Circumstantial Evidence Quotes

Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different

Far from disproving the existence of God, astronomers may be finding more circumstantial evidence that God exists.

Witness testimony is always flawed. It's better than circumstantial evidence, sure, but people aren't camcorders; they don't record every action and reaction, and the very act of remembering involves chosing words, actions and images. In other words, any witness who was supposed to be giving a court facts is really just giving them a version of fiction.

The humans were sitting cross-legged on the floor in a circle of soldiers, pointing at things and learning more Chimaera words: salt, rat, eat, which unfortunate combination led to Zuzana rejecting the meat on her plate. "I think it's chicken," Mik said, taking a bite. "I'm just saying there were a lot more rats around here earlier." "Circumstantial evidence." Mik took another bite and said, in passable Chimaera and to guffaws of laughter, "Salty delicious rat." "It's chicken," insisted one of the Shadows That Live. Karou wasn't sure which it was, but she was flapping her arms like wings, and even producing chicken bones to prove it.

Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.

It's circumstantial evidence, like finding a trout in the milk.

Angua picked out the bottle and looked at the label. "C.M.O.T. Dibbler's Genuine Authentic Soggy Mountain Dew," she read. "He's going to die! It says, 'One hundred and fifty per cent proof'!" "Nah, that's just old Dibbler's advertising," said Nobby. "It ain't got no proof. Just circumstantial evidence.

To begin with, this case should never have come to trial. The state has not produced one iota of medical evidence that the crime Tom Robinson is charged with ever took place... It has relied instead upon the testimony of two witnesses, whose evidence has not only been called into serious question on cross-examination, but has been flatly contradicted by the defendant. Now, there is circumstantial evidence to indicate that Mayella Ewel was beaten - savagely, by someone who led exclusively with his left. And Tom Robinson now sits before you having taken the oath with the only good hand he possesses... his RIGHT. I have nothing but pity in my heart for the chief witness for the State. She is the victim of cruel poverty and ignorance. But my pity does not extend so far as to her putting a man's life at stake, which she has done in an effort to get rid of her own guilt. Now I say "guilt," gentlemen, because it was guilt that motivated her. She's committed no crime - she has merely broken a rigid and time-honored code of our society, a code so severe that whoever breaks it is hounded from our midst as unfit to live with. She must destroy the evidence of her offense. But what was the evidence of her offense? Tom Robinson, a human being. She must put Tom Robinson away from her. Tom Robinson was to her a daily reminder of what she did. Now, what did she do? She tempted a *****. She was white, and she tempted a *****. She did something that, in our society, is unspeakable. She kissed a black man. Not an old uncle, but a strong, young ***** man. No code mattered to her before she broke it, but it came crashing down on her afterwards. The witnesses for the State, with the exception of the sheriff of Maycomb County have presented themselves to you gentlemen, to this court in the cynical confidence that their testimony would not be doubted, confident that you gentlemen would go along with them on the assumption... the evil assumption that all Negroes lie, all Negroes are basically immoral beings, all ***** men are not to be trusted around our women. An assumption that one associates with minds of their caliber, and which is, in itself, gentlemen, a lie, which I do not need to point out to you. And so, a quiet, humble, respectable *****, who has had the unmitigated TEMERITY to feel sorry for a white woman, has had to put his word against TWO white people's! The defendant is not guilty - but somebody in this courtroom is. Now, gentlemen, in this country, our courts are the great levelers. In our courts, all men are created equal. I'm no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and of our jury system - that's no ideal to me. That is a living, working reality! Now I am confident that you gentlemen will review, without passion, the evidence that you have heard, come to a decision and restore this man to his family. In the name of GOD, do your duty. In the name of God, believe... Tom Robinson

What can you do? There's the rub. The most important take-home message with diet and health is that anyone who ever expresses anything with certainty is basically wrong, because the evidence for cause and effect in this area is almost always weak and circumstantial, and changing an individual person's diet may not even be where the action is.

everything we’ve seen is deeply disturbing, but we cannot ignore these chondrules. The evidence in favor is conclusive, while the evidence against is circumstantial.

Do you think they came today?' he said. 'I do. There’s mud on the floor, cigarettes and whisky on the table, fish on a plate for you and a memory of them in my mind. Hardly conclusive evidence I know, but then all evidence is circumstantial.

Circumstantial evidence may not be enough to convict. But it’s almost always enough to reveal the truth. Isn’t it?

