, , ---- , , , , , , , , , , , , ---- ।} । , , । । ॥} । । ॥ §०§ , , , , ---- , , , , , , ॥४॥ । ॥ §१§
In plain words
And here this is the order in which comes down: all this spreading out belongs to the of action alone, and even within it relation alone is the root. Consider: what shines as one among things alike is the universal. ’s being drawn out is action. The oneness of the parts, with their being spread out in space, is the whole. “Taking this as the limit, this is so; then this is in front of that,” and the like, is direction. “This spread of his action is there together with that, or without it”: this is time, present and the rest. For as far as the body of the meaning of the nominal stem shines, lying beneath, everything beyond that is relation alone; so the factors of action too have just the form of relation. Only, in some cases this relation bears the knot of another designation: as the relation among things with dewlaps and the rest bears the one designation “cows”, and there we have dealings with the universal and the rest. But where the knot of another designation is broken, there is only the expression “relation”. For this very reason, whatever has the form of measure by length, by capacity or by weight, in , , and the like, or is included in that, such as atomic and great, and number, separateness and the like: all of that is the unfolding of relation alone. Even those who thought the universal and the rest to be further real things accepted inherence there as their life; and inherence, for some, is relation in its self, or is something relation upholds. For they say:
“Relation upholds that called inherence.”
So it runs.
And whatever is a factor of action looks to the face of action; action in turn rests on time, the lord of its life; and time too, being the self of all things by way of action, holds relation aloft. So this varied course of the world depends on relation alone. As the master himself says:
“I praise that whose making of the world’s course is accomplished by His own will, through all things together with relation, whose self is difference and non-difference.”
So it runs.
So, to set out relation first, he says:
Things that rest in themselves and shine apart, when in one they are joined by a oneness whose form is connection with each other, are the ground of the thought of relation.
The king and the man stand apart outside, each complete in himself alone. When, on the level of the , they come to oneness, and not to bare oneness, since then their difference would melt away, but to a oneness in the form of connection, which is a clasping of each other’s form and is marked by riding the swing between the two ends of difference and non-difference, sinking and rising at once, then those two are what the thought of relation rests on: “the king’s man”. Consider: when the king, though grasped before by a thought, is not content to rest in himself, then, entering into a clasp with the man, who is of another form, he gains his end; and so too the man. And this clasp of form is one only, for both. It consists in their standing so in the that is ; it is founded on the gained before; and for that very reason, because they sink into a fuller , it is marked by their being apart no longer appearing; and it comes to rest in . So it shines right there, even though it has overrun the very reality of the man. In this way there is manyness outside, but oneness inside through the clasp of each other’s form: this is the form of relation.
of the appearances of class and substance rest on their oneness of form even outside, and also on the difference of individuals and of parts.