---- , , , , , , , , , , , । , , , , , । , । ---- , , ---- । , , , ॥६ ; ७॥ । ॥ §०§
In plain words
In all real things, one and many in form, there is a sequence whose nature is time; and its “source”, explained as what its arising rests on, is the difference made by the being and non-being of an . This, he allows, “could belong” to the void, , , the body and the rest, since the void and the rest have a “broken shining”. For their shining is not their own form, since, like blue and the like, they are insentient; rather, their shining is the flashing of . When that is not there for them, as for the body in one who sleeps, and for the void, and the rest when one has fallen into the round of , then their shining is broken. So there is a sequence of time made by the being and non-being of : “I, in the form of the of a child’s body, am past; I am, in the form of the of a young man’s body.” And since he is a whose entering into I-ness is not complete, and who for this very reason has the sequence of time standing out in him, he makes the sequence of time shine in things too: “I was a boy, and the of the banyan that was there with me was too.” But “not to the one who has shone once and for all”: by this turn of words is meant the whose shining is unbroken, whose form is . In himself there is no sequence of time; nor, relative to him, is there any in the host of things to be known, for that shines in him without difference.
In the same way the sequence of space too shines in himself for the one “whose self is measured”, whose form is bounded, the void and the rest down to the body: “I stay here”; and, relative to himself, in things too: “What stands with me through fewer conjunctions is near; the rest is far.” But for the “unmeasured”, the truth that is , whose has no fixed measure, things shine “by his own self”, as I-ness, and so they are “complete”, with no bound to the measure of their form, since his own self is just so. The comparison here joins the two. So it has been said:
“For all this, in form and in action, is without before or after, complete on every side.”
So it runs. Here, because action is in question, the sequence of time is the matter at hand; the sequence of space has been set out as it came up along with it, as an example. And an example must be stated first; so when the variety was being set out, it was right to name the sequence of space first. But in the summing up, the sequence of time, the matter at hand, is named first, and only afterwards the sequence of space, which came up along the way.
But surely, in that case, it follows that in the Blessed One, the true , there is no action at all, since there is no sequence of time in Him, and action stands only by resting on sequence. With this doubt in view, he says:
But that the difference of knower and known is made to shine in that way: this is the of fashioning, of the Lord too, who knows it so.