। , । । । । । । । , , । ॥ §०§ । ॥ §१§ । , , । , , ॥१॥ । । ---- , , , , । । , । । ॥२॥
In plain words
with which the passage ends: in these eleven verses that is set out. Of them, one verse says that an either depends on another or is otherwise, and then another verse says that this same is one. Two verses say that the of effective action, too, is bound to in just the same way; and two more say, again, in which that effective action lies. One verse says that inwardness stands as the wall for an painted in variety by other . Then a pair of verses treats outwardness, in its own form and as it is divided. Then one verse sums up the one ground of the of knowledge and the rest. Another verse, summing up His being the Great Lord, opens the way to the to come. This is the sense of the in brief. Now the meaning of the verses is set out.
But surely, if all these dealings are only by resting in the Supreme Lord, then the variety they are known to have, being clear, unclear and the like, cannot hold. For what gives them life, so it is said, is the one Blessed One alone, and apart from Him we see nothing real that belongs to the dealings themselves. With this doubt in view, he says:
In some cases are merely dependent on the presence of the senses at that moment; elsewhere, among the blind, in blind darkness and the like, they are otherwise.
But in the being of the appearance of the object there would never be any difference, in any at all, whether they reach to objects that are to be, that are, or that have been.
“Merely”: the differ by this much only, but the appearance of the object never differs at all in itself. That is how the two verses, taken together, are construed. “At that moment” is what comes about at the very time at which that shines. The “presence of the senses” is being perceived by the outer senses, another , whose form is “I see”. In some cases are “dependent” on it, that is, mixed with it, and there we deal in terms of clearness. But in the other dealings, made of unclearness, which concern “the blind”, and standing in darkness, those are “otherwise”. Consider: for one blind from birth, the other , marked by perception through the outer senses, does not exist at all. But one who has seen and has gone blind, or one who stands in thick darkness, does not have it at that moment; rather, he links on to the perception through the outer senses that he had before.
Therefore one should not suppose that in any whatever there is a difference in the “being”, that is, in the form, of the appearance of the object. For let those reach to a thing to come, or rest on the future, or rest on what is not present, or rest in a thing past. This is what is meant: in “I see this blue”, “I intend it”, “I imagine it”, “I remember it”, “I make it”, “I speak it” and so on, that of blue is neither less nor more in its own form. So too with the “I see” that goes with yellow and the rest. But when those are joined and parted by the Blessed One through His , then there are these dealings of clearness and the rest. When the “blue” is mixed with the “I see”, other such as “I imagine” being cut off, there are the dealings of clearness. In this way the variety of dealings in the three times holds good. But in their being within the of the Supreme Lord, are cut off from nothing and mixed with nothing.
But surely, let this hold for blue and the like, where the outer senses are at work; but with pleasure and the like there is no such work, so how can there be variety? With this doubt in view, he says: