisk, and atoms are, by their very nature,
754. 54:58–55:04invisible to every one of us, whose enumeration, then, gives the diet its tunis. If no finite
755. 55:04–55:09creature has ever counted a single atom in its life, only an omniscient counter, only
756. 55:09–55:15an omniscient counter. A poos friend, the world is effect, the atom's first motion,
757. 55:15–55:21its sustaining, its destruction, the first teaching of every word we speak, the validity
758. 55:21–55:26of an ancient trust, Scripture's own testimony to its source, and our number itself, present
759. 55:26–55:28in what none of us could ever count alone.
760. 55:28–55:34I did not claim any single one of these, standing by itself, fit not be picked at by a patient
761. 55:34–55:39enough opponent across another whole evening, yet show me tonight exactly how patient this
762. 55:39–55:40hall can be.
763. 55:40–55:45I claim only that eight independent lines, converging on the same conclusion from eight
764. 55:45–55:49different directions, know one of them borrowed from the others, are not eight coincidences.
765. 55:49–55:55That is what a bouquet is in the end, not one unbreakable flower, but many gathered
766. 55:55–56:00together so that even if one petal bruises, the bouquet itself still stands whole in
767. 56:00–56:01your hand.
768. 56:01–56:05And is there truly no way to know him except by chains of reasoning?
769. 56:05–56:09Udayana, eight proofs each requiring a whole like this one and an evening like this
770. 56:09–56:10one to walk through.
771. 56:10–56:12Knowing is not the only door.
772. 56:12–56:16The Algon's report direct inner knowing of him, the way a dream sometimes shows in
773. 56:16–56:20mind things no external sense supplied it.
774. 56:20–56:23Not every dream is mere memory replayed.
775. 56:23–56:25Some carry the texture of genuine experience.
776. 56:25–56:29Through discipline, through the stilling of ordinary restlessness, that same kind of
777. 56:29–56:35unmediated knowing is said to be possible for God as it is, in smaller measure, for
778. 56:35–56:37the vividness of a true dream.
779. 56:37–56:40I have not asked this hall to take that unfazed tonight.
780. 56:40–56:45I have only walked you, proof by proof, toward the point where faith and reason arrive at
781. 56:45–56:48the same door from different roads.
782. 56:48–56:54If even this, eight proofs offered honestly, tested honestly, cannot move the mind that
783. 56:54–56:59mine is stone, and no bouquet of arguments will solve in stone.
784. 56:59–57:01So I do not pray for victory here.
785. 57:01–57:07I pray instead, may this bouquet of reasoning perfume both nostrils equally, may it satisfy
786. 57:07–57:13the theist who came already believing and, in its own time, reach even the atheist who
787. 57:13–57:14came to break it.
788. 57:14–57:19And if it cannot do even that much, then let it rest simply as an offering gathered honestly,
789. 57:19–57:24kept fresh, laid without expectation at the feet of a lot of teachers who alone knows
790. 57:24–57:29whether the mind that hears it tonight will find its way home sooner or only later,
791. 57:29–57:32or by some other row than this halls entirely.
792. 57:32–57:39Bukes, 8 proofs and 1 lamp that has not gone out all evening. The debate ends here, whether
793. 57:39–57:45it ends asterisk settled asterisk is, as it always is in this hall, left to the one who
794. 57:45–57:47carries it out the door.
795. 57:47–57:49End of Act 5. End of the play.

