आगमे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

Original

ततश्च बाधकाभावे साधने सति च स्फुटे ।
कस्माद्विप्रतिपद्यन्ते सर्वज्ञे जडबुद्धयः ॥ ३३१० ॥
माभूद्वा साधनं तत्र बाधके त्वविनिश्चिते ।
संशयः स्यादयं त्वेषां निश्चयः किंनिबन्धनः ॥ ३३११ ॥

tataśca bādhakābhāve sādhane sati ca sphuṭe |
kasmādvipratipadyante sarvajñe jaḍabuddhayaḥ || 3310 ||
mābhūdvā sādhanaṃ tatra bādhake tvaviniścite |
saṃśayaḥ syādayaṃ tveṣāṃ niścayaḥ kiṃnibandhanaḥ || 3311 ||

Thus then, there being no reasons against, while there is clear reason in support of it,—why should dull-witted persons object to the idea of the omniscient person?—(3310)

Even if there be no proof in support of it,—so long as there is no reason definitely against it,—the matter should remain in doubt; on what could this certainty of these people be based?—(3311)

Kamalaśīla

[verse 3310]:

Thus then, there being no proof against the existence of the Omniscient Person,—and clear proof of His existence going to be set forth later on,—the definite denial that you make of the Omniscient Person, whose recognition is certain, can be due only to delusion.

This is what is pointed out in the following:—[see verse 3310 above]

The following might be urged—“We deny the Omniscient Person because we think that there is no proof in support of the existence of such a Person; and we do not deny Him through delusion”.

[verse 3311]:

The answer to this is as follows:—[see verse 3311 above]

What is said here is on granting the position of the Opponent for the sake of argument; in reality, there is definite proof in support, as is going to be shown later on.

‘This certainty’—i.e. the certainty of the Mīmāṃsakas that “the Omniscient Person does not exist”.—(3311)