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.

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.

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.

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.

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’.

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 percent proof’!” “Nah, that’s just old Dibbler’s advertising,” said Nobby. “It ain’t got no proof. Just circumstantial evidence.

The operative word was “definite.” There was a huge amount of circumstantial evidence which I felt proved beyond a reasonable doubt that David Atlee Phillips was Maurice Bishop.

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)!!  

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.

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].

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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) cannot be understood through the intellect, it can only be understood through Darshan (Vision as the Self). 

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].

No machines have been found in the archaeological record to support these assertions, but there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence that leads to such conclusions. Are the machines still intact and lying under the desert sand? Or were they removed completely from the areas? Or could it be that all this evidence points to an earlier civilization that suffered a cataclysm of such magnitude that much of what existed was destroyed, and what remained was susceptible to erosion, decay, and corrosion, and slowly disappeared over a long period of time? This brings us back to Robert Schoch's evaluation of the erosion pattern on the Sphinx and the Sphinx enclosure. He claimed that the period of time when sufficient rain fell in Egypt to cause this erosion was seven to nine thousand years ago. Is this sufficient time for ancient machines to turn to dust and blow away? It seems incredible to imagine, but there is reason to suspect that this could have happened. [...] If we follow the idea of an older civilization, therefore, the pyramids would have already been there before the first dynasty of the ancient Egyptians. The Great Pyramid was, most likely, the zenith of construction on the plateau, and the other pyramids were likely built before it was. Yet something happened to the culture that built the pyramids, and when Khufu came on the scene, he naturally chose the most impressive structure--the Great Pyramid--as his own, and his heirs took turns in claiming the rest. What event could have brought death and destruction to this ancient civilization that is referred to in Egyptian lore as being inhabited by gods of the First Time?

Lots of lawyers don't like circumstantial evidence. I do. I've never had any quarrel with the evidence of circumstances. My quarrel is with the habit of giving events the obvious, careless interpretation. I dislike sloppy thinking.

Putin and his defenders abroad bragged about Russia’s rising GDP, but it was like taking the average temperature of all the patients in a hospital. According to the 2015 numbers, even after a year of Western sanctions and plunging oil prices, there are still eighty-eight Russian billionaires on the Forbes list, which still doesn’t list Putin or several of his closest cronies. I find it impossible to believe that a man like Putin who holds the power of life and death over eighty-eight billionaires is not the richest of them all. The occasional leaks about mysterious Black Sea mansions and enormous bank transfers to nowhere add more circumstantial evidence to the case that by now Putin is likely the richest man in the world.

I think all that life-after-death stuff is stupid; there's no proof..." "There's no proof for death after death; it's all circumstantial evidence..." "Oh, come on, " he said. "There's scientific proof." "No, there isn't. There's scientific evidence. Scientists can only perceive certain frequencies, even with computers and machines." "You just want to believe in all that stuff," said Randy. "You just want to believe in science. I think that you might as well believe in whatever makes you feel better, since there's no proof, and if you believe in God or the Other Side all your life, you can never be proven wrong." "That's so stupid," said Randy.

