________________
EXAMINATION OF THE 'PERSON OF SUPRR-NORMAL VISION'. 1561
TEXTS (3594-3595).
THE MAN OF LIMITED VISION, HAVING PERCEIVED A FEW DESIRABLE THINGS, FIXES THEM IN HIS MIND, AND SUBSEQUENTLY DESCRIBES THEM, ON THE BASIS OF THOSE PERCEPTIONS AND YET IT IS NOT THAT HIS WORDS DO NOT PROCEED FROM HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE THINGS; THE SAME WOULD BE THE CASE WITH THE ASSERTION OF THE OMNISOLENT PERSON; THE DIFFERENCE WOULD LIE IN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BASIS OF THE TWO ASSER
TIONS.(3594-3595)
COMMENTARY
Heart, etc. Fromde do proceed from the
The man of limited vision'-.e one who is not omniscient.
'Proceed from his knowledge, etc. etc.'—the knowledge of those thingsHeart, etc. from which proceeds the assertion. The two negatives 'no-na! indicato that the words do proceed from the said knowledge of the things.
The same, etc. etc.'-That also would be reliable as proceeding from the said actual knowledge.
Question - "If this is so, then what would be the difference between the words of the man who knows little and the words of Buddha, the Omniscient?"
Answer: The difference would lie, etc. etc. (3594-3595)
reliable as proceed
The same idea is further clarified:
TEXT (3596).
WHAT FORMS THE SOURCE OF THE WORDS (Or Buddha) IS THE KNOWLEDGE
OF ALL THINGS; WHILE THE SOURCE OF THE WORDS OF THE OTHER PERSON CONSISTS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF
ONLY A FEW THINGS.-(3596).
"COMMENTARY.
'Asya'-of the words of Buddha.
Tasya'-of the words of the man who knows only a part of things.3596)
The opponents urge the following objootion :
