________________
1432
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXVI.
man; because there can be no conviction regarding the words of such a Person until a particular person had been found to be really such. Hence it is the particular Omniscient Person whose existence should be proved by one who wishes to regulate his activity. Thus therefore the general assertion would be far short of the Proposition.
* What is meant to be proved-i.e. the fact that one wishes to establish.
Sahi.e. the particular Omniscient Person, in the person of your own Teacher.
Anaya'--the Proposition now put forward.
What is asserted'-i.e. the vague statement that some Omniscient Person exists' or 'omniscience belongs to some one',- without reference to any particular person. By the proving of such a Proposition, no useful purpose would be served.-(3230-3231)
Question - How so? Answer:
TEXT (3232)
" BY PROVING some OMNISCIENT PERSON IN GENERAL, YOU CANNOT GET AT THAT PARTICULAR PERSON WHOSE OMNISCIENCE YOU ARE ASSERTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THE
TRUTHFULNESS OF HIS WORD."-(3232)
COMMENTARY.
Question :- Why cannot such a Person be got at? Answer
TEXT (3233).
" SO LONG AS Buddha is NOT PROVED TO BE OMNISCIENT, HIS WORDS REMAIN FALSE (UNRELIABLE). HOW CAN THE TRUTHFULNESS OF BUDDHA BE ESTABLISHED BY THE PROVING OF some
OMNISCIENT PERSON IN GENERAL ?"-(3233)
COMMENTARY.
Because so long as the Omniscience of Buddha himself is not proved, there can be no certainty regarding the truthfulness of His Word-On the proving of some Omniscient Person in general, the truthfulness of Buddha's words does not become established. Because the requisite Invariable Concomitance is not there.---(3233)
The same idea is further elucidated :