Plain text

विःवो आगिमण अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रिंग अप्रि the doctrines they 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 law, neither will wither in their hands cultivate this knowledge, and suffering itself loses its hold on you. Asterisk definition of the subject of inquiry. Asterisk. I mean then to make plain the nature of that Lord, the transcendent self, whose worship will learn a call erode to heaven and to freedom. Indiana, why asterisk inquire asterisk? The Vedha 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 NILeta 1 E 6 3 a DS calls him pure consciousness. Capillus people call him eternal and conscious, but not the maker. Petanjali Joggins called himself untouched by affliction, who wears a body only to teach. The past parts call him free even Even of the rules that bind us, savers 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 are called in grand sire of all. The ritualist calls him the one, even the oblation is poured. The Dignbar calls him one freed of body and of ignorance. The M, a Macron M, a Macron little one E4-3S, a K calls the deities of the mantras themselves, God. Even you, Garbierter, 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, asked risk, that asked risk, something is meant by God. and disagrees completely on estrusk what estrusk, 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 see itself truly. So, reflection begins. Let me be honest about what stands against me before I offer a single proof. Five doubts, and I will take them one by one across this bouquet. 1. There is no unseen, supernatural cause behind our fate in the next world at all. 2. 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. 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 the chain of those causes has no first link we can point to. and whatever a man reaps in his own person, not in others. So something unseen must connect this light's action to a fruit received beyond it. This world, thick with every kind of suffering unequally dealt out, cannot be uncaused. An uncaused thing either exists always or never. It does not arise here, cease there on no schedule at all. Yet plainly this world of ours does asterisk arise and cease on a schedule none of a set. some cause beyond the scene. Say 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 of nature, none of the four sermons. Every effect that comes to be has a clear earlier limit, the moment before which it was not, and a clear later limit, the moment after which it will not be. As it is, nothing marks asterisk that asterisk limit at asterisk that asterisk moment, except it 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, but waste 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. If 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, and answer nothing. No. Production needs a producer. Chance is not an answer, it is the question wearing a disguise. Then tell me why the asterisk same asterisk kind of cause, say, fire, arises from such different means, dry grass rubbed, wood churn, sunlight gathered through a lens. If cause determines effects strictly, how does one effect come from three unlike origins? Because causal powers known through asterisk observed asterisk correlation in each distinct context not proclaimed once for all contexts at once grinding, churning, focusing, three different causal complexes, each independently verified to yield fire under its own conditions. Nothing in that a variety damages the rule that asterisk and asterisk effect requires asterisk and asterisk a 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, married, and demerit asterisk a d letter 1e5b letter 1e6 3 letter 1e6 d a asterisk be the missing cause? Why not simply say ordinary, visible auxiliary causes strung together, explain all the diversity we see? Because of visible chains of cause alone explained everything, no one would trouble to perform a single unrewarded ritual, and yet people do, expecting nothing here, only hereafter. Ask asterisk why asterisk 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 Not usually deceived himself first, some cunning founder inventing 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 asterisk away asterisk with the heth. No exhaustive account without an unseen throat survives scrutiny. Something unseen, some asterisk a d little one e five b little one e six three little one E-60 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, 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 fire from smoke, by its necessary connection with an effect that has no other adequate explanation. This is the same style of reasoning that will, in time, carry us all away to God, an inference from effect to a cause required by the effect. Nothing mystical, nothing merely asserted. Let me offer our school's account, since it touches your very question. We hold that PRK letter 1E5BTI, primordial nature, unconscious but active, woven of the The three G.U. letter 1E47S undertakes all transformation of the world unaided. For the sake of P.U.R.U. letter 1E6-3AS liberation, no further cars. Unseen marriage or God is required with PRK letter 1E5-BTI alone suffices as the ground of ritual's power in the world's unfolding. In the ELECTRON system, teacher and I will grant it much, but consider PRK let-a-one E5 BTI. As you describe her, is asterisk one asterisk, undifferentiated at the route, acting always by the same essential nature, a single uniform cause, left to itself, cannot by itself explain asterisk sequence asterisk of unlike effects arising one after another, each waiting its turn if she produces 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 given in 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 reasoned from direct perception is simply not there to reason about. habit. The next world is a story told to keep the poor obedient. Then answer me plainly, Carvokra, why do sincere people perform rights 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 shown this assembly. What is not directly seen is not thereby proven false. It is simply what must be established by inference, which is the very tool you yourself use to walk from smoke to fire, though you have never seen the two joined at the source. Inference I permit. Faith I do not. Then 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 ender 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 recognition works. I see a jar today, and know it as the asterisk, sane asterisk, jar I saw yesterday, not What I knew, Jor, 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. Denied persistence route in branch, and you cannot even trust the doubt you had just raised against me for even raising a doubt requires that the one who doubted the moment I go and the one who now speaks are the same continuing self. We say the continuity is causal, not substantial. An Eccartal Series, sufficiently unified to carry karmic fruited cross-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. 