________________
EXAMINATION OF THE PERSON OF SUPER-NORMAL VISTON'. 1417
TEXT (3189).
"THE ASSERTION IS TRUE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE OMNISCIENT PERSON, AND SUCH AN OMNISCIENT PERSON EXISTS BECAUSE HE ASSERTS IT. HOW CAN BOTH THESE NOTIONS BE ESTABLISHED WITHOUT SOME OTHER WELL
KNOWN BASIS?"-(3189)
COMMENTARY.
As a matter of fact, there can be no certainty regarding the reliability of his word unless it is recognised that it has been spoken by an Omniscient Person; and that the speaker is omniscient is learnt from his own words ; hence there is clear interdependence.
Without some other well-known basis '-i.e. some other well-known reason.-(3189)
The following might be urged-The existence of the Omniscient Person is accepted on the basis of the words of such men as ShrävakaAchchhäriputra (?), who says- This worthy scion of the Shakya-race is omniscient!
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (3190).
“WHEN PEOPLE ADMIT OF THE OMNISCIENT PERSON ON THE BASIS OF THE BASELESS ASSERTIONS OF PERSONS WHO ARE NOT OMNISCIENT, WHY CANNOT THEY DERIVE THE SAME KNOWLEDGE
FROM THEIR OWN WORDS?"-(3190)
COMMENTARY.
The assertion of men whose reliability has not been demonstrated dous not differ from one's own assertion; hence there is no reason why the Buddhists should not derive their knowledge of the Omniscient Person from their own words. We see no reason-except stupidity--why they should seek to know it from the words of other persons.-(3190)
V
The following view might be held-There have been innumerable Tathagatas (Enlightened Ones) in the past and they are going to appear in the future ; and it is from the words of one of these that we derive the knowledge of the omniscience of the other; and that of the omniscience of the former from the words of a third, and so forth.
The answer to this is as follows:
