, । । , , , , ---- , ॥३॥ , ---- । । ॥ §०§ । ॥ §१§ , । । , ---- । , । । , , ॥४॥॥५॥ । । ॥ §२§ । । ---- ; , ---- ॥६॥ ; ? । । ॥ §३§
In plain words
And he who is freed knows things, taking them to be as his own limbs; so he is their master, and since he hands them their own form as it is in the highest truth, their protector: so in the he is taught as . When he knows things, which have differences made by the of , as really set apart, then he is noosed by those very , which are nooses; so he is called . Consider: by the sway of the mass of the known alone, his are the , , I-am-ness, passion, hatred, clinging and the rest; the , in the form of , and the rest; by the words “and the rest”, , in the form of what lies stored; and ripening, in the form of tasting the fruit. So the stain is of endless kinds, and because of it, since he is noosed, he is called .
He says that this very form of a is what the call the threefold :
Loss of for awareness, and lack of awareness even for : this is twofold, because it takes away one’s own .
Right here, the spreading forth of the known as divided is the one named ; and in a doer who lacks awareness there is the , which gives birth and experience. By the of alone are these three.
Here, to begin with, the of the is being knower and doer. Its being taken away is what is called , by which he becomes an , contracted. There, the closing of is contraction. While the form that is awareness stays, the closing, or the reversal, of the other side of , which is , marked by being the doer: in both ways the is one alone, in the form of loss of .
“Right here”: when the is present, and the twofold contraction of has come about, the spreading forth of what is divided has the bare name . Yet all three are , since makes them. There, when the known spreads forth as divided for the doer, the body and the rest, whose form is lack of awareness, there is the , in the form of and , from which come birth and experience; and that has a fixed limit. So what is meant is: has birth, length of life and experience for its fruit.
Now, to make the form of these clear by setting out the field of each apart, he first states the field of “loss of for awareness”:
Those who, though their self is pure awareness, have no highest being the doer, are made by the Upholder as different from Himself, because being the doer is gone from them.
Those whose highest truth is alone, but not the highest , whose form is the bliss of resting in one’s own self as “I”: they are made by the Supreme Lord through it, set apart from Himself. The reason here is the “going” of being the doer, marked by the highest , that is, its absence. But the Supreme Lord’s form is awareness never parted from the highest : this is the rest of the intent.
But surely, for this reason let them be different from the Supreme Lord; but how are they different from one another, since they share the form of awareness, and the absence of difference in space and time that comes from being all-pervading and eternal? And if they are not different from one another, how is “they are made” in the plural? He clears away this doubt:
Even though they are one in having awareness as their one mark, they are different from one another through a difference in the Lord’s will to that end; and they are the .