Gross circumstances, subtle circumstances, circumstances of speech are of the non-Self and they make us dependent; In addition they are in the form of ‘scientific circumstantial evidence’.

There's mud on the floor, cigarettes and whisky on the table, fish on a plate for you and a memory of them in my mind. Hardly conclusive evidence I know, but then all evidence is circumstantial.

In this passage we are taught how hateful a thing is calumny in all free States, as, indeed, in every society, and how we must neglect no means which may serve to check it. And there can be no more effectual means for checking calumny than by affording ample facilities for impeachment, which is as useful in a commonwealth as the other is pernicious. And between them there is this difference, that calumny needs neither witness, nor circumstantial proof to establish it, so that any man may be calumniated by any other; but not impeached; since impeachment demands that there be substantive charges made, and trustworthy evidence to support them.

And when a woman does fail, she is more likely to believe it’s personal—she sucked—while men view it as circumstantial (the business sucked). It’s not all bad. Women’s fear of failure may prompt them to become better informed; they take the time to read up on their ideas so they can supply evidence. But then of course there’s the feedback loop: People who fear failure are less likely to put forward ideas, to take intellectual risks, and more likely to quit. They tend to avoid new challenges in favor of sticking to what they’re already good [at].

The evidence is circumstantial, but it’s hard to imagine that Sapiens, just by coincidence, arrived in Australia at the precise point that all these animals were dropping dead of the chills.

Remember: I am not asking you to believe these yarns at all. We know how much nonsense gets published these days, do we not? I am merely asking that you observe in yourself the strength and immediacy of the impulse to deny at once. Does this impulse vary according to the weight of the circumstantial evidence (such as it is) or according to how much your own imprinted and conditioned reality-tunnel is challenged?

The world,’ he said, ‘grows hourly more and more sceptical of all that lies beyond its own narrow radius; and our men of science foster the fatal tendency. They condemn as fable all that resists experiment. They reject as false all that cannot be brought to the test of the laboratory or the dissecting-room. Against what superstition have they waged so long and obstinate a war, as against the belief of apparitions? And yet what superstition has maintained its hold upon the minds of men so long and so firmly? Show me any fact in physics, in history, in archaeology, which is supported by testimony so wide and so various. Attested by all races of men, in all ages, and in all climates, by the soberest sages of antiquity, by the rudest savage of today, by the Christian, the Pagan, the Pantheist, the Materialist, this phenomenon is treated as a nursery tale by the philosophers of our century. Circumstantial evidence weighs with them as a feather in the balance. The comparison of causes with effects, however valuable in physical science, is put aside as worthless and unreliable. The evidence of competent witnesses, however conclusive in a court of justice, counts for nothing. He who pauses before he pronounces is condemned as a trifler. He who believes, is a dreamer or a fool.

Positive and direct proof of fraud is not to be expected.… The nature of the thing itself, which is generally carried out in a secret and clandestine manner, does not admit of any but circumstantial evidence; and therefore, if no proof of actual fraud were allowed in such cases, much mischief and villainy would ensue, and pass with impunity. Circumstantial evidence is all that can be expected, and indeed all that is necessary to substantiate such a charge.

Kondro was unique in our studies and experience, the only repeat rapist-murderer who targeted the children of people he knew well. That in itself added to our store of knowledge and understanding. It opened our eyes to the idea that anyone can be a suspect and that the traditional indicators of innocence—cooperation with the police, participating in search parties, offering alibis, and all of the others—have to be evaluated in context and against the circumstantial evidence.

Everything seems to be subject to time, yet it all happens in the Now. That is the paradox. Wherever you look, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence for the reality of time—a rotting apple, your face in the bathroom mirror compared to your face in a photo taken thirty years ago—yet you never find any direct evidence, you never experience time itself. You only ever experience the present moment, or rather what happens in it. If you go by direct evidence only, then there is no time, and the Now is all there ever is.

In light of the hypersexuality of humans, chimps, and bonobos, one wonders why so many insist that female sexual exclusivity has been an integral part of human evolutionary development for over a million years. In addition to all the direct evidence presented here, the circumstantial case against the narrative is overwhelming.

