, ---- । , । ; ---- । । , । , , ---- । , , ; , , । । ---- , , , , , , , ---- । ; , । । , ---- । । । , । । , , , ---- । , , , ---- ॥९॥ , , ---- ,
In plain words
“Consider”: beginning with an example, he makes firm that the pervasion has been seen to be of just this kind. Insentient causes do their work when sentient beings set them in motion. For if clay and the rest could bring it about by their mere presence, what would the potter have to do here? If it is said that they bring it forth through a chain of stages, the lump, the mound and the rest, and that this chain depends on the potter, then what we set out to prove is proved: that even in bringing about the lump they look to a sentient being to set them in motion. So insentient causes never anywhere do their work without a sentient being to set them in motion. For if they ever did, clay and the rest would do it too: this is a rule without exception. And so whatever is not sentient and does work looks to a sentient being, like clay and the rest; and so it is with the seed and the rest: this is their own nature. For an insentient thing’s doing work has a cause, because it happens only at times; and no other cause of it makes sense, since none is perceived. So if it did not take that setting in motion by a sentient being for its cause, it would follow that it has no cause, which goes against what pervades it; and that is not right, since the same would follow for clay and the rest as well. So the pervasion is established. And so the potter alone is the lord there. That is what he says: by an ordering whose form is lordship, whatever is the preparing of clay, stick, wheel and the rest, the kneading of the clay, the straightening of the stick, the turning of the wheel and so on, and the sequence that begins from it, in the form of the lump, the mound and the rest: by that he brings forth the pot of necessity, and not otherwise. The optative is in the sense of necessity. Further, if no one takes offence, in truth the potter too would bring it forth only by the Lord’s ordering, whose form is being the free self of the universe, and which looks to the preparing of clay and the rest, out of the unfolding of His own named , as was shown before. Otherwise, how would insentient clay and the rest follow the potter’s will? Or why would threads not heed the will to bring about cloth? This too is said by this very , with “Consider”. But surely, in this way the potter is not the doer, and so the ordering of and would be swept away. If you trust reasoning and scripture, it is just so. Even so, in the midst of making everything else, this too is made by the Supreme Lord alone: that the potter, a , holds unwavering the false conceit of being the doer, as a surety holds the conceit of being the debtor. But if the Lord’s will is just this, “Let this conceit not rise in him”, then he is no doer at all. This too is said by the very , with “Consider”. For the potter too, the inquiry in the form of a question put to oneself, “Shall I bring forth the pot through the sequence of preparing clay and the rest, or shall I not?”, which is for settling on one side, comes only from a state that belongs to the Lord, many in kind, whose form is hiding one’s own and bringing that truth to light. The optative is in the sense of asking oneself. Therefore in truth the Lord alone is the doer everywhere; and I am He; so I am not a doer in what is limited, but a doer everywhere. This much is to be taken to heart in every way: so it stands.
What was said, that it is the of this sentient one alone that is seen unfolding everywhere, since it brings even insentient things to be its own self, and that insentient things have no power to bring another thing to light, he makes firm by an example well known to every school: