, । ? , । ? । । ? , । , , , । ---- , । । , , । । ॥} ॥३॥ ---- ---- , । ॥ §०§
In plain words
If that object were to shine in an outward form, as different from the knowing that is remembering, then the very shining of what is remembered would not be. That is to say, it would not be something remembered at all; it would be something being experienced. But then how was the shining of the spoken of? That is not a shining now, but in the earlier time only, and then it did appear outside. But then what is there now? We say: . But surely it follows that and belong to different times. What of it? Then both would come to nothing, since each lives by the other. Not so. For one whose truth is separate acts of awareness and nothing else, this indeed cannot be answered. But on our view the free makes appear as one, though they are of different times and do not leave those times; and so far as he faces inward, so far, in that part, he holds them in awareness. To that extent the has the of being outside at that time, and the abides now, facing inward. This, which is more than awareness, is being the knower: , the doing of joining and parting among acts of awareness as one pleases; and this same thing is called being the doer. Whether it is “I experienced the pot” or “that pot”, the oneness is a linking; and to show that this linking is not different from the one who links, it is shown in apposition that the oneness itself is the knower. “This is he” makes the truth of the , which was as if covered, shine clearly as “this”. By these words, which carry wonder within them, itself is pointed to. As the author himself says:
“That truth of the which those who in this way deny their own self-awareness, saying this and that, had muddied, has been brought into the open by clear reasoning that has struck them dumb.”
So the verse runs.
But surely, if it is the earlier experience alone that is the of what is remembered, a that is an appearing outside, then let just this much be said: “That experience is now made the content of the remembering.” What is the use of a oneness the world knows nothing of? To strike down this confusion he says:
For in memory the earlier experience in no way shines as separate, as the object did, since it shines as having risen into the , in the form “I experienced before”.