Of course, if diprotodons had been the only large animal to disappear at this time, it might have been just a fluke. But more than 90 per cent of Australia’s megafauna disappeared along with the diprotodon. The evidence is circumstantial, but it’s hard to imagine that Sapiens, just by coincidence, arrived in Australia at the precise point that all these animals were dropping dead of the chills.3

His grace is sufficient in our distress. His covenant of vibrant love is displayed in our hearts continually, even if we are unable to see the rainbowed promise with our natural eyes. God's Word is the same. Its promises hold true regardless of the circumstantial evidence to the contrary. God's promised words which are best exhibited through our daily life are bright and beautiful. Calm lives or chaotic ones; His Word remains steadfast. During times of still waters or when we are in a tempest grip, it doesn't change the life-giving promise that His mercies are new every morning. His compassion never wears out. He renews us just as He is with us. He sustains us just as He is for us. No matter what we face, He will see us through it all. Just as the sun rises in the east to meet our new day, His mercy is new each day.

My worst fears from jury selection manifested themselves in the verdict. This jury needed someone to tell them exactly how Caylee died. Piecing it together from circumstantial evidence was not good enough for them. They wanted the answers on a silver platter, but we didn’t have the evidence to serve it that way. It’s not just the verdict that tells me this, but also the manner in which it was reached. The fact that they didn’t request any materials to review. The fact that they didn’t have any questions for the judge. If the statements that the foreman of the jury made to the media are true, ten of these twelve jurors felt that ninety minutes of deliberation was sufficient to fully weigh, consider, and reject four weeks’ worth of testimony that we on the prosecution used to establish that this was first-degree murder. The rest of the thirteen hours of deliberation had been spent trying to convince the two holdout jurors of the decision.

You too can make the golden cut, relating the two poles of your being in perfect golden proportion, thus enabling the lower to resonate in tune with the higher, and the inner with the outer. In doing so, you will bring yourself to a point of total integration of all the separate parts of your being, and at the same time, you will bring yourself into resonance with the entire universe.... Nonetheless the universe is divided on exactly these principles as proven by literally thousands of points of circumstantial evidence, including the size, orbital distances, orbital frequencies and other characteristics of planets in our solar system, many characteristics of the sub-atomic dimension such as the fine structure constant, the forms of many plants and the golden mean proportions of the human body, to mention just a few well known examples. However the circumstantial evidence is not that on which we rely, for we have the proof in front of us in the pure mathematical principles of the golden mean.

- You as a good catholic, he observed, talking of body and soul, believe in the soul...Do you? Thus cornered, Stephen had to make a superhuman effort of memory to try and concentrate and remember before he could say: - They tell me on the best authority it is a simple substance and therefore incorruptible. It would be immortal, I understand, but for the possibility of its annihilation by its First Cause Who, from all I can hear, is quite capable of adding that to the number of His other practical jokes, corruptio per se and corruptio per accidens both being excluded by court etiquette. Mr Bloom thoroughly acquiesced in the general gist of this...still he felt bound to enter a demurrer on the head of simple, promptly rejoining: - Simple? I shouldn’t think that is the proper word...but it’s a horse of quite another color to say you believe in the existence of a supernatural God. - Oh that, Stephen expostulated, has been proved conclusively by several of the best known passages in Holy Writ, apart from circumstantial evidence.

To the extent that Blue had a definable culture, it tended to view technological aids with some ambivalence, a state of mind boiled down into the aphorism “Each enhancement is an amputation.” This was not so much a definable idea or philosophy as it was a prejudice, operant at a nearly subliminal level. It was traceable to certain parts of the Epic. In many of these, Tavistock Prowse played a role; he was seen as its literal embodiment in the sense that he had actually undergone a series of amputations, and been consumed as food, after throwing in his lot with the Swarm. Blue saw itself—according to cultural critics, defined itself—as the inheritors of the traditions of Endurance. By process of elimination, then, Red was the culture of the Swarm. A century and a half ago, Red had sealed itself off behind barriers both physical and cryptographic, so not much was known of its culture, but plenty of circumstantial evidence suggested that it had different Amistics from Blue. Specifically, the Reds were enthusiastic about personal technological enhancement.

The FBI would never resolve the question of whether or not Robert was a CP member—which is to say that there was scant evidence that he was. Much of the evidence in the FBI files on this issue is circumstantial and contradictory. If a few of the FBI’s informants claimed that Oppenheimer was a Communist, most of its informants merely painted a portrait of a fellow traveler. And some emphatically denied that he was ever a Party member. The Bureau had only its suspicions, and the conjectures of others. Only Oppenheimer himself knew—and he always insisted that he had never been a member of the Communist Party.

