MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

Episode2_Part18_CartoonFilm.mp4

Not an editorially verified transcript. This text was generated automatically from the preserved recording and may contain recognition, language-detection, spelling, segmentation or name errors. Consult the source recording for authoritative content.

Collection: Part 11 · VIDEHA MITHILA MAITHILI DISCUSSION CRITICISM SERIES PART 11
Status: asr-draft
Human verified: No
Editorial review: not-reviewed
ASR model: small
Detected language: en (0.99683)
Duration: 23:37
Source: Open preserved recording

Timestamped machine output

0:02–0:33गोल्डि आद अछि बआद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद
0:33–0:39colour and luminosity are not overwhelmed, only whiteness is overwhelmed. Therefore the colour
0:39–0:44of fire illuminates fire and other objects. In gold colour itself is overwhelmed, hence even
0:44–0:49if whiteness and luminosity remain unoverwhelmed, they cannot illuminate the individual gold,
0:49–0:55because the latter is not apprehended. Nor is it impossible to establish gold,
0:55–1:00the locus of yellowness and heaviness, as something distinct from earth. Gold,
1:00–1:04which remains undestroyed despite continuous conjunction with intense fire,
1:04–1:07is reasonably a fiery substance distinct from earth.
1:08–1:12If gold were earthy, intense conjunction with fire, in the absence of relation to a liquid
1:12–1:17substance inhibiting heterogeneous change of color, would produce in it a color different
1:17–1:22from its earlier one, because in an earthy substance conjunction with fire causes such
1:22–1:27change. Burning and non-burning of cloth and the like are observed according to conjunction
1:27–1:33with water and its absence. Hence the inference, if molten gold were an earthy substance can join
1:33–1:38with intense fire and unrelated to a liquid substance inhibiting heterogeneous change of color,
1:38–1:43it would be the locus of a color different from its previous yellow, like a pot can join with fire.
1:44–1:51But it is not so, therefore gold is not earthy. Nor can it be accepted merely as water or as
1:51–1:58an earthy substance can join with fire. Form of the inference establishing the fiery nature
1:58–2:04of gold. The inference establishing gold as fiery may be formulated thus, yellow gold
2:04–2:09conjoined with intense fire is conjoined with a liquid substance that inhibits heterogeneous
2:09–2:13change of color, because despite conjunction with intense fire it is non-earthy while not
2:13–2:18becoming the locus of a color different from its former color, like yellow cloth situated
2:18–2:24in water conjoined with fire. A second form, yellow gold is conjoined with a liquid substance
2:24–2:28inhibiting production of a color different from yellow, because despite being conjoined
2:28–2:33with fire day and night it is not the locus of a color different from yellow, like yellowcloth
2:33–2:38situated in water for a long time while conjoined with fire.
2:38–2:42Intense conjunction with fire cannot be called irrelevant.
2:42–2:46In the absence of relation to an opposed liquid substance, intense conjunction with fire
2:46–2:51produces heterogeneous change of color in an earthy substance.
2:51–2:55The inhibiting liquid substance related to gold is not water, because water is
2:55–3:01a locus of natural fluidity, nor is its fluidity non-manifest, because non-manifest fluidity
3:01–3:07cannot inhibit burning, whereas the fluidity of gold is adventitious.
3:07–3:11If only being molten in earthy is regarded as the inhibitor of heterogeneous change of
3:11–3:15color, the same inhibition would have to be accepted in ghee and the like, and change
3:15–3:18of color would arise in gold.
3:18–3:23A supporting element can join with fire, if earthy, cannot itself inhibit heterogeneous
3:23–3:25change of color.
3:25–3:29distinct from gold is neither the locus of adventitious fluidity nor an inhibitor of
3:29–3:34heterogeneous change of color, it is precisely what produces change of color.
3:34–3:41Gold, being a perceptible substance, possesses color, being different from earth and water,
3:41–3:42it is fiery.
3:42–3:47From this subject establishing proof, in molten fire, that is, liquefied gold, the
3:47–3:50property of inhibiting change of color is established.
3:50–3:55Therefore, even when conjoined with the intense heat of fire, the fluidity of the yellow part
3:55–4:00of gold is not destroyed, because the fiery fluidity of gold inhibits its destroyer, as
4:00–4:06does the fluidity of ghee situated in water conjoined with fire.
4:06–4:11View of Udayana Karya, Molten fire inhibits change of color.
4:11–4:16Objection, if molten fire inhibits heterogeneous change of color, the color of cloth and the
4:16–4:20like situated in molten gold would also not change, just as that of cloth in water
4:20–4:21does not.
4:21–4:26Reply, in this world molten fire inhibits heterogeneous change of color only when the
4:26–4:30yellow substance is experienced as gold and when a supporting cause of fiery heat is present
4:30–4:33in partless molten gold, not elsewhere.
4:33–4:36Positive and negative concomitance is found only in this specific form.
4:36–4:41Therefore an inhibiting supporting nature should be accepted only in gold as established
4:41–4:43by experience.
4:43–4:48Nor can it be said, let gold alone be accepted as the inhibitor, why imagine separate
4:48–4:50molten fire?