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 and an eternal self dereconcise of it all? Because causality is not any object, automatically produces any effect it is capable of. Always is the asterisk, unobstructed in a sudden asterisk of a cause relative to its effect, ascertains sometimes by matching agreement and difference, where that fails as with something eternal and everywhere present, which cannot be absent anywhere to test the different side, ascertained instead, through a reason that establishes the causal relation directly. The self produces pleasure and pain only in conjunction with its proper auxiliary conditions, mind, body, the ripening of that 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 carefully, an ordinary experience confirms that at every turn asterisk concluding 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. Leto 1-E-5-V-T-I. Since all creation springs from it, call it aviar, since knowledge alone dissolves it. May that Lord standing beyond the whole disorder churn of this creation, resting in perfect peace, wait devotion in my heart, and stay in his witness visibly to what I offer here. We have established, cross the first bouquet, that an unseen destiny governs the fruit of every act, but destiny itself must have some cause, and no creature among us can perceive that cause directly. No one acts purposefully toward what lies wholly beyond cognition, so some extraordinary omission being must exist, able to hand down to us true knowledge of that 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 awfulous Vedda, the sage Kapila and others attain omniscience through yoga and discipline alone, neither requires your God? Because valid cognition depends on causes outside itself and the world is not on any account unbroken. When 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 Capillur 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 this 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, a Macron letter 1A43SK, if validity announced itself the instant a cognition arose, no cognition could ever be doubted. Yet we doubt constantly, The moment a cognition doesn't resemble others, already confirmed true, validity, like invalidity, is known by something asterisk, external asterisk to the bare fact of cognizing a further mark, a further inference, a test in successful action. But your external test invites its own regress. If a second 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 regress you fear threatens, your intrinsic levity doctrine exactly as much as mine. who must postulate that a cognition is being known as itself validly postulated. Prove asterisk that asterisk and you are inferring all over again. Consider the thirst demand who drinks the moment he sees water. You'd say he asterisk directly asterisk perceives water as power to quench thirst. Since he acts without hesitation, he just not that 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. Extrinsic test, taken quickly, still remains extrinsic. Then tell me how any of us tells waking from dreaming at all. Udayana, if validity is never simply given. I dream I am drowning in a pond. The terror is total and distinguishable in the moment from any waking terror, until I wake and find no water anywhere. In the moment you wake, the two states stand in sharp. undeniable opposition, the dim memory of the dream against the vivid immediacy of waking. At contrast is itself a criterion, it does not need to be imported from anywhere else, because waking experience supplies its own standard against which the dream is measured and found one in. The Western logicians raise a sharper doubt still. A philosopher, Murr, 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 has surfaced. Push that skepticism to its route, and you land on a wall of non-contradiction itself. Call it a tautology if you like empty of content, but 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 net balance. Nyer's account of validity, known through Marx's external-to-bear cognition, confirmed to finally, by successful action, carries the greater weight, illusion, and error-undeniable facts of experience. If, as you am, I'm Macron am a Macron little one-e-four-three s-a-t-a-t-s-a-t. 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 sound it is made of, may simply be eternal, requiring no fault or speaker, and no author to answer for. Then I must take that from you, too, friend, and I will do it from plain hearing. We say, every day that sound has stopped, the drum was struck and now it is silent. That is a direct cognition of 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. But the ear cannot perceive the absence directly, it substrates them. can not be perceived at all. The ear need not perceived either to perceive the estrus absence of sound and the ear estrus precisely as darkness is perceived as the absence of light without anyone perceiving the invisible particles that would be at its locus and listen to the sound itself pitch rises falls loudens softens one and the same eternal thing to not bear opposed to qualities at once what you call the same word recognized again is a flame recognized again, new fuel, new light, each moment, called by one name out of habit. Production and destruction, not eternity, is what your own ear 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 better is produced, and what is produced can be lost, which returns us to the question who restores it each time the world dissolves and forgets. 