________________
EXAMINATION OF THE PERSON OF SUPER-NORMAL VISION'. 1461
TEXTS (3303-3306).
THOUGH EXISTENT, HE WOULD NOT BE SEEN DIRECTLY BY DULL-WITTED
PERSONS ; JUST LIKE THE CONCEPTIONS OF OTHER PEOPLE. NOR IS HE CONSTANTLY ACTIVE, JUST AS THE FIRE IN THE IRON-BALL IS NOT ACTIVE. EVEN WHEN THERE, HIS ACTIVITY WOULD NOT BE PERCEPTIBLE, LIKE THE FEELING OF LOVE ARISING IN OTHERS OUT OF THEIR FANCIES. EVEN TY HIS ACTIVITY WOULD BE PERCEPTIBLE, HIS CONNECTION WITH SUCH ACTION WOULD NOT BE COGNISED; BECAUSE THE PERSON KNOWING ALL THINGS IS ALWAYS IMPERCEPTIBLE FOR PEOPLE WHOSE EYE OF COGNITION IS DULL. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT HIS EXISTENCE CANNOT BE PROVED BY MEANS or INFERENCE. IT HAS BEEN ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT THERE CAN BE NO CAUSE' OR 'PERVADER' IN HIS CASE. AND YET IT HAS BEEN SEEN THAT EVEN WHEN THE INFERENCE OF THE THING IS NOT POSSIBLE, THE THING DOES EXIST. THUS IT IS THAT THE MATTER (OF THE NON-EXISTENCE OF THE OMNISCIENT PERSON) REMAINS IN DOUBT.-(3303–3306)
COMMENTARY. Saksāt', 'Directly, is to be construed with Naksyota', would not be seen.
As a matter of fact, there is nothing that must be cognised once-on the basis of which it could be argued that "because there is no Cognition of the Omniscient Person, He cannot exist." ;-because the conception of one man, though existent, is not cognised by other mon. Nor is it necessary that causes should always be bringing about their effects,-on the ground whereof it could be argued that as the action of the Omniscient Person is not perceptible, He cannot exist " ; because it is found that even when the Fire in the Red Hot Iron has not begun to produce Smoke, it is still seen there.
Granting (for the sake of argument) that causes are constantly active in bringing about their Effects; oven so, there can be no certainty regarding the absence of those Effects ; because all the Effects that are produced are not always perceived ; and it is only if it were so, that the non-perception of the Effect could prove the non-existence of the Cause; because, even when produoed, the Effect is not always perceived ;- as in the case of the Love pro. ceeding from fancies, in other men'; in the case of another person, it is found that though Love has been produced in his mind by fancies regarding the agreeable character of things, such Love is not perceived by other men; and yet it is not regarded as non-existent.
Or, even in cases where the effect is perceived, if its cause is something imperceptible, and the observer is unable to perceive its affirmative and negative concomitances, -no inference of that cause is possible. Similarly even when the Omniscient Person is there, it is quite possible that His existence cannot be proved by Inforence.
People whose eye of Cognition is dull.' The Cognition is the Eye ; and those whose this eye is dull.
46
