MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

nyaya_cartoon_film.mp4

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 (0.99404)

Duration

1:08:35

Source

Open preserved recording

Timestamped machine output

1. 0:00–0:36अछि।
2. 0:36–0:42speaks first not to the assembly but as an offering dot the slash, before argument and offering
3. 0:42–0:50understand these words in two senses at once, as one speaks of flowers and in the same breath
4. 0:50–0:51of doctrine.
5. 0:51–0:58Udayana as invocation half-champ, a beat then more plainly to the hall, definition of
6. 0:58–1:00the subject of inquiry.
7. 1:00–1:05I mean then to make plain the nature of that lord that transcend itself whose words
8. 1:05–1:08of the learned call erode to heaven and to freedom.
9. 1:08–1:14Seen to, Why inquire at all, The assembly stirs, a murmur of half agreement dot bish slash.
10. 1:14–1:19You Deanna, Why inquire, The Vedder already sings of him, Every tradition in this hall
11. 1:19–1:23already has its God under a different name, What doubt remains to open an inquiry.
12. 1:23–1:27None, and that is exactly my point friend, and exactly my problem.
13. 1:27–1:32Look at this assembly, The follower of the Upanishads calls him pure consciousness,
14. 1:32–1:37The killer backslash s people called him eternal and conscious, but not the maker.
15. 1:37–1:42Pat Nendroly backslash s yogins call him a self untouched by affliction, who wears a body
16. 1:42–1:43only to teach.
17. 1:43–1:46The passiporters call him free even of the rules that bind us.
18. 1:46–1:52Shavers call him chiever, beige norrers, vision the tellers of pure runner, call him grand
19. 1:52–1:53sir of all.
20. 1:53–1:57The ritualist calls him the one to whom the oblation is poured.
21. 1:57–2:00The digum-bar calls him one free to body and a vagueness.
22. 2:00–2:04The minimum Sarkar calls the deities of the mantras themselves God.
23. 2:04–2:11Even you, Karbhagar, have some word for what ordinary people mean by backslash-god.bx.
24. 2:11–2:13A word, not a belief.
25. 2:13–2:15Even a word is dey dey, friend.
26. 2:15–2:20My point stands, everyone in this hall already agrees that something is meant by backslash-god.
27. 2:20–2:23And disagrees completely on what?
28. 2:23–2:25That is not the ground for silence.
29. 2:25–2:27That is the very ground that demands inquiry.
30. 2:27–2:29We have heard enough from Scripture.
31. 2:29–2:36time, not a reason. The Veddo itself says, first hear, then reflect, and the elders add, through
32. 2:36–2:42hearing, through reasoning, through the quiet practice of meditation, a soul comes at last
33. 2:42–2:49to seal itself truly. So, reflection begins. Scene 3, 5 doubts named. Let me be honest
34. 2:49–2:54about what stands against me before I offer a single proof. 5 doubts, and I will take them
35. 2:54–3:00one by one across this bouquet. One, there is no unseen supernatural cause behind our fate in
36. 3:00–3:05the next world at all. Two, even without such a cause plain human striving is enough to explain
37. 3:05–3:10ritual and its fruits. Three, there is positive evidence that God does not exist. Four, even
38. 3:10–3:15if some proof of God is offered, that very proof will turn out invalid. Five, no,
39. 3:15–3:20authoritative proof of God exists at all valid or not. Good, say them plainly, that is fair
40. 3:20–3:22debate. Take the first, then.
41. 3:22–3:27Scene 4. Against backslash no. Unseen cause backslash.
42. 3:27–3:33Look at how differently people act. Two men, same circumstance. Choose opposite paths. One
43. 3:33–3:38turns to ritual. One to indulgence. One to renunciation. That difference in tendency has
44. 3:38–3:43causes and the chain of those causes has no first link we can point to. And whatever
45. 3:43–3:48a man reaps, he reaps in his own person, not another backslash s. So something unseen
46. 3:48–3:53must connect this life backslash as action to a fruit received beyond it.
47. 3:53–3:58This world, thick with every kind of suffering unequally dealt out, cannot be uncaused.
48. 3:58–4:01An uncaused thing either exists always or never.
49. 4:01–4:05It does not arise here, cease there on no schedule at all.
50. 4:05–4:10Yet plainly this world of ours does arise and cease on a schedule none of us set, therefore
51. 4:10–4:12some cause beyond the scene.
52. 4:12–4:16Unless the effect simply arose by accident, no cause needed at all.
53. 4:16–4:225 backslash by accident backslash examined and refuted.
54. 4:22–4:27Say what you mean by backslash accident backslash and I will show you it collapses into one of
55. 4:27–4:29four things no cause at all.
56. 4:29–4:35Self production production from nothing or merely a fact about the thing backslash as
57. 4:35–4:37own nature none of the four survives.
58. 4:37–4:41Every effect that comes to be has a clear earlier limit the moment before which it
59. 4:41–4:47was not, in a clear later limit, the moment after which it will not be, as it is, nothing
60. 4:47–4:50marks that limit at that moment, except a cause acting then.
61. 4:50–4:55But suppose the moment itself needs no further explanation. A thing simply has the property
62. 4:55–4:59of beginning to exist on this day rather than another, the way space simply has the property
63. 4:59–5:00of being eternal.
64. 5:00–5:05A property shared by everything explains nothing about why this thing on this day. If backslash
65. 5:05–5:09beginning to exist whenever it does backslash were just each thing backslash as spare
66. 5:09–5:15nature with no cause behind it. A very question backslash why then, and not really your backslash
67. 5:15–5:21would return? Endlessly, and answer nothing. No, production needs a producer. Chance is not an
68. 5:21–5:28answer, it is the question wearing in disguise. Scene 6 on Cause, General and Particular
69. 5:28–5:32Then tell me why the same kind of cause, say, fire arises from such different means,
70. 5:32–5:37dry grass rubbed, wood churned, sunlight gathered through a lens. If cause determines
71. 5:37–5:41effect strictly, how does one effect come from three unlike origins?
72. 5:41–5:46Because causal power is known through observed correlation in each distinct context.
73. 5:46–5:49Not proclaimed once for all context at once.
74. 5:49–5:55Grinding, churning, focusing, three different causal complexes, each independently verified
75. 5:55–5:57to yield fire under its own conditions.
76. 5:57–6:02Nothing in that variety damages the rule that an effect requires a sufficient cause.
77. 6:02–6:07only shows that backslash, sufficient cause backslash can be realized more than one way.
78. 6:07–6:11The rule survives. Only your picture of it was too narrow.
79. 6:11–6:17Assembly a murmur of a sin. Scene 7 and scene merit as the cause of the world backslash
80. 6:17–6:18s diversity.
81. 6:18–6:23Granola. Why must have unseen merit and demerit, Adresha, be the missing cause?
82. 6:23–6:28Why not simply say ordinary, visible, auxiliary causes strong together explain all the diversity
83. 6:28–6:29we see?
84. 6:29–6:32Because of visible chains of cause, Lym explained everything.
85. 6:32–6:38No one would trouble to perform a single unrewarded ritual, and yet people do expecting nothing here
86. 6:38–6:39only hereafter.
87. 6:39–6:42Ask why they persist, not for pleasure.
88. 6:42–6:46The unbeliever seeks pleasure more directly and skips the ritual, not for reputation
89. 6:46–6:50alone that fails to explain private devotion no one sees.
90. 6:50–6:54Not because elders deceive the young, for the elders themselves keep the observance,
91. 6:54–6:58and a deceiver does not usually deceive himself first.
92. 6:58–7:02cutting founder inventing it all for his own gain, then the alone should have grown rich
93. 7:02–7:07and free, giving nothing away, yet the pattern runs the other direction entirely to the sincere
94. 7:07–7:12giveaway what they have. No way Glossive account without an unseen throat survives a scrutiny.
95. 7:12–7:17Something unseen, some adrester, must be admitted as the real cause connecting this
96. 7:17–7:18act to that throat.
97. 7:18–7:24Scene 8 Potency as an independent reality causality of absence.
98. 7:24–7:30reads the section title, Udayana and the object to work through a longer technical passage
99. 7:30–7:35condensed here to its spine-dopk slash. Even so must this backslash potency backslash
100. 7:35–7:40you speak of be some separate reality over and above the visible substances that act
101. 7:40–7:44could not mere absence of an obstruction be doing the causal work with nothing further
102. 7:44–7:50needed. Absence can remove a hindrance, it cannot, by itself, produce a positive effect
103. 7:50–7:56to make bricks into a house you need not only the absence of the builder backslush s laziness,
104. 7:56–7:58but the mason backslush s hand.
105. 7:58–8:02Ritual, likewise, does not merely clear a path.
106. 8:02–8:07It lays down something, a residual potency in the agent, that ripens later into a frout
107. 8:07–8:13that residue is real, though unseen, its reality is inferred exactly as we infer fire from
108. 8:13–8:18smoke by its necessary connection with an effect that has no other adequate explanation.
109. 8:18–8:22This is the same style of reasoning that will in time.
110. 8:22–8:27Terry, us all await good and inference from effect to a cause required by the effect.
111. 8:27–8:29Nothing mystical.
112. 8:29–8:30Nothing merely asserted.
113. 8:30–8:31Scene 9.
114. 8:31–8:34Whom does ritual consecrate?
115. 8:34–8:36Exposition of Samcare and its critique.
116. 8:36–8:39The Samcare teacher rises dot blash.
117. 8:39–8:43That may offer our school back slash s account.
118. 8:43–8:48Since it touches your very question, we hold that Prakriti, primordial nature,
119. 8:48–8:55unconscious but active woven of the three Gunners undertakes all transformation of the world unaided
120. 8:55–9:03for the sake of Pyrrhaša backslash s liberation. No further cause, unseen merit or God, is required
121. 9:03–9:11Prakriti alone suffices as the ground of ritual backslash s power and the world backslash s unfolding.
122. 9:11–9:17An elegant system, teacher and I will grant it much, but consider Prakriti as you describe her
123. 9:17–9:23is one undifferentiated at the route, acting always by the same essential nature, a single uniform
124. 9:23–9:30cause, left to itself cannot by itself explain the sequence of unlike effects arising one after
125. 9:30–9:35another, each waiting its turn, as she produces successively. Something must account for the
126. 9:35–9:41order of that succession, and that something is exactly the kind of unseen, individuating cause
127. 9:41–9:46I am arguing for. Grant me that much, we are no longer very far apart. You have simply
128. 9:46–9:53not yet given it the name I give it. We will not settle that today, but I concede the difficulty is real.
129. 9:53–10:00Scene 10. The Carvaka is answered. The Carvaka steps forward in patient.bxlash.
130. 10:00–10:07Enough delicacy. There is no unseen anything. What is not seen, touched, or reasoned from direct
131. 10:07–10:13perception is simply not there to reason about. Ritual is habit. The next world is a story told
132. 10:13–10:19to keep the poor obedient. Then answer me plainly, Carvarkar, why do sincere people perform rites
133. 10:19–10:25that cost them, that bring them no worldly return, that they could abandon at no cost to their reputation
134. 10:25–10:31until they persist quietly, without display? You have called it habit, but habit needs a first
135. 10:31–10:38cause too, and every account you offer, pleasure, custom, deception, a founder backflush s cunning,
136. 10:38–10:43collapses the moment it is tested, as I have already shown this assembly. What is not directly seen
137. 10:43–10:49is not thereby proven false. It is simply what must be established by inference, which is the very
138. 10:49–10:54tool you yourself used to work from smoke to fire, though you have never seen the two joined at the
139. 10:54–11:00source. Inference I permit, faith I do not. Then let us continue by inference alone. That is
140. 11:00–11:04all I have asked of anyone in this hall. Scene 11, the border and the doctrine of
141. 11:04–11:08momentaryness the border steps forward dot-ba-slash.
142. 11:08–11:14Udea, your whole argument leans on things that endure, an agent who richly acts today
143. 11:14–11:19and reaps tomorrow, a self that persists to receive the fruit.
144. 11:19–11:24Nothing endures. Every existent is momentary, arising and perishing in the same instant
145. 11:24–11:30it appears. What you call backslash, the same person backslash tomorrow, is only a causal
146. 11:30–11:33series, each moment new.
147. 11:33–11:38And tell me, on your own doctrine, who reaps what was sown by a moment that no longer exists
148. 11:38–11:43at the time of reaping, if nothing endures even an instant longer than its arising, the
149. 11:43–11:48doer of the deed and the receiver of the fruiting, or, by your own account, two different,
150. 11:48–11:53unconnected momentary existence, the moral responsibility itself dissolves.
151. 11:53–11:55Consider it too, how ordinary recognition works.
152. 11:55–12:01I see a jar today, and know it as the same jar I saw yesterday, not a new jar resembling
153. 12:01–12:06Being the old, if that recognition of identity were always illusion, no cognition of difference
154. 12:06–12:11between two moments could stand as reliable either, since both rest on the same faculty
155. 12:11–12:13of comparing and cross-tone.
156. 12:13–12:17Deny persistence, rout, and branch, and you cannot even trust the doubt you have just
157. 12:17–12:22raised against me, for even raising a doubt requires that the one who doubted a moment
158. 12:22–12:26ago, and the one who now speaks, are the same continuing self.
159. 12:26–12:29We say the continuity is causal, not substantial.
160. 12:29–12:34The Necoival series sufficiently unified to carry karmic fraud across time is, in every
161. 12:34–12:37respect that matters here, what I mean by an enduring self.
162. 12:37–12:42We may be closer in substance than in vocabulary, month, but something persists.
163. 12:42–12:44On that, this bouquet cannot yield.
164. 12:44–12:51Scene 12, persistence and causality reconciled, deal objection on the eternal self.
165. 12:51–12:52Grant persistence then.
166. 12:52–12:57SILF, if an object backslash, S very nature is to be a cause, must it not cause its
167. 12:57–13:01effect always everywhere the moment it exists, the way blue is always blue.
168. 13:01–13:06Yet an eternal, all-pervading self is not seen to produce pleasure and pain at every moment.
169. 13:06–13:11How then can causality and an eternal self be reconciled at all?
170. 13:11–13:15Because causality is not backslash any object automatically produces any effect it is capable
171. 13:15–13:21of, always dot backslash it is the unobstructed antecedence of a cause relative to its effect,
172. 13:21–13:26ascertained sometimes by watching agreement and difference, where that gales as with
173. 13:26–13:31something eternal and everywhere present, which cannot be absent anywhere to test the
174. 13:31–13:36backslash difference backslash side, ascertained instead through a reason that establishes the
175. 13:36–13:41causal relation directly. The self produces pleasure and pain only in conjunction with
176. 13:41–13:46its proper auxiliary conditions, mind, body, the reckoning of that same unseen potency
177. 13:46–13:51we spoke of earlier. Not everything blue produces every blue thing backslash s affects
178. 13:51–13:57at all times either, a particular cause, with its particular auxiliaries present, produces
179. 13:57–14:01its particular effect that is simply what causality means.
