________________
EXAMINATION OF THE 'PERSON OF SUPER-NORMAL VISION'. 1415
consequently, it cannot apprehend the mind, etc. occurring in other Chains', or even such mental operations occurring in one's own Chain 'as are yet to come. As regards the Perception by Mystics,-such perception forms the subject matter of dispute ; hence the question regarding the Omniscient Person being perceived or not perceived by Mystics does not arise at all.
(2) "Nor can the Omniscient Person be proved by means of Inference. The Buddhists have regarded Inference as based upon three kinds of Indicative (Probans)-(viz. :-(a) Based on non-apprehension, (b) Based on causal relation, and (c) Based on the nature of things]. (a) In the present instance, what is needed is a positive reason, hence there is no room for non-apprehension. (6) Nor is there room for causal relation ; because the causal relation is always based upon Perception, and no Perception is possible of the far off Omniscient Person ; whose causal relation with anything therefore is impossible.-(c) As for the nature of things, any Reason based upon that also cannot prove the existence of the Omniscient Person ; because such a Person himself being imperceptible, his nature, which must be inseparable from himself, cannot be apprehended; hence it cannot serve as an Indicative which is perceived'-well-known, recognised, -as being part'-of the
Subject' (Omniscient Person),- leading to the inference of the Omniscient Person.
Then aguin, any Reason that may be adduced in proof of the existence of the Omniscient Person, cannot escape from the three kinds of flaw (fallacy)
-being 'inadmissiblo', 'contradictory' and 'inconclusive'. For instance, when the Reason is adduced, is it adduced as a property belonging to a positive entity ? Or to a negative entity ? Or to both ?-These are the only three alternatives possible.--As regards the Omniscient Person, there can be no such Property belonging to a positive entity' as is admitted by both parties; because that positive entity itself (in the shape of the Omniscient Person) is yet to be proved if he were admitted, there would be no dispute at all; if a party accepts the idea of such a property belonging to that entity, how could he not accept the entity itself? Because the mere property cannot exist without its substratum in the shape of the entity.Nor can the Reason proving the Omniscient Person consist of a property belonging to a negative entity ; because such a Reason would prove the non-existence of the entity, and hence it would be contradictory'.-Nor, lastly, can the Reason be one that belongs to both; because such a Reason would be inconclusive. How could any Reason which belongs to both positive and negative entities serve as proving the existence of an entity, which it could do only if it were inseparable from the entity, and if it were excluded from existence in the Negative Entity, which is present in cases where the contrary of the Probandum is present ?
Thus none of the three kinds of Indicative, as part of the Subject, can bring about the Inference of the Omniscient Person, whose existence, therefore, cannot be proved.--(3186)
The following Text shows that the Omniscient Person cannot be cognised by means of the Word :
