, ---- । ॥ §०§ । , , , । , , ॥९॥ । ॥ §१§ , , ॥१०॥ । ॥ §२§ , । ।}
In plain words
But surely, if the whole class of inner is made to shine outside everywhere, what then is the difference of in memory and the rest? And it is not that this difference goes unfelt, since the flashing of clearness, unclearness and the like cannot be denied. With this doubt in view, he says:
But in knowing, whose self is making things shine outside, it is natural; in memory and the rest, though, it stands in the form of an earlier experience.
For the knowing that is experience, which makes the inner appearance “this is blue” shine outside, the of what lies within it is “naisargika”
coming from nisṛṣṭi, from , and not, as with memory and the rest, from the strength of a and the like left by another act of knowing. In memory, in fancy, and in the determination that comes on the back of perception, the inner appearance of blue and the like, which is to be determined as outside, is not their own; rather, it is born of the of an earlier experience. Here what is called is the experience going on even at another time. So, since that continuing experience is blended with the of blue and the like, memory and the rest, having become one with it, shine in the same way. For this very reason the , which cannot arise at the time of the memory, is held in the earlier time of that experience; and so memory and the rest proclaim of themselves that they have no content and grasp what was grasped before. This alone is their unclearness. So the difference of in experience, memory and the rest is established. When the class of inner is made to shine outside with nothing else standing between, there is clearness; with something between, there is unclearness, since it does not belong to that moment.
But surely, then, all knowing other than the knowing that is experience through the senses turns out to make things shine outside with something standing between. With this doubt in view, he sets out the division:
In that moves at its own will, it is natural all the same, since it makes whatever shape it likes appear in the field of .
The of daydreams, intentions and the like, which does not live on the work of perception and whose essence is distraction, moves “at its own will”: that is, by its own prompting, with no need of another’s prompting, freely, it rises and passes away. In it, the outward of blue and the like, which are made of inner , is natural all the same. Consider: an elephant never seen before, white, with a hundred tusks and a pair of trunks, stands within, at the level of the ; and that makes it shine outside, at the level of the , which is the clear mirror of , there and then.
And he shows that from this inquiry into the difference of , which came up in the course of proving that inner is possible, the purpose chiefly aimed at in the treatise is established without effort, on the principle of an implied tenet. That purpose is the of the Lord in one’s own :
For this very reason, since whatever one wishes is drawn up and made to appear, knowledge and action, clear indeed, are established for everyone who lives.
In “the pot appears”, though the appearing that shines is bound up with its content, still it is not the content’s own body. Rather, it is awareness itself that shines so, since it clings to the , as “it shines for me” shows. And so the :
“Everything shines after Him alone as He shines; by His shining all this shines forth.”