4:50–4:55establishing proof establishes molten fire when a general supporting factor is present,
4:55–5:00as inhibiting heterogeneous change of color, hence the inhibitory nature is established in
5:00–5:06the form of molten fire. The argument if molten fire were an inhibitor, it would also prevent
5:06–5:11change in the color of cloth and the like is based on an unestablished locus, the
5:11–5:17contrary reasoning is established. No subject establishing or other proof establishes
5:17–5:23and inhibiting supporting nature in experienced solid gold. Therefore the causal status of
5:23–5:27conjunction with fire and producing change of color, established by positive and negative
5:27–5:32concomitance when there is no relation to an opposed liquid earthy substance, is not defeated.
5:33–5:43This is Udayanakarya's view. Modern view, gold is not water. Modern Nayakase,
5:43–5:48molten gold, the locus of perceptible fluidity undestroyed even by conjunction with intense
5:48–5:52fire is fiery because while possessing color it differs from water and earth like fire.
5:53–5:58There is no unestablished reason here because gold's possession of color is established from
5:58–6:05its being the locus of perceptible fluidity. Gold is not water because it is not the locus
6:05–6:11of natural fluidity like lack it is the locus of adventitious fluidity and lacks viscosity.
6:12–6:16If viscosity were accepted in gold, gold would have to be an aggregate of substances
6:16–6:23dependent on viscosity and fluidity. Nor is gold earthy because its fluidity is not destroyed
6:23–6:30even by conjunction with intense fire like that of water atoms. The qualification in the absence
6:30–6:35of relation to an opposed liquid substance should be included in the definition so there is no
6:35–6:41overextension to be situated in boiling water. The qualification is not purposeless because
6:41–6:45earth fluidity hood is what causes destruction of fluidity in earthy substances such as
6:45–6:52lack and gee through intense conjunction with fire. In the absence of a defeater, it is improper to
6:52–6:57abandon the causal relevance of a recurrent property. The non-recurrent fluidity of gee is
6:57–7:02not the cause, neither general fluidity nor adventitious fluidity is the cause, otherwise
7:02–7:09the fluidity of gold too would be destroyed. Objection, non-earthly natural fluidity present
7:09–7:13in oil, water, and the like is also destroyed by intense conjunction with fire, before,
7:13–7:19On the analogy of grass, fire sticks, and gems, some recurrent property must destroy fluidity.
7:19–7:24Reply, through economy, earth fluidityhood, water fluidityhood, and other fluidityhood
7:24–7:28produced by taste and the like respectively destroy earthy fluidity, watery fluidity,
7:28–7:33and commonly produced fluidity. For this reason the counter-inference,
7:33–7:38the disputed gold is earthy because, like ghee, it is the locus of adventitious fluidity is
7:38–7:44weak. There is no favorable reasoning for it. Rather there is contrary reasoning that, if it
7:44–7:48were earthy, its fluidity would be destroyed by intense conjunction with fire in the absence
7:48–7:54of relation to an opposed liquid. Fire has no natural fluidity.
7:56–8:01Objection, earthhood is the delimiter of the inhering causal status of adventitious fluidity,
8:01–8:04no property's delimitorship should be abandoned without a defeater.
8:05–8:09Reply, then all earthy substances such as pots would become locky of adventitious fluidity.
8:09–8:14Nor is it possible to accept any subordinate property of Earthhood as one recurrent delimiter
8:14–8:20of the inhering causal status of adventitious fluidity in G, L, and the like.
8:20–8:25If a subordinate property delimited by Earthhood is accepted in both horizontally moving Earth
8:25–8:29and upward flaming Earth, it is absent in pots and the like.
8:29–8:33If a special subordinate property of Earthhood is accepted, it must also be present
8:33–8:37in L and other things distinct from G.
8:37–8:41Therefore no such recurrent delimiter is established.
8:41–8:45A further objection, in earthy gold, the locus of yellowness and heaviness, being the locus
8:45–8:49of fluidity undestroyed by intense fiery heat even without supporting conjunction with fire
8:49–8:54is a deviant reason, because there is the experience, yellow gold is molten.
8:54–8:58Reply, yellow gold has no natural fluidity.
8:58–9:02Since earthy fluidity is destroyed by intense conjunction with fire, the cognition, yellow
9:02–9:05gold is molten, is a defeated illusion.
9:05–9:10Or should one ask why yellow gold is not then seen merely as hard?
9:10–9:14Like the parts of ink, honey, and the like in water, the parts of gold, through relation
9:14–9:19to a liquid substance, are loci of loose in conjunction, the parts of gold themselves
9:19–9:21do not possess fluidity.
9:21–9:25There is no contradiction with the example of ghee and the like, whose parts can possess
9:25–9:29fluidity.
9:29–9:33Another view, fluidity is produced in gold.
9:33–9:38Other Neayakas say, in the presence of support in the form of fiery heat, fluidity
9:38–9:43Fluidity is certainly produced in fiery substances such as gold, the experience of fluidity cannot
9:43–9:45readily be denied.
9:45–9:50Fluidity is not destroyed in gold because the molten fiery substance itself is an inhibitor
9:50–9:53of the destroyer of fluidity.
9:53–9:57Molten fire is not unsupported.