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 de-asterous, new-asterous creation out of absolute stillness? Consider deep sleep first as a smaller case of the same puzzle. In dreamless, sleep the self's cognition, desire, pleasure, and pain all fall silent together. Yet the body's breath continues. Faint and the self wakes again undamaged, so too a cosmic dissolution and extremely so emotion persists in the atoms of the four elements to find to register as a world until its final stage marks the moment and becomes the seed of new creation. It is not that a day must always be preceded by another day of its own kind, the first day of the month soon is preceded by the last day of summer, not by another rainy day. 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 brahmens, 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 pupil of the world's door. as a puppeteer moves a puppet's hand toward a distant object, and a med gesture teaches 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 mix dissolution breaks it again, and do not imagine the chain is holding as firmly today as it once did. Look honestly at what is already freight, right's months performed with full memory of thousands of Vedic branches now survive, if at all, through a single branch imperfectly kept. The number one student on four legs are austerity, knowledge, sacrifice, charity. Ars-ter-ity fell. Two legs remained. Knowledge fell. One leg, charity, bears 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 in scripture merely asterisk recognizes asterisk truth. cannot 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 Tapela'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 fruit of yoga directly. In this life are between two lies. For the body that acts in this birth and the body that reaps the fruit 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 Fournibus. It is said, but not established. A teacher who falls asleep on a holiday night and resumes yesterday's lesson at Dorn 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 Dorn by what memory could they have known their own limited edge. If no one had yet been born to remember it, no power travel between worlds is proven either that might have carried settlers in Berenet Castle system-redimied. It is, in the end, simpler and more reasonable to accept one omissioned being who needs nobody, no untested memory, no unproven journey between worlds, than to multiply unproven half omissioned sages to do the same work badly. I will carry the question forward, you Deanna. I do not yet carry your conclusion. That is exactly as debate should stand. At the end of its second round, made my heart hold fast to Sivir 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 imposed through the whole of the cosmos, whose its final cause on that lord alone let my devotion rest amout. You have spent two bouquets building toward a maker of the world, Uteana. I will spend this one demolishing the foundation. If God existed, he ought to be noble 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 an unseen 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 of the case exist to supply. Sage's 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 is 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 been quiet. The very fact you rely on, that no one doubts their own continued existence through 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. No activity, no agent. Let me strip this damn 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 lawn they must be judged destroy the instant your eyes leave them do you believe that memory as shows me they remain memory as sure as you You have many destroyed things too. A childhood house long since fallen. A friend long dead. Memory alone cannot certify present existence. The instant you lean on memory to save your family from your own rule, you 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. A 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 estrusc live estrusc on your account? If a thing is seen, you say its existence is certain. If unseen, its absence is certain. You have left no middle ground for probability to stand on at all. You have described a doctrine with no room for the very mode of belief. You say it rests on. Grants inference some ground. 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 due 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 doubter in his own contradiction to deny that cause and effect are 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. It follows a reason this provision has been tested and holds. It acts. Carry it forward, then. I will listen to the rest. One more avenue, Udayana, before you move on. Some hold comparison, cognition through observed similarity, to be its own independent means of knowledge, distinct from perception and inference, if so. A difficulty for you follows. Everything known resembles something else already known, but the God you describe has nothing else similar to him anywhere. Could comparison than 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, but his nature, to be singular, uniqueness, is not a defect that argument can weaponize, it is simply a fact some subjects have and others don't. Then let me press you on testimony itself since this whole bouquet circles back to whether the Vedder needs an author at all. The V.I.S.Q.T. letter 1 E6-3 I.K.A treats an ordinary sentence as 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 a word's expressive power, the sentences meaning arrives. With a hearing of it, no separate inferential step, no prior certification of the speaker's reliability, is required for comprehension to occur at all. A child who is not yet know whether the vetter has an author still understands the Vedic sentence perfectly well the moment he hears it, that alone shows understanding does not wait on settling authorship first. Testimony is its own means of knowledge, standing beside perception and inference, not smuggled inference, wearing a disguise. Then consider the sharper objections from raised directly against you if an asterisk omniscient asterisk creator composed even human language itself at the world's dawn teaching the first speakers 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. Asterisk 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 risk. 