Bhashya
सर्वा एताः कल्पनाः बुद्धिविज्ञानावभासकस्य व्यतिरिक्तस्य आत्मज्योतिषोऽपह्नवात् अस्य श्रेयोमार्गस्य प्रतिपक्षभूता वैदिकस्य ।तत्र येषां बाह्योऽर्थः अस्ति, तान्प्रत्युच्यते — न तावत् स्वात्मावभासकत्वं घटादेः; तमसि अवस्थितः घटादिस्तावत् न कदाचिदपि स्वात्मना अवभास्यते, प्रदीपाद्यालोकसंयोगेन तु नियमेनैवावभास्यमानो दृष्टः सालोको घट इति- संश्लिष्टयोरपि घटालोकयोः अन्यत्वमेव, पुनः पुनः संश्लेषे विश्लेषे च विशेषदर्शनात्, रज्जुघटयोरिव ; अन्यत्वे च व्यतिरिक्तावभासकत्वम्; न स्वात्मनैव स्वमात्मानमवभासयति' ।ननु प्रदीपः स्वात्मानमेव अवभासयन् दृष्ट इति—न हि घटादिवत् प्रदीपदर्शनाय प्रकाशान्तरम् उपाददते लौकिकाः ; तस्मात् प्रदीपः स्वात्मानं प्रकाशयति—न, अवभास्यत्वाविशेषात्— यद्यपि प्रदीपः अन्यस्यावभासकः स्वयमवभासात्मकत्वात्, तथापि व्यतिरिक्तचैतन्यावभास्यत्वं न व्यभिचरति, घटादिवदेव ; यदा चैवम्, तदा व्यतिरिक्तावभास्यत्वं तावत् अवश्यंभावि ।ननु यथा घटः चैतन्यावभास्यत्वेऽपि व्यतिरिक्तमालोकान्तरमपेक्षते, न त्वेवं प्रदीपः अन्यमालोकान्तरमपेक्षते ; तस्मात् प्रदीपः
In plain words
All these clever theories, once you look closely, share the same flaw: they deny that there is any light of the Self standing apart from the mind and its cognitions, illumining them from beyond. And that denial puts them squarely against the Vedic path to the highest good. So here is the answer, addressed to those who at least still accept that an external world is real. Start with the obvious: a pot cannot light itself up. Sitting in the dark, it stays completely unrevealed, no matter how long you wait — it only ever becomes visible once a lamp or some other light meets it, and everyone has seen that happen. So even though the pot and the light touch, they're still two different things, because you can watch the distinction appear and disappear, over and over, exactly as you can watch a rope tied around a pot and then untied again. And once you accept that they're different, it follows that whatever illumines something has to be distinct from the thing it illumines — a pot never lights itself up by itself. But wait, someone objects: don't we see a lamp light up itself? People certainly don't fetch a second lamp just to see the first one, the way they need a lamp to see a pot. So doesn't that mean the lamp is its own illuminator? No — because, as far as simply being an illumined thing goes, the lamp is no different from the pot. Yes, the lamp lights up other things, and yes, that's because shining is its very nature. But that doesn't let it escape needing a consciousness beyond itself to reveal it, exactly like the pot. And if that's so, then being lit up by something else turns out to be unavoidable, full stop. But then comes one more objection: doesn't the pot need an extra physical light on top of consciousness, while the lamp needs no such extra light at all? So surely the lamp is different after all — which means the lamp...
Close to the Sanskrit
All these speculative constructions are, because of their denial of a light of the Self, distinct from and illuminating the intellect and cognition, opposed to this Vedic path of the highest good. There, to those for whom an external object exists, a reply is given: In the first place, the pot and the like does not have the property of illumining its own self; the pot situated in darkness is never at all revealed by its own self, but rather it is observed that, being invariably illumined through conjunction with the light of a lamp and the like, the pot becomes light-accompanied; therefore, even though pot and light are found joined, they are indeed different, because their distinction is observed again and again both in conjunction and in disjunction, as with rope and pot. And given this difference, the illuminator must be distinct from the illumined; the pot does not illumine its own self by its own self alone. Objection: But a lamp is observed illumining precisely its own self — for indeed, ordinary people do not employ another light in order to see a lamp, as they do for a pot; therefore the lamp illumines its own self. Answer: No, because there is no difference in respect of being an illumined thing. Even though the lamp is the illuminator of something else, because it is itself of the nature of illumination, nevertheless it does not escape being illumined by a consciousness distinct from it, exactly like the pot. And since this is so, then being illumined by something distinct is, at any rate, inevitable. Objection: But just as the pot, even while being illumined by consciousness, additionally requires a distinct further light, the lamp does not likewise require another further light; therefore the lamp—