The Bible is the torch of civilization and liberty. Its influence for good in society has been recognized by the greatest statesmen, even though they for the most part have looked at it through the various glasses of conflicting creeds, which, while upholding the Bible, grievously misrepresent its teachings. The grand old book is unintentionally but woefully misrepresented by its friends, many of whom would lay down life on its behalf; and yet they do it more vital injury than its foes, by claiming its support to their long-revered misconceptions of its truth, received through the traditions of their fathers. Would that such would awake, re-examine their oracle, and put to confusion its enemies by disarming them of their weapons! [...] The fact that this book has survived so many centuries, notwithstanding such unparalleled efforts to banish and destroy it, is at least strong circumstantial evidence that the great Being whom it claims as its Author has also been its Preserver. It is also true that the moral influence of the Bible is uniformly good. Those who become careful students of its pages are invariably elevated to a purer life. Other writings upon religion and the various sciences have done good and have ennobled and blessed mankind, to some extent; but all other books combined have failed to bring the joy, peace and blessing to the groaning creation that the Bible has brought to both the rich and the poor, to the learned and the unlearned.

Why on earth didn’t you say in the papers what had happened to my brother? Obviously my husband and Mr. Delham knew it. And you must have known you could provide the captain and crew to prove it.” Reluctantly, the assistant tore his gaze from the bench and said softly, “It was your husband’s idea to wait until the trial was under way before springing his defense on them.” “But why?” “Because our illustrious prosecutor and his staff showed no sign of dropping the case no matter what we claimed. They believed their evidence was enough for a conviction, and if we’d told them about the Arianna, they’d have kept stalling for him to look for more evidence to disprove Captain Granthome’s potential testimony. Moreover, the Arianna and her crew were on a voyage, and we weren’t completely certain we could locate them and get them back here in time to testify. Now our frustrated Lord Prosecutor has nothing readily at hand to use as rebuttal, because he didn’t anticipate this. And if your brother is never seen again, there’s still no point in his digging about for more circumstantial, incriminating evidence, because even if he found it-which he won’t-your husband cannot be tried twice for the same crime.” Now Elizabeth understood why Ian had looked bored and disinterested, even though she still couldn’t comprehend why he’d never softened when she’d explained it was Robert she was with, not a lover, and offered the proof of Mrs. Hogan’s letter and even the promise of her testimony. “Your husband orchestrated the entire maneuver,” the assistant said, looking admiringly at Ian, who was being addressed by the Lord Chancellor. “Planned his own defense. Brilliant man, your husband. Oh, and by the by, Mr. Delham said to tell you that you were splendid up there.

I’m beginning to find life on Earth…burdensome,” said Federico. “Pandemics, air pollution, ground water contamination...Did you know that caffeine, antibiotics, and even birth-control hormones are finding their way into our drinking water? And now there’s circumstantial evidence that CO2 could be making our food less nutritious! As our numbers continue to approach carrying capacity, life will become less safe. Finally, either a solar flare will fry the electric grid sending civilization back to the 19th century, or the Kessler syndrome will strand humanity on a dying planet for millennia. I’ll gladly leave Earth if presented with the opportunity.

author of the ransom note. Quoting Steve Thomas (Thomas 2000)[10], “Then, while reviewing a list of book titles from the Ramsey home at the request of Don Foster, I dug out the Polaroid photographs from the Evidence Room. Using magnifying glasses, evidence tech Pat Peck and I compared the titles on the list with what the pictures showed. Entire shelves of books had been overlooked. When we checked the photos from a big manila envelope marked as evidence item #85KKY, I almost fell out of my chair, and Peck inhaled in sharp surprise. A picture showed Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary on a coffee table in the first-floor study, the corner of the lower left-hand page sharply creased and pointing like an arrow to the word incest. Somebody had apparently been looking for a definition of sexual contact between family members. Ever so slowly, our accumulated circumstantial evidence grew.

All evidence can be divided into two broad categories: direct and indirect. Direct evidence is simply the testimony of eyewitnesses. Indirect evidence (also called 'circumstantial evidence') is everything else.

