MACHINE ASR ACCESSIBILITY AID

Episode2_Part1_RadioPlay.mp4

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

Collection: Part 11 · VIDEHA MITHILA MAITHILI DISCUSSION CRITICISM SERIES PART 11
Status: asr-draft
Human verified: No
Editorial review: not-reviewed
ASR model: small
Detected language: en (0.991148)
Duration: 23:15
Source: Open preserved recording

Timestamped machine output

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

Plain text

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

← Transcript index