________________
EXAMINATION OF THE 'PERSON OF SUPER-NORMAL VISION'. 1541
men, according to you, might be under the influence of Delusion and other disabilities. Under the circumstances, it is quite possible to take the words relating to the Agnihotra as meaning that 'the Blessed Lord is omniscient'.
Any certainty, etc. etc.'-i.e. no certainty at all.-(3526-3527)
"It is not possible to com.
It has been argued under Text 3195, that prehend all the things cognised by all men".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXTS (3528-3529).
THAT ONE IS 'OMNISCIENT' IS UNDERSTOOD ONLY FROM THE CLEAR TEACHING THAT HE IMPARTS REGARDING HEAVEN AND THE HIGHEST GOOD: BECAUSE THAT BEARS TESTIMONY TO HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT MATTERS. OF WHAT USE IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE NUMBER OF SANDS OF THE SEAS? WHAT THEN HAVE WE GOT TO DO WITH HIS KNOWLEDGE OF OTHER THINGS?
(3528-3529)
COMMENTARY
It has been argued under Text 3200 that-"The descriptions that are met with of Omniscient Persons in the Purūnas, etc. should be understood in the figurative sense".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXTS (3530-3531).
THAT THE DESCRIPTIONS SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE FIGURATIVE
SENSE, LIKE THE Mantra AND Arthavāda TEXTS,-WOULD BE RIGHT ONLY AFTER THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF THE OMNISCIENT PERSON HAD BEEN REJECTED.-AS A MATTER OF FACT HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING TO ANNUL THE IDEA OF SUCH A PERSON; WHILE, ON THE CONTRARY, HIS EXISTENCE HAS BEEN ACTUALLY PROVED IN GREAT DETAIL. SO THAT THE IDEA OF ALL THIS BEING figurative MUST REMAIN DOUBTFUL: INASMUCH AS IT IS POSSIBLE FOR IT TO BE TRUE IN ITS PRIMARY SENSE.-(3530-3531)
COMMENTARY.
If the existence of the Omniscient Person had been rejected by proofs, then no other explanation being possible, the assertions in question might be taken in their figurative sense;- not otherwise, if the primary meaning were in any way possible. It cannot be right to regard the eternal Word to be mere Arthavāda; because an assertion is taken as an Arthavāda only when
51
