________________
EXAMINATION OF THE 'PERSON OF SUPER-NORMAL VISION'. 1405
called 'omniscient' because he knows all things; this knowledge of all things could be either through Sense-perception or through Mental Perception. -It cannot be through Sense-perception; because the scope of such Perception is limited and it cannot envisage all things; this reasoning may be thus formulated —Perceptions through the eye and other Sense-organs are restricted in their scope, because they are produced by the Sense-organs which are always restricted in their scope; that is why in ordinary life, they are never found to go beyond the bounds of those limitations; consequently the apprehension of all things through these is an impossibility. Otherwise there would be no need for more than ono sense-organ; and the result of this would be that all such divergent things as Taste, Odour, etc. would become apprehended by means of a single Cognition! The Buddhist who makes such an astounding assumption,-as is clear from bis assertion that "By one He knows all, by one He sees everything", --could apprehend all such divergent things as Taste, Odour, etc.; through the one Perception proceeding from the eye alone!
No such assertion can be made ; for if it were so, then there would be the apprehension of several things through a single Cognition at one and the same time. It could be possible only through several Cognitions ; because there cannot be several Cognitions at one and the same time. Even if it were possible, there could be no apprehension of all things; because the mind of another person cannot be envisaged by the Sense-perception of any man; nor is it possible for him to apprehend, by its means, things beyond the reach, of the senses, such as those that are remote or too small or hidden and so forth.-(3157-3158)
The following might be urged–Though it is true that at present the perceptions derived from the Eye and other sense-organs do not apprehend diverse and heterogeneous things, yet it is possible that at some time in the past, such apprehension of divergent heterogeneous things did appear in a certain Person.
The answer to this is as follows
TEXT (3159).
** As A MATTER OF FACT, THE PERCEPTION OF CERTAIN THINGS THROUGH CERTAIN CAUSES IN THE PAST WAS EXACTLY AS IT IS FOUND TO
APPEAR AT THE PRESENT TIME."-(3159)
COMMENTARY.
The nature of things is always determined by the exact concomitance of definite causes, not haphazard. If it were not so, then all characters could be attributed to all things; and if such were the case, then how could it ever be possible for the nature determined by causes to be otherwise ? That is to say, it is not possible for the Smoke-which has its existence concomitant with Fire-to be produced from anything else.
