। । , , , । , ? । । । , , । । , । । ---- ॥१५॥ , । ? , , , । । । , , , , , , , । , , , , ॥१६॥
In plain words
The of being the doer, whose self is sovereignty, draws all the in with it; and it has the form of . So it is fitting that it alone should be primary: that is the answer, given as the gist. But the sense of the words is this. That the Supreme Lord, whose self is , makes His own self the knowable, though it is not knowable, since its one form is the knower: this is supposed by a firm inference by supposition, since it has been shown that no other cause holds; and it comes about “for this very reason”, that is, because of being the doer, marked by the of . For since He holds Himself in awareness, therefore, being full of the universe, He shines in that way as blue and the rest. But where does this very supposition come from, that He makes His own self the knowable? He says: a knowable standing apart, outside , there is not at all. “Tu” is for restriction. And the arguments for this have been given. He also gives an argument in addition. If the knowable were separate, then this facing towards the knowable, which is seen in the whose form is the knower and is established by self-awareness, would not be its own; and by that facing towards a separate object, dependence, which is being subject to another, would be brought upon it. And dependence is contrary to . And it is , looking to no other’s face, that is the of the ; so an facing towards something separate would be no at all. And what is not is insentient, and does not face towards a knowable: that is the absurd consequence. So, from the reversal of the absurd consequence, this follows: facing towards what is not separate, and being free, He makes His own self alone the knowable.
Nor is the knowable only of the form of blue and the rest. Rather, He fashions a self that has not given up its own nature as doer, a self never let go by , and brings it into dealings, into meditation, worship, honouring with offerings, teaching and the like; and this too, which is supposed, comes about “for this very reason”. That is the connection. But surely this is a contradiction, that it is both joined with and fashioned? To this he says: because of the of the one whose self is non-dual, whose one form is , it is not that this does not hold. What appears, in the domain of , utterly hard to bring about: the that meets no obstacle in bringing it about is what is shown again by the word “”. By “for this very reason”, on the other hand, the form of the of is meant, so there is no repetition. Or else “for this very reason” and “out of ” are to be joined across the two verses as naming one and the same thing. He shows an example on this point, since this fashioning of something free is not well known, as the fashioning of blue and the rest is. For in “the Lord, the Blessed One, the , eternal, all-pervading, free” and the like, that , what is worshipped, what is meditated on, shines as not apart from the , the worshipper or the meditator. So it is, to be sure, fashioned; and yet it is not “not the Lord”. For if it were, conceiving, meditating and the like as “the Lord” and as “not the Lord” would come to the same; and it is not so, since a difference in the fruit is found. Therefore the Supreme Lord makes this twofold knowable shine, which is nothing but the form of the , by making it shine as empty of and by making it shine as joined with ; and that is through the strength of the of alone. So it alone is primary.