获得毕业证咨询【【Q微】】【【2026614433】】格里菲斯大学毕业证一模一样购买格里菲斯大学成绩单假格里菲斯大学毕业证学历认证书。如何购买澳洲毕业证办理格里菲斯大学毕业证|购买GU毕业证|Q微2026614433|出售澳洲毕业证|购买澳洲文凭GriffithUniversity NSBSNSNSBSMN One of the Big Questions about SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, has for a while been about its origins. Most viruses that cause disease in humans have long, fascinating origin stories, with jumps from animal to animal until they finally make it into people and start killing people. But Covid-19, goes the theory, must be lab-grown — either from an intentional lab leak or a mistake of epic proportions — there’s simply too much circumstantial evidence to ignore!

Yu set to work, night and day, investigating the laboratories, China’s bioweapons programs and the early whistleblowers, and scouring Chinese-language news sites. “This was a time when everyone was busy responding to the Covid outbreak,” Yu recalls. “Very few people were looking at the reason for the outbreak, let alone to establish the culpability of the CCP on this. I knew we had to find out the origin of this, we had to find out who is responsible for the spread of this virus. The overarching point was, we have to find out if China is responsible enough to keep bio-research safe.” It would be a several-months-long effort that Yu would finally present to Pompeo in April, with a long list of strong circumstantial evidence against the Wuhan Institute of Virology and an emphasis on the Chinese lab’s substandard and negligent biosafety practices.

There is strong circumstantial evidence that during the twenty minutes he was taking “a breath of air,” George White Rogers prepared an incendiary device—or several such devices—designed to set the Morro Castle on fire and threaten the lives of all its crew and passengers.

Like Henry David Thoreau had said, some circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

Lincoln arrived in Washington in secrecy. Rumors of a plan to assassinate the president-elect in Baltimore compelled Samuel M. Felton, the president of the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railway, to engage Allan Pinkerton, the Chicago detective, to investigate. “It was made as certain as strong circumstantial and positive evidence could make it,” Felton recalled, “that there was a plot to burn the bridges and destroy the road, and murder Mr. Lincoln on his way to Washington.” From Rochester, Frederick Douglass observed, “Mr. Lincoln entered the Capital as the poor, hunted fugitive slave reaches the North, in disguise, seeking concealment, evading pursuers, by the underground railroad…not during the sunlight, but crawling and dodging under the sable wing of night.

We need only circumstantial evidence to fry you.

[We have now arrived at the last words written in Dr. Livingstone's diary: a copy of the two pages in his pocket-book which contains them is, by the help of photography, set before the reader. It is evident that he was unable to do more than make the shortest memoranda, and to mark on the map which he was making the streams which enter the Lake as he crossed them. From the 22nd to the 27th April he had not strength to write down anything but the several dates. Fortunately Susi and Chumah give a very clear and circumstantial account of every incident which occurred on these days, and we shall therefore add what they say, after each of the Doctor's entries. He

No matter what the other person says, then take the bottom line out of it, everything in this world is ‘vyavasthit’ [result of scientific circumstantial evidences]. So don’t tell anyone, ‘you did wrong’. Not only should you not say this, you should not even think it.

There is no place for beggary [wanting things from others] in the current era. The law of vyavasthit [scientific circumstantial evidences] is such that one who has decided never to beg, will never have situation to beg.

You can remain faultless only when you constantly remain as a nimit [instrument, one of the doer and not the whole and sole doer] and remain in the intent of being an instrument [intent that I am one of the doer of many scientific circumstantial evidences]

In this world we do not have to become the doer, we have to become nimit [an instrument, one of the many scientific circumstantial evidence, not the whole and sole doer].

People are preoccupied only with money. They are looking to see where they can get it from. Hey, why are you looking for it in a ‘cemetery’? This worldly life has become like a cemetery. There is no love to be seen in it. The way in which money comes to one is a natural thing. It is (by way of) scientific circumstantial evidences. Why do we have to run after it? If it were to free (liberate) us itself, then it would be very good, right?

Clashes should not occur whatsoever. Due to conflicts only have the energies diminished. Regardless of what may happen to the body, do not ever enter into conflicts. The body is not going to go away just because someone says so, or if someone casts a curse on it. The body is under the control of vyavasthit [scientific circumstantial evidences].

