Original
अन्यथा संशयो युक्तोऽनुपलम्भेऽपि सत्त्ववत् ।
केचित्सर्वविदः सन्तो विदन्तीति हि सङ्क्यते ॥ ३२८९ ॥
स्वयमेवात्मनाऽऽत्मानमात्मज्योतिः स पश्यति ।
इत्यप्याशङ्क्यतेऽतश्च सर्वादृष्टिरनिश्चिता ॥ ३२९० ॥anyathā saṃśayo yukto’nupalambhe’pi sattvavat |
kecitsarvavidaḥ santo vidantīti hi saṅkyate || 3289 ||
svayamevātmanā’’tmānamātmajyotiḥ sa paśyati |
ityapyāśaṅkyate’taśca sarvādṛṣṭiraniścitā || 3290 ||If it were not so, then, even on non-apprehension, there would be doubt only (regarding the existence of the omniscient person),—just as there is regarding the existence of certain things.—There are some saintly persons too who are believed to have knowledge of the omniscient person—it is also conceivable that the omniscient person, being self-luminous, perceives himself by himself.—For these reasons there can be no certainty regarding the non-apprehension of the omniscient person by all men.—(3289-3290)
Kamalaśīla
‘If it were not so’,—if there is no knowledge of the Souls of all men.
‘Like the existence of certain things’;—i.e. as in the case of the existence of things far removed in place or time.
What is meant is as follows In the case of things far removed in space and time, even when the thing is not apprehended, there is always a suspicion regarding its existence,—even.though there is non-apprehension of the thing; in the same manner, it is only right that there should be suspicion regarding the existence of the Omniscient Person who has been apprehended (known) by other men.
Or, the meaning may be as follows:—Just as in regard to the Existence of the Omniscient Person, there is doubt, even though He has not been apprehended,—in the same manner there would be doubt, even when His omniscience is apprehended; because both are equally liable to nonapprehension due to remoteness.
Bays the Opponent:—“It is only right that there should be suspicion regarding the existence of things; because even when the thing is present, there is found to be non-apprehension of it; hence there is a probability that it may be there; in the case of the Omniscient Person, on the other hand, it is not possible for any man with limited vision to perceive Him; and no sane person can have any suspicion regarding the existence of an impossible thing”.
The answer to this is—‘There are some persons, etc. etc.’
‘Himself’—This has been asserted on the basis of the doctrines of other people.—This same idea is reiterated by the phrase ‘by himself’. ‘Ātmā’—the Man.—‘Luminous’—the Soul being of the nature of Consciousness and hence being like Light.—(3289-3290)
The same idea is further supported:—[see verse 3291 next]