180. 14:01–14:06One stated carefully, an ordinary experience confirms it at every turn.
181. 14:06–14:07Concluding prayer.
182. 14:07–14:09Scene 13.
183. 14:09–14:11Concluding prayer of the first bouquet.
184. 14:11–14:17Udayana turns again toward the unseen image, the whole quiet's dot-biss-slash.
185. 14:17–14:22That hidden power of the Supreme Lord which deals each soul its portion, call it maya,
186. 14:22–14:27since the mind cannot grasp it whole, call it prakrivi, since all creation springs from
187. 14:27–14:28it.
188. 14:28–14:33Call it avidir, since knowledge loam desols it, may that Lord stand in beyond the whole
189. 14:33–14:37disordered churn of this creation, resting in perfect peace.
190. 14:37–14:42Wake devotion in my heart, stand as witness visibly to what I offer here.
191. 14:42–14:49begins to fall slowly on the Sabah, lamp still burning. As assembly murmurs, some persuaded,
192. 14:49–14:55some still folding their arms. The debate visibly unfinished, waiting for the second bouquet
193. 14:55–15:03dot-bous slash. Act 2. The second bouquet of flowers. Of arguments concerning valid cognition,
194. 15:03–15:09the eternity love the Vedda, and the possibility love a new creation. New voice joining this
195. 15:09–15:15Act, the Mimum Saka, a Vedic ritualist scholar Curtis Bettenyielding who holds that the Veda
196. 15:15–15:21is awfulous and eternal, and that commission proves its own truth without external help.
197. 15:21–15:26Zin one, why an omniscient being is still needed.
198. 15:26–15:30Curtain rises again on the same sabar later in the debate.
199. 15:30–15:33Yudayana stands where he left off.
200. 15:33–15:38We have established, across the first bouquet, that an unseen destiny governs the fruit of
201. 15:38–15:44every act, but destiny itself must have some cause, and no creature among us can perceive
202. 15:44–15:46that cause directly.
203. 15:46–15:52No one acts purposefully toward what lies wholly beyond cognition, so some extraordinary omniscient
204. 15:52–15:57being must exist, able to hand down to us true knowledge that didn't cause a link, so
205. 15:57–15:59that we may act rightly at all.
206. 15:59–16:01Why reach for an omnipotent God?
207. 16:01–16:05You Deanna, when the beginningless and broken chain of Vedic tradition already carries
208. 16:05–16:10that knowledge to us, or if you distrust in authorless veda, the sage capilla and others
209. 16:10–16:15attain a missense through yoga and discipline alone, neither requires your god.
210. 16:15–16:21Because valid cognition depends on causes outside itself, and the world is not, on any account,
211. 16:21–16:22unbroken.
212. 16:22–16:25It dissolves periodically entirely.
213. 16:25–16:26Scene 2.
214. 16:26–16:30Is validity known from within, or from outside?
215. 16:30–16:34Before you reach for God, settle a smaller question first, one my skill and yours have
216. 16:34–16:39long disputed. When a cognition arises, is it truth or not automatically, and the very
217. 16:39–16:45arising of it? I say yes. To cognize something at all simply is to take it as true. What
218. 16:45–16:50later proves false was, on inspection, never truly a cognition.
219. 16:50–16:56Then explained out, Mimmsharka. If Maliddy announced itself the instant a cognition
220. 16:56–17:02arose, no cognition could ever be doubted, yet we doubt constantly. The moment a cognition
221. 17:02–17:08doson backslash, to resemble others already confirmed true. Validity, like invalidity,
222. 17:08–17:14is known by something external to the bare fact of cognizing a further mark, a further
223. 17:14–17:20inference, a test in successful action. But your backslash, external test backslash, invites
224. 17:20–17:25its own regress. If a second cognition is needed to certify the first, a third is
225. 17:25–17:31needed to certify the second, and so on without end. Not so, because most of the
226. 17:31–17:37time, certifying validity is simply unnecessary. Where there is neither doubt, nor a reason
227. 17:37–17:44for doubt, belief in an object arises, and we act on it without any separate act of certification.
228. 17:44–17:49Only where doubt genuinely arises does the further inference come in, and there, it
229. 17:49–17:55terminates, because the redress you fear threatens your backslash, intrinsic validity backslash,
230. 17:55–18:00doctrine exactly as much as mine. You too must postulate that a cognition
231. 18:00–18:05Backsash, S. Backsash, being known backsash, is itself validly postulated.
232. 18:05–18:09Prove that, and you are inferring all over again.
233. 18:09–18:10Affair it.
234. 18:10–18:14Consider the thirsty man, who drinks the moment he sees water.
235. 18:14–18:23You backsash, D. say he directly perceives water backsash, S. Power to quench thirst, since he acts without hesitation.
236. 18:23–18:24He does not.
237. 18:24–18:28That power is inferred, instantly and unconsciously,
238. 18:28–18:36From past experience, the way desire itself is born from a swift, silent inference that a certain action gets a certain result.
239. 18:36–18:43Swiftness is not famous. An extrinsic test, taken quickly, still remains extrinsic.
240. 18:44–18:49Scene 3. Dream, Waking, and more backslash, S2 hands.
241. 18:49–18:55Then tell me how any of us tells Waking from dreaming at all, you be honest, if my lividity is never simply given.
242. 18:55–19:00I dream I am drowning in a pond, the terror is total, indistinguishable in the moment from
243. 19:00–19:04anywhere king terror, until I wake and find no water anywhere.
244. 19:04–19:10And the moment you wake, the two states stand in sharp, undeniable opposition, the dim memory
245. 19:10–19:13of the dream against the vivid immediacy of waking.
246. 19:13–19:16That contrast is itself the criterion.
247. 19:16–19:21It does not need to be imported from anywhere else, because waking experience supplies its
248. 19:21–19:26So standard against which the dream is measured and found wanting.
249. 19:26–19:29The western legions reign a sharpened out steel.
250. 19:29–19:34A philosopher, Moore, may call him, held up both his hands before a haul and said,
251. 19:34–19:39Maxash, here is one hand, here is another, therefore external objects are real not Maxash.
252. 19:39–19:45His critics answered, if your very eyes could be doubted, showing us your hands proves nothing.
253. 19:45–19:47Let them out on.
254. 19:47–19:54A bare logical possibility that evidence might someday surface against a fact is not the same as evidence that has surfaced.
255. 19:54–20:00Push that skepticism to its root, and you land on the law of un-contradiction itself.
256. 20:00–20:09Call it a tautology, if you like, empty of content, but even the skeptic must stand on it to say anything at all, including his doubt.
257. 20:09–20:14I do not need certainty invulnerable to every conceivable future.
258. 20:14–20:16I need what any reasonable inquiry needs.
259. 20:16–20:19The balance of evidence, honestly weighed.
260. 20:19–20:31And on that balance, Nia-Bax-Lash's account of validity, known through Mark's external to bear cognition, confirmed finally by successful action, carries the greater weight.
261. 20:31–20:35Illusion and error are undeniable facts of experience.
262. 20:35–20:42If, as you Mimamsa can say, everything Cog-Eyes does thereby true, what, then, are illusion and error?
263. 20:42–20:44You have no answer for that.
264. 20:44–20:48Scene 4. Proofs that sound is not eternal.
265. 20:48–20:52Brunt me this much, then, and let me change ground.
266. 20:52–20:55Even without your god, the Veda need not be authored at all.
267. 20:55–21:03The Veda, and the very sound it is made of, may simply be eternal, requiring no faultless speaker, and no author to answer for.
268. 21:03–21:08There I must take that from you, too, friend, and I will do it from plain hearing.
269. 21:08–21:16We say, every day, Mac slash, that sound has stopped Mac slash, the drum was struck, and out it is silent.
270. 21:16–21:20That is a direct cognition of sound Mac slash S destruction.
271. 21:20–21:24Sound cannot have merely moved elsewhere, being formless.
272. 21:24–21:30It cannot have been covered over, for covering belongs to things with shape.
273. 21:30–21:37It has not merely grown too faint for us, for the same excuse would prove that a shattered pot has not really broken,
274. 21:37–21:39only become invisible.
275. 21:39–21:42But the ear cannot perceive that absence directly,
276. 21:42–21:46its substratum, ether, cannot be perceived at all.
277. 21:46–21:50The ear need not perceive ether to perceive the absence of sound in the ear,
278. 21:50–21:54precisely as darkness is perceived as the absence of light,
279. 21:54–21:58without anyone perceiving the invisible particles that would be its locus,
280. 21:58–22:01and listen to the sound itself.
281. 22:01–22:04Pitch rises, falls, loudens, softens,
282. 22:04–22:09One and the same eternal thing cannot bear opposed qualities at once.
283. 22:09–22:16What you call backslash, the same word, recognized again backslash, is a flame recognized again.
284. 22:16–22:21New fuel, new light, each moment, called by one name out of habit.
285. 22:21–22:27Production and destruction, not eternity, is what your own ear tells you, if you will trust it.
286. 22:27–22:31The tradition will need to answer you on this, I think, elsewhere.
287. 22:31–22:40It will. For now, it is enough that sound, and with it, the spoken feather, is produced, and what is produced can be lost.
288. 22:40–22:46Which returns us to the question, who restores it, each time the world dissolves and forgets.
289. 22:46–22:51Scene 5. How can a new creation even begin?
290. 22:51–22:53Suppose I grant this solution.
291. 22:53–23:00During this solution, on your own account, nothing moves, nothing acts, the sky itself stands empty and still.
292. 23:00–23:05What, then, could possibly initiate a new creation out of absolute stillness?
293. 23:05–23:09Consider deep sleep first, as a smaller case of the same puzzle.
294. 23:09–23:17In dreamless sleep the self-max-s-cognition, desire, pleasure, and pain all fall silent together,
295. 23:17–23:23Let the body backslash, as breath continues, faint, and the self wakes again damaged.
296. 23:23–23:28So to that cosmic dissolution, an extremely subtle motion persists in the atoms of the
297. 23:28–23:35four elements, to find a register as backslash, the world backslash, until its final stage
298. 23:35–23:38marks the moment and becomes the seed of new creation.
299. 23:38–23:44It is not that a day must always be preceded by another day of its own kind, the first
300. 23:44–23:49The first day of the monsoon is preceded by the last day of summer, not by other rainy day.
301. 23:49–23:56So to the first day of a new creation is preceded by dissolution, not by other day of an old world.
302. 23:56–24:01And the first human beings, the first brahmin, the first speaker of editor not all,
303. 24:01–24:05no parent taught them to speak, for there was no one yet to teach.
304. 24:05–24:10As the first scorpion rises from Ra and Dun, not from a scorpion parent,
305. 24:10–24:19and only later generations breed true, so the Supreme Lord may himself take the forms of Teacher and pupil at the world backslash S. Donne,
306. 24:19–24:29gesture as a puppeteer moves a puppet backslash S. Hand toward a distant object, and in that gesture teach the very first convention of word and meaning.
307. 24:29–24:40From that first instruction the whole chain, potter to potter, weaver to weaver, teacher to student, descends unbroken until the next dissolution breaks it again.
308. 24:40–24:46Scene 6. The long decline, and why scripture needs restoring.
309. 24:46–24:50And do not imagine the chain is holding as firmly today as it once did.
310. 24:50–24:53Look honestly at what has already frayed.
311. 24:53–24:57Right's ones performed with full memory of thousands of vatic branches
312. 24:57–25:02now survive, if at all, through a single branch, imperfectly kept.
313. 25:02–25:08Narva once stood on four legs, austerity, knowledge, sacrifice, charity.
314. 25:08–25:11Austerity fell, two legs remained.
315. 25:11–25:18Knowledge fell. One leg, charity, bears the whole weight now, and even that leg is wounded.
316. 25:18–25:21Then say plainly what you are building toward.
317. 25:21–25:35That scripture is not self-sustaining. It's authority depends on the Veda, not on the general good conduct of virtuous people copying one another, for if virtuous conduct alone were sufficient to make an act of legatory,
318. 25:35–25:47No scriptural injunction would be needed at all, and yet we all know rights that have lapsed entirely, with no living witness, that must one day be restored, not merely remembered.
319. 25:47–25:56Restoration needs a knower, and faith in scripture merely recognizes truth, it cannot manufacture it, once the original cause is gone.
320. 25:56–26:01Scene 7. Capilla is tested, and found insufficient.
321. 26:01–26:07Then let Kapila serve us that nor a sage of direct perception, purified by yoga, moved by
322. 26:07–26:13compassion for suffering creatures, capable of reviving what scripture has lost.
323. 26:13–26:17Test that claim as carefully as you tested mine, friend.
324. 26:17–26:22Meditation may indeed be a means of knowing what is otherwise hidden, I do not deny it
325. 26:22–26:27wholesale, but meditation does not automatically yield knowledge the instant it is practiced.
326. 26:27–26:31It needs some other means to confirm what it has found.
327. 26:31–26:37What confirms capilla-back-slash-ass meditation on compassion and on violence, whose fruits
328. 26:37–26:39no one has ever seen?
329. 26:39–26:45A coward meditates fruitfully on a snake only because he has met a snake before.
330. 26:45–26:50No one has met the fruit of yoga directly, in this life or between two lives, for
331. 26:50–26:54the body that acts in this birth, and the body that reaps the fruit in the next are
332. 26:54–27:01not even the same body, and without some experienced link joining the two, the connection cannot
333. 27:01–27:02be verified at all.
334. 27:02–27:05It has said some remember former births.
335. 27:05–27:08It has said, but art established.
336. 27:08–27:13A teacher who falls asleep on a holiday night and resumes yesterday backslash SS and at
337. 27:13–27:20dawn proves only that memory holds within one life, not across the gulf between two.
338. 27:20–27:25and consider the very first promise at creation backslash Aston.
339. 27:25–27:29By what memory could they have known their own lineage if no one had yet been born to
340. 27:29–27:31remember it?
341. 27:31–27:36No power of travel between worlds is proven either, that might have carried settlers in
342. 27:36–27:38bearing a caste system readymade.
343. 27:38–27:44It is, in the end, simpler and more reasonable to accept one omniscient, omnipotent being
344. 27:44–27:50Who needs nobody, no untested memory, no unproven journey between worlds,
345. 27:50–27:55and to multiply unproven, half omniscient sages to do the same work badly.
346. 27:55–27:58I will carry the question forward, Udayana.
347. 27:58–28:01I do not yet carry your conclusion.
348. 28:01–28:06That is exactly as debate should stand, at the end of its second round.
349. 28:06–28:10CNAID. Concluding prayer of the second bouquet.
350. 28:10–28:15You day on the terms, once more to ward the unseen image.buckslash.
351. 28:15–28:19May my heart hold fast to sheave until life backslash.
