। । ॥} । । । । । । । । । , । । । ॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥ ।} । , , । ॥ §०§ । । ---- । , ? ---- , ---- , , , । । ॥ §१§
In plain words
Now the sixth .
We praise that who, carving out with the chisel of their exclusion the things whose wealth is non-difference from His own self, makes by His own will forms of every kind.
So the of memory and the of knowledge have been set out. Now the of exclusion, which serves them both, is settled at length in eleven verses, in the passage that begins “The ‘I’, which is the self of ” and ends “established for everyone who lives”. Of these, one verse points out that within there is a kind that is free of . Then one verse states that in the pure “I” the work of exclusion cannot take place. Then one verse shows that exclusion holds good only on our own view. Then two more verses show that the impure awareness “I” has the form of . Then one verse shows that linking too has the form of . One verse shows that the Supreme Lord’s being the creator is nothing other than linking and the rest, of just this kind. Then one verse sums up that the appearance of objects is there in the that is , which is the matter at hand. Then two verses state the variety of that same appearance of objects in experience, memory and the rest; and one verse shows that stating this serves the matter at hand, the of one’s own as the Lord. This is the gist of the . Now the meaning of the text is set out.
This has been said:
“ to be the own nature of appearance.”
There, is necessarily joined with the word, whose self is utterance; and the form of that this joining brings would then fall even on the pure Supreme Lord. And that is not accepted, since that form holds good for the self in the domain of . With this doubt in view, he says:
The “I”, which is the self of , though its body is , is not ; for is said to be a determination that draws in a pair.
has the form of pure , and no touch of the body and the rest has clouded it. Its self is its very life, its essential nature: unbroken, like an inward assent, a resting in , which is to look to no one else’s face. That self is the “I”, and it is not . With “though its body is ” he shows the seed of the doubt that it is . By the word “” is meant utterance, whose self is sounding. It is quite other than sound as a content grasped by the ear: it shines within, and enters into the form of . It speaks the object by laying itself upon it, joining the two as “this is that”. If its body is , why is it not ? He says: for it does not have the mark of . Consider: is construction of more than one kind; and it is the shaping, that is, the cutting off from another, of what has been suspected of being of more than one kind. And being of more than one kind comes about while the supposition of not-fire laid over fire has not been removed; and it draws in a pair, in the form of fire and not-fire. So in there must be a “that” to be determined and a “not-that” to be excluded.
And so:
For there could be an appearance of two distinct things, pot and not-pot; but of something else, distinct, that is like , there is no appearing.