आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

नरान्दृष्ट्वा त्वसर्वज्ञान्सर्वानेवाधुनातनान् ।
सादृश्यस्योपमानेन शेषासर्वज्ञनिश्चयः ॥ ३२१६ ॥
उपदेशो हि बुद्धादेर्धर्माधर्मादिगोचरः ।
अन्यथा नोपपद्येत सर्वज्ञो यदि नो भवेत् ॥ ३२१७ ॥
प्रत्यक्षादौ निषिद्धेऽपि सर्वज्ञप्रतिपादके ।
अर्थापत्त्यैव सर्वज्ञमित्थं यः प्रतिपद्यते ॥ ३२१८ ॥

narāndṛṣṭvā tvasarvajñānsarvānevādhunātanān |
sādṛśyasyopamānena śeṣāsarvajñaniścayaḥ || 3216 ||
upadeśo hi buddhāderdharmādharmādigocaraḥ |
anyathā nopapadyeta sarvajño yadi no bhavet || 3217 ||
pratyakṣādau niṣiddhe’pi sarvajñapratipādake |
arthāpattyaiva sarvajñamitthaṃ yaḥ pratipadyate || 3218 ||

“Finding that all men of the present time are not omniscient,—the certainty is derived from analogy based upon this similarity, that all other men (of the past and the future) could not be omniscient.”—(3216)

“Some one may accept the omniscient person on the following grounds: (a) ‘the teachings of Buddha relating to dharma and adharma cannot be explained, if there be no omniscient person;—thus from presumption, one can admit the omniscient person,—even though it has been shown that perception and the other means of cognition are not capable of affording the knowledge of the said person’.”—(3217-3218)

Kamalaśīla

[verse 3216]:

Further, it is not only that the knowledge of the Omniscient Person cannot be derived from Analogy; on the contrary, it would be right for all men to deduce, from Analogy, the fact that there can be no Omniscient Person.

This is what is shown in the following—[see verse 3216 above]

In order to show that the Omniscient Person cannot be known through Presumption, the Vaidika puts forward the view of the other party:—[see verses 3217-3218 above]

[verses 3217-3218]:

‘The teachings of Buddha and others that are met with cannot be explained, except on the presumption of His omniscience;—i.e. if Dharma and all such things were not known to Him. Hence, even though Perception, etc. have been denied, as vouching for the existence of the Omniscient Person, yet through Presumption it becomes established that the Omniscient Person does exist’.

If any one holds this view, then he understands things wrongly. This is what is meant.—(3217-3218)