352. 28:19–28:25As last moment, he who, aided by the destinies of every being, builds this astonishing world
353. 28:25–28:32again and again and, like a magician undoing his own trick, un-makes it again, whose
354. 28:32–28:37will runs unopposed through the whole of the cosmos, who is its final cause.
355. 28:37–28:41that Lord alone let my devotion rest unmoved.
356. 28:41–28:47Curtain falls slowly. A mimum-saka remains seated in thought as the lamp dims. Assembly
357. 28:47–28:53murmurs, a ground has shifted, though no one yet concedes.
358. 28:53–29:00Act 3. A third bouquet of flowers. Of arguments refuting every alleged proof that God does
359. 29:00–29:04not exist. The atheist, Nastica, joins the floor.
360. 29:04–29:07This act, not as cool so much as a stance.
361. 29:07–29:13Whatever cannot be caught by some means of knowledge, he holds, cannot be real.
362. 29:13–29:22The Kanbaka, the Mimamsaka, and the Vaisachesika, a precise, categorical logician-cousin-to-nia,
363. 29:22–29:25also speak.bac-slash.
364. 29:25–29:26Scene 1.
365. 29:26–29:28Backslash, he is not seen.
366. 29:28–29:30Therefore he is not backslash.
367. 29:30–29:32Curtain rises.
368. 29:32–29:34The lamp is trimmed higher.
369. 29:34–29:39Bukke is the haulbackslash, s most contested dot backslash.
370. 29:39–29:43You have spent two Bukke's building to watermaker of the world, you pay honor.
371. 29:43–29:46I will spend this one demolishing the foundation.
372. 29:46–29:50If God existed, he ought to be knowable, as a cowbackslash s horn is knowable by its shape
373. 29:50–29:51and color.
374. 29:51–29:52He is not known.
375. 29:52–29:57Therefore he does not exist, exactly as a hairbackslash s horn does not exist, precisely
376. 29:57–30:02because, though its shape would be knowable if it were there, no one has ever perceived
377. 30:02–30:03one.
378. 30:03–30:09argument, and cleanly wrong at its first step. Your inference works only where the object
379. 30:09–30:15was already granted to be perceptible, the hair backslash s horn fails the test of perception
380. 30:15–30:21it was always eligible to sit. God was never claimed by any theist in this hall to be an
381. 30:21–30:26object of ordinary perception at all. You cannot fault an unseen thing for failing
382. 30:26–30:29a test it was never entered into.
383. 30:29–30:33Then how is he known, if not by the one method you now exempt him from?
384. 30:33–30:38By inference, which is precisely what these five bouquets exist to supply.
385. 30:38–30:44Save your strongest objection for the fifth, when the inferences themselves stand before
386. 30:44–30:45you.
387. 30:45–30:47For now I only clear the ground.
388. 30:47–30:52Unapprehension of a thing never claimed to be apprehensible proves a thing.
389. 30:52–30:58Seen to sleep, the self, and what not apprehension cannot touch.
390. 30:58–31:03your own self, then, as a test case, in dreamless sleep you do not apprehend your own self,
391. 31:03–31:09yet you do not conclude, on waking, that you have ceased to exist. Why does the same silence,
392. 31:09–31:12applied to God, not equally prove his absence?
393. 31:12–31:17Because in sleep the causes that would produce self-cognition are simply not assembled, the
394. 31:17–31:23mind has withdrawn from the senses, not because the self has vanished, but because the instrument
395. 31:23–31:30of noticing it has gone quiet. The very fact you rely on that no one doubts their own continued
396. 31:30–31:35existence through a dreamless eye is itself proof that unapprehension does not entail
397. 31:35–31:41unexistence. You have refuted your own method with your own example.
398. 31:41–31:45Then try this instead, a consciously ignored to show bodily activity as the sprouting
399. 31:45–31:50seed shows the daughter of Axash S. Hand. No divine activity is seen before a single
400. 31:50–31:53This route appears. No activity, no agent.
401. 31:53–31:58A pot needs an embodied potter. The world does not thereby need an embodied maker of
402. 31:58–32:04the identical kind. The self persists, unmoving, through sleep, through fainting, through the
403. 32:04–32:10stillness of poison, or extreme cold, without any bodily sign at all. Different effects
404. 32:10–32:16proceed from different kinds of causes, and there is no law binding every maker to a
405. 32:16–32:17visible hand.
406. 32:17–32:23Scene 3. The Carvaca backslash, S-Wager, and why it cannot be cached.
407. 32:23–32:27The Carvaca steps in, sharper than before dot backslash.
408. 32:27–32:32Let me strip this one for the bandit-ist vass. I do not even require backslash, knowable,
409. 32:32–32:37but a known backslash as your loophole. My rule is simpler. What is not known, in any sense,
410. 32:37–32:42does not exist. What is known, exists. God is never known. Finished.
411. 32:42–32:46Then finish it, Carvaca, and see where it leads you.
412. 32:46–32:59On your rule, the moment you step outside your own house, you no longer perceive your wife, your children, your stored brain, by your own law, they must be judged destroyed the instant your eyes leave them.
413. 32:59–33:01Do you believe that?
414. 33:01–33:03Memory assures me they remain.
415. 33:03–33:06Memory assures you have many destroyed things too.
416. 33:06–33:11A childhood house long, since fallen, a friend long dead.
417. 33:11–33:14Memory alone cannot certify present existence.
418. 33:14–33:18The instant you lean on memory to save your family from your own rule,
419. 33:18–33:21you have conceded exactly what I need.
420. 33:21–33:24Non-apprehension does not prove non-existence.
421. 33:24–33:26And consider the die itself.
422. 33:26–33:32The very organ you're backshash, seeing backshash depends on is never itself seen,
423. 33:32–33:34Yet you do not doubt it exists.
424. 33:34–33:39Your rule, followed honestly, destroys your own instrument of doubting.
425. 33:39–33:41Ordinary conduct does not need certainty.
426. 33:41–33:45It runs on probability, general agreement, tested by use.
427. 33:45–33:48Then where does probability lie on your account?
428. 33:48–33:52If a thing is seen, you say it's existence is certain.
429. 33:52–33:55If unseen, its absence is certain.
430. 33:55–33:59You have left no middle ground for probability to stand on at all.
431. 33:59–34:05You have described a doctrine with no room for the very mode of belief you say it rests on.
432. 34:05–34:09Scene 4. Why inference itself survives the doubt.
433. 34:09–34:12Rent inference some round, then, if you insist.
434. 34:12–34:15But how is that about it ever finally removed?
435. 34:15–34:20Every absorbed pattern might break tomorrow, or a mile from here, or under some condition we came in backslash.
436. 34:20–34:23T-thought to check. That threat never closes.
437. 34:23–34:27It closes the moment you notice something you have already conceded.
438. 34:27–34:33To doubt a future deviation, you must already be able to think about the future, and that
439. 34:33–34:39very capacity is inference, extended from present time through hour, day, and season.
440. 34:39–34:44You cannot use inference to attack inference without borrowing the very tool you are trying
441. 34:44–34:46to disqualify.
442. 34:46–34:52And practically, doubt ends where a counterfactual would trap the doubter in his own contradiction.
443. 34:52–35:01The eye-net cause and effect are reliably connected, and the very act of doubting, itself an effect, could never have arisen in you at all.
444. 35:01–35:11A reasonable mind does not chase every conceivable exception forever. It follows a reason, whose pervasion has been tested, and holds, and acts.
445. 35:11–35:14Carry it forward, then. I will listen to the rest.
446. 35:14–35:21Scene 5. Comparison, and the fifth UK-backslash-S coming test. Set aside.
447. 35:21–35:28One more avenue, you Diana, before you move on. Some old backslash, comparison backslash,
448. 35:28–35:34cognition through observed similarity, to be its own independent means of knowledge,
449. 35:34–35:39distinct from perception and inference. If so, a difficulty for you follows,
450. 35:39–35:44everything known resembles something else already known, but the audio described as
451. 35:44–35:51nothing else similar to many were, could comparison then prove in absence, by that very singularity,
452. 35:51–35:59Only if similarity were some third kind of entity, neither being nor unbeing, and no such third kind exists.
453. 35:59–36:05Being and unbeing exhaust the field, then I won, and you have thereby affirmed the other.
454. 36:05–36:12Similarity is simply a property of things that already are, sorted under one or the other of those two categories.
455. 36:12–36:18It needs no independent status, and therefore yields no independent weapon against a being,
456. 36:18–36:22Who happens, by his nature, to be singular?
457. 36:22–36:25Uniqueness is not a defect that argument can weaponize.
458. 36:25–36:29It is simply a fact some subjects have, and others don't.
459. 36:29–36:36Backslash, T, scene 6, verbal testimony, and the dispute over an omniscient author.
460. 36:36–36:43Then let me press you on testimony itself, since this whole book acercles back to whether the media needs an author at all.
461. 36:43–36:49The Veshishika treats an ordinary sentence as meaning as something inferred from the speaker box.
462. 36:49–36:53As intention testimony reduced to a kind of inference.
463. 36:53–36:58My own school box is Prabhakara branch both further, only the Veda, being ortholous,
464. 36:58–37:03car is independent authority, an ordinary human sentence is trust when the only one
465. 37:03–37:06inference has certified the speaker reliable.
466. 37:06–37:10Both positions ask testimony to do more work than it needs to.
467. 37:10–37:28The moment you already know a word backslash, s expressive power, the sentence backslash, s meaning arrives with the hearing of it, no separate inferential step, no prior certification of the speaker backslash, s reliability, is required for comprehension to occur at all.
468. 37:28–37:36A child, who does not yet know whether the Vedic author still understands the Vedic sentence perfectly well the moment he hears it.
469. 37:36–37:41That alone shows understanding does not wait on settling authorship first.
470. 37:41–37:47Testimony is its own means of knowledge, standing beside perception and inference, not smuggled
471. 37:47–37:50inference wearing a disguise.
472. 37:50–37:53Then consider the sharper objection some raise directly against you.
473. 37:53–37:59If an omniscient creator can pose even human language itself at the world-box-sh-estone,
474. 37:59–38:04teaching the first speaker's word by word, how could such teaching ever get off the ground,
475. 38:04–38:09with no shared word yet existing between teacher and pupil to teach with.
476. 38:09–38:14As I have already shown you, in the second bouquet, through gesture before word,
477. 38:14–38:20exactly as a puppeteer backslash s chord makes a puppet backslash s hand point at a distant thing,
478. 38:20–38:26and the watching child infers meaning from the pointing before any word is spoken at all.
479. 38:26–38:30Instruction need not presuppose language completed.
480. 38:30–38:34It can begin language, gesture first, word following.
481. 38:34–38:43I do not ask you to accept this today. I only ask you to know this at the objection, however sharp it sounds, has already been met.
482. 38:43–38:50Scene 7. Postulation and non-apprehension, briefly weighed and found insufficient.
483. 38:50–39:02The narrator reads the remaining section titles together, briskly, as you day honor answers each intern, the pace quickens here, a flurry rather than a dual dot backslash.
484. 39:02–39:06Examination of postulation as an independent means of knowledge.
485. 39:06–39:11Examination of non-apprehension as an independent means of knowledge.
486. 39:11–39:13And further examination of the same.
487. 39:14–39:18One and then the other, you may honor, since you have answered comparison and testimony.
488. 39:18–39:23Postulation, first, the inference forced us when a known fact makes no sense otherwise.
489. 39:23–39:29Does postulation not, in some case, force us to explain the world without God, and so crowd him out?
490. 39:29–39:38Show me the fact that only makes sense without a maker, and I will answer it directly, but no one in this hall has yet produced one.
491. 39:38–39:53Every alleged case of backslash, postulation against God backslash, turns out, an inspection, to be an ordinary inference wearing postulation backslash's name, and ordinary inference I have already answered at length.
492. 39:53–39:58Then no apprehension, once more, in its fullest form, not merely Baxash, I have not seen him
493. 39:58–40:03Baxash, which you answered in the first scene, but the deeper demands acclaim that no apprehension
494. 40:03–40:08is itself a distinct sense-born means of knowledge, and that its silence regarding God should
495. 40:08–40:10count as positive evidence.
496. 40:10–40:16Trace it carefully, and it collapses into perception after all, un-normal, un-impaired sense
497. 40:16–40:22produces the determinate cognition backslash, no pot here backslash, by apprehending the place
498. 40:22–40:28where the pot would be, not by some free-floating faculty of noticing absences in general.
499. 40:28–40:35And the faculty that is, at bottom, perception in other guys inherits exactly the limit perception
500. 40:35–40:41already had. It can report the absence only of what it was ever fit to detect in the first place.
501. 40:41–40:44God was never within that fitness.
502. 40:44–40:46The silence proves nothing new.
503. 40:46–40:47It only restates.
504. 40:47–40:52For the third time this bouquet, the very first answer I gave you.
505. 40:52–40:58Then I have exhausted perception, inference and unapprehension, comparison, testimony and postulation,
506. 40:58–41:01and none of them has delivered me your absence.
507. 41:01–41:06Not exhausted, friend, only tested, fairly, one at a time.
508. 41:06–41:10That is all I have asked of anyone across this whole bouquet.
509. 41:10–41:14CNAIT. CLOSING PRAYER OF THE THIRD BOOK.
510. 41:14–41:20You day on the terms, one lost time this act, toward the unseen image.buckslash.
511. 41:20–41:28With full devotion we bow to that God of Gods, worshipped across every tradition in this hall under a hundred names,
512. 41:28–41:35whose quiet festival of bliss no rival joy equals, whose reality no perception can catch and discard,
513. 41:35–41:41No inference overturned, no other means of knowledge unseed, and on whom, in the end, every one
514. 41:41–41:46of those means of knowledge itself depends to be trustworthy at all.
515. 41:46–41:47Curtain falls.
516. 41:47–41:53The atheist remains standing a moment longer than the rest of the assembly before he, to
517. 41:53–41:55sit.exe.
518. 41:55–41:56Act 4.
519. 41:56–41:59The Fourth Book A of Flowers.
520. 41:59–42:04Of arguments concerning God as Nera, and the true nature of cognition.
521. 42:04–42:11the shortest bouquet, and the most inward turning. Having secured that God exists, and cannot
522. 42:11–42:17be disproved, the whole now asks what it even means to call an unmoving, all knowing being
523. 42:17–42:25a backslash, no a backslash, at all. The Mimmsaka carries most of the argument this act.
524. 42:25–42:29Scene 1. Can Omniscience Even Be Valid Cognition?
525. 42:29–42:33Curtain rises on the same lamp lit sabre, later steel.
526. 42:33–42:41Udiana looks tired in the good way, a debater deep into his case, not worn down by it.buckslash.
527. 42:41–42:46One more difficulty, Udiana, and it strikes at the root of everything you have built.
528. 42:46–42:48You call God omniscient.
529. 42:48–42:53But valid cognition, by definition, must know something not already known, otherwise memory
530. 42:53–42:58itself would count as a valid means of knowledge, which no one accepts.
531. 42:58–43:00God-Backsash is knowledge is total.
532. 43:00–43:02Nothing is ever new to him.
533. 43:02–43:08If nothing is ever new to him, on your own definition, nothing he knows can count as valid knowledge at all.
534. 43:08–43:12And if his knowledge is not valid, he has no trust when they offer him anything,
535. 43:12–43:15including the meda you have spent rebuking his defendant.
536. 43:15–43:19Then the flaw is in that definition, not in God.
537. 43:19–43:25Back-Sash, knowing what was art known before back-Sash, cannot be what makes a cognition true.
538. 43:25–43:27It is both too narrow and too wide.
539. 43:27–43:34too narrow. See the same dart wise, and the second seeing is every bit as true as the first,
540. 43:34–43:40though nothing is new in it. Too wide, an illusion may present something never seen before, and
541. 43:40–43:46still be false. Novel detracts neither truth nor falsehood. What makes a cognition true
542. 43:46–43:52is simply this, that it corresponds to how the thing actually is. By that measure, God
543. 43:52–43:58That backslash as cognition, being total and never in error, is as true as any cognition
544. 43:58–44:03could be, whether or not any of it is backslash, new backslash, to him.
545. 44:03–44:08Then how do you distinguish a second tree seeing of the same jar from mere memory?
546. 44:08–44:11We do not call memory a means of knowledge.
547. 44:11–44:15Because memory depends entirely on a prior cognition to borrow its content from, it
548. 44:15–44:18can authorize from a thing.
549. 44:18–44:26A fresh seeing of the same jar depends on the jar being presently there, seen again through its own causes, not recalled from a store.
550. 44:26–44:30And God-back-slash-sk is simpler still than either.
551. 44:30–44:40His cognition of the whole universe is a single, self-identical act, dependent on no other cognition before it, needing no second glance at anything.
552. 44:40–44:46Call it neither new, nor old, it simply is, entire, all at once.
553. 44:46–44:52Scene 2. The bid for Backslash, known as Backslash, pre-attempts, pre-failure.
554. 44:53–44:59Let me try a different door then. Surely cognition does something to its object, leaves a mark on it.
555. 44:59–45:06We call this mark Backslash, known as Backslash. The property and object gains, simply by being known,
556. 45:06–45:11of having been known. Without it, Backslash being produced Backslash in your own inference for a
557. 45:11–45:17a divine make-up becomes untrustworthy because an agent who leaves no trace on what he touches
558. 45:17–45:23can hardly be said to know his own materials. Three ways to argue for such a mark, and unsurvive
559. 45:23–45:30testing. First, that cognition, being an action, must yield a result the way any action yields
560. 45:30–45:36a result, and that result is known as a tonne arrow shot at the empty sky produces no result
561. 45:36–45:42in the sky, cognition may be like that arrow. Real motion, no mark left behind.
562. 45:42–45:48Second, that we say backslash, the pot is known backslash, and this phrase itself proves some
563. 45:48–45:54new property sits on the pot. But we equally say backslash, the pot was destroyed backslash,
564. 45:54–46:01a pot that no longer exists to receive any property at all. Language describing a relation
565. 46:01–46:06The second tone act does not, by itself, prove a real residue in the object.
566. 46:06–46:13Third, that the very fact we can talk about cognition proves some perceptible trace it leaves.
567. 46:13–46:20But the causes that let us talk about cognition are the very same causes that produced the cognition in the first place.
568. 46:20–46:24Nothing further needs to be posited to explain the talk.
569. 46:24–46:31Then Onus explains nothing but cognition-box-lash-sown-nature-dosen-box-lash-t already explained on its own.
570. 46:31–46:36Just so. A cognition of a pot is a cognition of a pot by its own nature.
571. 46:36–46:42Exactly as an effort to lift a stone is an effort concerning that stone by its own nature,
572. 46:42–46:46without either one depositing some third thing into what it touches.
573. 46:46–46:51Scene 3. Is cognition itself something we perceive?
574. 46:51–46:55Set the object aside, then, and turn the question on cognition itself.
575. 46:55–47:00How do you even know a cognition has a card, if not through some form of cognition perceiving
576. 47:00–47:04it, endlessly, one behind the next?
577. 47:04–47:06Not endlessly, directly.
578. 47:06–47:11The moment an indeterminate awareness of some external thing arises, the very fact of being
579. 47:11–47:15a cognition is already faintly present alongside it to the mind.
580. 47:15–47:21In the next moment, when a further cognition of that same object arises, the mind turns
581. 47:21–47:24and knows the earlier cognition determinately.
582. 47:24–47:30The way a first fire recognized in one backslash's own kitchen lets one recognize, by the same
583. 47:30–47:36mark, a second fired limp slater on a distant hill through its smoke.
584. 47:36–47:41Cognition is not itself perceived through some second, separate cognition standing outside
585. 47:41–47:42it.
586. 47:42–47:44in whom cognition in hairs is enough.
587. 47:44–47:46Then answer the harder form of the question.
588. 47:46–47:52On your school backslash, a zone account, a cognition last fairly two or three moments
589. 47:52–47:53before it perishes.
590. 47:53–47:58If it is that brief, how does it last long enough both to reveal its object and to be
591. 47:58–48:01caught itself by the mind looking back at it?
592. 48:01–48:06And does that fleeting cognition, in its second moment, still grasp the very same object
593. 48:06–48:11it grasped in the first or has the same object in the second moment?
594. 48:11–48:15The first, or has the object, and the instant, already changed.
595. 48:15–48:28The same object, held across both moments, nothing stranger is required than printing that a cognition, once a reason, persists briefly enough to do both jobs without contradiction.
596. 48:28–48:35To disclose its object, and to become, in turn, an object for the mind-backslash-as-next-plans.
597. 48:35–48:41Chase the alternative you backslash, re-gesturing to ward, that each vanishing instant would
598. 48:41–48:46need its own vanishing backslash, known as backslash, to certify it, and that known as
599. 48:46–48:52its own further known as to certify it, and you have simply reproduced, one level up,
600. 48:52–48:57the same infinite regress you were trying to rescue backslash, known as backslash, from
601. 48:57–49:04in the first place. Simplicity favors dropping the extra entity, not multiplying it.
602. 49:04–49:10for what backslash, no backslash means for a being who does not act.
603. 49:10–49:15Brant everything so far. Still, every backslash means of knowledge backslash we have ever named
604. 49:15–49:20is defined by doing something. Did I act upon light, an inference acts through a middle
605. 49:20–49:25term, a word acts through a speaker backslash, a deterrence. God, on your account, does
606. 49:25–49:30none of this, no sense contact, no middle term, no speech act producing his knowledge.
607. 49:30–49:36I was right. Then, do you still call him a no-er at all, using a word built entirely out of agency?
608. 49:36–49:44Because ordinary etymology gives only the common root of a word backslash, s meaning, not the whole of how it is actually used.
609. 49:44–49:52We call a sense faculty a backslash, means a knowledge backslash, because it is causally involved in producing cognition.
610. 49:52–49:58We call God a backslash, knower backslash, for a different, equally legitimate reason.
611. 49:58–50:04Cognition simply resides in him as a permanent feature of what he is, without needing to be
612. 50:04–50:06produced by anything at all.
613. 50:06–50:11A person can be a knower without, at this instant, being an agent of anything, knowing
614. 50:11–50:13does not require doing.
615. 50:13–50:18Nor need I claim his cognition is some fifth, undiscovered means of knowledge alongside
616. 50:18–50:22perception, inference, testimony, and the rest.
617. 50:22–50:28A modern backslash, perception backslash, to mean simply direct, uninterrupted awareness
618. 50:28–50:34of an object, not perception through sense contact specifically, and God backslash s-knowing
619. 50:34–50:40falls naturally under that wider sense, without forcing a new category into being.
620. 50:40–50:41Scene 5.
621. 50:41–50:46Does burying every error make God backslash s-cognition erroneous?
622. 50:46–50:49One last thrust, and then I yield this bouquet.
623. 50:49–50:55God is omniscient, he knows every false belief every creature I've ever held, every illusion,
624. 50:55–51:00every mistake and inference, every dream. But then the objects of all our era are, in
625. 51:00–51:05some sense, present within his own cognition too. Does that not make the cognition itself
626. 51:05–51:10short for an era? And if the knowledge already contains our mistakes, what use is the teaching
627. 51:10–51:14in dispelling them? You have confused the error with the knowledge
628. 51:14–51:21of the error, friend, and that confusion is exactly the kind of mistake God-max-slash-s-cognition,
629. 51:21–51:28unlike ours, never makes. An illusion is false. But a true cognition that identifies an illusion
630. 51:28–51:34as illusion, max-slash-this-is-a-false-cognition-max-slash-is-not-itself-false. It is precisely the
631. 51:34–51:43opposite. Clearly about falsehood, not participation in it. God-none-every-error-admactly-and-it-actually-is-an-error,
632. 51:43–51:49cognition that correctly sees error as error is, by the very definition we settled at the start of
633. 51:49–51:55this bouquet. True. Far from undermining his teaching, that is the only thing that makes
634. 51:55–52:01his teaching worth anything at all. He does not merely hold our mistakes alongside his own truths,
635. 52:01–52:08he sees them as mistakes, which is precisely what we, still caught inside them, cannot yet do
636. 52:08–52:13for ourselves. I have carried four bouquets of doubt into this hall, you de-ar-ah, and
637. 52:13–52:18you have met every one of them without one trace in your voice. I do not yet call myself
638. 52:18–52:23unsubdened fool, but I no longer call myself your opponent either, only your most stubborn
639. 52:23–52:30student. The debate has no better outcome than that, friend. Sit, and rest a moment.
640. 52:30–52:34What remains is that defense any longer.
641. 52:34–52:41turning toward the fifth bouquet. No concluding prayer is given for this bouquet in the source
642. 52:41–52:46text. The surviving pages move directly from the discussion of God-backslash, a knowledge
643. 52:46–52:53of error into the great positive proofs. The writer marks the turn, instead.backslash.
644. 52:53–52:59Three bouquets of defense are behind this hall now, the doubt that no unseen cause exists,
645. 52:59–53:06The doubt that ritual needs no god, the claim that god can be disproved outright, and,
646. 53:06–53:12in this fourth and shortest bouquet, the question of what it even means to call so still a being
647. 53:12–53:18a backslash, no a dot backslash, every doubt raised against him has been met and turned.
648. 53:18–53:24One task remains, greater than all the rest, not merely to defend the citadel, but to
649. 53:24–53:30build it. Eight proofs, standing on their own feet, requiring no opponent backslash,
650. 53:30–53:36s first move at all. That is the fifth bouquet, and the summit of this whole garden.
651. 53:37–53:44Curtain falls softly, no music of ending, only a pause, lamp trimmed brighter for what follows
652. 53:44–53:52dot backslash. Act 5. The Fifth Bouquet of Flowers. The eight proofs establishing god backslash,
653. 53:52–53:56The summit of the debate.
654. 53:56–54:02Youdeana no longer merely answers, he builds, proof after proof, each one standing on its
655. 54:02–54:03own feet.
656. 54:03–54:12The atheist, the kavaka, the mimamsaka, the samkhya teacher, the border, and the vaisheshik
657. 54:12–54:17are all present in the hall, no longer opposing in turn, but listening as one assembly to
658. 54:17–54:21a case finally being made in full dot book slash.
659. 54:21–54:241. Framing the 8.
660. 54:24–54:30Curtain rises for the last time. The lamp burns steady. You day are the stands at the center
661. 54:30–54:36of the hall, and 4. Once no one interrupts him at the start.buck slash.
662. 54:36–54:42For bootcase, and I have done nothing yet, but clear ground, answering doubt, refuting
663. 54:42–54:48attack, defending the possibility of a maker. Tonight I stop defending. Eight proofs stand
664. 54:48–54:54before you, each sufficient on its own, needing no opponent backslash as first move to exist
665. 54:54–54:55at all.
666. 54:55–54:57At the world is an effect.
667. 54:57–55:00At the first motion in the atoms requires a mover.
668. 55:00–55:02At the world is sustained.
669. 55:02–55:04But it is destroyed.
670. 55:04–55:09At the very conventions of word and craft required a first teacher.
671. 55:09–55:13At the validity of the scriptural tradition demands a trustworthy source.
672. 55:13–55:17At scripture itself testifies to its author.
673. 55:17–55:25Even bare number, two-ness, three-ness, in things too small for any of us to count, bears the mark of accounting mind.
674. 55:25–55:30Test each one as harshly as you have tested everything else I have said this evening.
675. 55:30–55:35I ask only that you test them one at a time, on their own ground.
676. 55:35–55:40Begin, then. I have not conceded easily tonight, and I will not begin now.
677. 55:40–55:43Good. That is exactly how this should end.
678. 55:43–55:47Seen to the first proof the world is an effect
679. 55:48–55:54The earth the mountains the bodies we sit in all of it is produced exactly as a pot is produced
680. 55:54–55:57And nothing produced lacks a producer
681. 55:58–56:00Therefore the world has a maker
682. 56:00–56:04Then that maker has a body as every potter does and if he has a body
683. 56:04–56:08He is not the bodyless god you have been building toward for for you case
684. 56:08–56:31Press that objection and watch it fall through your own hands. Either you are claiming God has a body, in which case you have already granted he exists, and merely quibble about his shape, or you are claiming the world was not made by an embodied being, and conclude from that alone that it was not made at all, which contradicts the very inference you are supposedly answering.
685. 56:31–56:38a general cause need not share every feature of the particular causes we happen to have seen before
686. 56:38–56:42fire is inferred from smoke regardless of which fuel burned
687. 56:42–56:47a maker is inferred from a made world regardless of whether that maker wears a body
688. 56:47–56:52backslash, embodied backslash was never the load bearing part of my proof
689. 56:52–56:55you have argued against a word I did not need
690. 56:55–56:56scene 3
691. 56:56–56:58a second proof
692. 56:58–57:00motion in the atoms
693. 57:00–57:06Consider the atoms themselves, then, before they ever became a back-sash, world-back-sash, at all.
694. 57:06–57:13At creation back-sash, at its first instant, atoms that had never before moved began to move,
695. 57:13–57:19and combine. What is inert cannot move itself, as pride does not swing itself into the earth.
696. 57:19–57:24Something conscious must impale it. Vestiny alone might account for that first
697. 57:24–57:28motion without any conscious impeller at all.
698. 57:28–57:34Vestiny is one cause among several needed, teacher, not a cause that crowds out all the others.
699. 57:34–57:40An inert thing, precisely because it is inert, needs a locus of consciousness to set it moving
700. 57:40–57:43exactly as a spade needs a hand.
