, , । , , । , । । , । , , , । , । , । । । ॥} । ॥११॥ । ॥ §०§ , , । ,
In plain words
Here, suppose appearance, which is , and non-appearance, which is the absence of , a pot and the like, each stood in its own self, the two shutting each other out. Then, as with a pot and a cloth, of which one says “this is insentient” and “this is insentient”, the difference between them would be hard to make good. But if appearance is not insentient because it is related to the object, then by mere relation clay too, being the pot’s, would be not insentient. But if appearance is not a mere relation to it but is the of the object, then it has come to this: that is in the form of the object. And the of one thing in the form of another does not hold. But if the pot, though of another nature, is the cause of the appearance, then the appearance too is the cause of the pot, so the pot too would be not insentient. But if, since the pot, though other, has given the appearance a likeness in the form of a reflection, the appearance, bearing it, is said to be the pot’s, and is for that reason not insentient, then crystal, water, a mirror and the like are just the same, so they too would be not insentient. But if crystal and the like are insentient because they cannot hold in themselves, even as they are, and that pot and the rest, then holding in in that way is the very life of not being insentient. Its form is the to make inward and outward; it is natural to appearance; its mark is rest in itself; and it is what is called looking to no other’s face. For when arises as “I, whose self is , shine thus”, one’s own itself takes , , and the rest to have done their work, and longs for nothing beyond. But crystal and the like, though they have taken a reflection, need another for their being established as such; so, being without , they are insentient. Everywhere, in truth, at the first end and at the last there is only not being insentient, since there is rest in the “I”, which is one with the own nature of the , whose self is . As has been said:
“For the ‘this’, which is cut off, fulfilment is its rest in its own ; and that is this: ‘I’.”
But this-ness is only the middle state, whose first and last ends are held in ; for the deluded it is the domain of , . So it stands that alone is what is primary in the Blessed One.
It is not only we who have said that is primary in the of ; other scriptures have said so too. This he shows:
For this very reason the has been declared to be , with the intent of the action of , being the doer of ; for by that it is unlike the insentient.
Since alone is the primary form of the , it is with just this cause in view, in the form of a purpose, that the , though by nature the bearer of properties and itself a substance, has been “declared”, that is, spoken of, by setting it in apposition with the word “”, which expresses a property. In the the Blessed One has set down:
“ is the .”
For “” stands for any word that expresses a property,