, ? , ? ? ? , ? । , ? , , ; , ; , ? ? ; , । , ---- । ---- ? , ; । , , ; , , । । , ---- । ---- । । ---- । ---- । । ---- । ---- , , । । , , । , । , । , ; ; ; ; , ---- ---- , । ---- , , ; , ; ; ॥२॥
In plain words
Here, who, by a of what kind, would bring about, with regard to a Lord of what kind, an establishing that consists in the knowing “He exists”, or a denial that consists in the knowing “He does not exist”? If it is said that the would, then who is he? Is he the body and the rest, which are insentient, or else someone other than that, named by words such as “”? And is he too self-luminous by nature, or not? If it is said that he is the body and the rest, which are insentient, then, not being established even in himself, what establishing would he bring about for anything else? An too that is not self-luminous is simply insentient, and fares just as the body does. If it is said that he is self-luminous by nature, then in what kind of form of his own does he shine? If in the form of alone, settled and complete, then there would be no dividing of , and no making one again, by inward linking, of what has been divided. So he shines, to begin with, as one whose nature is free and self-luminous. And shining in that way, what kind of Lord would he establish or deny? If it is said that He is one whose own nature is to be the doer and the knower, then surely the himself is just such; so who else is He? But surely being the doer of all and being the knower of all do not belong to the . In truth, the sense of the word “all” does not split the very nature of being the knower and being the doer. Even on the view that holds difference, the Lord’s knowing, wish to act, sacrifice and the rest, being eternal, can have no excellence added to them by the object, which is not their cause. If it is said that being an object is just being brought to shine, we shall say that this is not fitting for what is by nature not . If its own nature is to shine, the object too is wholly sunk in itself; and when the whole truth is only this much, “ shines”, what division is there between one who knows all and one who does not? The too is to be questioned in the same way, as to whether it is established or not established, and so too the establishing. Therefore, taking as its body the real thing that is held to be the object, and so appearing, it is the alone that shines, to begin with, without any break. Even towards deep sleep it shines, for otherwise memory would not fit; for is eternal, there being no cause of a break, and it shines in relation to another too, since the division into one’s own and another’s, which it creates, will be said to be of . And this one is free. Its is dividing in what is undivided, and making one again, by inward linking, what has been divided: this we shall say in many ways. This alone is its supreme sovereignty, its chief form, made of bliss; and so “the doer” was put first. But to state that same part by part, “the knower” is named afterwards. For action is by its own nature nothing but knowledge putting out shoots, as will be said. So as much as would be said by “free in every action, having every ”, just so much is said by “the doer, the knower”. And this alone is having as one’s own nature. But , when it is spoken of as “”, touches on being a , since it is held in , and because it is created it is not in the highest sense: this we shall say. Even in saying “The Great Lord is the doer and the knower” the same thing would happen. So, in whatever measure it is possible to keep off the stain of degradation, of bringing Him down to the level of a , in that measure one must strive, as far as one can go; and that is why the statement has been made with the case-ending of what already is. For at the time of teaching, His being a cannot, to begin with, be kept off altogether. “One’s own ”: by this, meaning in oneself, in one’s own nature, whose form never passes away, the doctrine of an insentient held by the and others is thrown out. “Established from the start” means: whose is unbroken. “The Great Lord”: this alone is the Great Lord’s sovereignty, that through a without bounds He climbs to the peak of being the knower and being the doer. “One whose is not insentient”: as for one whose is insentient, such as the , let him make an establishing about the Lord; and let another, such as the , make a denial. For the too, holding that knowledge, whose form is making objects shine, is a property of , in truth arrives at an that is simply insentient. And an insentient , for whom even the least trace of the of is hard to find even in itself, has no power to establish or deny anything, like a stone. Nor is this fitting for one whose is not insentient either. Consider: he would make an establishing in his own in this way, if He, shining to him now as something new, had not shone before; but if there was no shining, that is simply insentience. And he would make a denial in this way, if He does not shine, and then he is insentient; and it has been said that this is not right for one who is insentient, nor yet for one who is not. Therefore the of a pot and the like is nothing but the of , and not some real thing free on its own; and the is itself. So there, just as there is no working of the factors of action, there is no working of a either, since self-luminousness is present there just as eternity is.