701. 57:43–57:48You may call the specific motion of a living body backslash different in kind backslash
702. 57:48–57:54From the first motion of an atom, if you like, but define backslash, bodily motion backslash,
703. 57:54–58:00any way you choose, and you will find the definition already assumes exactly what I am arguing.
704. 58:00–58:04A special motion, produced by a conscious agent.
705. 58:04–58:10You cannot use the very thing under dispute to disqualify the inference that establishes it.
706. 58:10–58:16Scene 4. The Third and Fourth Proofs. Sustaining and Destruction.
707. 58:16–58:22The world, immense and heavy as it is, does not fall, as a bird-back-slash-esk-rate-weight
708. 58:22–58:26does not fall, sustained by its own effort in flight.
709. 58:26–58:31Something sustains the whole of it, moment to moment, the way effort sustains a living
710. 58:31–58:32body.
711. 58:32–58:38And when that same world is later destroyed, down to the smallest indivisible pair of atoms,
712. 58:38–58:44destruction, too, requires an agent capable of it, precisely as class is destroyed only
713. 58:44–58:48by the tearing hand, not by nothing.
714. 58:48–58:52Vestini again might account for both, stability without a sustainer, dissolution without a
715. 58:52–58:53destroyer.
716. 58:53–58:58Vestini is real, and I have never denied it, but a cause of knowledge is not every cause
717. 58:58–58:59excluded.
718. 58:59–59:05If Vestini alone explained the body backslash as sustenance, effort itself would have no
719. 59:05–59:10work left to do in keeping a living creature upright, which is plainly false, and any
720. 59:10–59:14of us standing in this hall could tell you.
721. 59:14–59:21and destroying are each one, effects, effect seed agents. The world backslash s-mastness
722. 59:21–59:27is no exemption from a rule that governs every smaller thing we have ever watched rise and fall.
723. 59:27–59:31Scene 5. The Fifth Proof. Who taught the first word?
724. 59:32–59:37Consider something closer to home than atoms, the very conventions I,
725. 59:37–59:42which any of us here understands the other. A Potter backslash s-craft is learned from
726. 59:42–59:49From a other Potter, a weaver backslash S, from a other weaver, a child learns the alphabet
727. 59:49–59:52from a teacher, who learned it from a teacher before.
728. 59:52–59:57Trace that chain back far enough, and you reach a first link, a first Potter with no
729. 59:57–1:00:03Potter to learn from, a first speaker with no language yet spoken to be taught in.
730. 1:00:03–1:00:09Perhaps the chain simply has no forced link, beginningless, like the round of re-bought
731. 1:00:09–1:00:10itself.
732. 1:00:10–1:00:16The cycle of creation and dissolution is beginningless, monk, I do not dispute that.
733. 1:00:16–1:00:22But within any one cycle, at its own fresh dawn, there are no fallen or ordinary human
734. 1:00:22–1:00:26beings yet available to have originated anything.
735. 1:00:26–1:00:31Something must set the very first convention moving, in each new beginning, the way a puppeteer
736. 1:00:31–1:00:38backslash s-gesture, a chord-pulled, a hand-pointed, teaches a watching child the meaning of a
737. 1:00:38–1:00:42The word before any word has yet been spoken between them.
738. 1:00:42–1:00:46That first teacher need not keep a body permanently.
739. 1:00:46–1:00:51Scripture itself records a being who takes form again and again, precisely to renew what
740. 1:00:51–1:00:53would otherwise be lost.
741. 1:00:53–1:00:54Scene 6.
742. 1:00:54–1:00:57The 6 and 7 Proves.
743. 1:00:57–1:00:59A trustworthy tradition.
744. 1:00:59–1:01:01And scripture backslash.
745. 1:01:01–1:01:02A stone word.
746. 1:01:02–1:01:05Then let me meet you on my own ground, one final time.
747. 1:01:05–1:01:10To say the Vedic tradition, Bach'sash, S-validity itself proves a source behind it.
748. 1:01:10–1:01:19But validity, on my skill Bach'sash, S-teaching, needs no external guarantee, it is simply what a properly caused cognition already is.
749. 1:01:19–1:01:33And if every cognition, Bach'sash, S-validity needed a further cognition to certify it, we would face the same redress that has followed us since the second bouquet, a redress I answered then, and answer again now.
750. 1:01:33–1:01:39tradition this vast, this table, held by learned people across every generation, is not the
751. 1:01:39–1:01:45kind of thing a single limited person invents from nothing. It requires, at its root, one
752. 1:01:45–1:01:51being of the requisite excellence to originate it truly. And scripture does not merely imply
753. 1:01:51–1:01:58such a source, it names one. In passage after passage, unprompted by any need for praise,
754. 1:01:58–1:02:01the meta-speaks of itself and issuing from a knowing mouth.
755. 1:02:01–1:02:08Backslash, this meta-issue from me, in every cycle a new dot-backslash, a collection of sentences
756. 1:02:08–1:02:14accepted, on its own authority, by every knowledgeable person, who has ever studied it, resting on
757. 1:02:14–1:02:20nothing beyond itself, is not the same thing as an ordinary human composition, whose author
758. 1:02:20–1:02:22merely goes unnamed.
759. 1:02:22–1:02:25You have carried that thread across four bouquets to reach here.
760. 1:02:25–1:02:30I recognize the shape of the argument, even if I have not yet fully laid down my own.
761. 1:02:30–1:02:33That is honest, and it is enough for tonight.
762. 1:02:34–1:02:36Scene 7. An interlude.
763. 1:02:36–1:02:39Who commands, when scripture commands?
764. 1:02:40–1:02:42One thread you have not yet pulled, you be honor.
765. 1:02:42–1:02:45Scripture does not merely describe its commands.
766. 1:02:45–1:02:51Maxache, the self should be known not Maxache, what is a command, if not simply an action, or a desire,
767. 1:02:51–1:02:54or ready present in the listener without need or many speaker behind it.
768. 1:02:54–1:02:56Neither will serve.
769. 1:02:56–1:03:02Not action, for backslash, no the self backslash, command nothing that moves through space at
770. 1:03:02–1:03:08all, and any command reduced to mere action collapses into every ordinary sentence describing
771. 1:03:08–1:03:11a person walking to market.
772. 1:03:11–1:03:16Not desire either, for the very desire to actorizes only from cognizing the command
773. 1:03:16–1:03:21backslash as meaning, make desire the meaning of the command, and desire becomes both
774. 1:03:21–1:03:28cause and effect of itself, circular and empty. What a command actually conveys is a speaker
775. 1:03:28–1:03:34backslash, s-intention that the listener act, and an intention requires, by its very grammar,
776. 1:03:34–1:03:39a Nintendo. Backslash, you should do this backslash, is meaningless without someone,
777. 1:03:39–1:03:45whose desire it expresses concerning you. Every injunction in scripture, examined honestly
778. 1:03:45–1:03:50down to its grammar, points back to a speaker standing behind the verb.
779. 1:03:50–1:03:54The 8 proof. What counts the atoms?
780. 1:03:54–1:03:59And last, the strangest and, to my mind, the most delicate of the 8.
781. 1:03:59–1:04:08A pair of atoms has a certain magnitude. A triad, a magnitude far greater, too great to be explained by atomic size alone.
782. 1:04:08–1:04:17For if mere multiplication of atoms explained it, two atoms together should already show that same gross size, and they plainly do not.
783. 1:04:17–1:04:27Something beyond bare aggregation, un-umbering, accounting, must operate even here, at a scale no eye in this hall could ever perceive directly.
784. 1:04:27–1:04:33Tunis is not a property lying passively in the pair, it arises through an act of enumeration.
785. 1:04:33–1:04:38And atoms are, by their very nature, invisible to every one of us.
786. 1:04:38–1:04:46Whose enumeration, then, gives the diadids to nest, if no phyite creature has ever counted a single atom in its life.
787. 1:04:46–1:04:48Only a omniscient counter.
788. 1:04:48–1:04:50Only a omniscient counter.
789. 1:04:50–1:05:12Eight proofs, friend, the world as effect, the atoms backslash, first motion, its sustaining, its destruction, the first teaching of every word we speak, the validity of an ancient trust, scripture backslash, its own testimony to its source, and our own very self, present in what a muskled ever count alone.
790. 1:05:12–1:05:16I do not claim any single one of these, standing by itself.
791. 1:05:16–1:05:21Could not be picked at by a patient enough opponent across another whole evening.
792. 1:05:21–1:05:25You have shown me tonight exactly how patient this hall can be.
793. 1:05:25–1:05:31I claim only that eight independent lines, converging on the same conclusion from eight
794. 1:05:31–1:05:36different directions no one of them borrowed from the others, are not eight coincidences.
795. 1:05:36–1:05:41That is what a bouquet is, in the end, not one breakable flower,
796. 1:05:41–1:05:48But many gathered together, so that even if one pedal bruises, the bouquet itself still stands whole in your hand.
797. 1:05:49–1:05:52See nine, direct knowing, beyond argument.
798. 1:05:53–1:05:58And there's there truly no way to know them except by chains of reasoning, you're the a-a-a, it proofs,
799. 1:05:58–1:06:03each requiring a haul like this one, and an evening like this one to walk through.
800. 1:06:03–1:06:05Reasoning is not the only door.
801. 1:06:05–1:06:15Yagin's report director knowing of him, the way a dream sometimes shows a mind things no external sense supplied it, not every dream is mere memory replayed.
802. 1:06:15–1:06:18Some carry the texture of genuine experience.
803. 1:06:18–1:06:30Through discipline, through the stealing of ordinary restlessness, that same kind of unmediated knowing is said to be possible for God as it is, in smaller measure, for the vividness of a true dream.
804. 1:06:30–1:06:34I have not asked this hall to take that on faith tonight.
805. 1:06:34–1:06:40I have only walked you, proof by proof, toward the point where faith and reason arrive at
806. 1:06:40–1:06:43the same door from different roads.
807. 1:06:43–1:06:47Scene 10, Final Prayer of the Folk Book
808. 1:06:47–1:06:52You day on the terms, for the last time in this drama, toward the unseen image at the
809. 1:06:52–1:06:53head of the hall.
810. 1:06:53–1:07:02The Folk Assembly, Objector, Mimmsaka, Kanaka, Samhya, Borda, Veshishika, Atheist, falls
811. 1:07:02–1:07:10quiet around him.exe. If even this, eight proofs offered honestly, tested honestly, cannot
812. 1:07:10–1:07:16move a mind, that mind is tone, and no bouquet of arguments will soften tone. So I do not
813. 1:07:16–1:07:22pray for victory here. I pray instead, may this bouquet of reasoning perfume both austral
814. 1:07:22–1:07:29equally, may it satisfy the theist, who came already believing, and, in its own time,
815. 1:07:29–1:07:35even the atheist who came to break it. And if it cannot do even that much, then let it rest
816. 1:07:35–1:07:42simply as an offering. Gathered honestly, kept fresh, laid without expectation at the feet of
817. 1:07:42–1:07:47the Lord of Teachers, who alone knows whether the mind that hears it tonight will find its way
818. 1:07:47–1:07:53home sooner, or only later, or by some other road than this hall backslash-ass, entirely.
819. 1:07:53–1:08:01along stillness. Then, one by one, unhurried, the assembly rises. The atheist is the last
820. 1:08:01–1:08:08to stand. The proscenium curtain, crimson and gold, the same curtain that rose on the first
821. 1:08:08–1:08:15bouquet, begins its final, slow descent over the lamplit subar.buck slash. Five bouquets,
822. 1:08:15–1:08:22eight proofs, and one lamp that has not gone out all evening. The debate ends here. Where
823. 1:08:22–1:08:29the return settled in, as it always is in this hall, left to the one who carries it out the door.
824. 1:08:29–1:08:32End of Act 5, end of the play.

