Bhashya
या तु आत्मनो दृष्टिः अग्न्युष्णप्रकाशादिवत्, सा च द्रष्टुः स्वरूपत्वात्, न जायते न विनश्यति च; सा क्रियमाणया उपाधिभूतया संसृष्टेवेति, व्यपदिश्यते- द्रष्टेति, भेदवच्च- द्रष्टा दृष्टिरिति च; यासौ लौकिकी दृष्टिः चक्षुर्द्वारा रूपोपरक्ता जायमानैव नित्यया आत्मदृष्ट्या संसृष्टेव, तत्प्रतिच्छाया- तया व्याप्तैव जायते, तथा विनश्यति च; तेन उपचर्यते द्रष्टा सदा पश्यन्नपि- पश्यति न पश्यति चेति; न तु पुनः द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेः कदाचिदप्यन्यथात्वम्; तथा च वक्ष्यति षष्ठे- ‘ध्यायतीव लेलायतीव’, ‘न हि द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते’ इति च ।तमिममर्थमाह- लौकिक्या दृष्टेः कर्मभूतायाः, द्रष्टारं स्वकीयया नित्यया दृष्ट्या व्याप्तारम्, न पश्येः; यासौ लौकिकी दृष्टिः कर्मभूता, सा रूपोपरक्ता रूपाभिव्यञ्जिका न आत्मानं स्वात्मनो व्याप्तारं प्रत्यञ्चं व्याप्नोति; तस्मात् तं प्रत्यगात्मानं दृष्टेर्द्रष्टारं न पश्येः ।तथा श्रुतेः श्रोतारं न शृणुयाः ।तथा मतेः मनोवृत्तेः केवलाया व्यापारं न मन्वीथाः ।तथा विज्ञातेः केवलाया बुद्धिवृत्तेः व्यापारं न विजानीयाः ।एष वस्तुनः स्वभावः; अतः नैव दर्शयितुं शक्यते गवादिवत् ॥
In plain words
But the self's own seeing is nothing like that. It is like fire's heat, like its light -- simply what the seer is made of, so it is never born and it never dies. When it seems to mix with something that is being produced -- some passing condition -- people start calling it 'the seer,' and, as if a real gap had opened up between them, they speak of 'the seer' on one side and 'the seeing' on the other. That ordinary, everyday seeing comes in through the eye, gets colored by whatever it lands on, and seems, the moment it arises, to fuse with the self's own changeless seeing. Really it is just a reflection of that seeing, and being only a reflection, it arises, and it dies away again. That's exactly why we casually say of the seer -- who is in fact seeing every single moment -- that he 'sees' and then 'doesn't see.' But nothing ever actually happens to the seer's own seeing, not once, not ever. And this is exactly what gets said later, in the sixth section: 'it seems to meditate, it seems to waver' -- and, 'the seer's seeing never lapses.' Here is the point, put directly: don't mistake the everyday seeing -- which is just an object -- for the seer himself, the one who pervades it through his own unchanging vision. That everyday seeing gets colored by shapes, it reveals shapes -- but it cannot reach the self, the one who quietly pervades it from within, facing inward, away from every object. So don't look for that inner self, the seer behind seeing, as if he were something to be seen. In the same way, don't listen for the hearer behind hearing. Don't treat the mind's bare activity as if it were the thinker. Don't treat the intellect's bare activity as if it were the knower. This is simply what that reality is -- and that is exactly why it can never be pointed out the way you'd point out a cow.
Close to the Sanskrit
But that seeing which belongs to the self, like fire's heat and light and so on, being of the very nature of the seer, neither arises nor perishes; joined, as it were, with what is being produced -- what has become a limiting condition -- it is spoken of as 'the seer', and, as if there were a difference, as 'the seer' and 'the seeing' respectively. That empirical seeing which, arising through the eye, tinged with form, appears joined with the eternal seeing of the self -- being pervaded by its reflection, it arises, and likewise it perishes. On that account the seer is spoken of, though always seeing, as 'he sees, he does not see.' But there is never, at any time, any alteration of the seer's own seeing. And so it will be said, in the sixth chapter: 'it seems to meditate, it seems to waver' and 'for there is no lapse of the seer's seeing.' This very point he now states: of the empirical seeing, which has become an object, you should not see the seer -- the one pervading by his own eternal seeing -- as its object. That empirical seeing, having become an object, tinged with form, revealing form, does not reach the self, the inward-facing one who pervades its own self. Therefore you should not see that inner self, the seer of seeing, as an object. Likewise you should not hear the hearer of hearing. Likewise you should not think of the mere functioning of the mind's activity as the thinker. Likewise you should not cognize the mere functioning of the intellect's activity as the knower. This is the very nature of that reality; therefore it simply cannot be shown, the way a cow and so on can be shown.