, , , , , , । , , ॥११॥ । ॥ §०§ । , । , , , ॥१२॥ , ---- , ---- , । ॥ §१§
In plain words
Though the heap of light is other than a , and though this much is established, that “there is light, which is not a ”, still it cannot be determined that “there is no here”. For a pot cannot be supposed to be there even in the midst of a flood of light, since, were a pot near, the flood of light would not be given there; and so this is established: “there is no pot here”. But a is of such a nature that, though it is in the midst of the ground or in the midst of the light, it does not break the thickness of the ground or of the light. So, since it can be supposed to be in the midst of the light, how could there be dealing in denial by separation? In the same way, since taste and the like can be supposed to be in the midst of visible form, they too are not denied. Though a , “not light”, is other than light, still, just as it is supposed that it is “within the ground”, in its midst, “unseen”, so too it can well be supposed that it is within the light. So, though the is denied along this path, “the light is other than it”, still it is not denied “in every way”; and so how could dealings bound up with its absence go forward there? This is the sense of the verse.
Having shown in this way, as it came up, the truth about dealings with absence, he applies it to the matter at hand:
In this way the thought of mother-of-pearl would have the form of the absence of the awareness of silver; but it would not make known that the first knowing of silver is not a .
Just as, when light is grasped as “the light is the absence of a pot”, nothing at all comes to the pot grasped before, so only this much can be supposed: that the knowing of mother-of-pearl is the absence of the knowing of silver. It is as with the knowing of a pot. It is the awareness that the knowing of the pot is a ; it is the absence of the knowing of cloth; it is the awareness that the absence of the knowing of cloth is a ; and by this much a knowing of cloth that went before does not become no . For all this is a consideration of the form of that knowing of the pot itself, and nothing at all comes of it to the other, earlier act of knowing. Just so, let the knowing “this is mother-of-pearl” and “this is not silver” shine by itself, as “I am a for the mother-of-pearl and for the absence of silver, but not for silver”. By that much, though, nothing at all has befallen the earlier knowing of silver; so how could the silver it took as its content be unreal?
But surely, by the word “this”, that very spot is held in awareness where the knowing of silver arose; and in that same spot the knowing “not silver” and “mother-of-pearl” has now arisen as a . So from this it is inferred that the earlier knowing of silver is not a . For this cannot be: that two acts of knowing which take in two opposed contents should both be , with one thing as their content. So this dealing in cancelling will be a matter of inference. With this doubt in view, he says:
Because even the subject is not established, cancelling could not come about by inference at all. But cancelling established by self-awareness is right, born of one .