2039 Verse 3287-3288

Original

मा वाभूदुपदेशोऽस्य प्रामाण्यं वा तथाऽपि वः ।
कृतोऽयं निश्चयः सर्वैः सर्वविन्नोपलभ्यते ॥ ३२८७ ॥
एवं हि निश्चयो हि स्यात्सर्वसत्त्वात्मदर्शने ।
तद्दृष्टौ सर्वविद्भूतो भवानिति च वर्णितम् ॥ ३२८८ ॥

mā vābhūdupadeśo’sya prāmāṇyaṃ vā tathā’pi vaḥ |
kṛto’yaṃ niścayaḥ sarvaiḥ sarvavinnopalabhyate || 3287 ||
evaṃ hi niścayo hi syātsarvasattvātmadarśane |
taddṛṣṭau sarvavidbhūto bhavāniti ca varṇitam || 3288 ||

Or, there may be no such assertion (regarding the existence of the omniscient person); nor may such assertion be reliable; even so, you have come to the certainty that “the omniscient person is not apprehended by any man”; and such certainty could be possible only if the souls of all men were known to you; and if all these were known to you, then you yourself would be omniscient,—as has been pointed out above.—(3287-3288)

Kamalaśīla

So far it has been explained that the absence of one’s own apprehension of the Omniscient Person cannot serve as a proof of His non-existence;—because, without a qualification, it is inconclusive, and with a qualification, it has no substratum;—now the Author proceeds to explain that the absence of the apprehension of all men also cannot serve as proof of the non-existence of the Omniscient Person; because such non-apprehension by all men cannot be proven:—[see verses 3287-3288 above]

‘Assertion’—i.e. the one declaring the existence of the Omniscient Person.

‘Asya’—reliability of the said assertion.

‘If the Souls of all men were known’—i.e. if you knew the nature of all men.

It might be said—“We do have the knowledge of the nature of all men”.—The answer to this is—‘If all these were, etc. etc.’—i.e. if the souls of all men were known to you.—(3287-3288)