________________
EXAMINATION OF THE PERSON OF SUPER-NORMAL VISION'.
1565
TEXTS (3606-3610). IT THAT IS SO, THEN, THE PRINCIPLE ACCEPTED BY ALL RELATIONA
IS THAT A Reductio ad Absurdum (IN THIS CASE) CAN BE URGED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF A CHARACTER THAT IS ACCEPTED ON MERE FAITH; IF IT WERE BASED UPON WELL-KNOWN REASONS, THERE WOULD BE INDEPENDENT (DIRECT) ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE SCRIPTURE THAT IS POSTULATED BY THE OTHER PARTY (THE BUDDHIST) AS COMPOSED BY THE OMNISCIENT PERSON, IS AS THUS DESCRIBED-'WITHOUT ANY APPURTENANCES, THE TEACHINGS OF THAT PERSON PROCEED FREELY EVEN FROM THE WALLS,-AS IF THEY WERE COMING OUT OF THE Chintamani GEM'-THUS THEN IT IS PURELY THROUGH supervision THAT HE IS REGARDED AS THE 'COMPOSER' OF THE TEACHINGS; HENCE HIS speakership NEED NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY CONCEPTUAL CONTENT.-Thus THEN, WHEN YOU ASSERT THAT—"WE ARE WANTING IN THAT FAITH AND HENCE ASK FOR REASONS "-YOU DO SO WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IS MEANT BY Reductio ad Absurdum.-(3606-3610)
COMMENTARY. That character which the other party admits on the basis of the Scripture alone,-that alone should be urged in the Reductio ad Absurdum ;-such is the well-recognised principle. Now, if the other party (Buddhist) had held the fact of the Scripture being composed by the Person on the ground of His speakership,-then there could be some point in urging that--"if He is not the speaker, then the Scripture could not have been composed by Him”. As a matter of fact, however, when Buddha is regarded as the composer (Author) of the Scripture, it is only as a Supervisor, an over-lord, not as the actual speaker.-Consequently, the argument that you have urged in the form of the Reductio ad Absurdum,--that “if He is the composer of the Scripture, He must be the speaker",-is one that has been urged by you without knowing what is meant by Reductio ad Absurdum'.-(3606-3610)
It has been argued, under Tert 3244, that-"Teachings issuing from walls could not be accepted as taught by a Reliable Person".
The answer to this is as follows:
TEXT (3611). WHY SHOULD WORDS ISSUING FROM THE WALLS not BE ACCEPTED AS TAUGHT BY A RELIABLE PERSON, WHEN THEY ARE PROMPTED
BY HIS OVER-LORDSHIP !-(3611)
COMMENTARY. If the teachings had not been prompted by the over-lordship of the Omniscient Person, then they might not be accepted as those of a Reliable
