। । । । ---- । , ---- । , ---- । ॥७॥ । २३ ॥ ॥ ३ ॥ । । ॥ §०§ , ---- । । ॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥। ।} । , ---- ---- ॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥ ।} {॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥। ।} । ---- । । । ---- । ---- । ---- । । , ---- । । । ॥ §१§
In plain words
and so on. And the variety into which these , of knowledge and the rest, divide is of countless kinds; so the capacity for it, , which depends on no other and is full, is called great sovereignty, by comparison with the sovereignty of , , and the rest, whom it fashions. So, once He has been made out to be one, “whose body is ”, this much has come of it: “the forms of the universe”. And for that very reason, because He is unlike the insentient, whose single form is fixed and finished, He has come to the Great Lord’s sovereignty, which is being joined with the of knowledge and the rest. If this were not accepted, nothing here would shine: that is the absurd consequence. But it does shine; therefore this must of necessity be accepted: that is the reversal of the absurd consequence. “The ordered life of people would perish” if it were not so: this is the connection with the previous verse. By the word “cet” its reversal is pointed to.
So, all is well.
Here ends the third , named The Failure of Other Views, in the of the , composed by the venerable master .
Now the fourth .
We praise , who strings the mass of jewels that are things, heaped up in the treasury of His own heart, on the thread of memory, by unbroken continuity alone.
So far, in the order in which things actually come about, it has been shown that memory is preceded by knowing, and that the of exclusion helps both. Following the way the subject was opened, it is memory itself that must now be examined, with a view to supporting the reversal of the absurd consequence that was pointed to.
“True; but the knowing that is memory”
For that is how the subject was opened. There, granted that memory did not arise from alone, this, though, must be said: “How could even the power of the Blessed One, such as you accept it to be, bring it about?” To quiet this doubt, and to give an account of the truth of memory, there is the passage that begins
“For he who perceived the object experienced before”
and so on, and ends
“the two objects shine in the ”:
a group of eight verses. Of these, the first verse says that on our own side memory holds together. The second states memory’s power to make shine the that the earlier experience made its content. The third states that remembering is absorbed in the experience and in its content, as far as becoming one with them. The fourth sets out that memory does not make the experience shine as its content. In the fifth, the meaning of the fourth verse itself is emphatically reinforced: even a ’s knowing does not make an experience its content as something separate. The sixth takes what is raised as a doubt, that memory makes the experience its content as something separate, and shows it to be unreal, a mere fabrication. The seventh, taking occasion from memory, shows that in too there is an absorption that is oneness with the earlier experience. The eighth says that what is to be remembered, the memory and the rememberer rest in the one truth that is ; and, by extension, so do what is seen, the seeing and the seer. This is the gist. Now the meaning of the verses is told in order.
For he who perceived the object experienced before, being there afterwards too and holding it in awareness as “that”, free as he is, is said to remember.