________________
EXAMINATION OF THE 'PERSON OF SUPER-NORMAL VISION'.
1519
TEXT (3458). NOR IS THE TEACHING THE ASSERTION OF DEMENTED PEOPLE WITH DISORDERED MINDS; BECAUSE IT IS FOUND TO BE IN A REGULAR SEQUENCE AND IS AN EXCELLENT YULFILLER OF ITS
PURPOSE.-(3458)
COMMENTARY.
Demented persons with disordered minds cannot make any such long assertions as appear in well-ordered sequence, as a connected whole accomplishing the purposes of man.
Thus it becomes established that there has been some one who possessed the direct knowledge of Dharma and allied matters.-(3458)
The following might be urged— "It might have been established in a general way; but even so, what you wished to prove was the fact that Buddha had the knowledge of Dharma; how is that proved "?
In answer to this, the Author proceeds to show that the Blessed Lord did possess the knowledge of Dharma :
TEXTS (3459-3461). WHEN A PERSON WHO, INTENT UPON THE TRUTH, WHICH IS NEITHER
HEARD OF NOR INFERRED, EXPOUNDS IT, SUCH AN EXPOUNDER MUST BE REGARDED AS ONE WHO HAS HAD DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THAT TRUTH; FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE MAN WHO HAS ACTUALLY SEEN WATER, POINTS IT OUT TO OTHERS; THE GREAT SAGE, INTENT UPON THE TRUTH, HAS ACTUALLY EXPOUNDED, WITH YIRM CONVICTION, THE TRUTH WHICH HAD NEVER BEEN TEARD OF OR INFERRED, WHICH IS BEYOND THE REACH OF THE SENSES, THE POTENCIES OF WHICH, LIKE THOSE OF GESTURES, MAGIC CIRCLES AND THE LIKE, ARE NOT KNOWN TO OTHERS.-(3459-3461)
COMMENTARY.
The argument may be thus formulated :-One who, intent upon the Truth, teaches the truth regarding unheard of and un-inferred things, he must be regarded as being directly cognisant of the real essence of those things,-.g. the man who, having actually seen water, points it out to others; the Blessed Lord has actually taught such Truths; hence this is a Reason based upon the nature of things.
The truthfulness of the Teachings having been already established, the Reason cannot be said to be 'Inadmissible',-Nor is it 'Inconclusive'as has been shown already.--And as all our Reasons are present wherever the Probandum is present, the Reason cannot be regarded as 'Contradictory'.
