---- , । ---- , ---- ---- , ? , ; ---- , , , , , । ॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥ ।} , , । ---- , ---- , , । , , , , । , , , , ॥२॥ , , , , ---- , ? ----
In plain words
Here, to begin with, when is seen moving, the thought “he is not moving” never at any time arises, as “it is not silver” does. With the double moon, though, the uprooting thought does arise: “this is no double moon; my eyes are clouded by a disease of the eye, and I only know it so.” As for what was said, “How can what is one be many?”, to that it is answered: here, how can what is a cause be not a cause? If it is answered, “It is so because of a difference of domain,” then who gave you this room to say that, where the domain differs, this is not contradictory? If it is said that awareness gave it, then why is it not allowed that in “he moves” and the like we too have made awareness alone the ? And here too it is not that a difference of domain cannot be stated. Consider: when it is not mingled with another , it is that one alone. For this very reason, since it is free of dependence on anything else and so lies close within, it is “inner”, as what goes on continuing; and it is “inner” too because it is known by the , which is suited to grasping just such a bare . It is “” because it does not fall away from being that in its form, and “” because it can bear being stretched out by joining with other . So it is understood as “one”. That very thing, when it is known by the outer senses, is understood as “many”, being mixed with the of space, as “here” and “there”, with the of time, as “now” and “then”, and with the of own nature, as “thin”, “stout” and so on. In the same way, by the principle already stated in
“And of the Master, standing in His own self,”
the universe itself, being without interval, is one; and that very universe, in the view of the truth of the relation of cause and effect that will be stated in
“is this: that what turns about within comes to be knowable by both kinds of organ”,
is many when it is known by the senses, because it is mixed with the of space and the rest. Oneness lies in being unmixed with other , in being known by the alone, in being alone; manyness, on the other hand, lies in being mixed with other , in being known by both kinds of organ, and in shining as something beyond . So the difference of domain is plain. And that it is the very same thing that is so comes from the force of alone, as with cause and not a cause, and with material cause and helping cause. But if “cause”, “not a cause” and the like are mere names, then here too “one” and “many” are mere dealings; and “blue”, “yellow”, “free of ”, “with ”, all of it, in the domain of , is mere dealings: so everything is alike. Therefore the contradiction between oneness and manyness does not cancel it, and that is what the word “eva” says. “There”: among action and the rest, the that is inner is one, and that very thing, coming to be known by the senses, goes to manyness through the difference of space and the rest; this is how the words connect. Or “there” means: their being real having been settled. Or else the construction is: of those two, oneness and manyness, oneness is so and manyness is so.
But surely, if a difference of domain is accepted in this way, then when it has appeared as one it is not many, and when it appears as many it has not appeared as one; so how could a real thing be one and many in form? Consider: through an outer sense is experienced only as in varied places. But the knowing free of that is born of an outer sense has no part in mixing many together, since it arises by the force of the content that is present and does not reflect: so they say. And by , which belongs to , such a real thing is not touched at all. So by what thought could a real thing be grasped as one and many in form? To root out the other side’s confusion, he says: