। ---- , , , , ---- ---- ---- , । ॥ §०§ , । ---- , । , , । , । , । । , । । । । । । । , , । । । । , । । ॥२॥ । ---- । ॥ §१§
In plain words
To establish this very truth of memory there are further verses. Suppose, then, someone were to say: “Here memory is , and the object is not made to shine by it, for do not touch the object. And the experience by which that object was brought to shine has now become nothing but a name; nor is that made to shine by memory, since one knowing cannot be known by another, and since it no longer exists. So, since the object is not made to shine, the knowing ‘I remember this’ is nothing but error. That has come round again.” Then to him it is said:
And, holding in awareness the made to shine before, it would by implication make it shine at its own time, by the bare of the pot, or else in its entirety.
Here, first, in the that is memory the object is determined; otherwise one would in effect be like someone asleep or in a faint. And so, so far as the object is determined, so far, “by implication”, that is, by the force of the matter, this much must be accepted: that the object shines. If what is to be determined did not shine, the determining would be all but blind. And this making shine does not come by leaving aside that earlier time, nor by making it twofold, for then the absurd consequence would follow that it appears as “this” alone. Therefore the time of the past experience must be called on, on the side of what is known, because it brings with it the thing’s being the experienced before, and because it is set into the appearing whose nature is . And the time at which the rememberer’s body, and the rest appear must be relied on, on the side of the knower, because it is set into the aspect of . For the form of a thing is nothing but , since a works on each . That same becomes vivid by being mixed with other , like the light of a thousand lamps blending into one. But even when it is not mixed with other , it makes that a simply by its union with the of time; for it is the of time alone that makes difference, as will be said. So, first, the of the pot becomes a through the of time, which rises with the help of the of the earlier body. Or else that same memory is mixed with other as well, and is very vivid. Even when it becomes utterly vivid, its belonging to that earlier time is not broken, since it never comes to be shared with anything else. But where it appears in that way, it is simply the ’s own fashioning of it. And in ’s speech and the like the appearing is wholly new. Here, though, the means is a chain of remembering the form of and the rest, as experienced through another , scripture and the like. “Bhāsayet”: by a command in the form of an injunction, a rule is marked; not that “it does not make shine”, but that “it certainly makes shine”. “At its own time”: at the time of remembering. “Holding in awareness” states the present time, which lies on the side of the knower. “The made to shine before” shows the past time, which touches the aspect of what is known, as the cause by which even the bare of the pot becomes a . This much alone is memory’s unfailing body; but its vividness comes from the strength of one’s wanting: this is what the word “atha” makes clear. That is what he says with “in its entirety”: this means, with a body mixed with all the .
But surely, if the is made to shine in this way, it would appear outside, as different; for this is just what appearing outside is: the shining of a . To quiet this doubt he sets out:
Nor is it right that what is remembered should shine if it is different from the memory. So the oneness of of different times is the knower: this is he.