Bhashya
नन्वव्याकृतं स्वयमेव व्याक्रियतेत्युक्तम् ; कथमिदमिदानी-मुच्यते— पर एव त्वात्मा अव्याकृतं व्याकुर्वन्निह प्रविष्टइति ।नैष दोषः—परस्याप्यात्मनोऽव्याकृतजगदात्मत्वेनविवक्षितत्वात् ।आक्षिप्तनियन्तृकर्तृक्रियानिमित्तं हि जगद्-व्याकृतं व्याक्रियतेत्यवोचाम ।इदंशब्दसामानाधिकरण्याच्चअव्याकृतशब्दस्य ।यथेदं जगन्नियन्त्राद्यनेककारकनिमित्तादि-विशेषवद्व्याकृतम्, तथा अपरित्यक्तान्यतमविशेषवदेव तदव्या-कृतम् ।व्याकृताव्याकृतमात्रं तु विशेषः ।दृष्टश्च लोके वि-वक्षातः शब्दप्रयोगो ग्राम आगतो ग्रामः शून्य इति—क-दाचिद्ग्रामशब्देन निवासमात्रविवक्षायां ग्रामः शून्य इति श-ब्दप्रयोगो भवति; कदाचिन्निवासिजनविवक्षायां ग्राम आ-गत इति ; कदाचिदुभयविवक्षायामपि ग्रामशब्दप्रयोगो भ-वति ग्रामं च न प्रविशेदिति यथा—तद्वदिहापि जगदिदंव्याकृतमव्याकृतं चेत्यभेदविवक्षायामात्मानात्मनोर्भवति व्य-पदेशः ।तथेदं जगदुत्पत्तिविनाशात्मकमिति केवलजगत्त्यप-देशः ।तथा 'महानज आत्मा' 'अस्थूलोऽनणुः' 'स एष नेति नेति' इत्यादि केवलात्मव्यपदेशः ॥
In plain words
An objection is raised: has it not been said that the unmanifest universe unfolds itself spontaneously? Why is it said now that the supreme Self itself, while bringing forth the unmanifest, entered directly into it? There is no flaw here, because the supreme Self is being described precisely as the underlying reality of that unmanifest universe. We have already explained that the manifest world arises through the causal network of controllers, agents, and actions, and the word 'this' shares the same case as the word 'unmanifest.' Just as this tangible world possesses numerous distinct attributes like controllers, so too the unmanifest possesses its own subtle attributes; the only actual difference between them lies in whether they are manifest or unmanifest. In ordinary life, we see that words follow the speaker's intent: we say 'the village has arrived' when we mean the villagers, or 'the village is empty' when we mean the empty houses, or 'do not enter the village' when we mean both together. In the same way, Scripture sometimes speaks of the world as manifest or unmanifest when teaching the non-difference of the Self and the world. At other times, when describing the world as subject to birth and decay, it speaks of the world alone. And yet at other times, through passages like 'The great, unborn Self,' 'Neither gross nor subtle,' and 'This Self is not this, not this,' it speaks exclusively of the pure Self.
Close to the Sanskrit
Not thus? The unmanifest itself is unfolded, it has been said; how is this now spoken—that the supreme Self itself, manifesting the unmanifest, entered here? This is no fault, because the supreme Self is intended to be described as having the nature of the unmanifest world. For we stated that the manifest world is produced with the cause of assumed controller, agent, and action, and because of the co-ordinativity of the word this with the word unmanifest. Just as this world, possessing various causes such as controllers, is manifest, so that unmanifest remains possessing some undestroyed distinction. The difference is merely manifest and unmanifest. And it is seen in the world that word usage depends on intention, as 'the village has come,' 'the village is empty'—sometimes with the word village when intending merely the residence, the word usage 'the village is empty' takes place; sometimes when intending the resident people, 'the village has come'; sometimes even when intending both, as in 'do not enter the village'—similarly here also, this world is manifest and unmanifest, thus in the intention of non-difference the designation of the Self and non-Self occurs. Thus this world is of the nature of origination and destruction, thus there is designation of the mere world. Thus 'the great unborn Self,' 'not gross, not subtle,' 'this same one is not this, not this,' and so forth, is the designation of the pure Self.