Circumstantial evidence is not, as they [defense counsel] claim, like a chain. You could have a chain spanning the Atlantic Ocean from Nova Scotia to Bordeaux, France, consisting of millions of links, and with one weak link that chain is broken. Circumstantial evidence, to the contrary, is like a rope. And each fact is a strand of that rope. And as the prosecution piles one fact upon another we add strands and we add strength to that rope. If one strand breaks—and I’m not conceding for a moment that any strand has broken in this case—but if one strand does break, the rope is not broken. The strength of the rope is barely diminished. Why? Because there are so many other strands of almost steel-like strength that the rope is still more than strong enough to bind these two defendants to justice. That’s what circumstantial evidence is all about.5

and that perhaps the circumstantial evidence against him or her is fairly powerful after all. But

This hypothesis is inevitably controversial, but it is testable by experiment, and there is already considerable circumstantial evidence in its favor. For example, when a newly synthesized organic chemical is crystallized for the first time (say a new drug), there will be no morphic resonance from previous crystals of this type. A new morphic field has to come into existence; of the many energetically possible ways the substance could crystallize, one actually happens. The next time the substance is crystallized anywhere in the world, morphic resonance from the first crystals will make this same pattern of crystallization more probable, and so on. A cumulative memory will build up as the pattern becomes more and more habitual. As a consequence, the crystals should tend to form more readily all over the world. Such a tendency is in fact well known; new compounds are generally difficult to crystallize, sometimes taking weeks or even months to form from supersaturated solutions. As time goes on, they tend to appear more readily all over the world.

God said to accept whatever circumstances that come along. Circumstance is a natural thing. A claim of “Do this and don’t do that” should not be there in it. Circumstances are results of scientific circumstantial evidences. You should ‘settle them with equanimity’.

Who has the right to say, "Vyavasthit" (result of scientific circumstantial evidences) ahead of time? It is one who does not interfere at all with the attributes of the prakruti (non-Self complex)!!  

What happened to the money Carbide paid? There is enough circumstantial evidence to prove that the real settlement made by Union Carbide was different and most of the money clandestinely went into the pockets of national criminals who were then at the helm of affairs and are not difficult to identify. The settlement was a fraud on the people of India. The spurious explanation that the money was urgently needed to provide relief to the victims makes it clear that a dishonest deal had been entered into. This was also clear from the manner in which Mr Warren Anderson, an accused on bail, was allowed to abscond despite his bail being conditional on his remaining in India. To add insult to injury, he used a state aircraft and had dinner with the bigwigs of the Congress before his flight from the country!

Money is subject to the result of scientific circumstantial evidences (vyavasthit). Then, regardless of whether one practices morality or immorality, money will still keep coming in!

Who has made this rainbow, moreover with all its seven colours? There is no authority that is the creator. In fact, all this comes together as a result of 'scientific circumstantial evidences'; it is a natural occurrence. Even a million years ago, it had seven colours, and at present too, it has seven colours. No other changes have occurred.

The entire worldly interaction is simply 'relative', it is subject to external factors such as scientific circumstantial evidences (paradhin). Everything that is 'relative' is false (polu), it is not real. That which is true (nakkar) is considered as real.

It is not in Our [the Self's] control to acquire or to renounce. They are both [activities] of the non-Self and are subject to external factors such as scientific circumstantial evidences.

With the support of the knowledge of Vyavasthit (result of Scientific Circumstantial Evidence) and the awakened awareness (jagruti) of One's own Real form (Swaroop), One can observe saiyam (a state free of anger-pride-deceit-greed, attachment and abhorrence) completely.

What is considered as Purusharth (real spiritual effort to progress as the Self)? It is when there is a sense of independence (swatantrapanu), there is Self-dependency (Swa-dhin), there is no dependency on external factors (paradhin). Whereas here, work is only done when other circumstances come together. That which happens subject to scientific circumstantial evidences is prarabdh (an effect of past life karma).

The worldly knowledge that you have received, do not dispense justice on the basis of that worldly knowledge. I have spoken of 'vyavasthit' (result of scientific circumstantial evidences), dispense justice on the basis of that Knowledge. The basis of worldly knowledge will torment you. If worldly knowledge dispels then worldly life goes. It is with the Knowledge of vyavasthit, that worldly knowledge dispels.

When is vyavasthit (result of scientific circumstantial evidences) formed? When someone instigates you and you become engrossed in that, there you became avasthit (absorbed in its effect), and that itself is the formation of vyavasthit!

It is worth knowing the rules of vyavasthit (result of scientific circumstantial evidences). The invention of an aeroplane is not out of rule. In the current time cycle, the [human] lifespan has remained the same while the karmas are numerous in quantity. It is in order to clear these [karmas] that speedy vehicles have emerged. So according to the rules of vyvavasthit, anything can become the evidentiary doer (nimit).

What is vyavasthit (result of scientific circumstantial evidences) like? It is the energy of samashti (aggregated, universal) whereas these [living beings] are in the form of vyashti (individual, each portion of a whole). All the illusory intents of [all] vyashti are fed into samashti and through a 'computer' the results of samashti are received .

All the rules are encompassed within scientific circumstantial evidences. Even niyati (natural flow of progress of an embodied soul) is incorporated within vyavasthit.

Vyavasthit (result of scientific circumstantial evidences) has to be kept in your laksha (awareness as the Self). You should not take its support wrongfully. [When] all the efforts are completed and the work gets done; if it [the result] turns out wrong, that is when you should say, "It is vyavasthit."  

Who has the right to say, "Vyavasthit" (result of scientific circumstantial evidences) ahead of time? It is one who does not interfere at all with the attributes of the prakruti (non-Self complex)!!   

One should not interpret 'vyavasthit' (result of scientific circumstantial evidences) as, ‘Nothing is going to happen outside of vyavasthit.’ If we want to say, "[It is] Vyavasthit," then our efforts should be there. It should be our desire to make some effort. Thereafter, whatever efforts vyavasthit makes us do, is correct! The effort [being made] should be sahaj (natural and spontaneous).      

[The phrase] 'Vyavasthit' (result of scientific circumstantial evidences) is for the past. 'Vyavasthit' is not to be used for the present or the future.

Vyavasthit (result of scientific circumstantial evidences) cannot be understood through the intellect, it can only be understood through Darshan (Vision as the Self). 

Our inner intent, and the actions that have manifested as an effect are 'scientific circumstantial evidence'. The inner intent is one 'member of the parliament'.

Nischay (the firm resolve to remain as the Self) is within One's [the Self] control (Swadhin), vyavahaar (the relative; worldly interactions) is out of One's control (paradhin; subject to scientific circumstantial evidences) whereas the resultant effect [of vyavahaar] is even further out of One's control. We [the Self] only have to make the firm resolve to remain as the Self and not worry about vyavahaar. Vyavahaar is subject to external factors such as scientific circumstantial evidences.

The fear of the past has been released, the future is in the hands of Scientific Circumstantial Evidences (Vyavasthit). Therefore, live in the present.

People of the world say that, "Absolute Knowledge (Keval Gnan) is a thing to 'do'." No, it is something to be known! That which needs 'doing' is already taken care of by nature. 'To do' is itself an illusion. This energy is doing things for you with such grandeur! At least recognize this energy. God does not do anything of this sort at all. This is indeed the work of vyavasthit shakti (the energy of scientific circumstantial evidences).

If one abides by the law, then he remains within discipline (niyam). Within the law, discipline is always accepted and discipline always takes one towards vyavasthit (scientific circumstantial evidences).

Actions related to the non-Self (prakrut kriya) are vyavasthit (result of scientific circumstantial evidences) and effects related to the non-Self are also vyavasthit. Then, where is the problem!

I brought the knowledge of vyavasthit (scientific circumstantial evidences) right from birth! It is my discovery of infinite past lives!!

One is not the doer at all. Vyavasthit (scientific circumstantial evidences) is the doer. I have revealed this knowledge and that is why we refer to it as the 'lift' (elevator) path!

Except for pure Soul (Shuddhatma), the mind, speech, body, intellect is all subject to vyavasthit (energy that runs the world). It is all scientific circumstantial evidences. With 'This is mine' and 'I am (this)', divisions occurred, and that is why all these difficulties exist, intents of false attribution (aropit bhaav) arose. That is why one missed out on one's own form as the Self (swaroop)!

Through worldly interaction (vyavhar), the doctor seats one in the car. Really speaking, vyavasthit (result of scientific circumstantial evidences), seats one in the car.

If you refer to worldly interactions as vyavasthit (result of scientific circumstantial evidences), then all the hopes (aasha) and insatiable desires (trushna) will disperse away.

When the occasion arises to climb a mountain, then there will be strength in the legs, such is the vyavasthit (scientific circumstantial evidences)!

