तत्र पूर्वापररूपता क्षणानां विकल्पबुद्व्यानुसंधानात् , न तु स्वात्मनि किंचित् पूर्वम् अपरं वा , वस्तुमात्रं हि तत् । अतो विकल्पप्राणितं पूर्वापरीभूतत्वं क्रमरूपता क्रियायाः किंचित् क्षणं न वस्तु स्पृशति , ते हि क्षणा न अन्योन्यस्वरूपाविष्टाः इति कथम् एका क्रिया , क्रमो हि भेदेन व्याप्तः अभिश्ने तदभावात् , भेदस्य विरुद्धम् एक्यम् इति कथं क्रमिका एका च इति स्यात् ? अथ एकत्र आश्रयेऽवस्थानात् एका , तत्रापि तत्क्षणातिरिक्तो न कश्चित् आश्रयोऽनुभूयते , क्षणा एव हि प्रबन्धवृत्तयो भान्ति । किं च तथाभूतैर्भिन्नदेशकालाकारैः क्रियाक्षणैराविष्ट आश्रयः कथमेकः स्यात् ? अत एव देवदत्तोऽयम्, स एव ग्रामं प्राप्तः इति सादृश्यात् भवन्ती प्रत्यभिज्ञा न ऐक्यं वास्तवं गमयितुमलम् ॥९॥
एवं ज्ञानं क्रियां च परीक्ष्य , यस्मिन् सति ते संबद्धे सर्वज्ञत्वसर्वकर्तृतारूपैश्वर्यप्रसाधनाय प्रभवतः , तं संबन्धं ध्वंसयितुं तद्विषयं प्रमाणाभावं तावदाह
तत्र तत्र स्थिते तत्तद्भवतीत्येव दृश्यते ।
नान्यन्नान्योऽस्ति संबन्धः कार्यकारणभावतः ॥ §०§
मृत्प्पिण्डे सति स्तूपकः , तत्र सति शिविको यावत् घटः इत्येवं भावक्षणा एव उपलभ्यन्ते , न अधिकं किंचित् प्रत्यक्षेण अवभासते , नापि अनुमानेन ---- इति क्रियायामिव वाच्यम् । सर्वत्र आधाराधेयभावादौ अयमेव पन्थाः ---- पृथग्रूपकुण्डवदरक्षणानन्तरं निरन्तरात्मकविशिष्टकुण्डवदरोदयः ---- इति । अयमेव च भावो भावान्तरेण सह नियतपूर्वापरतया विकल्पेन व्यवहियमाणः कार्यकारणभावः ---- इति अभिधीयते । न च ज्ञानक्रियाभ्यां सह आत्मनः कार्यकारणभावः आत्मनस्तत्कार्यत्वाभावात् , ज्ञानस्य च स्वसामग्रोकार्यत्वात् , क्रियायाश्च अभावात् इति न ज्ञानक्रियासंबन्धो यतो ज्ञातृत्वकर्तृत्वे स्याताम् ॥१०॥
एवं प्रमाणं पराकृत्य , संबन्धे बाधकं सामान्यविशेषमुखेन निरूपयति
द्विष्ठस्यानेकरूपत्वात् सिद्धस्यान्यानपेक्षणात् ।
पारतन्त्र्याद्ययोगाच्च तेन कर्तापि कल्पितः ॥ §१§
संबन्धस्तावत् परस्परप्राप्तिरूपो द्वयोः प्राप्तिभाजोरेकस्तिष्ठति ---- इति सामान्यलक्षणम् । तच्च कथम् ? न हि एकत्र विश्रमिताशेषशरीरसारोऽन्यत्र विश्रमितुम् अलम् स्वरूपभेदप्रसङ्गात् । एतेन संयोगसमवायौ तन्मूलाश्च अन्येऽपि संबन्धा बाधविधुरां धुरम् अध्यारोपिता मन्तव्याः । योऽपि चेतनेषु तत्कल्पनया च अचेतनेषु पारतन्त्र्यात्मा संबन्धो व्यवहियते , तत्र सिद्धस्य न पारतन्त्र्यम् अस्ति सिद्धत्वादेव , असिद्धस्य नतरां निःस्वरूपस्य ताद्धर्म्यायोगात् । एवमपेक्षायामपि वाच्यम् । द्वे च रूपे कथं श्लिष्यतः ? द्वयोरेकत्वानुपपत्तेः ; एकत्वे वा कः श्लेषः ? तस्मात् ज्ञानसंबन्धात् ज्ञाता इति यथा विकल्पकल्पितो ऽर्थो न वस्तु तथा क्रियासंबन्धात् कर्ता इत्यपि कल्पनामात्रम् ---- इति पूर्वपक्षस्य संक्षेपः । इति शिवम् ॥११॥ आदितः १६ ॥
In plain words
There, the moments have the form of earlier and later because an awareness that is links them; in itself nothing is earlier or later, for it is just the real thing. Hence being earlier and later, which breathes life into, the sequential form of action, does not touch any moment that is a real thing; for those moments do not enter into one another’s form. How then is action one? For sequence is pervaded by difference, since in what is undivided there is none; and oneness is the opposite of difference. So how could it be both sequential and one? But if it is one because it abides in a single ground, even there no ground is experienced over and above those moments; for only moments shine, running on in a chain. Besides, how could a ground be one when it is entered by such moments of action, differing in place, time and form? For this very reason the “This is ; he is the very one who has reached the village”, which arises from likeness, cannot convey a real oneness.
Having examined knowledge and action in this way, he sets out to destroy the relation through which the two, once joined, would be able to establish sovereignty in the form of being all-knowing and the doer of all; and first he states that there is no bearing on that relation:
Only this is seen: when this or that is there, this or that comes to be. There is nothing other, and there is no relation other than the relation of cause and effect.
When there is a lump of clay, there is a mound; when that is there, a dome; and so on up to the pot. In this way only moments of things are perceived, and nothing more appears, by perception or by inference: this is to be said here as it was for action. Everywhere, in the relation of what holds and what is held and the rest, the path is the same: after the moment of the bowl and the jujube in their separate forms, there arises the bowl and the jujube marked by having no gap between them. And it is just this thing, when deals with it alongside another thing as fixed in earlier and later, that is called the relation of cause and effect. And there is no relation of cause and effect between the and knowledge and action, since the is not their effect, knowledge is the effect of its own set of causes, and action does not exist. So there is no relation to knowledge and action by which being the knower and being the doer could come about.
Having set aside the in this way, he sets out what cancels the relation, by way of the general and the particular:
Because what rests in two has more than one form, because what is accomplished needs nothing else, and because dependence and the like do not fit, therefore the doer too is constructed.
A relation, to begin with, has the form of a mutual reaching, and it stands as one thing in the two that share in the reaching: this is its general definition. And how could that be? For what has laid the whole substance of its body to rest in one thing cannot rest in another, since it would follow that its own form was divided. By this, conjunction and inherence, and the other relations rooted in them, are to be understood as yoked to a burden that cancelling has crushed. And as for the relation whose nature is dependence, which we speak of among sentient beings and, by thinking of them so, among insentient things too: there, what is accomplished has no dependence, just because it is accomplished; and what is not accomplished has still less, for it has no form of its own and cannot bear that property. The same is to be said of need as well. And how could two forms be joined? Two cannot be one; or, if they are one, what joining is there? Therefore, just as “the knower, through relation to knowledge” is an object constructed by and not a real thing, so “the doer, through relation to action” is mere construction too. This is the in brief. So, all is well.