, , , , , । , , , । , ॥६॥ ? । ॥ §०§ , , । । , ॥७॥ , , , , । ॥ §१§ , , , , , , , ---- , ॥८॥ , । ॥ §२§
In plain words
“In oneness with the ”: because of the absence of any interval that this brings about, these have no effective action at all. For effective action comes about when there is difference. Since the of blue differs from the of yellow, and since it differs from the , it would therefore bring about for that a distinct effective action, to be achieved by itself. But at that time it is not in difference, because of the oneness with the . For effective action is bound to difference of . And so, even when the of the beloved is outside, if another , marked by an embrace, goes away, the effective action moves far off; and when another , “here she is”, comes, a quite different effective action is seen, the reverse of the earlier delight. So, since in the inwardness that oneness with the makes there is no difference of , there is therefore no effective action. And the of effective action, too, is only another ; so bringing about effective action is not the being of things either, such that without it they would not be, in their own form.
But surely, at the time when the outer is set apart, the inner is cut off, since they are opposed. So how has it been said that the of what is inner is always? He answers this:
Since appearances are made of , they always stand within alone; and for those that shine through , because they are outside, that standing is outside too.
Here, appearances always stand “within”, that is, in the of the itself, both when the of being outside is there and when it is not; for they are made of , since, as has been said, otherwise they would not shine at all. But when, through the of , whose form is the to make things appear cut off, their being outside is made to appear, then for those that appear by leaning on it that standing is outside as well as within. This inner is no opposition to being outside; on the contrary, it is the wall on which all stand. So how could there be opposition? So it was rightly said that the being of the inner is always.
But surely, effective action comes when there is being outside, and that is being reached by the outer senses; and that cannot be so for what is drawn up by . So how would these have effective action? Yet a and the like, drawn up by , is seen to bring about terror and the rest. With this doubt in view, he says:
The drawing up in , too, is outside, since it appears apart; for inwardness is oneness of self with the , and difference from him is being outside.
The object drawn up in the knowing that is , which is a particular kind of , a beloved, a thief and the like, is outside too, and not only what is looked at outside. For it too spreads out apart from the , as “this”. And resting in the simply as “I”: that is inwardness. “Within” means near; and nearness is in relation to something; and what it is in relation to is everywhere the alone, since there is nothing else to relate to. And so what is near the has simply reached oneness with him. So whatever is different from that is outside, and so it is right that even what is drawn up has effective action.
But surely, let a pot and the like be outside through the work of the potter and the rest; but for what lies within the range of the , what makes it so? With this doubt in view, he says:
The , as outside, of what is drawn up and of pleasure and the like comes from the will of the Upholder, just as does the of things born of the senses and the rest, which has the form of perception.