You have such knowledge that 'Vyavasthit (the result of Scientific Circumstantial Evidences) has broken the thing. The other person has not broken it. All of them are evidentiary doers (nimit).

What Vyavasthit (the result of Scientific Circumstantial Evidences) says is that, ‘The stock is ready such that You (as the Self) do not have to do anything. You (as the Self) just continue Seeing. This mind-speech-body are under the control of Vyavasthit.

This Akram Vignan has been disclosed 'as it is'. This 'Vyavasthit' (result of Scientific Circumstantial Evidences) is exactly 'vyavasthit' (as it should be). 'We' have Seen, 'How much has been done, and how much still needs to be done' in this world. What is the point of repeatedly grinding away at that which has already been done?

It is not appropriate to give 'Vyavasthit' (the result of Scientific Circumstantial Evidences) on the Kramic path (traditional step-by-step path to Self-realization), as there is doership on that path right until the end.

It is due to the inspiration from 'vyavasthit' (result of scientific circumstantial evidences) that the pudgal (non-Self complex) becomes the 'doer'. Outwardly, the pudgal appears to be the 'doer', but that is due to the evidence of 'vyavasthit' and in that too, it can happen only if the Soul (Atma) is present.

The report of a Moslem Mission to his country was a falsehood, though the details given were circumstantial: falsehood is so common, one can believe nothing the Arabs say, unless confirmed by other evidence: they are the followers of the Prince of lies—Mohamad, whose cool appropriation of the knowledge gained at Damascus, and from the Jews, is perfectly disgusting. All his deeds were done when unseen by any witnesses. It is worth noticing that all admit the decadence of the Moslem power, and they ask how it is so fallen? They seem sincere in their devotion and in teaching the Koran, but its meaning is comparatively hid from most of the Suaheli. The Persian Arabs are said to be gross idolators, and awfully impure. Earth

When one takes under his control, the mind-speech-body which are under the control of vyavasthit (scientific circumstantial evidences); that is called egoism.

Pain and pleasure will keep coming; that is all scientific circumstantial evidence. Pain and pleasure are effective (effects of past causes). In such situations, one should do something that will not cause effects to arise.

When one understands that he cannot ‘do’ anything in this world and that everything is vyavasthit [result of scientific circumstantial evidence], and if this has come into his experience; he is said to have attained Self-realization.

Outer pleasure and pain is under the control of ‘Scientific circumstantial evidences’ and to have the inner peace [inner pleasure] is the result of one’s Self-effort (purusharth).

In the ignorant (absence of self-realization) state, many ‘shackles of iron’ are bound. The mind asks for closure. If you tell the mind ‘it is vyavasthit [scientific circumstantial evidence]’, the mind will be pacified. And if you have a negative thought about someone, cleanse the mind by asking the other person for forgiveness.

There are two types of energies; one in the domain of the Real Self and the other in the domain of the non-Self. The energies of the Real Self’s domain can shake the Universe, whereas the energies of the non-Self domain can’t break even a papad (lentil wafer). It is vyavasthit shakti [the energies of scientific circumstantial evidences] that governs everything [in the non-Self domain].

The world is just. Its justice (of one’s deeds) is provided by scientific circumstantial evidences (vyavasthit shakti).

A father will not keep looking for faults in his children if he is very religious/pious. One should not see faults in a prakruti (relative self). When one does that, it reaches the God within that prakruti. Prakruti is predetermined, it is vyavasthit (result of scientific circumstantial evidence).

The one who begins to have doubts, for him complete destruction occurs. Having doubts is a sign of timidity. The entire world is ‘scientific circumstantial evidence’. Where is the basis for doubts then? You are the owner of the entire universe; ‘I’ am ready to give you proof.

When planning (karmic causes) is being done, if One (Self) becomes engrossed in that situation, that means in the situation, he became situated (avasthit). The state, of becoming situated (avasthit), then mixes with nature and when that result comes into effect; that is result of scientific circumstantial evidence (vyavasthit).

One Situated in a situation’ (Avasthit) is ‘causes’ and result of scientific circumstantial evidence (vyavasthit) is an ‘effect’. The energy of avasthit is “causes of action”. The energy of avasthit can be changed, Vyavasthit shakti (result of scientific circumstantial evidence) cannot be changed.

If you are with egoism then you are the doer and if you are egoless, then vyavasthit (scientific circumstantial evidence) is the doer. One (The Self) is not the doer at all.