, , , , ? । ॥ §०§ , , , । , , , । , , , । । । । , । । ---- , , । । । । । । ॥१७॥ ---- , ?
In plain words
But surely things are set in order by the strength of , and that has for its essence; so where is not different, it is right to say “it is that very thing”. Yet in conceptions such as “the Lord”, “the ” and the like, the of what is fashioned is with this-ness, while has the form of the “I”. So, since what is fashioned does not have that form, how can it be not loosed from ? To set this aside, he says:
There is no otherness in this from the difference of , I-ness and the rest, since this one’s creation is to be held in awareness only as “I”, like the object expressed by a .
The abstract suffix is used in the sense of own form. “And the rest” takes in the “”, “Lord” and the like. The mention of stands for any suffix that expresses action; the mention of the object stands for whatever has the form of a that has not become a thing. So the sense is this. There is the whose form is simply “I”, and there is the of endless kinds, “the Lord”, “the ”, “the ”, “” and so on. Although there is a difference between them, each being of a form other than the other, still the difference suspected on account of it, between this in the form of the fashioner, made of the “I”, and in the form of what is fashioned, the ground of such as “the Lord”, does not hold. For the “the Lord”, too, comes to rest in the truth of being the knower and being the doer, whose way is to rule. And being the knower and the rest is in knowledge and the rest: looking to no other’s face, being joined to unbroken knowledge. And unbrokenness is coming to rest in the sense of the first person, as “I know”, “I do”. So of this as the Lord, of “this one’s creation”, that is, of what is being created, there is only its being held in as “I”. Or “sṛṣṭeḥ” is an ablative of reason: since of this Lord, even in conceptions such as “the Lord”, there is creation only of what is fit to be held in awareness as “I”. The gerundive is in the sense of being fit. It is as with the of action, of the factor of action, of conjunction, of option and the rest. Their real being is the grasped, each in its own way, from the use of a , the instrumental and the like, “ca”, “vā” and the like. Even when they are named by words such as “cooking”, “agent”, “conjunction”, “option”, and are made into things, they come to rest in the root of the form “cooks”, “by ”, “and”, “or”; otherwise they would never be understood at all. Just so it is here too. This is what is meant: in there is what is called a place of rest; only the final one is the real one; and that has only the form “I”. But the middle resting place, which is like the foot of a tree on the way to a village, is said to be created relative to that. So what contradiction is there? By this it is also made good that blue and the rest are made of the , since even in the middle “this is blue” they come to rest in the root as simply “I”. For even “I know this blue” comes, in truth, to just this much: “I shine”. As has been said: “For the ‘this’”, and so on. But the deluded one, from the of blue and the rest alone, thinks himself content with effective action and the like; so it has been said that blue and the rest are loosed from . With the and the like, though, even the deluded one does not suppose that his understanding is complete, or that there is effective action, without coming to rest in that root ; so it has been said that even when it is fashioned it has not let go of .
But surely, in that case, the truth of all is only their coming to rest in the one pure “I”. So how is it said that knowledge, memory and the like are His , that knowing divides into doubt, ascertainment and the rest, and that blue and the rest are varied? To meet this doubt he gives the answer: