, , , , , , , , । , , । ---- ? ; , , , , , ॥५॥ , , , , , , , , , , । ॥ §०§ । ॥ §१§
In plain words
“Form” is a thing’s own form, and its “variety” is its being divided. Thus “a house” is one form, “a courtyard” another, “a market” another, “a temple” yet another, “a garden” another, “a forest” another again. From that variety, as it is made to shine, the Blessed One makes shine the sequence that has the form of space: far and near, spread out and not spread out, and so on. But when, by the force of the of a firm , in the understanding “this is that very form of the hand”, there is no difference of form, and yet it shines as now one form, now another, then that which is now one form, now another, within one form, and which cannot be there at once because of the contradiction, is called action. The variety of that action, whether limited or unlimited, He makes shine through a single linking, framed as He pleases on the ground of reaching the fruit and the like; and in doing so He makes shine the very sequence that has the form of time. And it should not be said, “How can what has one form have now one form, now another?” For this is not some thing that is supposed to be so; it is itself that shines so, and shining so is its sovereignty. For no contradiction has any power over shining. The contradiction between pleasure and pain and the like is made by the shining itself; for the very truth of contradiction is just the absence of shining so. This is shown by the word “api” and by the word “Lord”.
But surely, on this account, the sequences of space and time must have alone for their content; and the is not an , for he does not shine as to anyone, since everything shines to him. So how could the two be in the ? And yet they are seen: “I was, I am, I shall be”, and “I stay in the house, in the forest, in the temple”. Besides, for one who is himself empty of the sequence of space and time, what is far, what is near, what is present, what is past, what is to come? So sequence in things too, resting on the , is not fitting. Nor, in things taken apart from the , is there in themselves any being far and the like, or being past and the like. To make this good, he says:
Everywhere, too, the difference of , the source of the sequence of time, could belong to the , the void and the rest, whose shining is broken; not to the one who has shone once and for all.
The sequence of space, too, shines in things for a whose self is measured; but for the unmeasured, things shine complete by his own self, like his own self.