The silence of the biblical writings about the Edomite deity provides circumstantial evidence for its identification with Yahweh. Further indications strengthen this claim. First, Edom is qualified as 'the land of wisdom' in Jer. 49.7 and Obadiah 8. In a monotheistic context, it is difficult to assume that wisdom would have a source other than Yahweh. Furthermore, it seems that the book of Job, the main 'wisdom book' of the Bible, has an Edomite origin, thus strengthening the linkage between Edom and Yahweh. Second, the worship of Yahweh in Edom is explicitly mentioned in Isa. 21.11 ('One is calling to me [Yahweh] from Seir'), and the duty of Yahweh in regard to his Edomite worshippers is stressed by Jer. 49.11 ('Leave [Edom] your orphans, I [Yahweh] will keep them alive; and let your widows trust in me'). Third, according to the book of Exodus, Esau-Edom and not Jacob-Israel had to inherit Yahweh's benediction from Isaac (Exod. 27.2-4). This suggests that, before emergence of the Israelites alliance, Esau was the 'legitimate trustee' of the Yahwistic traditions. [Fourth]: The Israelite nazirim (the men self-consecrated to Yahweh in Israel) are compared by Jeremiah to the Edomites: 'For thus says the LORD: If those [the Israelite nazirim] who do not deserve to drink the cup still have to drink it, shall you [Edom] be the one to go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished; you must drink it.' Such a parallel between the elite of the Israelite worshippers (nazirim) and the Edomite people as a whole also suggests that Edom was the first 'land of Yahweh'. [Fifth]: The primacy of Edom did not disappear quickly from the Israelite collective memory. This point is clearly stressed by Amos (9.11-12): 'On that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen, and repair its breaches and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old; in order that they may possess the remnant of Edom...' Together, these five points suggest the conclusion that Yahweh was truly the main (if not the only) deity worshipped in Edom. In this case, it is likely that (1) the name of Yahweh was not used publicly in Edom, and (2) 'Qos' was an Edomite epithet for Yahweh rather than an autonomous deity. (pp. 391-392) from 'Yahweh, the Canaanite God of Metallurgy?', JSOT 33.4 (2009): 387-404

God said to accept whatever circumstances that come along. Circumstance is a natural thing. In it, ‘Do this and don’t do that’- should not be there. Circumstances are a ‘scientific circumstantial evidence’ [‘Vyavasthit’]. You should ‘settle them with equanimity’.

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

People got convicted on circumstantial evidence every day. Shit, innocent people were in jail rotting away for the rest of their lives. “Well,

[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

UFO phenomenon. Why is it that, when the search of space is decreasing the likelihood of extraterrestrial visitors, the circumstantial evidence for UFO sightings and alien abductions is increasing?

The silent workings, and still more the explosions, of human passion which bring to light the darker elements of man's nature present to the philosophical observer considerations of intrinsic interest; while to the jurist, the study of human nature and human character with its infinite varieties, especially as affecting the connection between motive and action, between irregular desire or evil disposition and crime itself, is equally indispensable and difficult."—Wills on Circumstantial Evidence.

We need only circumstantial evidence to fry you.

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

If you want to wander in the worldly life, if you want to remain in action (by being a doer), then put (knowledge of) scientific circumstantial evidences (vyavasthit) aside, but if you want to go to moksha; if you want to become still (by being non doer) then keep (knowledge of) scientific circumstantial evidences with you.

Gross circumstances (that which can be seen) are illusory, subtle (sookshma) circumstances are mechanical, and circumstances of the speech are in the form of a ‘record’. ‘We’ are only trying to say to the world that all actions of the mind, speech and body are scientific circumstantial evidences, and ‘You” (the Self) are independent. ‘You’ are separate from the inner intent (bhaav). Therefore, just change your inner intent (bhaav). Do not get distressed over the actions of the mind, speech and body; just change your inner intent.

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!

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.

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.

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).

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."  

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

Nature is not some entity. Nature means coming together of circumstances. The effort of circumstances coming together is nature and the circumstances came together is ‘vyavasthit’ (Scientific circumstantial evidences).

Avasthit (Situated in a situation) means battery which has been charged. Vyavasthit (scientific circumstantial evidence) means discharging of that battery.

There is no individual in the world who is a single doer. It is “federal causes” i.e. it is collective causes called scientific circumstantial evidence.

The world is the puzzle itself. God has not created this world at all. God is creator of this world is correct, by Christian’s view point, by Muslim’s view point, by Indian’s view point, but not by fact. By fact, it is only scientific circumstantial evidence.

If God is the doer, then do you have any accountability? No you do not have. Neither you nor God is the doer. The doer is scientific circumstantial evidences (vyavasthit shakti).