, , , , । । । , , । ॥ । । । । , । , , । । , ---- ॥३॥ । ॥ §०§ , ; । , , । ॥४॥ , ---- । । ॥ §१§
In plain words
In “from whose the world rises”, it is the that is spoken of by the word . For the universe’s being clear and outward is its ; and is bringing about unclearness, making the form of I-ness rise uppermost; so is the , “from which the world’s dissolution”. This is the pure of the Supreme Lord, though He is unmoving, marked by taking on another form that has not taken root, since its form is a flashing, as a slight moving. For in the highest truth the array of is these of the Supreme Lord. But one , which takes many other into its lap, is to be worshipped because it is near, like a pot’s that is being a pot; another, which looks to another and rests in its own form alone, is far, like a pot’s that is being. In this way the of and are themselves and ; and the two deities who preside over them bear those names too.
Now he speaks of the , the instrument that belongs to those two who preside. ’s resting in itself alone, the marked by resting in being the of its own self, facing nothing else: that is called “I”. But the that faces another is “this”. And that, in the highest truth, rests again in mere self-luminousness, whose form faces nothing else. There, in the first is the ; in the second, being a . But in the middle form, the “I this”, held like the pans of an evenly held balance, is in the lord and in the revered ; and the difference is made by this-ness being dim or not dim. As for these two awarenesses, “I” and “this”: in the of they have separate grounds, “I” in the grasper and “this” in the grasped. Setting that aside, their coming together in one ground alone, a spreading forth in the form of relation: that is that is “sat”, pure, quite other than the impure that belongs to the of . There, when it makes the part “this” rise in that very ground of “I” whose form is alone, then, since that part is not clear, there is being : “I this”. But when it pours the of the part “I” into the part “this”, become clear as the ground, there is being : “this I”. This is the division.
But why is this pure ? He says:
Because it sees, as they really are, things that have come to being “this” and reached the level of the knowable, since their essence is awareness.
“Seeing” is spreading forth, knowing: that is ; and “as they really are” is following the real thing; that is its purity, its not being upside down. “That have reached” the state of the knowable, that is, have taken it on; and so “that have come to” being “this”, that is, are held in awareness by the fitting of the kind “this”: of such things, awareness itself, whose self is , is the real thing in the form of their essence; and is “I”, whose self is facing nothing else. So, since it has taken root in that very form of theirs which is real in the highest sense, “I this” has the form of pure knowing.
That the two are set apart from the two deities who preside over them, he teaches by a turn of words, in the way the speak:
Here things are lower because they shine as not the self, and higher because I-ness covers them; for that is the state that is higher and lower.