Plain text

अछि। speaks first not to the assembly but as an offering dot the slash, before argument and offering understand these words in two senses at once, as one speaks of flowers and in the same breath of doctrine. Udayana as invocation half-champ, a beat then more plainly to the hall, definition of the subject of inquiry. I mean then to make plain the nature of that lord that transcend itself whose words of the learned call erode to heaven and to freedom. Seen to, Why inquire at all, The assembly stirs, a murmur of half agreement dot bish slash. You Deanna, Why inquire, The Vedder already sings of him, Every tradition in this hall already has its God under a different name, What doubt remains to open an inquiry. None, and that is exactly my point friend, and exactly my problem. Look at this assembly, The follower of the Upanishads calls him pure consciousness, The killer backslash s people called him eternal and conscious, but not the maker. Pat Nendroly backslash s yogins call him a self untouched by affliction, who wears a body only to teach. The passiporters call him free even of the rules that bind us. Shavers call him chiever, beige norrers, vision the tellers of pure runner, call him grand sir of all. The ritualist calls him the one to whom the oblation is poured. The digum-bar calls him one free to body and a vagueness. The minimum Sarkar calls the deities of the mantras themselves God. Even you, Karbhagar, have some word for what ordinary people mean by backslash-god.bx. A word, not a belief. Even a word is dey dey, friend. My point stands, everyone in this hall already agrees that something is meant by backslash-god. And disagrees completely on what? That is not the ground for silence. That is the very ground that demands inquiry. We have heard enough from Scripture. time, not a reason. The Veddo itself says, first hear, then reflect, and the elders add, through hearing, through reasoning, through the quiet practice of meditation, a soul comes at last to seal itself truly. So, reflection begins. Scene 3, 5 doubts named. Let me be honest about what stands against me before I offer a single proof. 5 doubts, and I will take them one by one across this bouquet. One, there is no unseen supernatural cause behind our fate in the next world at all. Two, even without such a cause plain human striving is enough to explain ritual and its fruits. Three, there is positive evidence that God does not exist. Four, even if some proof of God is offered, that very proof will turn out invalid. Five, no, authoritative proof of God exists at all valid or not. Good, say them plainly, that is fair debate. Take the first, then. Scene 4. Against backslash no. Unseen cause backslash. Look at how differently people act. Two men, same circumstance. Choose opposite paths. One turns to ritual. One to indulgence. One to renunciation. That difference in tendency has causes and the chain of those causes has no first link we can point to. And whatever a man reaps, he reaps in his own person, not another backslash s. So something unseen must connect this life backslash as action to a fruit received beyond it. This world, thick with every kind of suffering unequally dealt out, cannot be uncaused. An uncaused thing either exists always or never. It does not arise here, cease there on no schedule at all. Yet plainly this world of ours does arise and cease on a schedule none of us set, therefore some cause beyond the scene. Unless the effect simply arose by accident, no cause needed at all. 5 backslash by accident backslash examined and refuted. Say what you mean by backslash accident backslash and I will show you it collapses into one of four things no cause at all. Self production production from nothing or merely a fact about the thing backslash as own nature none of the four survives. Every effect that comes to be has a clear earlier limit the moment before which it was not, in a clear later limit, the moment after which it will not be, as it is, nothing marks that limit at that moment, except a cause acting then. But suppose the moment itself needs no further explanation. A thing simply has the property of beginning to exist on this day rather than another, the way space simply has the property of being eternal. A property shared by everything explains nothing about why this thing on this day. If backslash beginning to exist whenever it does backslash were just each thing backslash as spare nature with no cause behind it. A very question backslash why then, and not really your backslash would return? Endlessly, and answer nothing. No, production needs a producer. Chance is not an answer, it is the question wearing in disguise. Scene 6 on Cause, General and Particular Then tell me why the same kind of cause, say, fire arises from such different means, dry grass rubbed, wood churned, sunlight gathered through a lens. If cause determines effect strictly, how does one effect come from three unlike origins? Because causal power is known through observed correlation in each distinct context. Not proclaimed once for all context at once. Grinding, churning, focusing, three different causal complexes, each independently verified to yield fire under its own conditions. Nothing in that variety damages the rule that an effect requires a sufficient cause. only shows that backslash, sufficient cause backslash can be realized more than one way. The rule survives. Only your picture of it was too narrow. Assembly a murmur of a sin. Scene 7 and scene merit as the cause of the world backslash s diversity. Granola. Why must have unseen merit and demerit, Adresha, be the missing cause? Why not simply say ordinary, visible, auxiliary causes strong together explain all the diversity we see? Because of visible chains of cause, Lym explained everything. No one would trouble to perform a single unrewarded ritual, and yet people do expecting nothing here only hereafter. Ask why they persist, not for pleasure. The unbeliever seeks pleasure more directly and skips the ritual, not for reputation alone that fails to explain private devotion no one sees. Not because elders deceive the young, for the elders themselves keep the observance, and a deceiver does not usually deceive himself first. cutting founder inventing it all for his own gain, then the alone should have grown rich and free, giving nothing away, yet the pattern runs the other direction entirely to the sincere giveaway what they have. No way Glossive account without an unseen throat survives a scrutiny. Something unseen, some adrester, must be admitted as the real cause connecting this act to that throat. Scene 8 Potency as an independent reality causality of absence. reads the section title, Udayana and the object to work through a longer technical passage condensed here to its spine-dopk slash. Even so must this backslash potency backslash you speak of be some separate reality over and above the visible substances that act could not mere absence of an obstruction be doing the causal work with nothing further needed. Absence can remove a hindrance, it cannot, by itself, produce a positive effect to make bricks into a house you need not only the absence of the builder backslush s laziness, but the mason backslush s hand. Ritual, likewise, does not merely clear a path. It lays down something, a residual potency in the agent, that ripens later into a frout that residue is real, though unseen, its reality is inferred exactly as we infer fire from smoke by its necessary connection with an effect that has no other adequate explanation. This is the same style of reasoning that will in time. Terry, us all await good and inference from effect to a cause required by the effect. Nothing mystical. Nothing merely asserted. Scene 9. Whom does ritual consecrate? Exposition of Samcare and its critique. The Samcare teacher rises dot blash. That may offer our school back slash s account. Since it touches your very question, we hold that Prakriti, primordial nature, unconscious but active woven of the three Gunners undertakes all transformation of the world unaided for the sake of Pyrrhaša backslash s liberation. No further cause, unseen merit or God, is required Prakriti alone suffices as the ground of ritual backslash s power and the world backslash s unfolding. An elegant system, teacher and I will grant it much, but consider Prakriti as you describe her is one undifferentiated at the route, acting always by the same essential nature, a single uniform cause, left to itself cannot by itself explain the sequence of unlike effects arising one after another, each waiting its turn, as she produces successively. Something must account for the order of that succession, and that something is exactly the kind of unseen, individuating cause I am arguing for. Grant me that much, we are no longer very far apart. You have simply not yet given it the name I give it. We will not settle that today, but I concede the difficulty is real. Scene 10. The Carvaka is answered. The Carvaka steps forward in patient.bxlash. Enough delicacy. There is no unseen anything. What is not seen, touched, or reasoned from direct perception is simply not there to reason about. Ritual is habit. The next world is a story told to keep the poor obedient. Then answer me plainly, Carvarkar, why do sincere people perform rites that cost them, that bring them no worldly return, that they could abandon at no cost to their reputation until they persist quietly, without display? You have called it habit, but habit needs a first cause too, and every account you offer, pleasure, custom, deception, a founder backflush s cunning, collapses the moment it is tested, as I have already shown this assembly. What is not directly seen is not thereby proven false. It is simply what must be established by inference, which is the very tool you yourself used to work from smoke to fire, though you have never seen the two joined at the source. Inference I permit, faith I do not. Then let us continue by inference alone. That is all I have asked of anyone in this hall. Scene 11, the border and the doctrine of momentaryness the border steps forward dot-ba-slash. Udea, your whole argument leans on things that endure, an agent who richly acts today and reaps tomorrow, a self that persists to receive the fruit. Nothing endures. Every existent is momentary, arising and perishing in the same instant it appears. What you call backslash, the same person backslash tomorrow, is only a causal series, each moment new. And tell me, on your own doctrine, who reaps what was sown by a moment that no longer exists at the time of reaping, if nothing endures even an instant longer than its arising, the doer of the deed and the receiver of the fruiting, or, by your own account, two different, unconnected momentary existence, the moral responsibility itself dissolves. Consider it too, how ordinary recognition works. I see a jar today, and know it as the same jar I saw yesterday, not a new jar resembling Being the old, if that recognition of identity were always illusion, no cognition of difference between two moments could stand as reliable either, since both rest on the same faculty of comparing and cross-tone. Deny persistence, rout, and branch, and you cannot even trust the doubt you have just raised against me, for even raising a doubt requires that the one who doubted a moment ago, and the one who now speaks, are the same continuing self. We say the continuity is causal, not substantial. The Necoival series sufficiently unified to carry karmic fraud across time is, in every respect that matters here, what I mean by an enduring self. We may be closer in substance than in vocabulary, month, but something persists. On that, this bouquet cannot yield. Scene 12, persistence and causality reconciled, deal objection on the eternal self. Grant persistence then. SILF, if an object backslash, S very nature is to be a cause, must it not cause its effect always everywhere the moment it exists, the way blue is always blue. Yet an eternal, all-pervading self is not seen to produce pleasure and pain at every moment. How then can causality and an eternal self be reconciled at all? Because causality is not backslash any object automatically produces any effect it is capable of, always dot backslash it is the unobstructed antecedence of a cause relative to its effect, ascertained sometimes by watching agreement and difference, where that gales as with something eternal and everywhere present, which cannot be absent anywhere to test the backslash difference backslash side, ascertained instead through a reason that establishes the causal relation directly. The self produces pleasure and pain only in conjunction with its proper auxiliary conditions, mind, body, the reckoning of that same unseen potency we spoke of earlier. Not everything blue produces every blue thing backslash s affects at all times either, a particular cause, with its particular auxiliaries present, produces its particular effect that is simply what causality means. One stated carefully, an ordinary experience confirms it at every turn. Concluding prayer. Scene 13. Concluding prayer of the first bouquet. Udayana turns again toward the unseen image, the whole quiet's dot-biss-slash. That hidden power of the Supreme Lord which deals each soul its portion, call it maya, since the mind cannot grasp it whole, call it prakrivi, since all creation springs from it. Call it avidir, since knowledge loam desols it, may that Lord stand in beyond the whole disordered churn of this creation, resting in perfect peace. Wake devotion in my heart, stand as witness visibly to what I offer here. begins to fall slowly on the Sabah, lamp still burning. As assembly murmurs, some persuaded, some still folding their arms. The debate visibly unfinished, waiting for the second bouquet dot-bous slash. Act 2. The second bouquet of flowers. Of arguments concerning valid cognition, the eternity love the Vedda, and the possibility love a new creation. New voice joining this Act, the Mimum Saka, a Vedic ritualist scholar Curtis Bettenyielding who holds that the Veda is awfulous and eternal, and that commission proves its own truth without external help. Zin one, why an omniscient being is still needed. Curtain rises again on the same sabar later in the debate. Yudayana stands where he left off. We have established, across the first bouquet, that an unseen destiny governs the fruit of every act, but destiny itself must have some cause, and no creature among us can perceive that cause directly. No one acts purposefully toward what lies wholly beyond cognition, so some extraordinary omniscient being must exist, able to hand down to us true knowledge that didn't cause a link, so that we may act rightly at all. Why reach for an omnipotent God? You Deanna, when the beginningless and broken chain of Vedic tradition already carries that knowledge to us, or if you distrust in authorless veda, the sage capilla and others attain a missense through yoga and discipline alone, neither requires your god. Because valid cognition depends on causes outside itself, and the world is not, on any account, unbroken. It dissolves periodically entirely. Scene 2. Is validity known from within, or from outside? Before you reach for God, settle a smaller question first, one my skill and yours have long disputed. When a cognition arises, is it truth or not automatically, and the very arising of it? I say yes. To cognize something at all simply is to take it as true. What later proves false was, on inspection, never truly a cognition. Then explained out, Mimmsharka. If Maliddy announced itself the instant a cognition arose, no cognition could ever be doubted, yet we doubt constantly. The moment a cognition doson backslash, to resemble others already confirmed true. Validity, like invalidity, is known by something external to the bare fact of cognizing a further mark, a further inference, a test in successful action. But your backslash, external test backslash, invites its own regress. If a second cognition is needed to certify the first, a third is needed to certify the second, and so on without end. Not so, because most of the time, certifying validity is simply unnecessary. Where there is neither doubt, nor a reason for doubt, belief in an object arises, and we act on it without any separate act of certification. Only where doubt genuinely arises does the further inference come in, and there, it terminates, because the redress you fear threatens your backslash, intrinsic validity backslash, doctrine exactly as much as mine. You too must postulate that a cognition Backsash, S. Backsash, being known backsash, is itself validly postulated. Prove that, and you are inferring all over again. Affair it. Consider the thirsty man, who drinks the moment he sees water. You backsash, D. say he directly perceives water backsash, S. Power to quench thirst, since he acts without hesitation. He does not. That power is inferred, instantly and unconsciously, From past experience, the way desire itself is born from a swift, silent inference that a certain action gets a certain result. Swiftness is not famous. An extrinsic test, taken quickly, still remains extrinsic. Scene 3. Dream, Waking, and more backslash, S2 hands. Then tell me how any of us tells Waking from dreaming at all, you be honest, if my lividity is never simply given. I dream I am drowning in a pond, the terror is total, indistinguishable in the moment from anywhere king terror, until I wake and find no water anywhere. And the moment you wake, the two states stand in sharp, undeniable opposition, the dim memory of the dream against the vivid immediacy of waking. That contrast is itself the criterion. It does not need to be imported from anywhere else, because waking experience supplies its So standard against which the dream is measured and found wanting. The western legions reign a sharpened out steel. A philosopher, Moore, may call him, held up both his hands before a haul and said, Maxash, here is one hand, here is another, therefore external objects are real not Maxash. His critics answered, if your very eyes could be doubted, showing us your hands proves nothing. Let them out on. A bare logical possibility that evidence might someday surface against a fact is not the same as evidence that has surfaced. Push that skepticism to its root, and you land on the law of un-contradiction itself. Call it a tautology, if you like, empty of content, but even the skeptic must stand on it to say anything at all, including his doubt. I do not need certainty invulnerable to every conceivable future. I need what any reasonable inquiry needs. The balance of evidence, honestly weighed. And on that balance, Nia-Bax-Lash's account of validity, known through Mark's external to bear cognition, confirmed finally by successful action, carries the greater weight. Illusion and error are undeniable facts of experience. If, as you Mimamsa can say, everything Cog-Eyes does thereby true, what, then, are illusion and error? You have no answer for that. Scene 4. Proofs that sound is not eternal. Brunt me this much, then, and let me change ground. Even without your god, the Veda need not be authored at all. The Veda, and the very sound it is made of, may simply be eternal, requiring no faultless speaker, and no author to answer for. There I must take that from you, too, friend, and I will do it from plain hearing. We say, every day, Mac slash, that sound has stopped Mac slash, the drum was struck, and out it is silent. That is a direct cognition of sound Mac slash S destruction. Sound cannot have merely moved elsewhere, being formless. It cannot have been covered over, for covering belongs to things with shape. It has not merely grown too faint for us, for the same excuse would prove that a shattered pot has not really broken, only become invisible. But the ear cannot perceive that absence directly, its substratum, ether, cannot be perceived at all. The ear need not perceive ether to perceive the absence of sound in the ear, precisely as darkness is perceived as the absence of light, without anyone perceiving the invisible particles that would be its locus, and listen to the sound itself. Pitch rises, falls, loudens, softens, One and the same eternal thing cannot bear opposed qualities at once. What you call backslash, the same word, recognized again backslash, is a flame recognized again. New fuel, new light, each moment, called by one