365bet娱乐

Finally the opponent says that even admitting that verbal testimony is a source of knowledge, it can be shown that there are scriptural statements which go against the admission of God. For example, it has been said in the 骋墨迟腻 that 辫谤补办峁泃颈 is the actual agent which functions through the three qualities. The conscious is not really the agent. It only has such a notion when it is under the influence of ego (补丑补峁僰腻谤补). In other words, the idea of being an agent is false. But 狈测腻测补 admits that God is omniscient and his knowledge is infallible. So it is better not to admit God as the agent creating the world.^[1] As against this Udayana says that a statement becomes valid only when it is made by a reliable speaker. A reliable speaker is a person who has perceptual knowledge of the things he is speaking about. Thus, the statement cited by the opponent to dispute God will become valid only if it is admitted that this statement comes from a speaker who can perceive even the extraordinary things like 辫谤补办峁泃颈, buddhi, 驳耻峁嘺 etc. Any ordinary person like ourselves cannot be the speaker, because the power of an ordinary person is very limited. So the speaker must be someone with unlimited power, having the capacity to perceive all the things. God only can be such a person. Thus if the statement is accepted as valid by the opponent he will have to admit also that it is a statement of God. If God is not admitted the statement cannot be taken as coming from a reliable person and it will have no validity. It will not be able to establish the nonexistence of God. Of course, one may argue from the 惭墨尘腻峁僺补 point of view that the scriptural statements have no speaker and they are valid by themselves. So the admission of God is not necessary. To this, the 狈测腻测补 answer is that the scriptures are not eternal, because they are all verbal statements. A verbal statement can never be without a speaker. It may be pointed out that there are many statements in the scripture which clearly speak of the nonexistence of God. If God is admitted, how are they to be explained? Udayana answer that it is a fact that there are also statements which clearly establish the existence of God. Both kinds of statements, some speaking of existence and some speaking of nonexistence, cannot be taken in the primary sense. Therefore some are to be taken in the primary sense and some in the secondary. It is proved by independent arguments that God exists. So the statements speaking of God are to be taken in the primary sense. The statements opposing God are to be taken in the secondary sense. Their significance is that the self is to be meditated on as something without any specific quality and attributes etc.^[2]

In the third chapter of the 狈测腻测补kusum膩帽jali Udayana鈥檚 purpose is to show that the existence of God is not disproved by any source of knowledge. But he also examines the nature of the different 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉 admitted by the other systems. He thus tries to show that the 狈测腻测补 classification of 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺 is the most logical one. That the 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉 are four is the most logical position. Other systems admit other kinds of 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺蝉, but that is not justified.