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. Does postulation not, in some case, force us to explain the world asterisk without asterisk God and so crowd him out? Show me the fact that only makes sense without a maker, and I will answer it directly, but no one in this hall has yet produced one. Every alleged case of postulation that Ansky turns out, on inspection, to be an ordinary inference wearing postulation's name, an ordinary inference I have already answered at length. Then non-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 E4 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 estrusque place estrusque 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. Then I have exhausted perception, inference by non-apprehension, comparison, testimony, and postulation, and none of them has delivered me your absence. Not exhausted, 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 the God of 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 unwhom, 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 root 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 seeing 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 it asterisk is not call memory a means of knowledge. Because memory depends entirely on a prior cognition to borrow its content from, it cannot arise from nothing. A fresh seeing of the same jar depends on the jar being asked to risk presently there asked to risk, seen again through its own causes, not recalled from a store. And God's case is simpler still than either his 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 of asterisk having been asterisk known without it being produced in your own inference for a divine maker becomes entrust with you because an agent who leaves no trace on what he touches can hardly be said to know his own materials. Three ways to argue for such a mark in non-survive testing. First, that cognition, being an action, must yield a result the way any action yields a result. And that result is knownness, but an arrow shot at the empty sky produces no result. Asterisk in the sky, asterisk, cognition, may be like that arrow, real motion. No mark left beyond. Second, that we say the 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 residue in the object. Third, that the very fact we can asterisk talk about asterisk cognition proves some perceptible trace that leads. But the causes that let us talk about a cognition are the very same causes that produced the cognition in the first place. further needs to be positive to explain the talk. Then, no one else explains nothing that cognition's own nature doesn't already explain on its own. Just so, the cognition of a part is a cognition of a part by its 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 the 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 and determinately, the way a first fire recognized in one's own kitchen lets one recognize that the same war. A second fire blinks later on a distant hill through its smoke. Cognition is not itself perceived through some second, separate cognition standing outside it. The mind's direct relation to the self, in whom cognition in hears, is enough. Then answer the harder form of the question. On your school's own account, a cognition lasts barely two or three moments before it perishes. 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 grasps in the first, or has the object in the instant already changed? The same object held across both moments, nothing stranger is required than granting 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 its own further-knownness to certify asterisk at asterisk, and you have simply reproduced one level up, the same infinite regress you were trying to rescue-knownness from in the first place. 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 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 a asterisk nor asterisk at all, using a word built entirely out of agency? His ordinary etymology gives only the estrusc common estrusc route of a words meaning. Not the whole of how it is actually used. We call sense faculty a means of knowledge because it is costfully estrusc involved estrusc in producing cognition. We call God a knower for different, equally legitimate reasons cognition simply estrusc resides estrusc 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 it is not required doing, nor need a claim as cognition to 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 a missing, he knows every false belief every creature has ever held, every illusion, every mistake and inference, every dream. But then the asterisk objects asterisk of all our errors art in some sense present within his own cognition too. Does that not make his cognition itself shot through with error? And if his knowledge already contains our mistakes, what use is his teaching in dispelling them? 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, asterisk, that identifies asterisk and illusion as illusion, this is a false cognition, is not itself false. It is precisely the opposite clarity about falsehood, not participation in it. God knows every error exactly as it actually is as error, and a cognition that correctly sees error as error is. By the very definition we settled at the start of this bouquet, true, far from when the mind is teaching, that is the only thing that makes us teaching worth anything and all he is not merely hold our mistakes alongside his own truths. He sees them as treacherous as a treacherous 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 hall, you Diana, 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. Pre-be case 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 Noah. Every doubt raised against him has been met and turned. One task remains, greater than all the rest, not merely to defend the Citadel but to build it. Eight proofs standing on their own feet, requiring no 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. Tonight I stopped defending. Eight proofs stand before you. Each sufficient on its own, needing no opponent's first move to exist at all that the world is in estrusc effect estrusc. 