MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

Episode2_Part1_CartoonFilm.mp4

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

Collection: Part 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 (0.990731)
Duration: 23:25
Source: Open preserved recording

Timestamped machine output

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

Plain text

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

← Transcript index