________________
EXAMINATION OF THE PERSON OF SUPER-NORMAL VISION'. 1445
absence of the apprehension of all men ? The Non-apprehension also,-is it meant to be without any qualification,-as is shown by the absence of any such qualifying phrase as of what fulfills the conditions of apprehensibility'? Or is it meant to bo qualified in some way -The non-existence of the Omniscient Person cannot be proved by unqualified Non-apprehension by yourself.
This is what is pointed out in the following
TEXT (3270).
MERE non-apprehension' CANNOT PROVE HIS NON-EXISTENCE. BECAUSE APPREHENSION IS NEITHER THE 'CAUSE 'NOR THE PERVADER'
OF THINGS.-(3270)
COMMENTARY.
The term 'mere has been added with a view to exclude the qualification 'fulfilling the conditions of apprehensibility:
Cannot prove His non-existence i.e. cannot prove the non-existence of the Omniscient Person.
"Why?"
Bocause, in regard to things, Apprehension is neither the cause nor the pervader':--As a matter of fact, Apprehension by people of limited vision is not the pervader' of things in the sense in which the Tree' is the
pervader' of the Shimahapa' (a particular Tree).-That is, all things are not apprehended, just as all trees are not Shimshapă; i.e. being a thing' is wider than being apprehended "); because even when the thing' is there, there may be no "apprehension of it by reason of remoteness and other circumstances.-Nor is apprehension the cause of things in the sense in which Fire is the cause of Smoke; because it is the things that are the cause of apprehension.When one thing is neither the cause 'nor the
pervader' of another thing, the absence of one cannot mean the absence of the other; for, if it did, there would be incongruities. As regards the presence of the Non-apprehension of the effect, it does not imply the absence of all Causos, but implies the absence of only that Cause whose capacity is untrammelled; and in the case in question, for men of limited vision, the capacity of things to bring about Apprehension is not entrammelled; by virtue of which the absence of Apprehension could prove the non-existence of the things.-(3270)
Question :-"Even when there is absence of the Cause' and the Pervader', why should that imply the absence of something else ?"
Answer:
45
