________________
EXAMINATION OF THE 'PERSON OF SUPER-NORMAL VISION'. 1433
TEXT (3234). * THE OMNISCIENCE OF ONE PERSON CANNOT ESTABLISH THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE WORD OF ANOTHER PERSON. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE TWO ARE CO-SUBSTRATE--THAT THEY SUPPORT ONE
ANOTHER."-(3234)
COMMENTARY.
Question-When is there invariable concomitance between the two (Omniscience and Truthfulness)?
Answer: It is only, etc. etc. - Co-substrates'-subsisting in the same Person.- Tayoh '-between 'omniscience' and truthfulness of word ':• Support'-signifies causal relation.
What is meant is as follows - It is only when the two reside in the same Person that Omniscience can be the reason for truthfulne88; not otherwise. If it were not so, there would be incongruities.-(3234)
The following Texts show that these same arguments serve to reject the argument that other people have put forward in support of the existence of the Omniscient Person :
TEXTS (3235–3237).
"[THE ARGUMENT PUT FORWARD IS]—' ALL THE THINGS THAT THERE ARE IN THIS WORLD MUST BE PERCEPTIBLE TO SOME PERSON,-BECAUSE THEY ARE ENTITIES, COGNISABLE AND KNOWABLE,-LIKE THE CURD, COLOUR, TASTE AND OTHER THINGS':-INASMUCH AS MERE KNOWLEDGE IS MENTIONED, IT FALLS SHORT OF THE ORIGINAL PROPOSITION (OF THE BUDDHIST); SO THAT THE 'OMNISOIENT PERSON' WHOSE EXISTENCE IS DESIRED TO BE PROVED DOES NOT BECOME ESTABLISHED IN THIS MANNER.-IF SOME PERSON OTHER THAN Buddha HAD BECOME OMNISCIENT, OF WHAT USE COULD THIS KNOWLEDGE BE IN THE PROVING OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE WORDS
OF BUDDHA ? "-(3235-3237)
COMMENTARY. Whatever is endowed with cognisability, lenowability and the character of being an entity, must be perceptible to some person,-.g. the Curd, Colour, Taste and so forth, all things have the said characters of knowability, etc.; -hence this is a Reason based upon the nature of things.
Here also, as before, it has to be pointed out that the conclusion falls far short of the desired Proposition, and the Reason is Inconclusive.
