"But may we not object that it is not proved that the body is thus an effect? for certainly none has ever, at any time or place, seen a body being made by any one." We grant it: yet it is not proper to deny that a body has some maker on the ground that its being made has not been seen by any one, since this can be established from inference [if not from actual perception]. Bodies, &c., must be effects, because they possess an orderly arrangement of parts, or because they are destructible, as jars, &c.; and from their being effects it is easy to infer that they must have been caused by an intelligent being. Thus the subject in the argument [sc. bodies, &c.] must have had a maker, from the fact that it is an effect, like jars, &c.; that which has the afore-mentioned middle term (_sádhana_) must have the afore-mentioned major (_sádhya_); and that which has not the former will not have the latter, as the soul, &c.[115] The argument which establishes the authority of the original inference to prove a Supreme Being has been given elsewhere, so we refrain from giving it at length here. In fact, that God is the universal agent, but not irrespective of the actions done by living beings, is proved by the current verse[116]-- "This ignorant _jívátman_, incapable of its own true pleasures or pains, if it were only under God's direction [and its own merits not taken into account], would always go to heaven or always to hell."[117] Nor can you object that this opinion violates God's independence, since it does not really violate an agent's independence to allow that he does not act irrespectively of means; just as we say that the king's bounty shows itself in gifts, but these are not irrespective of his treasurer. As has been said by the Siddha Guru-- "It belongs to independence to be uncontrolled and itself to employ means, &c.; "This is an agent's true independence, and not the acting irrespectively of works, &c." And thus we conclude that inference (as well as Śruti) establishes the existence of an agent who knows the various fruits [of action], their means, material causes, &c., according to the laws of the various individual merits. This has been thus declared by the venerable Bṛihaspati-- "He who knows the fruits to be enjoyed, their means and material causes,-- "Apart from him this world knows not how the desert that resides in accumulated actions should ripen."-- "The universe is the subject of our argument, and it must have had an intelligent maker, "This we maintain from its being an effect, just as we see in any other effect, as jars, &c." God's omniscience also is proved from his being identical with everything, and also from the fact that an ignorant being cannot produce a thing.[118] This has been said by the illustrious Mṛigendra[119]-- "He is omniscient from his being the maker of all things: for it is an established principle