। , , , , ॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥ ।} । , , , , ---- , , , ॥१॥ । ॥ §०§ , , , , , ॥२॥ । ॥ §१§ , , ---- , , , , । ॥३॥
In plain words
By the present participle, unceasing flashing out is made plain. By the , a relation is made plain whose self is marking: the relation of the known and the knower, produced by the act of making that His has fashioned. And the appearance of sequence outside is upheld only by force of the drawing up of content. That sequence of things, this and that, of manifold form as succession, simultaneity and the like, which is fashioned by the of space and time that is the Lord’s , as will be described, is the order of space and time. “Tinged” by it, that is, coloured by it after the manner of a reflection, is the spoken of in the words
“Only of divided objects of awareness”
and so on. And “this one”: shining of itself for everyone. In the highest truth it is “without sequence”, because, being turned within, its highest truth is alone, and so there is no difference in it. That alone is “the Great Lord”. “Whose form is endless ”: that , that , which has no end, no limit, in space, in time or in its own form, is his very form. For this very reason, of the whole class of , whose own nature is a knowing whose self is turned outward, there is within, for each , a mass of , all but endless, made of , whose self is , in the form “this, this”. In that mass, the one who is full of a of many kinds, in the form of joining, separating, resting and the like, and who is made of the pure “I”, is called “that ”. And so: the of the pot outside; the inner “this is a pot”, which has taken up the earlier form; and “I”, the place where both of these come to rest. So much is the full of .
To show the proof of this very point, he first states it by agreement:
When things, through the mouths of their several divided acts of awareness, come to rest in one , kinship can be accounted for.
For when it is said that “the settled orders of contents rest on ”, that is not established by their resting merely in whose self is of divided form. Rather, those several divided , which have the form of determination and whose self is , are themselves the “mouths”: doors, means, paths. If through those mouths, which stand in the place of the streams of rivers, these things, blue, pleasure and the rest, borne along, “come to rest”, that is, take their rest facing towards it, in one great ocean of whose form is the , “I”, then among them that kinship, whose form is connection with one another, holds together by reason. Kinship is the state of kinsmen, and what sets that word going is that they “would know one another”. Kinship is also the act that consists in bearing one another’s getting and keeping. That is shown here with connection in mind, to establish that insentient things never at any time have connection of themselves.
And so, by way of difference, he says this same thing:
For objects that keep to a sequence in space and time and are complete in themselves, that is to be achieved by an appearance all at once; otherwise, what connection could there be?
“Of objects”: of insentient things, and of the acts of knowing them, the of them and the determinations of them, which do not leave their sequence in space and their sequence in time. “Complete in themselves”: standing in their own form alone. “What connection”: this means none at all. For that connection can be achieved by an “appearance all at once”, an appearance of joining whose self is the blending of space, time and shape, and not otherwise. For when streams have each dwindled away on their own, the grasses, reeds and the like that they carry come to no connection. The word “all at once” is used with the aim of denying this, with this in mind: being many brings difference of space, time and the rest.