, । ---- । ---- , ; , । , । , ; ---- । ; ---- । । ---- , , , ; । , । ; । । ---- । । ।} । । , । ---- ॥१॥
In plain words
The inward-facing awareness that “perceived the object experienced before” is, first, still there now, “afterwards”, at the time of memory too. For what has alone as its cannot be limited by a particularity whose form is a narrowing made by time. And that the object too lies within the experience, not separate from it, is also established without effort. But this much must be thought through. In awareness, which time does not touch, and in the whole range of things that lie within it, if there is, first, a of their being made of , then there should be only this full , “I”. But if it comes by making them appear separate, as “this”, then even so there are two ways. If the this-ness comes to rest in the part that is “I”, then there should be the state of and the rest, “I am this”. But if it does not rise to that, then there would have to be a shining as “this” alone; and since it would shine as something not there before, it would be experiencing, not remembering. With this doubt in view, he says “svairī”. “Svairī” is one who sets moving, “īrayati”, what is his own, “sva”: his own instrument, in the tasks he has to do, without fail, for that is his habit. And he sets his own self moving, and needs no one to urge him on in his own task. So “svairī” is free. Because he is free, he holds the thing in awareness as “that”. And holding in awareness as “that” has this form. It is not, in every way, simply a of a that time does not touch; nor is it simply a in sheer difference. Rather, there is the thing that earlier, at the time of the experience, was set apart with the help of that place, that time and another , and was not merged into I-ness alone. Just as it was, it was covered as if by darkness and kept so, and this is what the word names. He thrusts aside the darkness that covers it; and when that has been thrust aside, the thing appears as before, set apart. But surely it would then appear as “this”, just as before? Not so. For its comes without shaking off its tie to the body and the rest, as they were set apart in the appearing of that time. And so the of the present appearing, the time of remembering, does not shut its eyes either. So there is a of the earlier time, with that present as its chief ground; and so the “that” is said to be, in its very nature, a of earlier and later, which are at odds. And so it is that same Supreme Lord who remembers. For this is His being the rememberer: His taking on the state of a of , able to bear the touch of , and the rest that fits a of this kind. So it is made of and , of duality and non-duality. For this very reason those who follow the hold that remembering itself, given life by and the rest, is like a wishing-gem skilled in granting every accomplishment. And so:
“Memory alone, taking on the being of meditation and the rest, is the wishing-gem that brings Your glory to light.”
Enough of this for now. By this compound ending in the agent suffix, he takes care to show, through difference and non-difference, that the experience touches time by way of the object, that it rests in the object, and that both are firmly settled in the ; for in a compound the words take on one meaning. And that this is made of difference and non-difference we shall say later.