9:57–10:01Affirmative inference, yellow gold, the locus of fluidity, is conjoined with a liquid
10:01–10:05substance inhibiting destruction of fluidity, because it is an earthy locus of fluidity
10:05–10:11whose fluidity is not destroyed even by intense conjunction with fire, like geese situated in
10:11–10:16boiling water. Destruction and non-destruction of earthy fluidity depend upon relation or
10:16–10:21non-relation to an opposed liquid substance along with intense conjunction with fire,
10:21–10:27therefore the inference is not purposeless. Negative inference, the disputed gold,
10:27–10:31a locus of fluidity about which fiery or earthy nature is in doubt while it possesses
10:31–10:36color and differs from water, is fiery, because it is the locus of non-eternal fluidity not
10:36–10:40destroyed even by intense conjunction with fire in the absence of relation to an opposed
10:40–10:46liquid substance, whatever is not so is not fiery, like water and ghee.
10:46–10:51Uncommonness is not a fault, because an uncommon reason produces doubt only in the
10:51–10:54absence of a special observation.
10:54–10:58Just as a reason excluded from a negative instance possessing absence of the pro-bandom
10:58–11:03establishes the probandom, so a reason excluded from a subject possessing the probandom establishes
11:03–11:09absence of the probandom. Uncommonness yields inconclusiveness by generating an equally strong
11:09–11:15counter reason only when special observation is absent. Here a negative reason accompanied by
11:15–11:21favorable reasoning and special observation establishes the probandom. The statement
11:21–11:26sound is non-eternal because it is sound may likewise possess a valid reason when a special
11:26–11:31observation is present, only this much is intended here.
11:31–11:36The counter position that establishes gold as earthy is not equally strong. It has no
11:36–11:41favorable reasoning but contrary reasoning, if molten gold were earthy, its fluidity would
11:41–11:45be destroyed by intense conjunction with fire, like oil, in the absence of relation
11:45–11:51to an opposed liquid. Conversely, the reason establishing gold as fiery has favorable
11:51–11:56reasoning, if molten gold, which possesses color and differs from water, were not fiery
11:56–12:00but earthy, it would be the locus of destruction of fluidity through intense conjunction with
12:00–12:02fire.
12:02–12:05There is also no contrary reasoning.
12:05–12:11Hence the inference establishing fiery nature is stronger.
12:11–12:15Final establishment of the fiery nature of gold.
12:15–12:20Other teachers establish fiery nature thus, fiery nature does not occur only in colored
12:20–12:25non-fluid substances, because it is a universal directly pervaded by fluidity occurring in
12:25–12:28colored substances, like earthhood.
12:28–12:34Or, fiery nature occurs in molten gold, because it is a universal directly pervaded by substance
12:34–12:39hood occurring in colored substances, like waterhood.
12:39–12:44Occurrence in a locus of fluidity is not an extraneous condition.
12:44–12:47First molten fire is established by the inference, possession of fluidity is the
12:47–12:53counter-positive of an absolute absence co-located with fluidity, because it is a property pervaded
12:53–12:59by substancehood occurring in non-fluid substances. Then, through a commonly observed inference
12:59–13:04based on the absence of non-pervasion of the probandom, fluidity is established in
13:04–13:05fire.
13:05–13:09Finally, the fiery nature of gold is established by the inference, the disputed molten
13:09–13:14gold is fiery, because it is the locus of eternal fluidity undestroyed even by intense
13:14–13:20conjunction with fire, whatever is not so is not fiery, like water.
13:20–13:23Removal of the extraneous condition.
13:23–13:30Objection, occurrence in fire in general, is an extraneous condition in the first inference.
13:30–13:34Nor can fiery nature be called what is outside the subject, because the fiery nature of lamps
13:34–13:38and the light would have to be excluded from the subject.
13:38–13:42Reply, molten fiery nature in disputed gold is established by a stronger reason defeating
13:42–13:46the negative instance, therefore the stated extraneous condition does not pervade the
13:46–13:51pro-bandam. Many inferences establishing both eartheness and fireiness in gold are possible,
13:51–13:55but because reasoning defeats earthhood as a counter-instance, the inference establishing
13:55–14:00fiery nature is stronger. The reason is not unestablished.
14:02–14:06Objection, gold is cognized successively as molten, more molten, and so forth,
14:06–14:11therefore, when gold is destroyed by the intense heat of fire, its fluidity too is
14:11–14:15destroyed, and the reason, fluidity undistroyed by conjunction with fire, is unestablished.
14:15–14:21Nor may it be said that after earlier fluidity is destroyed later fluidity arises, and therefore
14:21–14:25destruction of fluidity co-located with prior absence does not occur in gold, even if later
14:25–14:30fluidity were not produced after the former gold substrate was destroyed, destruction of the
14:30–14:36earlier fluidity would still be possible, as in G. Reply, the fluidity of gold can be destroyed
14:36–14:42by destruction of its substrate, but not by conjunction with fire. If conjunction with fire
14:42–14:48fire itself destroyed fluidity, later fluidity would not arise, as in Ghee, because the fire
14:48–14:52conjunction that destroys fluidity would inhibit new fluidity.
14:52–14:57Thus the meaning of the reason is being the locus of fluidity whose counter positive destruction
14:57–15:02produced by fire conjunction is absent even while fire conjunction is present.
15:02–15:07Alternatively, at the time fluidity is destroyed in Ghee, the totality of causes
15:07–15:12of fluidity co-located with fire is absent, while in gold it is present.
