________________
EXAMINATION OY THE 'PERSON OF SUPER-NORMAL VISION'. 1441
The knowledge is clear, free from impurities, and aberrations obstructing the vision of things to be known it is unflinching', not shaken by the gusts of passion, etc.-The knowledge is spoken of as 'light', because it illumines things; all things-Dharma, etc.- become manifested'-made known. The irregular compounding is done on the strength of implication.
No reason has been adduced, etc. etc.'-i.e. any proof to the contrary.It is not only that no proof has been adduced ; in fact, there can be no proof to the contrary.
(A) For instance, there can be no Perception annulling the idea of the Omniscient Person ; because He is not amenable to that Means of Cognition. It is only when a thing is amenable to Perception that, if it is cognised as something contrary to its well-known form, such cognition is annulled by Perception; e.g. when Sound is cognised as inaudible, this Cognition is annulled by the perception of audibility. There can be no such annulment in a case where Perception is not applicable at all. As a matter of fact, the Cognitions appearing in the Chain of other people are never amenable to perception by one who is not omniscient; and it could be only if such were the case, that the assertion of Omniscience could be annulled by Perception. And the reason for this inapplicability of Perception lies in the fact that all men are possessed of limited powers of vision. If such Cognitions were amenable to Perception by any one, that person himself would be omniscient; and hence Omniscience could not be denied.
The following might be urged-"We do not mean that it is by being applied to the Omniscient Person that Perception proves His non-existence, but as being inapplicable to it. That is, when Perception is not applicable to a certain thing, it proves the non-existence of that thing: 0.g. in the case of the 'Hare's Horns'. In a case where Perception does apply, the thing perceived does exist; as in the case of things like the Sword. As regards the Omniscient Person, Perception has never been found to be applicable; hence, from this inapplicability of Perception it is inferred that the Person does not exist ”.
This is entirely irrelevant. Because the conclusion that is deduced from the inapplicability of Perception cannot be said to have been brought about by Perception ; because presence (applicability) and absence (non-applicability) cannot co-exist in the same thing. Further, the inapplicability of Perception is not invariably concomitant with non-existence of the thing concerned, and it is only if it were so that the non-existence could be inferred from inapplicability of Perception; because even when a thing is there, Perception is found to be inapplicable, if the thing is hidden or remote, etc.
The following might be urged " We do not say that the inapplicability of Perception proves non-existence; all that we mean is that when the Perception is inoperative, it proves the non-existence ".
This is a mere change in the wording of your statement; there is no difference in the meaning; mere change of words cannot alter facts; or else there would be incongruities.--Because cessation', or not-operating' of a thing means the denial or negation of existence; the same meaning is also expressed by the word become inoperative ', ceased'; the only
