Bhashya
त्वं च उक्तम्; कुत एतदागादित्यस्य प्रश्नस्यापाकरणार्थःआरम्भः ।ननु यस्मिन्ग्रामे नगरे वा यो भवति, सोऽन्यत्रगच्छन् तत एव ग्रामान्नगराद्वा गच्छति, नान्यतः ; तथासति कैष तदाभूदित्येतावानेवास्तु प्रश्नः ; यत्राभूत् ततएव आगमनं प्रसिद्धं स्यात् नान्यत इति कुत एतदागादितिप्रश्नो निरर्थक एव- किं श्रुतिरुपालभ्यते भवता ? न ; किंतर्हि द्वितीयस्य प्रश्नस्य अर्थान्तरं श्रोतुमिच्छामि, अतआनर्थक्यं चोदयामि ।एवं तर्हि कुत इत्यपादानार्थता नगृह्यते; अपादानार्थत्वे हि पुनरुक्तता, नान्यार्थत्वे; अस्तुतर्हि निमित्तार्थः प्रश्नः- कुत एतदागात्- किंनिमित्तमिहा-गमनमिति ।न निमित्तार्थतापि, प्रतिवचनवैरूप्यात्; आ-त्मनश्च सर्वस्य जगतः अग्निविस्फुलिङ्गादिवदुत्पत्तिः प्रतिव-चने श्रूयते; न हि विस्फुलिङ्गानां विद्रवणे अग्निर्निमित्तम्,अपादानमेव तु सः ; तथा परमात्मा विज्ञानमयस्य आत्म-नोऽपादानत्वेन श्रूयते- 'अस्मादात्मनः' इत्येतस्मिन्वाक्ये;तस्मात् प्रतिवचनवैलौम्यात् कुत इति प्रश्नस्य निमित्तार्थतान शक्यते वर्णयितुम् ।नन्वपादानप्रश्नेऽपि पुनरुक्ततादोषःस्थित एव ॥
In plain words
And this too has been said [that the awareness-self is, by nature, both pure and beyond transmigration]. What follows now is meant to answer a lingering question: 'Where did this come from?' Someone might object: think of a person living in some village or town. When he sets out for somewhere else, he leaves from that very village or town — from nowhere else. So, by that logic, the only real question should have been 'Who was this, then?' Wherever he was, that is obviously where he came from — so asking 'where did this come from?' on top of that is just pointless. Are you accusing scripture of padding its own words? No — I want a different meaning drawn out of that second question, and that's exactly why I'm pushing on it. Fine — then maybe 'where' here doesn't mean 'source' at all? Because if it does, we're back to repeating ourselves; if it means something else, we need to say what. Suppose, then, it's asking about a reason: 'why did this come to be here?' But that doesn't work either — the answer that follows doesn't fit a question about reasons. What we're told is that the self, and the whole world with it, arises the way sparks fly from a fire. And a fire isn't the reason sparks fly off — it's simply where they come from. In exactly the same way, the Supreme Self is named as the source the awareness-self comes from — that's what the phrase 'from this self' means. So the mismatch with the answer rules out reading 'where' as asking for a reason. One objection remains, though: even reading it as asking for a source, aren't we still just repeating the first question?
Close to the Sanskrit
And it has been stated [that vijñānamaya is by nature both pure and free from transmigration]; the undertaking [that follows] is for the sake of resolving the question 'from where did this come?' Objection: in whatever village or town a person may be, when going elsewhere he goes from that very village or town, not from any other; that being so, let the question be simply this much: 'who was this, then?' — for wherever he was, the coming would be well known to be from that very place, not from elsewhere; so the question 'from where did this come?' is indeed meaningless. Is it scripture you are faulting? No; then what? I wish to hear some other meaning for the second question — that is why I press the charge of meaninglessness. Well then, is the sense of 'from where' as the ablative source not accepted here? For if taken in the ablative sense, there is redundancy; if not taken in that sense, let it then be a question about cause: 'from where did this come' meaning 'for what reason did this coming happen here?' That too cannot be the sense of cause, because the answer given does not match it: for in the answer, the origination of the self and of the whole world is described as being like sparks from a fire; and indeed, in the scattering of sparks, fire is not their cause in that sense — it is only their point of departure. Likewise the Supreme Self is described, with respect to the self called vijñānamaya, as its point of departure — in the sentence 'from this self.' Therefore, because of this mismatch with the answer, the sense of 'cause' cannot be maintained for the question 'from where.' Objection: but even on the ablative reading of the question, the fault of redundancy still stands.