15:12–15:16Thus the meaning of the reason is being the locus of fluidity possessing a subordinate
15:16–15:21universal of a distinct fluidity, produced by causal conditions of fluidity co-located
15:21–15:26with fire and absent from the counter-positive of destruction of fluidity produced by fire
15:26–15:28conjunction.
15:28–15:33In this way the reason is not unestablished.
15:33–15:37Negative and affirmative negative inferences.
15:37–15:42Alternatively, after the first fluidity in an atom of D is destroyed by conjunction with
15:42–15:47fire, a second fluidity does not arise, because fluidity is absent in the ash of D produced
15:47–15:49by fire conjunction.
15:49–15:54Similarly, if fluidity of gold atoms were destroyed by fire conjunction, gold produced
15:54–15:58from those atoms would be non-fluid.
15:58–16:02Hence the negative inference, the atoms that originate gold are not earthy, because
16:02–16:07they are loci of fluidity undestroyed even by intense conjunction with fire, like water atoms.
16:08–16:13Therefore they are fiery, whatever atoms are not so are not fiery, like atoms of ghee.
16:15–16:20Affirmative negative inference, gold produced from non-earthy or fiery atoms is non-earthy or
16:20–16:25fiery, because it is produced from atoms that are loci of fluidity undestroyed even by
16:25–16:30intense conjunction with fire. By this inference the fiery nature of gold is established.
16:30–16:39Partial view gold is a distinct substance different from earth, water, and fire.
16:39–16:46A partial theorist says, gold, the locus of fluidity, is not fiery, because it is yellow.
16:46–16:51The reason is not unestablished, because the cognition yellow gold is molten establishes
16:51–16:53fluidity in gold.
16:53–16:57Nor is cognition of yellow color illusory merely because one might thereby have to
16:57–16:59regard gold as earthy.
16:59–17:04Even if white color were accepted, there would be no obstacle to golds being non-earthy.
17:04–17:09Similarly, even with yellow color, non-earthiness is possible.
17:09–17:14Just as earthhood is not an indispensable cause of adventitious fluidity, invariability
17:14–17:18with smell is not an indispensable cause of yellowness.
17:18–17:22The Neayaka inference, gold, while possessing yellow color in differing from earth and
17:22–17:26water, is fiery, is inconclusive.
17:26–17:30Otherwise one would also have to accept air, while possessing touch and differing from water
17:30–17:33and fire, is earthy.
17:33–17:39It cannot be replied that air has no color, fluidity, or smell and therefore is not earthy.
17:39–17:44If these qualities are taken as non-manifest, the pervasian earth is the locus of at least
17:44–17:48one among manifest color, taste, and smell is defeated.
17:48–17:52Yet many pervasions on the fiery side are also defeated in gold.
17:52–17:58fire is perceptible, in perceptible fire either manifest color or manifest touches necessarily
17:58–18:02present, and fire illuminates both itself and other things, do not apply to gold.
18:03–18:07The Neayaka himself accepts that a substance which is the locus of
18:07–18:13adventitious fluidity is not necessarily earthy. Therefore yellow gold, as the locus of
18:13–18:18adventitious fluidity, differs not only from water and earth but from all three, earth,
18:18–18:21water, and fire, and is an independent additional substance.
18:22–18:29This is the partial view. Conclusion of the theory of the causes of perception.
18:31–18:35Thus ends the theory of the causes of perception and the perception section of the Tathasint Mai
18:35–18:43composed by Sri Gangesapadhyaya. The theory of the Atomicity of Mind.
18:46–18:53Mind is the sixth sense organ. Perceptual cognition of the self-special qualities,
18:53–18:58pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, effort, and the like, is not produced by the five external sense
18:58–19:04organs. Nevertheless such cognition is a produced perception. Therefore a separate sixth sense
19:04–19:10organ must be accepted. This organ is the mind. Pleasure and the like are not objects of the
19:10–19:15external senses such as touch, so the unwanted consequence of treating the tactile sense as
19:15–19:20their cause does not arise. Thus the status of mind as the sixth sense organ is established.
19:20–19:26Mzaka view mind is all-pervasive.
19:26–19:31The Mzaka says, mind is an eternal, partless, touchless substance distinct from earth and
19:31–19:33the other substances.
19:33–19:38It is the locus of conjunction between self and mind, which serves as a non-inhering
19:38–19:41cause of cognition, and is an eternal sense organ.
19:41–19:46Since, though eternal, it does not originate another substance, it is all-pervasive
19:46–19:49like the self.
19:49–19:54is not an extraneous condition of this inference because it is pervaded only in the instrument.
19:56–20:00Objection concerning subordinate universals in pleasure and the like.
20:02–20:07Objection, pleasure and the like are non-eternal special qualities occurring in the eternal self,
20:07–20:10conjunction of the five mobile elemental substances is their non-inhering cause.
20:11–20:15Therefore a subordinate universal of qualityhood should be accepted in pleasure and the like,
20:15–20:19as in cooked color. Reply, on the BHA view sound is a substance.
20:19–20:25not occurring in the self, not being produced by a sense organ that apprehends special qualities
20:25–20:29other than sound, and qualityhood occurring in the five corporeal substances, all become
20:29–20:35extraneous conditions and obstruct the inference. Pleasure and the light may also be accepted as
20:35–20:42produced by conjunction of the body and self as a cause. Atomicity of mind is not required for
20:42–20:48spatial restriction. The naiyayika objects, spatial restriction of the effect of an all-pervasive
20:48–20:53cause would depend upon conjunction of self and mind as the non-inherent cause.
20:53–20:57If mind were all-pervasive, pleasure, and the light would arise in every self, therefore
20:57–20:59mind must be atomic.
20:59–21:03The men'saka replies that, spatial restriction, can have three meanings, the non-inherent
21:03–21:08cause produces its effect in the place delimited by itself, it produces it definitely there,
21:08–21:10or it produces it only there.
21:10–21:15On the first meaning, a regulator of production throughout all places is absent.
21:15–21:18On the second, conjunction with an atomic mind would produce the effect both in the
21:18–21:21place delimited by it and elsewhere.
21:21–21:24On the third, pleasure would arise only in the atomic location.
21:24–21:29Therefore the doctrine of an all-pervasive mind is not defeated.
21:29–21:35The non-inhering cause depends upon an efficient cause.
21:35–21:39The Neayaka says, pleasure's occurrence in a greater or smaller region depends upon
21:39–21:43efficient causes such as sandalwood, just as spatial occurrence of sound depends upon
21:43–21:46conjunction with air.
21:46–21:50Conjunction with mind does not cause this spatial division.
21:50–21:55The Msaka replies, in our doctrine of an all-pervasive mind too, efficient causes such as sandal would
21:55–21:58establish this regulation.
21:58–22:03There is no rule that an all-pervasive non-inhering cause must produce its effect everywhere.
22:03–22:10Delimitation by the complete causal complex including an efficient cause is required.
22:10–22:15Simultaneous production of many pleasures and pains in oneself.
22:15–22:20Memsaka Prima Facy View, when distinct efficient causes such as sandalwood, fire, and wounds
22:20–22:24are present in different parts of the body, many particular states of pleasure and pain
22:24–22:27can arise simultaneously in oneself.
22:27–22:31Even if mind is all-pervasive, there is no contradiction in this production, difference
22:31–22:36of efficient causes determines difference of place in the effects.
22:36–22:40Conclusion of the Prima Facy View.
22:40–22:45Thus mind is an all-pervasive, eternal, partless, touchless substance.
22:45–22:50Its status as a sense organ is established from its production of perception of special
22:50–22:51qualities.
22:51–22:55The mere fact that many cognitions do not arise at one time is not proof that mind is
22:55–23:01atomic, because desire, purpose, concentration, merit and demerit, and particular efficient
23:01–23:07causes may regulate the sequence of cognitions.
23:07–23:11Possibility of many cognitions at one time.
23:11–23:15The MMSARCA says, although many sense organs are related to their different objects,
23:15–23:18tension or desire to know makes one cognition predominant.
23:18–23:23Yet on some occasions many cognitions simultaneously occur as established by direct experience,
23:23–23:29for example, eating while watching a dance, hearing a song, and apprehending fragrance.
23:29–23:33Therefore impossibility of simultaneous cognition is not decisive proof of the atomicity of
23:33–23:33mind.

Plain text

गोल्डि आद अछि बआद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद आद colour and luminosity are not overwhelmed, only whiteness is overwhelmed. Therefore the colour of fire illuminates fire and other objects. In gold colour itself is overwhelmed, hence even if whiteness and luminosity remain unoverwhelmed, they cannot illuminate the individual gold, because the latter is not apprehended. Nor is it impossible to establish gold, the locus of yellowness and heaviness, as something distinct from earth. Gold, which remains undestroyed despite continuous conjunction with intense fire, is reasonably a fiery substance distinct from earth. If gold were earthy, intense conjunction with fire, in the absence of relation to a liquid substance inhibiting heterogeneous change of color, would produce in it a color different from its earlier one, because in an earthy substance conjunction with fire causes such change. Burning and non-burning of cloth and the like are observed according to conjunction with water and its absence. Hence the inference, if molten gold were an earthy substance can join with intense fire and unrelated to a liquid substance inhibiting heterogeneous change of color, it would be the locus of a color different from its previous yellow, like a pot can join with fire. But it is not so, therefore gold is not earthy. Nor can it be accepted merely as water or as an earthy substance can join with fire. Form of the inference establishing the fiery nature of gold. The inference establishing gold as fiery may be formulated thus, yellow gold conjoined with intense fire is conjoined with a liquid substance that inhibits heterogeneous change of color, because despite conjunction with intense fire it is non-earthy while not becoming the locus of a color different from its former color, like yellow cloth situated in water conjoined with fire. A second form, yellow gold is conjoined with a liquid substance inhibiting production of a color different from yellow, because despite being conjoined with fire day and night it is not the locus of a color different from yellow, like yellowcloth situated in water for a long time while conjoined with fire. Intense conjunction with fire cannot be called irrelevant. In the absence of relation to an opposed liquid substance, intense conjunction with fire produces heterogeneous change of color in an earthy substance. The inhibiting liquid substance related to gold is not water, because water is a locus of natural fluidity, nor is its fluidity non-manifest, because non-manifest fluidity cannot inhibit burning, whereas the fluidity of gold is adventitious. If only being molten in earthy is regarded as the inhibitor of heterogeneous change of color, the same inhibition would have to be accepted in ghee and the like, and change of color would arise in gold. A supporting element can join with fire, if earthy, cannot itself inhibit heterogeneous change of color. distinct from gold is neither the locus of adventitious fluidity nor an inhibitor of heterogeneous change of color, it is precisely what produces change of color. Gold, being a perceptible substance, possesses color, being different from earth and water, it is fiery. From this subject establishing proof, in molten fire, that is, liquefied gold, the property of inhibiting change of color is established. Therefore, even when conjoined with the intense heat of fire, the fluidity of the yellow part of gold is not destroyed, because the fiery fluidity of gold inhibits its destroyer, as does the fluidity of ghee situated in water conjoined with fire. View of Udayana Karya, Molten fire inhibits change of color. Objection, if molten fire inhibits heterogeneous change of color, the color of cloth and the like situated in molten gold would also not change, just as that of cloth in water does not. Reply, in this world molten fire inhibits heterogeneous change of color only when the yellow substance is experienced as gold and when a supporting cause of fiery heat is present in partless molten gold, not elsewhere. Positive and negative concomitance is found only in this specific form. Therefore an inhibiting supporting nature should be accepted only in gold as established by experience. Nor can it be said, let gold alone be accepted as the inhibitor, why imagine separate molten fire? establishing proof establishes molten fire when a general supporting factor is present, as inhibiting heterogeneous change of color, hence the inhibitory nature is established in the form of molten fire. The argument if molten fire were an inhibitor, it would also prevent change in the color of cloth and the like is based on an unestablished locus, the contrary reasoning is established. No subject establishing or other proof establishes and inhibiting supporting nature in experienced solid gold. Therefore the causal status of conjunction with fire and producing change of color, established by positive and negative concomitance when there is no relation to an opposed liquid earthy substance, is not defeated. This is Udayanakarya's view. Modern view, gold is not water. Modern Nayakase, molten gold, the locus of perceptible fluidity undestroyed even by conjunction with intense fire is fiery because while possessing color it differs from water and earth like fire. There is no unestablished reason here because gold's possession of color is established from its being the locus of perceptible fluidity. Gold is not water because it is not the locus of natural fluidity like lack it is the locus of adventitious fluidity and lacks viscosity. If viscosity were accepted in gold, gold would have to be an aggregate of substances dependent on viscosity and fluidity. Nor is gold earthy because its fluidity is not destroyed even by conjunction with intense fire like that of water atoms. The qualification in the absence of relation to an opposed liquid substance should be included in the definition so there is no overextension to be situated in boiling water. The qualification is not purposeless because earth fluidity hood is what causes destruction of fluidity in earthy substances such as lack and gee through intense conjunction with fire. In the absence of a defeater, it is improper to abandon the causal relevance of a recurrent property. The non-recurrent fluidity of gee is not the cause, neither general fluidity nor adventitious fluidity is the cause, otherwise the fluidity of gold too would be destroyed. Objection, non-earthly natural fluidity present in oil, water, and the like is also destroyed by intense conjunction with fire, before, On the analogy of grass, fire sticks, and gems, some recurrent property must destroy fluidity. Reply, through economy, earth fluidityhood, water fluidityhood, and other fluidityhood produced by taste and the like respectively destroy earthy fluidity, watery fluidity, and commonly produced fluidity. For this reason the counter-inference, the disputed gold is earthy because, like ghee, it is the locus of adventitious fluidity is weak. There is no favorable reasoning for it. Rather there is contrary reasoning that, if it were earthy, its fluidity would be destroyed by intense conjunction with fire in the absence of relation to an opposed liquid. Fire has no natural fluidity. Objection, earthhood is the delimiter of the inhering causal status of adventitious fluidity, no property's delimitorship should be abandoned without a defeater. Reply, then all earthy substances such as pots would become locky of adventitious fluidity. Nor is it possible to accept any subordinate property of Earthhood as one recurrent delimiter of the inhering causal status of adventitious fluidity in G, L, and the like. If a subordinate property delimited by Earthhood is accepted in both horizontally moving Earth and upward flaming Earth, it is absent in pots and the like. If a special subordinate property of Earthhood is accepted, it must also be present in L and other things distinct from G. Therefore no such recurrent delimiter is established. A further objection, in earthy gold, the locus of yellowness and heaviness, being the locus of fluidity undestroyed by intense fiery heat even without supporting conjunction with fire is a deviant reason, because there is the experience, yellow gold is molten. Reply, yellow gold has no natural fluidity. Since earthy fluidity is destroyed by intense conjunction with fire, the cognition, yellow gold is molten, is a defeated illusion. Or should one ask why yellow gold is not then seen merely as hard? Like the parts of ink, honey, and the like in water, the parts of gold, through relation to a liquid substance, are loci of loose in conjunction, the parts of gold themselves do not possess fluidity. There is no contradiction with the example of ghee and the like, whose parts can possess fluidity. Another view, fluidity is produced in gold. Other Neayakas say, in the presence of support in the form of fiery heat, fluidity Fluidity is certainly produced in fiery substances such as gold, the experience of fluidity cannot readily be denied. Fluidity is not destroyed in gold because the molten fiery substance itself is an inhibitor of the destroyer of fluidity. Molten fire is not unsupported. Affirmative inference, yellow gold, the locus of fluidity, is conjoined with a liquid substance inhibiting destruction of fluidity, because it is an earthy locus of fluidity whose fluidity is not destroyed even by intense conjunction with fire, like geese situated in boiling water. Destruction and non-destruction of earthy fluidity depend upon relation or non-relation to an opposed liquid substance along with intense conjunction with fire, therefore the inference is not purposeless. Negative inference, the disputed gold, a locus of fluidity about which fiery or earthy nature is in doubt while it possesses color and differs from water, is fiery, because it is the locus of non-eternal fluidity not destroyed even by intense conjunction with fire in the absence of relation to an opposed liquid substance, whatever is not so is not fiery, like water and ghee. Uncommonness is not a fault, because an uncommon reason produces doubt only in the absence of a special observation. Just as a reason excluded from a negative instance possessing absence of the pro-bandom establishes the probandom, so a reason excluded from a subject possessing the probandom establishes absence of the probandom. Uncommonness yields inconclusiveness by generating an equally strong counter reason only when special observation is absent. Here a negative reason accompanied by favorable reasoning and special observation establishes the probandom. The statement sound is non-eternal because it is sound may likewise possess a valid reason when a special observation is present, only this much is intended here. The counter position that establishes gold as earthy is not equally strong. It has no favorable reasoning but contrary reasoning, if molten gold were earthy, its fluidity would be destroyed by intense conjunction with fire, like oil, in the absence of relation to an opposed liquid. Conversely, the reason establishing gold as fiery has favorable reasoning, if molten gold, which possesses color and differs from water, were not fiery but earthy, it would be the locus of destruction of fluidity through intense conjunction with fire. There is also no contrary reasoning. Hence the inference establishing fiery nature is stronger. Final establishment of the fiery nature of gold. Other teachers establish fiery nature thus, fiery nature does not occur only in colored non-fluid substances, because it is a universal directly pervaded by fluidity occurring in colored substances, like earthhood. Or, fiery nature occurs in molten gold, because it is a universal directly pervaded by substance hood occurring in colored substances, like waterhood. Occurrence in a locus of fluidity is not an extraneous condition. First molten fire is established by the inference, possession of fluidity is the counter-positive of an absolute absence co-located with fluidity, because it is a property pervaded by substancehood occurring in non-fluid substances. Then, through a commonly observed inference based on the absence of non-pervasion of the probandom, fluidity is established in fire. Finally, the fiery nature of gold is established by the inference, the disputed molten gold is fiery, because it is the locus of eternal fluidity undestroyed even by intense conjunction with fire, whatever is not so is not fiery, like water. Removal of the extraneous condition. Objection, occurrence in fire in general, is an extraneous condition in the first inference. Nor can fiery nature be called what is outside the subject, because the fiery nature of lamps and the light would have to be excluded from the subject. Reply, molten fiery nature in disputed gold is established by a stronger reason defeating the negative instance, therefore the stated extraneous condition does not pervade the pro-bandam. Many inferences establishing both eartheness and fireiness in gold are possible, but because reasoning defeats earthhood as a counter-instance, the inference establishing fiery nature is stronger. The reason is not unestablished. Objection, gold is cognized successively as molten, more molten, and so forth, therefore, when gold is destroyed by the intense heat of fire, its fluidity too is destroyed, and the reason, fluidity undistroyed by conjunction with fire, is unestablished. Nor may it be said that after earlier fluidity is destroyed later fluidity arises, and therefore destruction of fluidity co-located with prior absence does not occur in gold, even if later fluidity were not produced after the former gold substrate was destroyed, destruction of the earlier fluidity would still be possible, as in G. Reply, the fluidity of gold can be destroyed by destruction of its substrate, but not by conjunction with fire. If conjunction with fire fire itself destroyed fluidity, later fluidity would not arise, as in Ghee, because the fire conjunction that destroys fluidity would inhibit new fluidity. Thus the meaning of the reason is being the locus of fluidity whose counter positive destruction produced by fire conjunction is absent even while fire conjunction is present. Alternatively, at the time fluidity is destroyed in Ghee, the totality of causes of fluidity co-located with fire is absent, while in gold it is present. Thus the meaning of the reason is being the locus of fluidity possessing a subordinate universal of a distinct fluidity, produced by causal conditions of fluidity co-located with fire and absent from the counter-positive of destruction of fluidity produced by fire conjunction. In this way the reason is not unestablished. Negative and affirmative negative inferences. Alternatively, after the first fluidity in an atom of D is destroyed by conjunction with fire, a second fluidity does not arise, because fluidity is absent in the ash of D produced by fire conjunction. Similarly, if fluidity of gold atoms were destroyed by fire conjunction, gold produced from those atoms would be non-fluid. Hence the negative inference, the atoms that originate gold are not earthy, because they are loci of fluidity undestroyed even by intense conjunction with fire, like water atoms. Therefore they are fiery, whatever atoms are not so are not fiery, like atoms of ghee. Affirmative negative inference, gold produced from non-earthy or fiery atoms is non-earthy or fiery, because it is produced from atoms that are loci of fluidity undestroyed even by intense conjunction with fire. By this inference the fiery nature of gold is established. Partial view gold is a distinct substance different from earth, water, and fire. A partial theorist