, । , , , , , , , । , , , , । , , , , , , , । ---- , , , , , । । । । । , । , । । । , , , , , । ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- , । । । , । , , । ॥१९॥
In plain words
Here, to begin with, a joining with words, like pointing with a finger and the like, is the very self of . Otherwise, when a child first sees dealings, he would never learn at all. For he hears that word through a series of acts of knowing free of ; then he sees that object in front of him; then again he sees the ground empty of it. So from the dealings “bring the pot”, “take it away”, how could it flash in his heart that this is its meaning: “this is a pot”, “bring this”, “take this away”? For this meaning has such a joining for its life, and joining is the working of . Here, suppose it is so for the child from a memory of the convention experienced in an earlier birth. Even so, at the time of the convention, that word slips from the difference that comes of its being held in as content, as “this”; shining out, it comes to rest in the body of knowing, and so it becomes the word that expresses. So the own form of knowing, if it shines, is made of words through and through. Just as knowing shines as made of pleasure even when the content has no form of pleasure, so let the content, colour and the rest, not be made of words: even so, knowing will shine as made of them. But in this system, since even the content is made of , it is in truth made of words. If even the state of stillness and the like were not made of , then, since the working of the in the form of does not rise up in it, that it ever happens would have nothing but an oath for its truth; and there would be no remembering it. For if a arose there that determines a content such as colour, what else would follow? There would be no such thing as stillness, which comes of withdrawing all thought. So there too there is an inner . For real things allow of being sounded by the whole host of words, and among them a fixed word is joined. Consider: before that animal, the child has an inborn , either unbroken, as “I”, or broken, as “this”. On the back of that very a word is laid, “tawny” or “cow”; and that too, by practice, becomes made of the . On the back of that comes another, “white”, and another, “ox”. This is the truth of convention. Therefore there is in direct seeing. This is what the word “even” intends. Here direct seeing, in truth, reaches all the way to the working of of the form “I see”. For the other side too holds that is the working of perception. And a working cannot rightly be different from what has it, for it is its very form. Or let direct seeing be only a moment in nature: even there, there is . And this must be so: “otherwise how”. If it were not there, one going swiftly with a single intention, or reciting quickly, or reading out a book of rapidly, would not reach, utter or read out just what he meant. Consider: knowing that spot; the wish to step on it; stepping on it; knowing that it has been stepped on; linking it to a further purpose; the wish to leave it; linking to another spot; and there again the wish to step, and so on. Without a whose form is this joining and unjoining, how could one reach the spot one meant? So it should be understood in quick learning by heart, reading aloud and the like. There, in particular, the organs strike the places of utterance, and so on. And here it is just because the construction of the gross that would come afterwards is not felt that there is quickness at all; so there must be a subtle , made of the forming of words, rolled up. For the forming of words, rolled up, when it is unrolled by spreading out, is the gross : as the spreading out of “this” is “pot”, “white” and the like, and the spreading out of that, in turn, is “having the shape of a broad base and belly”, “that in which inheres the quality joined with the universal whiteness”, and so on. Since the root is taught as “dhāvu, in going and in cleansing”, “dhāvi” stands for quick going by force of its own power.