, , , , । , । , , , । । , । , । , , । , , । , । । । ---- । , । । ॥२॥ । ॥ §०§
In plain words
“An object”: blue and the like. If its shining were nothing but its having the form of blue and the like, and not some further nature of that passes beyond the body of the object, then blue is called blue for everyone only by supposing so, or else for no one; or in truth that blue is blue only in itself, since one thing cannot rest in another; or in itself it is neither blue nor not blue, since without the favour of nothing can be fixed. In the same way its shining too would be for everyone, or for no one, or rather only in itself; or it would not be even in itself. So the world would be blind.
But if that moment of blue is born, from the set of moments of the sense faculty, light and the like, as something special whose form is , even so the same absurd consequence follows. In the doctrine of being evident too, the fault is just this. If rests wholly in the body of the object, it is hard to account for standing as bound to the , as “it appears to me”. For then the , made of the senses and the rest, would be the cause of a that has the form of the object, as the seed is of the sprout. And a sprout is not a sprout in dependence on the seed. So, if it were not of the nature of , then, “as it was before”: just as it was unlit before knowing arose, so it would be when knowing arises too. But surely knowing just is the form of the object’s ; so how could the object be the same whether knowing arises or not? That would be so if it could be made good. But since knowing, whose form is , is different from the object, how could it stand as related to the object? If, first, the form of knowing is of this kind, “the object shines”, then object and knowing have come out not different, since the own nature of the object has been called knowing; and when is the object’s own nature, the fault has already been stated for ’s being the object’s self. But if the form of knowing is “it makes the object shine”, then it follows that knowing makes the object shining, and once again the fault is the same. And this distinction between the sense of the bare root and the sense of the causative I myself have laid out at length in the , so it should be looked for there. Therefore there is no room even to suppose that a which is different is related to the object. And so this has come out by reasoning: the object’s form is its shining, its being not different from . And if were one in the pot and another in the cloth, linking could not be, since the two would each end in themselves alone. This was shown at length at “the ordered life of people would perish”. Therefore is one only. Just this is shown, by taking the words a second time, in “and would not be different”.
Even granting that knowing set apart from the object has the form of the object’s , he states a further thing that cancels it:
If is different and undivided, the content is mixed together. Therefore the object made to shine has as its self, and what is unlit is not established.