, , ---- ---- , ---- । । । , , ---- , ---- ॥६॥ , , , । । ॥ §०§ , । । ; । ? ---- , ---- , । । ---- ॥७॥
In plain words
In the form in which are mixed, some one must, as the principal, be made the place where the other come to rest. It is their common ground, and their relation with it is their sharing a common ground. The appearing marked by that is turned towards the object, together with the in the form of a word that gives it life. Since all of this is bound by a rule to rest in one , the that is a sentence in form, whose form is the of a sentence’s meaning, of the kind “here, now, this pot is”, therefore gives life to that of sharing a common ground. From that cause, the things that are not divided, which have reached being one and yet do not let go of their difference in form, have another effective action, distinct and joint. But where and are divided, there is, again, another, a fixed one, belonging to each one alone. By the words “” and “” in the , too should be understood as implied. The word “punaḥ” points to a distinction, and like the crow’s eye it is to be joined in both places. The plural says that even in oneness the difference in form is not given up. And there, in the appearance of oneness, when the separateness of the is present but dependent, then their having the form of a universal is real in the highest sense, since they colour individuals of like form. But the pure of pot has the form of a universal only by its fitness for a free , not in reality; for every category other than substance has dependence for its essence. So this too is simply true, that the pot itself is also one, since it is established so by the force of , and effective action.
But surely, there the effective action is not by one alone; rather, from a group of comes a group of effective actions. And if , though different, mix in order to do one effective action, then what bound is there to their number? He sets this challenge aside:
As with the lights of lamps that stand apart, and with streams in the ocean, so with appearances that do not conflict: the thought of oneness is brought about by one thing.
The rays of a lamp that stand apart have not done the effective action marked by giving the power to see the finest things; that very action they do once they have blended together inside one house. There is no group of effective actions there. And streams that have fallen into the ocean do the effective action of starting a great many waves. In the same way a pot is golden and red; so it is fit for the effective action of fetching water fit for washing the head of a , and the moment it is seen it does the effective action marked by keen delight. So its doing effective action is simply established. As for the further question, “What limit is there to the mixing of ?”, to that it is answered: only those mix between which there is no conflict. The of visible form does not mix with the of wind, because they conflict; and that conflict too is raised up by the of . As the thought of oneness is brought about by the one real thing that belongs to the lights of lamps that stand apart, and by the one real thing that belongs to the streams in the ocean, so, with the appearances that do not conflict, pot, red, golden and the rest, the thought of oneness is brought about by the one that belongs to them: this is how the words connect. By “the thought of oneness”, appearing, and effective action are all taken in.