एवं विमर्शबलादेव भेदाभेदव्यवस्था , तदेव हि परमेश्वरस्य संवेदनात्मनः शिवनाथस्य स्वातन्त्र्यशक्तिविजृम्भितम् ; ततश्च परैः यत् उच्यते दूरान्तिकादौ अर्थस्य अभेदः इति तदपि उअप्पद्यते , न तु अन्यथा कथंचित् , ---- इति निरूप्यते ।
दूरान्तिकतयार्थानां परोक्षाध्यक्षतात्मना ।
बाह्यान्तरतया दोषैर्व्यञ्जकस्यान्यथापि वा ॥ §०§
भिन्नावभासच्छायानामपि मुख्यावभासतः ।
एकप्रत्यवमर्शाख्यादेकत्वमनिवारितम् ॥ §१§
प्रतिभासमात्रेण व्यवस्थां कुर्वतः कथं दूरादूरयोर्वस्तुनोरभेदः , प्रतिभासस्य सकलासकलावृतानावृतादितया यथाकथंचिदपि भेदात् ? ननुविमर्शेऽपि प्रत्याभासं तथैव भिन्नता , ? सत्यम् , तथापि तु परो यो विमर्शः स एवायं पदार्थः इति एकप्रत्यवमर्शरूपः , तेन प्राणितकल्पेन आ समन्तात् ख्यानं प्रथनं यस्य मुख्यावभासस्य एकरूपभावाभासस्य , एकप्रत्यवमर्शे तदुचितो ऽपि हि अस्त्येकावभासः , आभासविमर्शयोरन्योन्यभवियोगात् । तस्मात् मुख्यावभासादेकत्वमप्रतिहतमास्ते । यदेवानुमितं तदेव दृष्टम् , ---- इत्यत्र प्रत्यक्षपरोक्षतारूपेणात्मना स्वभावेन भिन्ना अवभावच्छाया अमुख्योऽवभासो येषां तेषाम् एकत्वं मुख्यावभासत एकप्रत्यवमर्शानुप्राणितात् , ---- इति संगतिः । बाह्यान्तरतया भिनावभासानामैक्यं यथा यदेव दृष्टं तदेवान्तरहमुल्लिखामि , ---- इति । व्यञ्जकानां दीपालोकादीनां दोषैर्भोन्नावभासानाम् ऐक्यम् , यदेव रक्तोत्पलं दीपेन नीलं दृष्टं तदेव सूर्यांशुभिर्लोहितं पश्यामि , इति । अन्येनापि प्रकारेण इन्द्रियापाटवादिना एकपार्श्वसंमुखत्वादिना वा येषामवभासच्छाया भिन्ना , तेषामपि मुख्यप्रत्यवमर्शानुवर्त्यवभासस्वरूपबलात् ऐक्यमेव , ---- इति स्थितम् ॥१०॥॥११॥
ननु दूरादूरादावस्तु स एवार्थः प्रमात्रध्यवसितार्थक्रियांशे तथैवोपयोगात् , वाह्यान्तरत्वादौ कथम् , आन्तरस्यार्थक्रियायां प्रमात्रध्यवसितायामनुयोगात् ---- इति भ्रान्तिं भङ्क्तुमाह
अर्थक्रियापि सहजा नार्थानामीश्वरेच्छया ।
नियता सा हि तेनास्या नाक्रियातोऽन्यता भवेत् ॥ §२§
इह {कार्यकरणता}(इप्क् २,३।८) इत्यत्र स्वरूपमिवार्थक्रियापि या मध्ये गणिता , सा सहजार्थस्वरूपभूता न भवति , तत्कारित्वं हि यस्मात् ईश्वरेच्छया नियतं भवने चाभवने च । यतो नैषा स्वरूपं तेन तस्या अकरणात् हेतोर्भावस्यान्यत्वं नाशङ्कनीयं स्वरूपभेदात् हि संभाव्येतान्यत्वं , न च स्वरूपम् अर्थक्रियाकारित्वम् , ---- इत्युक्तं वक्ष्यते च बहुशः । स्वरूपं च प्रत्यवमर्शवलादेकमेव बाह्यान्तरादावपि , इति ॥१२॥
In plain words
So the ordering of difference and non-difference comes from the force of alone; for that is the very unfolding of the of of the Supreme Lord, the Protector, whose self is awareness. And so what others say, that in the far, the near and the like the object is not different, that too holds, and not otherwise in any way at all: this is now set out:
Of objects, by being far or near, by their nature as out of sight or perceived, by being outer or inner, by faults in what reveals them, or otherwise too,
even where the shadows of their appearance differ, oneness is not barred, because of the principal appearance, which shines forth through one .
For one who orders things by appearing alone, how can a thing far off and a thing near at hand be not different, since the appearing differs in one way or another, as whole or not whole, covered or uncovered and the like? But surely in too there is difference just the same, on each ? True. Even so, the later , “this is that very thing”, has the form of one ; and the principal appearance, the of the thing as one in form, is the one whose shining forth, its spreading on every side, comes through that, as though given life by it. For where there is one there is also one appearance fitting it, since and are never parted from each other. Therefore, because of the principal appearance, oneness stays unhindered. In “what was inferred is the very thing seen”, the words connect thus: things whose shadow of appearance, an appearance that is not principal, differs by their self, that is, by their own nature, in the form of being perceived or out of sight, have oneness because of the principal appearance, given life by one . The oneness of things whose appearances differ by being outer and inner is as in “the very thing I saw is what I now trace within”. The oneness of things whose appearances differ by the faults of what reveals them, lamplight and the like, is as in “the very red lotus I saw blue by the lamp, I now see red in the sun’s rays”. And things whose shadow of appearance differs in another way too, by dullness of the senses and the like, or by facing one side only and the like, have oneness all the same, by the strength of the form of the appearance that follows the principal : so it stands.
But surely, in the far, the near and the like, granted it is the same object, since it serves just so in the part that is the effective action the has settled on; but how is it so in being outer, inner and the like, since the inner is called into question in the effective action the has settled on? To break this error he says:
Effective action too is not innate to things; for it is fixed by the will of the Lord. So no otherness would come from its not being done.
Here, the effective action that was counted among them, as though it were the thing’s form, in “being effect and cause”, is not innate, not part of the very form of the object; for its doing that is fixed by the will of the Lord, both in coming to be and in not coming to be. Since it is not the thing’s form, the thing’s being other is not to be suspected because it is not done. For otherness would be supposed from a difference of form; and doing effective action is not a thing’s form. This has been said, and will be said, many times. And the form is one, by the force of , even in the outer, the inner and the like.