? , , , । । ? , । ? , । ? ---- , , , । ।} , ॥१०॥ ? ---- । ॥ §०§ , ; । । ॥११॥ , ---- । ॥ §१§ , , ; , ---- । ----
In plain words
But surely, if objects are just as many without as with , what difference is there in the , between its being the ’s and the ’s? It is answered. “His”: the creation whose doer is the moves on top of those objects created by the Lord, and for this very reason it lives on the Lord’s creation; it is “not shared”, fixed to each . For example, “this is lovely”: what one has created so is his alone at that time, and no one else’s. But surely, if the too has the of creating, then he is the Lord? True, he is the Lord. But then why is his creation not shared? It would be, if he knew his own . But in fact it is not known to him, and the act of , the of forming , rises in him only while he is in the sway of another. But by what is it raised in him? He says: the of the Lord, who has the form of , or who is marked as the mass of sound; made of the wheel of deities, and the rest, whose purpose is to hinder the highest sovereignty, marked by resting in ; and varied by this and that variety of letters, ka and the rest. The act of that comes by it to the is unsteady, since it takes no firm hold in one place; so it is shot through with the variety of letters, “this is a friend”, “this is an enemy” and the like. By that act of there is a creation that is not shared, belonging to the “whose self is that”, whose own nature is the Lord’s.
“An elephant with five faces and four tusks runs in the sky.”
Even in a mixing such as this, the creation of lives on those very that the Lord has created. So it was said that all the ’s creation, the creation of ideas, lives on the Lord’s creation.
But surely, if this creation of the is in form, what would the Supreme Lord’s creation do for the ? This is settled:
The Lord’s creation is shared, and otherwise too, since it appears clearly; by one-pointedness, through the leaving of , it becomes, step by step, the place of lordship.
The Lord’s creation is twofold: shared, a pot and the like; and not shared, pointed out by “otherwise”, a double moon and the like; and its mark in common is what is called appearing clearly. When this creation, by the step-by-step leaving of , holds to one-pointedness on that object, clear in its appearing and grasped by what is free of alone, and becomes the place of the of sovereignty, “I this”, then, in the way of an aim within with the gaze outward, avoiding the closing and opening of the eyes, step by step, by degrees of practice, it strikes down the ’s being a and shows his lordship. Further: the creation of that was called the ’s, if it is “otherwise”, that is, the reverse of the form stated before, belonging to one who has come to know his oneness of self with the Lord’s , now known, then it too is shared, like the of nourishing, of hostile rites, of pacifying and the rest, in one who has placed the and whose has been steeped in contemplation.
So it has been shown that , marked by seeing face to face that the universe is one’s self, is known in oneself alone, when one becomes one with the form free of through the wearing away of . Now he shows it even where has not worn away:
For one who knows fully, “All this is my glory”, whose self is the universe, there is being the Great Lord even when spread.
For I am not some other, a called the inward self. Rather, the highest, solid with the one that has taken grasped and grasper into itself: that alone am I, and that is I alone, and no other. So even the creation of is my glory, marked by . When the is firm in this way, one is freed while still living, even though has not worn away. As has been said: