________________
EXAMINATION OF THE 'PERSON OF SUPER-NORMAL VISton'. 1431
TEXT (3229).
"IT IS NOT CONCEIVABLE THAT THESE TEACHERS SHOULD HAVE COMPILED THEIR WORKS AND THEN IMPARTED THEM TO OTHERS, WITHOUT HAVING FOUND, OR SHOWED TO THE PUPILS, THE
ORIGINAL VEDIO TEXTS.”—(3229)
COMMENTARY. * Imparted '-Taught.
Thus, it having been found that the Omniscient Person cannot fall within the scope of any of the five Means of Knowledge, -it follows that he must fall within that of the sixth, Non-apprehension, Negation. Hence the Reason that he is envisaged by Negation' becomes established.-That this Reason is not Inconclusive has been already shown above; that this is so is proved by the fact that the regarding of the Person as non-existent cannot have any other cause.—(3229)
Some people have held the following opinion :-We do not seek to single out any particular person as being omniscient; all that we seek to prove is the possibility of there being such a Person; our idea being that there is some one who is omniscient,-or that omniscience does exist in some personas can be deduced from the fact that there are ascending grades of wisdom.
The answer to these is as follows:
TEXTS (3230-3231).
"IF PROOFS WERE ADDUCED TO PROVE THAT THERE IS SOME ONE WHO IS OMNISCIENT', OR THAT THERE IS OMNISCIENCE IN SOME MAN',THEN THAT WOULD FALL SHORT OF YOUR PROPOSITION. IN FAOT THESE ASSERTIONS DO NOT REPRESENT WHAT IS MEANT TO BE PROVED. THERE IS NO PURPOSE IN PROVING WHAT IS ASSERTED IN THE ABOVE FORM.”
(3230-3231)
COMMENTARY.
It has been explained before that the Reason adduced by the Buddhist is Inconclusive; the Mimämsaka therefore proceeds to point out the defects in his 'subject' (Proposition).
What the Buddhist wishes to prove is the omniscience of his own Teacher, -not merely Omniscience in general. Because, when the Omniscient Person is sought for by the intelligent man,-it cannot be for mere fun. The man seeking for Him does so with the idea that— From His words I shall find out what Dharma and Adharma are and regulate my activity or inactivity accordingly'. Even if the existence of the Omniscient Person in general were proved, it could have no effect upon the activity of the
