________________
EXAMINATION OF THE 'PERSON OF SUPER-NORMAL VISION'. 1513
were cognised by another cognition, then, as its own apprehension would be impossible, there could be no cognition of things. Consequently 'selfillumination is the most important character of Consciousness. This 'self' of the Consciousness is something entirely ephemeral; hence, by implication, it follows that Consciousness is of the nature of the 'Perception of Truth'.(3436-3437)
The following might be urged "Consciousness may be of the nature of the Perception of Truth; oven so, inasmuch as things destroyed are liable to appear again,--all the Reasons that have been adduced are irresistibly Inconclusive'."
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXTS (3438-3440).
WHEN, THUS, THE 'PATH' HAS BECOME IDENTIFIED WITH HIM, THERE
CAN BE NO SUPPRESSION OF IT BY LOVE, HATRED AND OTHER DEFECTS, SINCE THEY HAD BEEN ALREADY FEEBLE BEFORE. THE 'PATH' -WHICH IS DESTRUCTIVE OF ALL DEFECTS, HAVING BECOME THUS IDENTIFIED, THERE CAN BE NO LOSS OF IT WITHOUT EFFORT; AND THERE CAN BE NO SUCH EFFORT, AS ITS GOOD POINTS HAVE BEEN PERCEIVED.-THUS IT IS THAT Jina IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE OMNISCIENT PERSON ADORNED BY A PURE AND FIRM HOST OF GOOD QUALITIES, WHOSE SOUL CANNOT BE SHAKEN BY THE STORM OF DEFECTS.—(3438-3440)
COMMENTARY.
Even before the identification of the 'Path', the impurities of Love, etc., already feeble on account of their adventitious character, are unable to suppress that Path; how then can they suppress the Path when it has become identified and absorbed?
Further, when the quality of the Mind has become absorbed, it cannot be removed without effort; just as the cruel nature of the Vedic sacrificer and the Demon (?) cannot be removed. Nor is it possible for any wise man to make an effort to get rid of what has been found to be possessed of good qualities.--'Why?"-Because its good points have been perceived. This has been already explained before.
Apakşāla' is Defect.—(3438–3440)
Or again, the character of being an entity' and so forth, which you have put forward (under Text 3157 et seq.) as reasons for denying the existence of the Omniscient Person,--are themselves enough to prove His existence. In
