। ॥ §०§ , , , , , , , , , । , , ॥५॥ , , । ॥ §१§
In plain words
There, with the doubt in view, “What is that connection?”, he first shows the relation of cause and effect, which pervades most widely:
Perceptions and non-perceptions fall each on its own divided portion; their being the reason that establishes the relation of cause and effect is born of one .
Here the content that was experienced shines in memory. There, that memory is not a new of the content; rather, its is the earlier experience itself. And that experience, being of the form of knowing and not of the form of the knowable, is not known by another act of knowing; it is self-luminous. And if it does not exist at the time of memory, how could it shine? Or let it exist: even so, would that be memory? Therefore this is accounted for in this way only: the very self-awareness of the memory is the self-awareness of the experience, and no other perception, distinct from self-awareness, nor inference or the like, has any reach there. And so it is established that the one self-awareness which goes on unbroken even through all that time is itself being the . Earlier the establishing of the through memory was stated in this shape: “a rememberer other than the one who experienced cannot be accounted for”. Now it is stated by another turn, through the oneness of self-awareness. That is the difference.
But surely, let be even for an object beyond experience; for not being a comes by force of cancelling, and where there is no cancelling, how could that be? With this doubt in view, he shows at length that even this relation of what is cancelled and what cancels, which, by dividing the true from the untrue, is the life of all dealings, does not hold together without the one of the :
Even the relation of what is cancelled and what cancels, among acts of knowing that rest in themselves and do not oppose one another, would arise from their coming to rest in one .