1959 Verse 3132-3133

Original

भावाभावस्वरूपं वा जगत्सर्वं यदोच्यते ।
तत्संक्षेपेण सर्वज्ञः पुरुषः केन नेष्यते ॥ ३१३२ ॥
एवं ज्ञेयप्रमेयत्वसंक्षेपेणापि सर्वताम् ।
आश्रित्य यदि सर्वज्ञः कस्तं वारयितुं क्षमः ॥ ३१३३ ॥

bhāvābhāvasvarūpaṃ vā jagatsarvaṃ yadocyate |
tatsaṃkṣepeṇa sarvajñaḥ puruṣaḥ kena neṣyate || 3132 ||
evaṃ jñeyaprameyatvasaṃkṣepeṇāpi sarvatām |
āśritya yadi sarvajñaḥ kastaṃ vārayituṃ kṣamaḥ || 3133 ||

“If the thing related to the context is some such thing as oil, water or clarified butter,—and if a person knowing all about such a thing is called ‘all-knowing’,—then he may be so; we do not deny that.”—(3131)

Kamalaśīla

“Further, is the ‘all-knowing’ person regarded as such—because he knows a little of the universe as a whole? Or because he knows the whole of it in full detail?—If the former, then it is futile; it being admitted by us.—This is pointed out in the following—[see verses 3132-3133 above]

“The whole world, consisting of things that are mutually exclusive, is ‘negative’; and when the things are spoken of positively, it is ‘positive’ thus these two characters, ‘positive’ and ‘negative’, have been described by us as standing for the entire universe; if, it is on the basis of the knowledge of the whole world in this form (as consisting of Positive and Negative entities), that the ‘Omniscient Person’ is sought to be proved,—even this is acceptable to us. But this alone cannot prove the ‘omniscient character’ of any person”.

‘This epitome of the world ’—Being of the Positive and Negative form constitutes the ‘epitome’ of the World, in the sense that it epitomises it.

Similarly if the whole world is viewed as ‘knowable’, ‘cognisable’, etc.—and one knowing it thus is ‘all-knowing’,—then this also is what is readily admitted by us.—(3132-3133)