, , , , , , । । । , , , , , , , , , ॥६॥ , । ॥ §०§ , , , , ॥॥॥॥॥॥॥॥। ॥ }
In plain words
The joining together with each other that is seen among the factors of action, that is, among substances that bear the of doer and the rest, as among , and with one another, has its one cause in the of them as subordinate to action and the rest, here to the action that is , lying hidden within. For here, setting aside the of that lies within, no direct connection of the real thing is felt. “Content” here means that by which alone it has the form of a thing at all. The relation, too, that the of the factors of action have with their own grounds is caused by the of action; and substances and are directly related with action. So it is this blessed action alone that brings to light relation, unfolded so far. When two things are held in awareness as different outside, as in “this is before that, after it, far off”, the form that is held in awareness, beginning inside with non-difference, with the awareness of difference in its middle, and coming to rest in non-difference, is called direction. For here what serves is attention to the of particular parts of the two, such as the face; the ascertaining that one faces the other or faces away, and the like; and the grasping of contact, of contact with what is in contact, of how few these are, and the like. When the of time takes the form of earlier and later and the like, and when it takes the form of slow and quick and the like, what serves is the of birth, of lasting, of their shortness and the like. But in “he will cook”, “he cooks”, “he cooked” and the like, what serves is the of another action, whether looked for, plain, or plain before, such as that of , throbbing in one’s own awareness, or of the sun, and of the particular fruit, the cooked rice and the like. In the same way it should be said of number, size, separateness, contact, disjunction and the rest that they have just the form of relation. In every way, this is the sum: wherever the of a category finds no contentment in resting in itself, and comes to completion in its own form only as wanting to rest in the of another , there it has just the form of relation, made of the unfolding of the of action. Even there, let there be another relation besides, in dependence on another thing, as they hold that there is inherence in number and the rest. And an infinite regress, even if it comes about, is no fault, like the infinite regress of creation in earlier and later . For without the creation of a later relation there is no loss at all in the appearance of the earlier relation, such that harm at the root could be suspected.
Having told in this way of the rich intricacy of relations, not few, which all but gives life to the whole course of the world and is in its self the unfolding of the of action, he now sets out its stability and its use, both pointed to before, and says:
Just so would the who seeks effective action gain his object, by an object that has difference and non-difference. So there is no such error.
Here, the existence of things is not their relation to being, since that would not pervade, and because of the faults of infinite regress, uselessness and the like. Nor is it effective action, since that is another real thing. Nor is it their doing that, since they are not seen always to be engaged in it. For it has been said:
“Effective action too is not innate to things”