। , , । । । ---- , , । , ? , ---- , ---- । , । । , , ॥६॥ । ॥ §०§ , , , , । , ---- ॥७॥
In plain words
This is the sense of the word “even”: how is even the dealing in cancelling possible, which must be upheld for the sake of the claim that “where there is no cancelling, there is being a ”? Here, to begin with, mother-of-pearl is not seen doing any such thing as cancelling to the silver. Nor is it right to say that the knowing of silver is cancelled by the knowing of mother-of-pearl, since the two acts of knowing, settled and at rest each in its own content and in itself, its own form, have no opposition to each other. But if this very shutting out of each other is opposition, then, since all acts of knowing would be opposed, the relation of what is cancelled and what cancels would not be found settled in itself at all, and the division of the true from the rest would fall apart all the more. The negative here, too, is to be explained as doing double duty. This is what is meant. If an act of knowing perishes of itself, then what has another act of knowing done to it? For that other, which cannot be there at that time, cannot take its content away. Even the knowing “it is not silver”, which takes as its content its own object, the absence of silver, could not take away the content of the knowing of silver. And if the view is that it is destroyed by another act of knowing, there too, since this same course holds for all acts of knowing, how could it be that only some one is cancelled? But when the knowing of silver and the knowing of mother-of-pearl rest in one self-awareness, then this can be accounted for. Consider: even for acts of knowing that rest in the one of the , the resting is not of one kind only; rather, it is felt in all its manifoldness. Consider: the two acts of knowing “blue” and “lotus”, resting in the , rest with an of each colouring the other; “pot” and “cloth” rest by not clinging to each other; and the knowing “mother-of-pearl”, or “not silver”, comes to stand in the by uprooting the knowing “silver”, that is, by destroying the continuance of its working, which has the form of a whose self is . In this way, in the relation of cause and effect and the rest, the manifoldness of resting, which cannot belong to the , is made by the in his ; and for that very reason it must be said to give him his freedom in . So, since a settled standing comes about in one by the setting aside of the earlier act of knowing, the dealing in what is cancelled and what cancels is accounted for. For just as with blue and the rest, it is indeed that same Supreme Lord who, out of His , makes even those dealings shine; so they too are simply real.
Here, with the thought “I shall refute it”, he raises another’s view as a doubt:
If it is said: just as the knowing of a bare patch of ground is the awareness of a pot’s absence, so the knowing of mother-of-pearl knows that the knowing of silver is not .
Here the knowing of mother-of-pearl, being aware of itself, knows its being a , which is not different from itself, by the principle “it marks that off”; and the cutting off of anything else cannot be had without marking that off. So the awareness that the knowing of silver, which has the form of a knowing of what is not mother-of-pearl, is not a , is said to be just this awareness of being a that is not different from the awareness of mother-of-pearl. Nor is it anything new that the knowing of one real thing is itself the knowing of the absence of another; for it is well known that grasping a bare patch of ground is itself grasping the absence of a pot. In this way the very awareness of not being a is called the knowing of silver’s being cancelled, and so the relation of what is cancelled and what cancels is established in this way. If this is said, we say: then what of the oneness of the ?