________________
EXAMINATION OF THE PERSON OF SUPER-NORMAL VISION'. 1457
of his not being apprehended by other people who have limited vision, then this Reason is Inconclusive; because, like your own 'Non-apprehension, the said Non-apprehension by other men of limited vision would have no 'connection', in the shape of invariable concomitance with the nonexistence of the Omniscient Person'.
The second sentence- One's own illness, etc. etc.-is meant to support the said absence of connection.--(3292)
So far it has been proved that Non-apprehension as the proof (for the non-existence of the Omniscient Person) is 'Inconclusive' as well as "Inad. missible',-Now the author proceeds to show that the other Reason-Because His body is envisaged by the only means of Cognition, Negationis doubt. ful—hence-inadmissible
TEXTS (3293-3295).
EVEN SOME MEN WITH LIMITED VISION DO APPREHEND THE OMNISCIENT PERSON THROUGH INFERENCE ; AND IT IS ONLY A FEW NOTIONS OF SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE PERFECTLY CORREOT. FOR INSTANCE, THE PROOF OF THE MOMENTARY CHARACTER OF THE VEDA, THE EARTH AND OTHER THINGS THOUGH CLEARLY STATED BY US, HAS NOT BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY DULL-WITTED MEN. Con SEQUENTLY, THE MATTER IS OPEN TO DOUBT AND THE ABSENCE OF APPREHENSION CANNOT BE CERTAIN, SIMPLY BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE ARE SURE THAT THEY PERCEIVE
HIS NON-EXISTENCE.-(3293-3295)
COMMENTARY.
There are some clever mon, even among men with limited vision, who do apprehend the Omniscient Person by means of Inference; hence the probability of His existence being there, the Reason-because He forms the object of Negation as the Means of knowledge is open to the charge of being 'Doubtful-hence-Inadmissible'.-For instance, the fact of such things as the Vedio Word, the Earth, Mountains, Body, Diamond and the rest, being momentary and Soul-loss-though it is not apprehended by the beastly Mimāmsakas,- is true, as proved by us through strong reasons. So that if, in regard to the Omniscient Person, proof is not found at the present moment, yet as His existence is probable, the matter may be in doubt; hence it cannot be admitted that the said Person is subject only to Negation, which consists in the absence of all the other five Means of Cognition such a Reason being open to doubt.
Because there being no proof of it.-(3293-3295)
Then again, it may be that all men with limited vision are not capable of inferring the existence of the Omniscient Person ; even so, the Reason of the other party remains Inconclusive.--This is pointed out in the following.
