Bhashya
अथाधुना अमूर्तमुच्यते ।यत्परिशेषितं भूतद्वयं प्राणश्चयश्चायमन्तरात्मन्नाकाशः, एतदमूर्तम् ।अन्यत्पूर्ववत् ।एतस्य त्यस्य एष रसः सारः, योऽयं दक्षिणेऽक्षन्पुरुषः-दक्षिणेऽक्षन्निति विशेषग्रहणम्, शास्त्रप्रत्यक्षत्वात् ; लिङ्गस्यहि दक्षिणेऽक्षिण विशेषतोऽधिष्ठातृत्वं शास्त्रस्य प्रत्यक्षम्,सर्वश्रुतिषु तथा प्रयोगदर्शनात् ।त्यस्य ह्येष रस इति पूर्व-वत् विशेषतः अग्रहणात् अमूर्तत्वसारत्व एव हेत्वर्थः ॥
In plain words
Now it's the formless side's turn. What's left over — breath, and that space within the self — this is the formless. Everything else follows as before. And the essence, the very core, of this 'tyat' is: the person who lives in the right eye. Why say 'right eye' specifically? Because scripture is explicit about it — the subtle body is shown, consistently across every scripture, to preside specifically in the right eye; that's simply how the texts use the phrase, every time. And 'for this indeed is the essence of tyat' — just as before, precisely because no further qualification is given, this is exactly why it counts as both formless and as essence.
Close to the Sanskrit
Now, at this point, the formless is being explained. The pair of elements that remains — breath, and this space that is within the self — this is the formless. The rest is as before. Of this 'tyat', this is the essence, the core: the one who is this person in the right eye. 'In the right eye' — this specific mention is made because it is directly evident from scripture; for that the subtle body has its special seat specifically in the right eye is directly evident from scripture, because such usage is observed consistently in all the scriptural texts. 'For this indeed is the essence of tyat' — as before, because no further qualification is given, this is exactly the reason for its being formless and being the essence.