। । । । । , , । , , । ? । , । , , , , । ---- , , , । , , ---- । , , , ---- , । , । । , , । । । ॥} ॥१६॥
In plain words
It has been said that a is an ever new that clings to a limited and faces towards the . So where that which is , whose own nature is alone, is established beforehand, what use has a , or what room is there for one? For this is how it is: when the is already established, a grants the an establishment it never had before, made of the that lies within the clinging to him. But if the were not established, what establishment could cling to him? For the variety of the universe shines there, in the Supreme Lord, who is alone, as a picture shines on a wall. For if blue, yellow and the rest were held in awareness each quite apart, then, each resting in itself, the acts of knowing them would be in just that way like the insentient, the blind and the deaf to one another’s objects, fixed on their own objects alone; and the arising in keeping with them would be just the same. Then how could anyone come to understand “this is a picture”? But on one wall-surface, free of hollows, rises and the like, which yet bears a division into hollow, rise and the like marked off by lines, the appearance of a picture, “this woman has a deep navel and high breasts”, is fitting. In the same way, difference in the form of variety holds because it clings to the one wall of . So he speaks of the never-failing self-luminousness of , the wall on which the differences of things are grasped. What need is there, then, of a for the self-luminous? But if it is said that before the it does not shine, then it would follow that it does not exist at all, since its form is alone. Nor can contact with non-being, “it is not”, hold for it; for it alone truly is, since being belongs to alone, and what is cannot take the form of what is not. But if it is said, “His lordship, not yet known by a , will be known by one”, that will not do either. For if He did not shine as the , whose would this be? And if He does shine, then being the is itself lordship. That is what he says with “in the Lord, the whose own form has always shone”. It is a “” because it is grasped in its distinctness: the He shares with nothing else. For this very reason, because His form is free , contact with non-being cannot touch Him; and so the dealings of time, which come about through non-being entering in, have no place here. That is what is said by “ancient”. “What ” there means: from what purpose a , and what use has a there? And there “what ?” also means that none at all holds together under reasoning. For a , whose form is a new , is a by bringing about in the a coming to rest whose mark is valid knowing; and the is an unbroken , and holds every act of valid knowing within himself, in his inward-facing form. So how could a new come to such a , and where would its valid knowing come to rest? Therefore let be spoken of only for a who is all but the body, , the or the void. And even there, if at all, in the part that is known, and never in any way in the part that is . Even there, in the new that faces its content and is for that very reason contracted, let self-awareness be called a with regard to its clinging to the true , who is without contraction. The Buddhist too, with “this knowing is mine”, must accept that it clings only to a constructed ; but a does nothing at all for the who is real in the highest sense. And I myself have said:
“Since everyone feels shame within himself at the thought ‘I have been made a ’, how could the Great Lord bear being made a ?”
So it runs.