---- , । । , । ---- । ---- ---- , । ---- ---- , ऽ; , , , , , । । । । । ---- । , , , , । , । ॥}
In plain words
The awareness “I” is of two kinds: pure, and of . Of these, the pure is the one that is in alone, not different from the universe, or in the clear tinged with the shadow of the universe. The impure, though, is in the body and the rest, which are of the form of the knowable. In the pure “I”, no counterpart that has to be excluded can arise, since even a pot and the like have for their essence; so they are no counterpart, and cannot be excluded. With nothing to exclude, how could it have the form of there? But the impure, arising in the body and the rest, which are of the form of the knowable, by being cut off from another body and the rest and from a pot and the like, is alone. This is the sense of the sentence. The sense of the words, though, is this. “Leaving aside the of ”, whose form is alone, means thrusting it aside and making it secondary, though it is there. Then, in what is distinct, the body and the rest, with the conceit “I am just the body and the rest, the of a such as blue”, there is the “I am stout” and the like: that is alone, not mere pure . Here is the reason. “Another” is a second, a body and the rest or a pot and the rest: the counterpart, of equal rank, and opposed, since each shuts the other out. Its appearing is marked by superimposition, and from that appearing is born this awareness “I”, quickened by the negation of the “not-that”: “I am stout, not thin, not a pot or the like.” The thrusting aside of what is pure in form is itself the cause of the body and the rest being distinct. And the cause of that thrusting aside is the Supreme Lord’s of , which is His will to hide His own self, His towards the not-shining of non-difference, which is error. And the thrusting aside of what is in form is just the conceit of being the in the body and the rest themselves, which have not given up being knowable and are wholly distinct; a conceit with no ground at all. So the , who stand at the stage of conceit in the body, say “The person is the body marked by ”, naming the body itself as chief, since women, children and fools hold that conceit. Some who know the end of the have more discernment than they. They think the body unstable, because it arises through digestion, changes and the like; and they see that without the presiding of the of the body falls into a hundred disorders. So they hold that alone, fit to be joined with hunger and thirst, is the . The followers of and others have still more discernment. They see that too, being impermanent, is not fit for linking, and they say that alone, the ground of knowing, pleasure and the rest, is the . Others think that too is something other, since in the ’s state it is known. So those who teach that is the void, the and others, say that the of the is that which is no form at all, whose form is a stage that cannot be known: free of the whole mass of the knowable, like the sky because it is void, yet not of the nature of the space that is a great element. But within that too, since it is known, there is another void, and within that another again; so long as there is difference, construction does not break off. To convey this he says “constructed”. Nor is there an infinite regress, since everything shines by the strength of the that is the highest truth, not by way of the body and the rest. Through , though, there is only the conceit “the body is the ”. The void is the of in the form of contraction alone, just as the absence of a pot is the bare ground. And , , the body and the rest are that same of , tinged above the contraction with the shadow of a knowable portion. These very stages, for who climb ever higher, are spoken of in the as waking and the rest, and as and the rest. And the thrusting aside will be explained:
“And this of , made of being the doer, raised up by , is measured, and stands as subordinate to the void and the rest, which are not in form.”