________________
1466
TATTVASANGRAHA: CHAPTER XXVI.
root being cut off,-if people go on asserting the existence of Omniscient Persons, it is like the thumping of husks".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (3317).
THE PERSON COGNISANT OF DHARMA 'NOT BEING REFUTED, ON ACCOUNT OF THE BOOT NOT BEING OUT OFT,IT PEOPLE HAVE ASSERTED THE EXISTENCE OY OMNISCIENT PERSONS THEY HAVE
SHOWN THEIR WISDOM BY TRIS.—(3317)
COMMENTARY.
There is an 'a' suppressed before 'hate'. *People'-The Buddhists.-(3317)
It has been argued by the Mimämsaka, under Text 3145, that "If the Person had the direct perception of all things, then He would have direct knowledge of such tastes, etc. also as are unclean ; who could assume the existence of such an Omniscient Person ?"
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXTS (3318-3319)
IF THE OMNISCIENT PERSON HAD EXPERIENCED THE UNCLEAN TASTE, ETO. THROUGH THE CONTACT OF HIS GESTATORY ORGAN, THEN ALONE COULD HE BE REGARDED AS BLAMEWORTHY. AS A MATTER OF FACT HOWEVER, THINGS,-EVEN THOSE THAT ARE DEPRECATED UNDER ILLUSION, BECOME COGNISED BY HIM WITHOUT ACTUAL CONTACT, THROUGH THE MIND, WHOSE PERCEPTIVENESS HAS BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE IMPRESSIONS OF PAST
EXPERIENCES.-(3318-3319)
COMMENTARY.
If the Omniscient Person had direct experience of the said tastes, etc. -even then that would not detract from His being the 'knower of Dharma'. -If it is urged that-"He would become blameworthy "-the answer is as follows:- The man who experiences the said Taste, etc. through the direct contact of these with the gestatory organ, becomes blameworthy; the Blessed Lord, however, has no such perception ; He perceives things only