says, gold, the locus of fluidity, is not fiery, because it is yellow. The reason is not unestablished, because the cognition yellow gold is molten establishes fluidity in gold. Nor is cognition of yellow color illusory merely because one might thereby have to regard gold as earthy. Even if white color were accepted, there would be no obstacle to golds being non-earthy. Similarly, even with yellow color, non-earthiness is possible. Just as earthhood is not an indispensable cause of adventitious fluidity, invariability with smell is not an indispensable cause of yellowness. The Neayaka inference, gold, while possessing yellow color in differing from earth and water, is fiery, is inconclusive. Otherwise one would also have to accept air, while possessing touch and differing from water and fire, is earthy. It cannot be replied that air has no color, fluidity, or smell and therefore is not earthy. If these qualities are taken as non-manifest, the pervasian earth is the locus of at least one among manifest color, taste, and smell is defeated. Yet many pervasions on the fiery side are also defeated in gold. fire is perceptible, in perceptible fire either manifest color or manifest touches necessarily present, and fire illuminates both itself and other things, do not apply to gold. The Neayaka himself accepts that a substance which is the locus of adventitious fluidity is not necessarily earthy. Therefore yellow gold, as the locus of adventitious fluidity, differs not only from water and earth but from all three, earth, water, and fire, and is an independent additional substance. This is the partial view. Conclusion of the theory of the causes of perception. Thus ends the theory of the causes of perception and the perception section of the Tathasint Mai composed by Sri Gangesapadhyaya. The theory of the Atomicity of Mind. Mind is the sixth sense organ. Perceptual cognition of the self-special qualities, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, effort, and the like, is not produced by the five external sense organs. Nevertheless such cognition is a produced perception. Therefore a separate sixth sense organ must be accepted. This organ is the mind. Pleasure and the like are not objects of the external senses such as touch, so the unwanted consequence of treating the tactile sense as their cause does not arise. Thus the status of mind as the sixth sense organ is established. Mzaka view mind is all-pervasive. The Mzaka says, mind is an eternal, partless, touchless substance distinct from earth and the other substances. It is the locus of conjunction between self and mind, which serves as a non-inhering cause of cognition, and is an eternal sense organ. Since, though eternal, it does not originate another substance, it is all-pervasive like the self. is not an extraneous condition of this inference because it is pervaded only in the instrument. Objection concerning subordinate universals in pleasure and the like. Objection, pleasure and the like are non-eternal special qualities occurring in the eternal self, conjunction of the five mobile elemental substances is their non-inhering cause. Therefore a subordinate universal of qualityhood should be accepted in pleasure and the like, as in cooked color. Reply, on the BHA view sound is a substance. not occurring in the self, not being produced by a sense organ that apprehends special qualities other than sound, and qualityhood occurring in the five corporeal substances, all become extraneous conditions and obstruct the inference. Pleasure and the light may also be accepted as produced by conjunction of the body and self as a cause. Atomicity of mind is not required for spatial restriction. The naiyayika objects, spatial restriction of the effect of an all-pervasive cause would depend upon conjunction of self and mind as the non-inherent cause. If mind were all-pervasive, pleasure, and the light would arise in every self, therefore mind must be atomic. The men'saka replies that, spatial restriction, can have three meanings, the non-inherent cause produces its effect in the place delimited by itself, it produces it definitely there, or it produces it only there. On the first meaning, a regulator of production throughout all places is absent. On the second, conjunction with an atomic mind would produce the effect both in the place delimited by it and elsewhere. On the third, pleasure would arise only in the atomic location. Therefore the doctrine of an all-pervasive mind is not defeated. The non-inhering cause depends upon an efficient cause. The Neayaka says, pleasure's occurrence in a greater or smaller region depends upon efficient causes such as sandalwood, just as spatial occurrence of sound depends upon conjunction with air. Conjunction with mind does not cause this spatial division. The Msaka replies, in our doctrine of an all-pervasive mind too, efficient causes such as sandal would establish this regulation. There is no rule that an all-pervasive non-inhering cause must produce its effect everywhere. Delimitation by the complete causal complex including an efficient cause is required. Simultaneous production of many pleasures and pains in oneself. Memsaka Prima Facy View, when distinct efficient causes such as sandalwood, fire, and wounds are present in different parts of the body, many particular states of pleasure and pain can arise simultaneously in oneself. Even if mind is all-pervasive, there is no contradiction in this production, difference of efficient causes determines difference of place in the effects. Conclusion of the Prima Facy View. Thus mind is an all-pervasive, eternal, partless, touchless substance. Its status as a sense organ is established from its production of perception of special qualities. The mere fact that many cognitions do not arise at one time is not proof that mind is atomic, because desire, purpose, concentration, merit and demerit, and particular efficient causes may regulate the sequence of cognitions. Possibility of many cognitions at one time. The MMSARCA says, although many sense organs are related to their different objects, tension or desire to know makes one cognition predominant. Yet on some occasions many cognitions simultaneously occur as established by direct experience, for example, eating while watching a dance, hearing a song, and apprehending fragrance. Therefore impossibility of simultaneous cognition is not decisive proof of the atomicity of mind.

← Transcript index