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. That scripture itself testifies to its author. That even bear asterisk, number asterisk, two-ness, three-ness, and things too small for any of us to count. There's 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 of it is asterisk, produced asterisk, exactly as a pot is produced, and nothing produced to max a producer. Therefore the world has a maker. The net 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 bukhaz. Press that objection and watch it fall through your own hands. Either you are claiming death as a body, in which case you have already granted he exists, and merely quibble above the shade. Or you are claiming the world was asterisk, not asterisk, 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. A body was never the low-bearing part of my proof. You have argued against a to work 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 inert cannot move itself, a spade does not swing itself into the earth. Something conscious must impel it. Destiny alone might account for that first motion, without any conscious impeller at all. Destiny is one cause among several needed, teacher, not a cause that crowds out all the others, an inert thing precisely because it is 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 kind 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. It 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, weight, does not fall, sustained by its own effort in flight. Something sustains the whole of it, moment to moment, the way effort sustains a living body. And when that same world is later destroyed, down to the smallest indivisible pair of with atoms. Destruction, too, requires an agent table-bullet. Precisely as cloth is destroyed only by the tearing hand, not by nothing. Destiny again might account for both, stability without a sustainer, dissolution without a destroyer. Destiny is real, and I have never denied it, but a cause acknowledged is not every cause excluded. If Destiny alone explained the body's sustenance, I've heard itself would have With 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. Every smaller thing we have ever watched rise and fall. Consider something closer to home than atoms. The very conventions by which any of us here understands the other. Potter's craft is learned from another Potter of Weavers. From another Weaver, a child learns the alphabet from a teacher who learned it from a teacher before. Trace the chain back far enough and you reach a first link, a first Potter with no product to learn from, a first speaker with no language yet spoken to be taught in. Perhaps the chain simply has no first link, beginningless, like the round of rebirth itself. The asterisk cycle asterisk of creation and dissolution is beginningless, month. I do not dispute that, but within any asterisk one asterisk cycle, at its own fresh dawn, there are no fallen or ordinary human beings yet available to have originated anything. Something must set the very first convention moving in each new beginning, the way a puppeteer's gesture, a cord-pulled, a hand-pointed, teaches a watching child the meaning of a word before any word has yet been spoken between them. That first teacher need not keep a body permanently. 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 Bacchae. 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. 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 better issues from me in every cycle in 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 merely goes unnamed. You have carried that thread across four brukhese to reach here. I recognize the shape of the argument even if I have not yet fully laid down my own. That is honest, and it is enough for tonight. Once I do have not yet pulled, Udayana, scripture does not merely describe, a dasturist commands asterisk. The self should be known. What is a command, if not simply an action, or a desire, already present in the listener without need of any speaker behind it? It 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 walking to market, not desire either, for the very desire to act arises only at risk from at risk 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, that the listener act, and an intention requires, by its very grammar, an intent. You should do this as meaningless without someone whose desired express is concerning you. Every injunction in Scripture examined honestly down to its grammar points back to a speaker standing behind the verb. And last, the strangest end to my mind, the most delicate of the eight, a pair of atoms has a certain magnitude. Try it. A magnitude far greater, too great to be explained by atomic size alone, 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, mind 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, gives the diet its tunis. If no finite creature has ever counted a single atom in its life, only an omniscient counter, only an omniscient counter. A poos friend, the world is effect, the atom's first motion, its sustaining, its destruction, the first teaching of every word we speak, the validity of an ancient trust, Scripture's own testimony to its source, and 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, fit not be picked at by a patient enough opponent across another whole evening, yet show me tonight exactly how patient this hall can be. I claim only that eight independent lines, converging on the same conclusion from eight different directions, know one of them borrowed from the others, are not eight coincidences. That is what a bouquet is in the end, not one unbreakable flower, but many gathered together so that even if one petal bruises, the bouquet itself still stands whole in your hand. And is there truly no way to know him except by chains of reasoning? Udayana, eight proofs each requiring a whole like this one and an evening like this one to walk through. Knowing is not the only door. The Algon's report direct inner knowing of him, the way a 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, through 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 solve in stone. So I do not pray for victory here. I pray instead, may this bouquet of reasoning perfume both nostrils equally, may it satisfy the theist who came already believing and, in its own time, reach even the atheist 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 a lot of teachers who alone knows whether the mind that hears it tonight will find its way home sooner or only later, or by some other row than this halls entirely. Bukes, 8 proofs and 1 lamp that has not gone out all evening. The debate ends here, whether it ends asterisk settled asterisk is, as it always is in this hall, left to the one who carries it out the door. End of Act 5. End of the play.

← Transcript index