name out of habit. Production and destruction, not eternity, is what your own ear tells you, if you will trust it. The tradition will need to answer you on this, I think, elsewhere. It will. For now, it is enough that sound, and with it, the spoken feather, is produced, and what is produced can be lost. Which returns us to the question, who restores it, each time the world dissolves and forgets. Scene 5. How can a new creation even begin? Suppose I grant this solution. During this solution, on your own account, nothing moves, nothing acts, the sky itself stands empty and still. What, then, could possibly initiate a new creation out of absolute stillness? Consider deep sleep first, as a smaller case of the same puzzle. In dreamless sleep the self-max-s-cognition, desire, pleasure, and pain all fall silent together, Let the body backslash, as breath continues, faint, and the self wakes again damaged. So to that cosmic dissolution, an extremely subtle motion persists in the atoms of the four elements, to find a register as backslash, the world backslash, until its final stage marks the moment and becomes the seed of new creation. It is not that a day must always be preceded by another day of its own kind, the first The first day of the monsoon is preceded by the last day of summer, not by other rainy day. So to the first day of a new creation is preceded by dissolution, not by other day of an old world. And the first human beings, the first brahmin, the first speaker of editor not all, no parent taught them to speak, for there was no one yet to teach. As the first scorpion rises from Ra and Dun, not from a scorpion parent, and only later generations breed true, so the Supreme Lord may himself take the forms of Teacher and pupil at the world backslash S. Donne, gesture as a puppeteer moves a puppet backslash S. Hand toward a distant object, and in that gesture teach the very first convention of word and meaning. From that first instruction the whole chain, potter to potter, weaver to weaver, teacher to student, descends unbroken until the next dissolution breaks it again. Scene 6. The long decline, and why scripture needs restoring. And do not imagine the chain is holding as firmly today as it once did. Look honestly at what has already frayed. Right's ones performed with full memory of thousands of vatic branches now survive, if at all, through a single branch, imperfectly kept. Narva once stood on four legs, austerity, knowledge, sacrifice, charity. Austerity fell, two legs remained. Knowledge fell. One leg, charity, bears the whole weight now, and even that leg is wounded. Then say plainly what you are building toward. That scripture is not self-sustaining. It's authority depends on the Veda, not on the general good conduct of virtuous people copying one another, for if virtuous conduct alone were sufficient to make an act of legatory, No scriptural injunction would be needed at all, and yet we all know rights that have lapsed entirely, with no living witness, that must one day be restored, not merely remembered. Restoration needs a knower, and faith in scripture merely recognizes truth, it cannot manufacture it, once the original cause is gone. Scene 7. Capilla is tested, and found insufficient. Then let Kapila serve us that nor a sage of direct perception, purified by yoga, moved by compassion for suffering creatures, capable of reviving what scripture has lost. Test that claim as carefully as you tested mine, friend. Meditation may indeed be a means of knowing what is otherwise hidden, I do not deny it wholesale, but meditation does not automatically yield knowledge the instant it is practiced. It needs some other means to confirm what it has found. What confirms capilla-back-slash-ass meditation on compassion and on violence, whose fruits no one has ever seen? A coward meditates fruitfully on a snake only because he has met a snake before. No one has met the fruit of yoga directly, in this life or between two lives, for the body that acts in this birth, and the body that reaps the fruit in the next are not even the same body, and without some experienced link joining the two, the connection cannot be verified at all. It has said some remember former births. It has said, but art established. A teacher who falls asleep on a holiday night and resumes yesterday backslash SS and at dawn proves only that memory holds within one life, not across the gulf between two. and consider the very first promise at creation backslash Aston. By what memory could they have known their own lineage if no one had yet been born to remember it? No power of travel between worlds is proven either, that might have carried settlers in bearing a caste system readymade. It is, in the end, simpler and more reasonable to accept one omniscient, omnipotent being Who needs nobody, no untested memory, no unproven journey between worlds, and to multiply unproven, half omniscient sages to do the same work badly. I will carry the question forward, Udayana. I do not yet carry your conclusion. That is exactly as debate should stand, at the end of its second round. CNAID. Concluding prayer of the second bouquet. You day on the terms, once more to ward the unseen image.buckslash. May my heart hold fast to sheave until life backslash. As last moment, he who, aided by the destinies of every being, builds this astonishing world again and again and, like a magician undoing his own trick, un-makes it again, whose will runs unopposed through the whole of the cosmos, who is its final cause. that Lord alone let my devotion rest unmoved. Curtain falls slowly. A mimum-saka remains seated in thought as the lamp dims. Assembly murmurs, a ground has shifted, though no one yet concedes. Act 3. A third bouquet of flowers. Of arguments refuting every alleged proof that God does not exist. The atheist, Nastica, joins the floor. This act, not as cool so much as a stance. Whatever cannot be caught by some means of knowledge, he holds, cannot be real. The Kanbaka, the Mimamsaka, and the Vaisachesika, a precise, categorical logician-cousin-to-nia, also speak.bac-slash. Scene 1. Backslash, he is not seen. Therefore he is not backslash. Curtain rises. The lamp is trimmed higher. Bukke is the haulbackslash, s most contested dot backslash. You have spent two Bukke's building to watermaker of the world, you pay honor. I will spend this one demolishing the foundation. If God existed, he ought to be knowable, as a cowbackslash s horn is knowable by its shape and color. He is not known. Therefore he does not exist, exactly as a hairbackslash s horn does not exist, precisely because, though its shape would be knowable if it were there, no one has ever perceived one. argument, and cleanly wrong at its first step. Your inference works only where the object was already granted to be perceptible, the hair backslash s horn fails the test of perception it was always eligible to sit. God was never claimed by any theist in this hall to be an object of ordinary perception at all. You cannot fault an unseen thing for failing a test it was never entered into. Then how is he known, if not by the one method you now exempt him from? By inference, which is precisely what these five bouquets exist to supply. Save your strongest objection for the fifth, when the inferences themselves stand before you. For now I only clear the ground. Unapprehension of a thing never claimed to be apprehensible proves a thing. Seen to sleep, the self, and what not apprehension cannot touch. your own self, then, as a test case, in dreamless sleep you do not apprehend your own self, yet you do not conclude, on waking, that you have ceased to exist. Why does the same silence, applied to God, not equally prove his absence? Because in sleep the causes that would produce self-cognition are simply not assembled, the mind has withdrawn from the senses, not because the self has vanished, but because the instrument of noticing it has gone quiet. The very fact you rely on that no one doubts their own continued existence through a dreamless eye is itself proof that unapprehension does not entail unexistence. You have refuted your own method with your own example. Then try this instead, a consciously ignored to show bodily activity as the sprouting seed shows the daughter of Axash S. Hand. No divine activity is seen before a single This route appears. No activity, no agent. A pot needs an embodied potter. The world does not thereby need an embodied maker of the identical kind. The self persists, unmoving, through sleep, through fainting, through the stillness of poison, or extreme cold, without any bodily sign at all. Different effects proceed from different kinds of causes, and there is no law binding every maker to a visible hand. Scene 3. The Carvaca backslash, S-Wager, and why it cannot be cached. The Carvaca steps in, sharper than before dot backslash. Let me strip this one for the bandit-ist vass. I do not even require backslash, knowable, but a known backslash as your loophole. My rule is simpler. What is not known, in any sense, does not exist. What is known, exists. God is never known. Finished. Then finish it, Carvaca, and see where it leads you. On your rule, the moment you step outside your own house, you no longer perceive your wife, your children, your stored brain, by your own law, they must be judged destroyed the instant your eyes leave them. Do you believe that? Memory assures me they remain. Memory assures you have many destroyed things too. A childhood house long, since fallen, a friend long dead. Memory alone cannot certify present existence. The instant you lean on memory to save your family from your own rule, you have conceded exactly what I need. Non-apprehension does not prove non-existence. And consider the die itself. The very organ you're backshash, seeing backshash depends on is never itself seen, Yet you do not doubt it exists. Your rule, followed honestly, destroys your own instrument of doubting. Ordinary conduct does not need certainty. It runs on probability, general agreement, tested by use. Then where does probability lie on your account? If a thing is seen, you say it's existence is certain. If unseen, its absence is certain. You have left no middle ground for probability to stand on at all. You have described a doctrine with no room for the very mode of belief you say it rests on. Scene 4. Why inference itself survives the doubt. Rent inference some round, then, if you insist. But how is that about it ever finally removed? Every absorbed pattern might break tomorrow, or a mile from here, or under some condition we came in backslash. T-thought to check. That threat never closes. It closes the moment you notice something you have already conceded. To doubt a future deviation, you must already be able to think about the future, and that very capacity is inference, extended from present time through hour, day, and season. You cannot use inference to attack inference without borrowing the very tool you are trying to disqualify. And practically, doubt ends where a counterfactual would trap the doubter in his own contradiction. The eye-net cause and effect are reliably connected, and the very act of doubting, itself an effect, could never have arisen in you at all. A reasonable mind does not chase every conceivable exception forever. It follows a reason, whose pervasion has been tested, and holds, and acts. Carry it forward, then. I will listen to the rest. Scene 5. Comparison, and the fifth UK-backslash-S coming test. Set aside. One more avenue, you Diana, before you move on. Some old backslash, comparison backslash, cognition through observed similarity, to be its own independent means of knowledge, distinct from perception and inference. If so, a difficulty for you follows, everything known resembles something else already known, but the audio described as nothing else similar to many were, could comparison then prove in absence, by that very singularity, Only if similarity were some third kind of entity, neither being nor unbeing, and no such third kind exists. Being and unbeing exhaust the field, then I won, and you have thereby affirmed the other. Similarity is simply a property of things that already are, sorted under one or the other of those two categories. It needs no independent status, and therefore yields no independent weapon against a being, Who happens, by his nature, to be singular? Uniqueness is not a defect that argument can weaponize. It is simply a fact some subjects have, and others don't. Backslash, T, scene 6, verbal testimony, and the dispute over an omniscient author. Then let me press you on testimony itself, since this whole book acercles back to whether the media needs an author at all. The Veshishika treats an ordinary sentence as meaning as something inferred from the speaker box. As intention testimony reduced to a kind of inference. My own school box is Prabhakara branch both further, only the Veda, being ortholous, car is independent authority, an ordinary human sentence is trust when the only one inference has certified the speaker reliable. Both positions ask testimony to do more work than it needs to. The moment you already know a word backslash, s expressive power, the sentence backslash, s meaning arrives with the hearing of it, no separate inferential step, no prior certification of the speaker backslash, s reliability, is required for comprehension to occur at all. A child, who does not yet know whether the Vedic author still understands the Vedic sentence perfectly well the moment he hears it. That alone shows understanding does not wait on settling authorship first. Testimony is its own means of knowledge, standing beside perception and inference, not smuggled inference wearing a disguise. Then consider the sharper objection some raise directly against you. If an omniscient creator can pose even human language itself at the world-box-sh-estone, teaching the first speaker's word by word, how could such teaching ever get off the ground, with no shared word yet existing between teacher and pupil to teach with. As I have already shown you, in the second bouquet, through gesture before word, exactly as a puppeteer backslash s chord makes a puppet backslash s hand point at a distant thing, and the watching child infers meaning from the pointing before any word is spoken at all. Instruction need not presuppose language completed. It can begin language, gesture first, word following. I do not ask you to accept this today. I only ask you to know this at the objection, however sharp it sounds, has already been met. Scene 7. Postulation and non-apprehension, briefly weighed and found insufficient. The narrator reads the remaining section titles together, briskly, as you day honor answers each intern, the pace quickens here, a flurry rather than a dual dot backslash. Examination of postulation as an independent means of knowledge. Examination of non-apprehension as an independent means of knowledge. And further examination of the same. One and then the other, you may honor, since you have answered comparison and testimony. Postulation, first, the inference forced us when a known fact makes no sense otherwise. Does postulation not, in some case, force us to explain the world without God, and so crowd him out? Show me the fact that only makes sense without a maker, and I will answer it directly, but no one in this hall has yet produced one. Every alleged case of backslash, postulation against God backslash, turns out, an inspection, to be an ordinary inference wearing postulation backslash's name, and ordinary inference I have already answered at length. Then no apprehension, once more, in its fullest form, not merely Baxash, I have not seen him Baxash, which you answered in the first scene, but the deeper demands acclaim that no apprehension is itself a distinct sense-born means of knowledge, and that its silence regarding God should count as positive evidence. Trace it carefully, and it collapses into perception after all, un-normal, un-impaired sense produces the determinate cognition backslash, no pot here backslash, by apprehending the place where the pot would be, not by some free-floating faculty of noticing absences in general. And the faculty that is, at bottom, perception in other guys inherits exactly the limit perception already had. It can report the absence only of what it was ever fit to detect in the first place. God was never within that fitness. The silence proves nothing new. It only restates. For the third time this bouquet, the very first answer I gave you. Then I have exhausted perception, inference and unapprehension, comparison, testimony and postulation, and none of them has delivered me your absence. Not exhausted, friend, only tested, fairly, one at a time. That is all I have asked of anyone across this whole bouquet. CNAIT. CLOSING PRAYER OF THE THIRD BOOK. You day on the terms, one lost time this act, toward the unseen image.buckslash. With full devotion we bow to that God of Gods, worshipped across every tradition in this hall under a hundred names, whose quiet festival of bliss no rival joy equals, whose reality no perception can catch and discard, No inference overturned, no other means of knowledge unseed, and on whom, in the end, every one of those means of knowledge itself depends to be trustworthy at all. Curtain falls. The atheist remains standing a moment longer than the rest of the assembly before he, to sit.exe. Act 4. The Fourth Book A of Flowers. Of arguments concerning God as Nera, and the true nature of cognition. the shortest bouquet, and the most inward turning. Having secured that God exists, and cannot be disproved, the whole now asks what it even means to call an unmoving, all knowing being a backslash, no a backslash, at all. The Mimmsaka carries most of the argument this act. Scene 1. Can Omniscience Even Be Valid Cognition? Curtain rises on the same lamp lit sabre, later steel. Udiana looks tired in the good way, a debater deep into his case, not worn down by it.buckslash. One more difficulty, Udiana, and it strikes at the root of everything you have built. You call God omniscient. But valid cognition, by definition, must know something not already known, otherwise memory itself would count as a valid means of knowledge, which no one accepts. God-Backsash is knowledge is total. Nothing is ever new to him. If nothing is ever new to him, on your own definition, nothing he knows can count as valid knowledge at all. And if his knowledge is not valid, he has no trust when they offer him anything, including the meda you have spent rebuking his defendant. Then the flaw is in that definition, not in God. Back-Sash, knowing what was art known before back-Sash, cannot be what makes a cognition true. It is both too narrow and too wide. too narrow. See the same dart wise, and the second seeing is every bit as true as the first, though nothing is new in it. Too wide, an illusion may present something never seen before, and still be false. Novel detracts neither truth nor falsehood. What makes a cognition true is simply this, that it corresponds to how the thing actually is. By that measure, God That backslash as cognition, being total and never in error, is as true as any cognition could be, whether or not any of it is backslash, new backslash, to him. Then how do you distinguish a second tree seeing of the same jar from mere memory? We do not call memory a means of knowledge. Because memory depends entirely on a prior cognition to borrow its content from, it can authorize from a thing. A fresh seeing of the same jar depends on the jar being presently there, seen again through its own causes, not recalled from a store. And God-back-slash-sk is simpler still than either. His cognition of the whole universe is a single, self-identical act, dependent on no other cognition before it, needing no second glance at anything. Call it neither new, nor old, it simply is, entire, all at once. Scene 2. The bid for Backslash, known as Backslash, pre-attempts, pre-failure. Let me try a different door then. Surely cognition does something to its object, leaves a mark on it. We call this mark Backslash, known as Backslash. The property and object gains, simply by being known, of having been known. Without it, Backslash being produced Backslash in your own inference for a a divine make-up becomes untrustworthy because an agent who leaves no trace on what he touches can hardly be said to know his