, ---- । , , । , , । । , । । । ? ---- । , । । । । , , । । , , । ---- , । ॥६॥ , , , । ॥ §०§
In plain words
To begin with, people at large have no awareness of this kind; for they do not think of any seeing as separate, in this way: “That seeing was mine.” But “what is remembered even thus”, that is, a remembering even of this kind in someone who fancies himself a man of discernment, is “an analysis of the memory”. Like the setting out of the senses of stem and suffix in a word, it is a constructed making plain by dividing, merely a way of conveying it to another. Even he, if he is aware of the root apprehension in the way stated before, does not know the experience as separate, for the very reason that he takes the difference to be constructed, as in “’s head”. Otherwise, as in “that pot”, so in “that seeing” too, an earlier, other seeing would have to be called for. For by the word “that” what is said is that the pot, or the seeing, has come to be the content of an earlier experience; otherwise it would simply be “seeing”. And then it would follow that the seeing was experienced by me through another seeing. If that too were so, there would be an infinite regress. But what is the root form of memory? It is answered: “seen by me”. But surely here the seeing is spoken of as resting in the lotus of the beloved’s face and the like, not as risen into the , since the past participle arises in the sense of the object. This man does not even attend to his own words. For the object is what the doer reaches through the action; so the action of seeing rests in the doer. And so, in “the king shows himself to his servants” and the like, they say that the action of seeing abides in the doer. The followers of Jaimini too have said that seeing, whose form is knowing and whose nature is , rests in the alone. Only, that evidentness, called having-been-seen, is a property of the content, or that is something other and not free: that is another matter. “By me” is said precisely to tell that it rests in the . So “I experienced” and “experienced by me” differ only in the play of words, not in meaning. Others, however, join the words in a different order: the remembering “that seeing was mine”, and “seen by me”, is an analysis of this, that is, of the memory whose fitting is “I experienced”, stated just before. “Api” has the sense of “and”.
But surely even what has been seen by a knowing free of is not remembered in its particular form until it has been held in awareness by coming to rest in a particular , like grass, leaves and the like seen along the road. So this very point must be looked into: at the time of the that arises immediately after, had that seeing already appeared as “this”, or not? With this doubt in view, he says:
And the determination “I see this”, or “this is a pot”, that too holds the seeing to inhere in the one who determines.