अनुभूतस्य अनुभवप्रकाशितस्य विषयस्य अप्रमोषोऽनपहारः तथैव प्रकाशनं यत् एतत् स्मृतेः आत्मीयं रूपं तत् तथाप्रकाशनाभावे विघटेतमाम् । किं च भ्रान्तौ असद्वा आत्माकारो वा प्रख्याति , न तु तया अर्थः स्वीक्रियते तस्य अप्रकाशनात् इति तया अर्थो न व्यवस्थापित एव । प्रकाशनात्मा हि व्यवस्थापना , ततश्च स्मरणादभिलाषेण कथम् अर्थविषयो व्यवहारः ? न च तदप्रकाशने संस्कारजत्वेन किंचित् कृत्यम् , तद्धि सादृश्यं लब्धुम् अवलम्ब्यते ; न च अनुभवेन विषयप्रकाशनात्मना स्मृत्यभिधानाया भ्रान्तेः किचिदपि सादृश्यम् अस्ति , सर्वथा विषयमस्पृशन्त्या ॥४॥
ननु योऽनुभवो यश्च तद्विषयः स यतः तया अध्यवसीयते , ततः अंशात् सादृश्यम् अनुभवेन स्मृतेः , तत्सिद्धये च संस्कारपरिग्रहः । अध्यवसीयते इति किम् उच्यते ? प्रकाश्यते इति चेत् न भ्रान्तित्वम् ; न प्रकाश्यते इति चेत् पुनरपि विषयो न स्पृष्ट एव अनया इति सादृश्यमिति शब्दगडुमात्रम् , तदेतत् दर्शयितुमाह
भ्रान्तित्वे चावसायस्य न जडाद्विषयस्थितिः ।
ततोऽजाड्ये निजोल्लेखनिष्ठान्नार्थस्थितिस्ततः ॥ §०§
इह स्मृतेः अन्यस्य वा भ्रान्तिबोधस्य स्वसंवेदनांशे प्रकाशमाने न भ्रान्तिता , तत्र वैपरीत्याभावात् ; यस्तु तत्र अध्यवसीयते स्वाकारः स विपरीततया अस्वाकारत्वेन अर्थतया इति तत्रांशे भ्रान्तिता । स चांशोऽर्थलक्षणो न स्मृत्या अन्यया वा भ्रान्त्या स्पृश्यते इति तत्र असौ तूष्णीका इति बलादेव तत्रांशे जडत्वम् अस्या आयातं घटज्ञानस्येव पटे । न च जडेन विषयस्य किंचित् कृत्यम् , ततश्च अर्थविषयो व्यवहारो विलुप्येत ।
अथ तु तम् अवसायरूपं स्वसंवेदनांशं स्वाकारं वा अवलम्ब्य अजडत्वम् अस्याः , एवमपि अजाड्ये निजं स्वसंवेदनम् उल्लेखश्च स्वाकारः ---- इतीयति एषा परिनिष्ठिता स्मृतिः इति विषयस्य नामापि प्रहीतुम् अशक्नुवतः ततः स्मृत्यध्यवसायात् कथं विषयस्य व्यवस्थापनं व्यवहार्यत्वसंपादनसामर्थ्यम् ? ॥५॥
संस्कारे सत्यपि स्मृतिः न कथंचन घटते , ततश्च परस्परसङ्गतिहीनानि सकलानि ज्ञानानि ---- इति यदुक्तं श्लोकपञ्चकेन तत् इदानीं प्रकृते योजयति
एवमन्योन्यभिन्नानामपरस्परवेदिनाम् ।
ज्ञानानामनुसंधानजन्मा नश्येज्जनस्थितिः ॥ §१§
In plain words
The “not letting slip” of a content “experienced”, that is, made to shine by experience, means not losing it, making it shine just as it was. That is memory’s own form, and without such making shine it would fall apart altogether. Besides, in error either the unreal comes to light, or the knowing’s own form does; but the object is not taken up by it, since the object does not shine, and so the object is not established by error at all. For to establish is, in essence, to make shine; and so how could there be dealings whose content is an object, through desire that comes from remembering? Nor, if that does not shine, is anything done by being born of ; for that is relied on to obtain likeness. And error that goes by the name of memory, never touching its content in any way, has no likeness at all to experience, whose essence is to make its content shine.
But surely, since the experience and its content are determined by memory, memory is like experience in that respect, and is taken up to establish that likeness. What is meant by “are determined”? If it is said that it means “are made to shine”, then it is not error. If it is said that it means “are not made to shine”, then once again the content is not touched by memory at all, and “likeness” is a mere lump of words. To show this he says:
And if determining is error, no content is established from what is insentient; then, if it is not insentient, since it rests in what is its own and in its outline, no object is established by it either.
Here, in the part of memory, or of any other awareness that is error, which is its self-awareness and which shines, there is no error, for there is nothing reversed there. But its own form, which is determined there, is determined in reverse, as not its own form but as an object; so error lies in that part. And that part, marked as the object, is not touched by memory or by any other error; so there it is silent, and in that part, perforce, it has come to be insentient, as the knowing of a pot is towards a cloth. And what is insentient does nothing for its content; and so dealings whose content is an object would vanish.
But suppose memory is not insentient, resting on that part of it, its self-awareness, which has the form of determining, or on its own form. Even so, “if it is not insentient”, then “what is its own” is self-awareness and its “outline” is its own form: memory has come to rest in just so much. So from that determining by memory, which cannot even take up the name of its content, how could the content be established, that is, how could there be the power to make it something one can deal with?
Even where there is a , memory does not hold together in any way, and so all acts of knowing are without connection to one another: this has been said in five verses, and he now applies it to the matter in hand:
So, since acts of knowing are distinct from one another and do not know one another, the ordered life of people, which is born of linking them, would perish.