---- , ---- , , ---- ---- , , , , , ---- , , , , ---- , । ---- , , , , , , , ---- , ---- ---- , , , ---- , ---- । ? , ---- । , ---- , , , । ,
In plain words
That by whose power, that is, by whose capacity, a real thing such as blue or pleasure “is settled”, meaning that it does not pass beyond a fixed bound of , as “this” in its form and as “of such a kind” through being joined with permanence, impermanence and the like, which serve as its qualifiers: that is established in the world as . And one who discerns must weigh it. Here, to begin with, the form of a real thing is not settled by its own power alone, because it is insentient; and then how could there be the appearance “blue shines for me”, or “for ”? Therefore it is settled by the power of another. If that other too is insentient, then it is one blind man taking another by the hand. Therefore that other is the that is . And if that too is pure and without distinction, then it would not be the cause of settling blue alone, because it is just the same towards yellow and the rest. So it is as coloured by blue, facing towards blue, its own nature the of blue, and so being an , that it settles blue. For its settling of that is nothing but its having the of that as its own nature. And if that of blue were of a blue not set apart, it would be of yellow too, because there is no difference in their oneness with the of , which is . So that is of a blue that has been set apart. And blue is in this way fit to appear as set apart from it, if that too is set apart from the great ; for were it not set apart from the great , it would follow that blue and the rest were not set apart from it. And nothing at all allows itself to be set apart from the great . So surely it must make a contraction shine within itself. That which has the contracting of and of real things as its life, and whose form is the sense of “not”, is called the void. And the very appearance of contraction is the rising of the of . So in truth , and spring forth by one of creation. So, from the of , who is contracted by taking on a contraction that consists in accepting the void, , , the body and the rest as limiting adjuncts to rest on, and whose form is an inward-facing awareness lasting through endless time, that which is taken to be must itself be created in just that way, different in form at each moment, so far as its own nature is to face the ; for the carries a mingling of of space, time and shape. So it has been said, “arising ever new”. “Ever new”: not stained even by the fading that comes of lingering a moment. So what is meant is “arising new and new again”. And if that too, being of that kind, were not attached to the of , it could not be that the very one who has “the appearance of blue is mine” has “the appearance of yellow is mine”. And this self-awareness does exist, uncancelled everywhere. The that shines in this way as one’s own, arising new and new again because it faces new and new again, is , since it brings about valid knowing. What is that valid knowing? If it is said, “It has for its own nature the fruit of ”, he says: that same , whose form is awareness, is “measuring”, the fruit of . This is how the words connect. But surely this would amount to saying that the two are synonyms, and not that one is the fruit of the other. He says: by facing outward, in the form of , it is there ; but by that nature of its own shown earlier, its inward-facing form as , merely contracted by the state of its content, that same awareness is the fruit. For just as, in “I who am brave am the very one who wins”, bravery and winning rest in one, and yet one who discerns sets them out as cause and fruit, “because I am brave, therefore I win”, so too, because there is the of blue, therefore there is the “this is blue”; and so, even where the form is one, there is the relation of cause and fruit. As has been said: