________________
EXAMINATION OF THE 'PERSON OF SUPER-NORMAL VISION'. 1463
TEXT (3309). WHAT IS PRIMARILY AND DIRECTLY UNDERSTOOD BY US IS THAT THERE IS A PERSON WHO KNOWS THE MEANS OF ATTAINING HEAVEN AND LIBERATION BUT NOT THIS ALONE ; IT IS ALSO BELIEVED THAT THERE IS A PERSON WHO ALSO
KNOWS all THINGS.-(3309)
COMMENTARY. What we are primarily concerned with proving is the fact that the Blessed Lord knows the means of attaining Heaven and Liberation; as for the proving of the fact of His knowing all things, without exception, that is done only incidentally; what we mean is that in matters other than Heaven and Liberation also, the knowledge of the Blessed Lord is not hampered by obstacles, and hence knowing all things, if He becomes Omniscient, there is nothing to prevent it. Hence it is not right for the wise to deny such omniscience ; but for those who seek to be sure of the omniscience, it is only right that they should try to secure that certainty. This is what is meant by us.-(3309)
Thus then, there being no proof against the existence of the Omniscient Person, and clear proof of His existence going to be set forth later on, the definite denial that you make of the Omniscient Person, whose recognition is certain, can be due only to delusion.
This is what is pointed out in the following: -
TEXT (3310). THUS THEN, THERE BEING NO REASONS AGAINST, WHILE THERE IS CLEAR
REASON IN SUPPORT OY IT, WHY SHOULD DULL-WITTED PERSONS
OBJECT TO THE IDEA OF THE OMNISCIENT PERSON 1-(3310)
COMMENTARY. The following might be urged " We deny the Omniscient Person because wo think that there is no proof in support of the existence of such a Person; and we do not deny Him through delusion".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (3311). EVEN IF THERE BE NO PROOF IN SUPPORT OF IT, SO LONG AS THERE IS NO REASON DEFINITELY AGAINST IT, THE MATTER SHOULD REMAIN IN DOUBT; ON WHAT COULD THIS CERTAINTY OF THESE
PEOPLE BE BASED ?-(3311)
COMMENTARY. What is said here is on granting the position of the Opponent for the sake of argument; in reality, there is definite proof in support, as is going to be shown later on.