own materials. Three ways to argue for such a mark, and unsurvive testing. First, that cognition, being an action, must yield a result the way any action yields a result, and that result is known as a tonne arrow shot at the empty sky produces no result in the sky, cognition may be like that arrow. Real motion, no mark left behind. Second, that we say backslash, the pot is known backslash, and this phrase itself proves some new property sits on the pot. But we equally say backslash, the pot was destroyed backslash, a pot that no longer exists to receive any property at all. Language describing a relation The second tone act does not, by itself, prove a real residue in the object. Third, that the very fact we can talk about cognition proves some perceptible trace it leaves. But the causes that let us talk about cognition are the very same causes that produced the cognition in the first place. Nothing further needs to be posited to explain the talk. Then Onus explains nothing but cognition-box-lash-sown-nature-dosen-box-lash-t already explained on its own. Just so. A cognition of a pot is a cognition of a pot by its own nature. Exactly as an effort to lift a stone is an effort concerning that stone by its own nature, without either one depositing some third thing into what it touches. Scene 3. Is cognition itself something we perceive? Set the object aside, then, and turn the question on cognition itself. How do you even know a cognition has a card, if not through some form of cognition perceiving it, endlessly, one behind the next? Not endlessly, directly. The moment an indeterminate awareness of some external thing arises, the very fact of being a cognition is already faintly present alongside it to the mind. In the next moment, when a further cognition of that same object arises, the mind turns and knows the earlier cognition determinately. The way a first fire recognized in one backslash's own kitchen lets one recognize, by the same mark, a second fired limp slater on a distant hill through its smoke. Cognition is not itself perceived through some second, separate cognition standing outside it. in whom cognition in hairs is enough. Then answer the harder form of the question. On your school backslash, a zone account, a cognition last fairly two or three moments before it perishes. If it is that brief, how does it last long enough both to reveal its object and to be caught itself by the mind looking back at it? And does that fleeting cognition, in its second moment, still grasp the very same object it grasped in the first or has the same object in the second moment? The first, or has the object, and the instant, already changed. The same object, held across both moments, nothing stranger is required than printing that a cognition, once a reason, persists briefly enough to do both jobs without contradiction. To disclose its object, and to become, in turn, an object for the mind-backslash-as-next-plans. Chase the alternative you backslash, re-gesturing to ward, that each vanishing instant would need its own vanishing backslash, known as backslash, to certify it, and that known as its own further known as to certify it, and you have simply reproduced, one level up, the same infinite regress you were trying to rescue backslash, known as backslash, from in the first place. Simplicity favors dropping the extra entity, not multiplying it. for what backslash, no backslash means for a being who does not act. Brant everything so far. Still, every backslash means of knowledge backslash we have ever named is defined by doing something. Did I act upon light, an inference acts through a middle term, a word acts through a speaker backslash, a deterrence. God, on your account, does none of this, no sense contact, no middle term, no speech act producing his knowledge. I was right. Then, do you still call him a no-er at all, using a word built entirely out of agency? Because ordinary etymology gives only the common root of a word backslash, s meaning, not the whole of how it is actually used. We call a sense faculty a backslash, means a knowledge backslash, because it is causally involved in producing cognition. We call God a backslash, knower backslash, for a different, equally legitimate reason. Cognition simply resides in him as a permanent feature of what he is, without needing to be produced by anything at all. A person can be a knower without, at this instant, being an agent of anything, knowing does not require doing. Nor need I claim his cognition is some fifth, undiscovered means of knowledge alongside perception, inference, testimony, and the rest. A modern backslash, perception backslash, to mean simply direct, uninterrupted awareness of an object, not perception through sense contact specifically, and God backslash s-knowing falls naturally under that wider sense, without forcing a new category into being. Scene 5. Does burying every error make God backslash s-cognition erroneous? One last thrust, and then I yield this bouquet. God is omniscient, he knows every false belief every creature I've ever held, every illusion, every mistake and inference, every dream. But then the objects of all our era are, in some sense, present within his own cognition too. Does that not make the cognition itself short for an era? And if the knowledge already contains our mistakes, what use is the teaching in dispelling them? You have confused the error with the knowledge of the error, friend, and that confusion is exactly the kind of mistake God-max-slash-s-cognition, unlike ours, never makes. An illusion is false. But a true cognition that identifies an illusion as illusion, max-slash-this-is-a-false-cognition-max-slash-is-not-itself-false. It is precisely the opposite. Clearly about falsehood, not participation in it. God-none-every-error-admactly-and-it-actually-is-an-error, cognition that correctly sees error as error is, by the very definition we settled at the start of this bouquet. True. Far from undermining his teaching, that is the only thing that makes his teaching worth anything at all. He does not merely hold our mistakes alongside his own truths, he sees them as mistakes, which is precisely what we, still caught inside them, cannot yet do for ourselves. I have carried four bouquets of doubt into this hall, you de-ar-ah, and you have met every one of them without one trace in your voice. I do not yet call myself unsubdened fool, but I no longer call myself your opponent either, only your most stubborn student. The debate has no better outcome than that, friend. Sit, and rest a moment. What remains is that defense any longer. turning toward the fifth bouquet. No concluding prayer is given for this bouquet in the source text. The surviving pages move directly from the discussion of God-backslash, a knowledge of error into the great positive proofs. The writer marks the turn, instead.backslash. Three bouquets of defense are behind this hall now, the doubt that no unseen cause exists, The doubt that ritual needs no god, the claim that god can be disproved outright, and, in this fourth and shortest bouquet, the question of what it even means to call so still a being a backslash, no a dot backslash, every doubt raised against him has been met and turned. One task remains, greater than all the rest, not merely to defend the citadel, but to build it. Eight proofs, standing on their own feet, requiring no opponent backslash, s first move at all. That is the fifth bouquet, and the summit of this whole garden. Curtain falls softly, no music of ending, only a pause, lamp trimmed brighter for what follows dot backslash. Act 5. The Fifth Bouquet of Flowers. The eight proofs establishing god backslash, The summit of the debate. Youdeana no longer merely answers, he builds, proof after proof, each one standing on its own feet. The atheist, the kavaka, the mimamsaka, the samkhya teacher, the border, and the vaisheshik are all present in the hall, no longer opposing in turn, but listening as one assembly to a case finally being made in full dot book slash. 1. Framing the 8. Curtain rises for the last time. The lamp burns steady. You day are the stands at the center of the hall, and 4. Once no one interrupts him at the start.buck slash. For bootcase, and I have done nothing yet, but clear ground, answering doubt, refuting attack, defending the possibility of a maker. Tonight I stop defending. Eight proofs stand before you, each sufficient on its own, needing no opponent backslash as first move to exist at all. At the world is an effect. At the first motion in the atoms requires a mover. At the world is sustained. But it is destroyed. At the very conventions of word and craft required a first teacher. At the validity of the scriptural tradition demands a trustworthy source. At scripture itself testifies to its author. Even bare number, two-ness, three-ness, in things too small for any of us to count, bears the mark of accounting mind. Test each one as harshly as you have tested everything else I have said this evening. I ask only that you test them one at a time, on their own ground. Begin, then. I have not conceded easily tonight, and I will not begin now. Good. That is exactly how this should end. Seen to the first proof the world is an effect The earth the mountains the bodies we sit in all of it is produced exactly as a pot is produced And nothing produced lacks a producer Therefore the world has a maker Then that maker has a body as every potter does and if he has a body He is not the bodyless god you have been building toward for for you case Press that objection and watch it fall through your own hands. Either you are claiming God has a body, in which case you have already granted he exists, and merely quibble about his shape, or you are claiming the world was not made by an embodied being, and conclude from that alone that it was not made at all, which contradicts the very inference you are supposedly answering. a general cause need not share every feature of the particular causes we happen to have seen before fire is inferred from smoke regardless of which fuel burned a maker is inferred from a made world regardless of whether that maker wears a body backslash, embodied backslash was never the load bearing part of my proof you have argued against a word I did not need scene 3 a second proof motion in the atoms Consider the atoms themselves, then, before they ever became a back-sash, world-back-sash, at all. At creation back-sash, at its first instant, atoms that had never before moved began to move, and combine. What is inert cannot move itself, as pride does not swing itself into the earth. Something conscious must impale it. Vestiny alone might account for that first motion without any conscious impeller at all. Vestiny is one cause among several needed, teacher, not a cause that crowds out all the others. An inert thing, precisely because it is inert, needs a locus of consciousness to set it moving exactly as a spade needs a hand. You may call the specific motion of a living body backslash different in kind backslash From the first motion of an atom, if you like, but define backslash, bodily motion backslash, any way you choose, and you will find the definition already assumes exactly what I am arguing. A special motion, produced by a conscious agent. You cannot use the very thing under dispute to disqualify the inference that establishes it. Scene 4. The Third and Fourth Proofs. Sustaining and Destruction. The world, immense and heavy as it is, does not fall, as a bird-back-slash-esk-rate-weight does not fall, sustained by its own effort in flight. Something sustains the whole of it, moment to moment, the way effort sustains a living body. And when that same world is later destroyed, down to the smallest indivisible pair of atoms, destruction, too, requires an agent capable of it, precisely as class is destroyed only by the tearing hand, not by nothing. Vestini again might account for both, stability without a sustainer, dissolution without a destroyer. Vestini is real, and I have never denied it, but a cause of knowledge is not every cause excluded. If Vestini alone explained the body backslash as sustenance, effort itself would have no work left to do in keeping a living creature upright, which is plainly false, and any of us standing in this hall could tell you. and destroying are each one, effects, effect seed agents. The world backslash s-mastness is no exemption from a rule that governs every smaller thing we have ever watched rise and fall. Scene 5. The Fifth Proof. Who taught the first word? Consider something closer to home than atoms, the very conventions I, which any of us here understands the other. A Potter backslash s-craft is learned from From a other Potter, a weaver backslash S, from a other weaver, a child learns the alphabet from a teacher, who learned it from a teacher before. Trace that chain back far enough, and you reach a first link, a first Potter with no Potter to learn from, a first speaker with no language yet spoken to be taught in. Perhaps the chain simply has no forced link, beginningless, like the round of re-bought itself. The cycle of creation and dissolution is beginningless, monk, I do not dispute that. But within any one cycle, at its own fresh dawn, there are no fallen or ordinary human beings yet available to have originated anything. Something must set the very first convention moving, in each new beginning, the way a puppeteer backslash s-gesture, a chord-pulled, a hand-pointed, teaches a watching child the meaning of a The word before any word has yet been spoken between them. That first teacher need not keep a body permanently. Scripture itself records a being who takes form again and again, precisely to renew what would otherwise be lost. Scene 6. The 6 and 7 Proves. A trustworthy tradition. And scripture backslash. A stone word. Then let me meet you on my own ground, one final time. To say the Vedic tradition, Bach'sash, S-validity itself proves a source behind it. But validity, on my skill Bach'sash, S-teaching, needs no external guarantee, it is simply what a properly caused cognition already is. And if every cognition, Bach'sash, S-validity needed a further cognition to certify it, we would face the same redress that has followed us since the second bouquet, a redress I answered then, and answer again now. tradition this vast, this table, held by learned people across every generation, is not the kind of thing a single limited person invents from nothing. It requires, at its root, one being of the requisite excellence to originate it truly. And scripture does not merely imply such a source, it names one. In passage after passage, unprompted by any need for praise, the meta-speaks of itself and issuing from a knowing mouth. Backslash, this meta-issue from me, in every cycle a new dot-backslash, a collection of sentences accepted, on its own authority, by every knowledgeable person, who has ever studied it, resting on nothing beyond itself, is not the same thing as an ordinary human composition, whose author merely goes unnamed. You have carried that thread across four bouquets to reach here. I recognize the shape of the argument, even if I have not yet fully laid down my own. That is honest, and it is enough for tonight. Scene 7. An interlude. Who commands, when scripture commands? One thread you have not yet pulled, you be honor. Scripture does not merely describe its commands. Maxache, the self should be known not Maxache, what is a command, if not simply an action, or a desire, or ready present in the listener without need or many speaker behind it. Neither will serve. Not action, for backslash, no the self backslash, command nothing that moves through space at all, and any command reduced to mere action collapses into every ordinary sentence describing a person walking to market. Not desire either, for the very desire to actorizes only from cognizing the command backslash as meaning, make desire the meaning of the command, and desire becomes both cause and effect of itself, circular and empty. What a command actually conveys is a speaker backslash, s-intention that the listener act, and an intention requires, by its very grammar, a Nintendo. Backslash, you should do this backslash, is meaningless without someone, whose desire it expresses concerning you. Every injunction in scripture, examined honestly down to its grammar, points back to a speaker standing behind the verb. The 8 proof. What counts the atoms? And last, the strangest and, to my mind, the most delicate of the 8. A pair of atoms has a certain magnitude. A triad, a magnitude far greater, too great to be explained by atomic size alone. For if mere multiplication of atoms explained it, two atoms together should already show that same gross size, and they plainly do not. Something beyond bare aggregation, un-umbering, accounting, must operate even here, at a scale no eye in this hall could ever perceive directly. Tunis is not a property lying passively in the pair, it arises through an act of enumeration. And atoms are, by their very nature, invisible to every one of us. Whose enumeration, then, gives the diadids to nest, if no phyite creature has ever counted a single atom in its life. Only a omniscient counter. Only a omniscient counter. Eight proofs, friend, the world as effect, the atoms backslash, first motion, its sustaining, its destruction, the first teaching of every word we speak, the validity of an ancient trust, scripture backslash, its own testimony to its source, and our own very self, present in what a muskled ever count alone. I do not claim any single one of these, standing by itself. Could not be picked at by a patient enough opponent across another whole evening. You have shown me tonight exactly how patient this hall can be. I claim only that eight independent lines, converging on the same conclusion from eight different directions no one of them borrowed from the others, are not eight coincidences. That is what a bouquet is, in the end, not one breakable flower, But many gathered together, so that even if one pedal bruises, the bouquet itself still stands whole in your hand. See nine, direct knowing, beyond argument. And there's there truly no way to know them except by chains of reasoning, you're the a-a-a, it proofs, each requiring a haul like this one, and an evening like this one to walk through. Reasoning is not the only door. Yagin's report director knowing of him, the way a dream sometimes shows a mind things no external sense supplied it, not every dream is mere memory replayed. Some carry the texture of genuine experience. Through discipline, through the stealing of ordinary restlessness, that same kind of unmediated knowing is said to be possible for God as it is, in smaller measure, for the vividness of a true dream. I have not asked this hall to take that on faith tonight. I have only walked you, proof by proof, toward the point where faith and reason arrive at the same door from different roads. Scene 10, Final Prayer of the Folk Book You day on the terms, for the last time in this drama, toward the unseen image at the head of the hall. The Folk Assembly, Objector, Mimmsaka, Kanaka, Samhya, Borda, Veshishika, Atheist, falls quiet around him.exe. If even this, eight proofs offered honestly, tested honestly, cannot move a mind, that mind is tone, and no bouquet of arguments will soften tone. So I do not pray for victory here. I pray instead, may this bouquet of reasoning perfume both austral equally, may it satisfy the theist, who came already believing, and, in its own time, even the atheist who came to break it. And if it cannot do even that much, then let it rest simply as an offering. Gathered honestly, kept fresh, laid without expectation at the feet of the Lord of Teachers, who alone knows whether the mind that hears it tonight will find its way home sooner, or only later, or by some other road than this hall backslash-ass, entirely. along stillness. Then, one by one, unhurried, the assembly rises. The atheist is the last to stand. The proscenium curtain, crimson and gold, the same curtain that rose on the first bouquet, begins its final, slow descent over the lamplit subar.buck slash. Five bouquets, eight proofs, and one lamp that has not gone out all evening. The debate ends here. Where the return settled in, as it always is in this hall, left to the one who carries it out the door. End of Act 5, end of the play.

← Transcript index