Bhashya
ननु परेण व्याकर्त्रा व्याकृतं सर्वतो व्याप्तं सर्वदा ज-गत्; स कथमिह प्रविष्टः परिकल्प्यते; अप्रविष्टो हि देशःपरिच्छिन्नेन प्रवेष्टुं शक्यते, यथा पुरुषेण ग्रामादिः; नाका-शेन किंचित्, नित्यप्रविष्टत्वात् ।पाषाणसर्पादिवद्धर्मान्तरेणे-ति चेत्—अथापि स्यात्—न पर आत्मा स्वेनैव रूपेण प्र-विवेश; किं तर्हि? तत्स्थ एव धर्मान्तरेणोपजायते; तेनप्रविष्ट इत्युपचर्यते; यथा पाषाणे सहजोऽन्तस्थः सर्पः,नारिकेले वा तोयम्—न, 'तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्' इतिश्रुतेः ।यः स्रष्टा स भावान्तरमनापन्न एव कार्यं सृष्ट्वा प-श्चात्प्राविशदिति हि श्रूयते ।यथा 'भुक्त्वा गच्छति' इतिभुजिगमिक्रिययोः पूर्वापरकालयोरितरेतरविच्छेदः, अविशि-ष्टश्च कर्ता, तद्वदिहापि स्यात्; न तु तत्स्थस्यैव भावान्त-रोपजनन एतत्संभवति ।न च स्थानान्तरेण वियुज्य स्थाना-न्तरसंयोगलक्षणः प्रवेशो निरवयवस्यापरिच्छिन्नस्य दृष्टः ।सावयव एव प्रवेशश्रवणादिति चेत्, न; 'दिव्यो ह्यमूर्तः पुरु-षः' 'निष्कलं निष्क्रियम्' इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः, सर्वव्यपदेश्य-धर्मविशेषप्रतिषेधश्रुतिभ्यश्च ।प्रतिबिम्बप्रवेशवदिति चेत्, न;
In plain words
An objection is raised: Since the supreme creator has already manifested the entire universe and pervades it completely at all times, how can he be said to have entered it? A place that is not yet entered can only be penetrated by something limited, like a man entering a village; space itself does not enter anything because it is already all-pervading. If someone argues that the Supreme enters through a secondary attribute, just as a snake naturally dwells inside a stone or water resides inside a coconut—we reply: No, because Scripture explicitly declares, 'Having created that very thing, it entered it.' It teaches that the creator projected the universe and then entered it without undergoing any change of identity. Just as a person eats and then walks—where the two actions occur sequentially while the person remains one and the same—so too the creator remains unchanged. But such sequential action is impossible if the entity merely undergoes internal transformation while staying in place. Furthermore, physical entry involving the abandonment of one location and contact with another is never observed in the case of a partless, infinite reality. If you argue that entry is only spoken of things that possess parts, we answer: No, because śruti declares, 'The divine Purusha is formless,' 'He is partless and actionless,' and denies all finite attributes of the Supreme. If you suggest that the entry is like that of a reflection—we reply: No.
Close to the Sanskrit
Now, the manifold world being manifested by the supreme manifester, all-pervading and eternal—how is he imagined to have entered here? An unentered place can be entered by a limited entity, as a village by a man; but not anything by space, because of its eternal pervasiveness. If it be said 'by another attribute, like a stone serpent or the like'—even so, it might be: the supreme Self did not enter by its own form; what then? It arises with another attribute while staying right there; therefore it is figuratively spoken of as entered, just as the innate serpent residing inside a stone, or water inside a coconut—No, because of the scriptural text, 'Having created that, it entered that very thing.' For it is heard that the creator, without attaining another state of being, having created the effect, afterwards entered. Just as in the phrases 'having eaten, he goes,' the actions of eating and going have mutual temporal separation, and the agent is undivided—similarly here also, but this is not possible when another state of being is produced in that very entity abiding there. Nor is entry characterized by contact with another place, accompanied by separation from another place, seen in the case of a partless and unlimited entity. If it be said that entry is heard only of that which has parts—no, because of such scriptural texts as 'The divine, formless Purusha,' 'Partless, actionless,' and from texts prohibiting all expressible specific attributes. If it be said 'like the entry of a reflection'—no,