Bhashya
वस्त्वन्तरेण विप्रकर्षानुपपत्तेः ।द्रव्ये गुणप्रवेशवदिति चेत्, न ; अनाश्रितत्वात् ।नित्यपरतन्त्रस्यैवाश्रितस्य गुणस्य द्रव्ये प्रवेश उपचर्यते ; न तु ब्रह्मणः स्वातन्त्र्यश्रवणात्तथा प्रवेश उपपद्यते ।फले बीजवदिति चेत्, न ; सावयवत्ववृद्धिक्षयोत्पत्तिविनाशादिधर्मवत्त्वप्रसङ्गात् ।न चैवं धर्मवत्त्वं ब्रह्मणः, ‘अजोऽजरः’ इत्यादिश्रुतिन्यायविरोधात् ।अन्य एव संसारी परिच्छिन्न इह प्रविष्ट इति चेत्, न ; ‘सेयं देवतैक्षत’ इत्यारभ्य ‘नामरूपे व्याकरवाणि’ इति तस्या एव प्रवेशव्याकरणकर्तृत्वश्रुतेः ।तथा ‘तत्सृष्ट्वा तदेवानुप्राविशत्’ ‘स एतमेव सीमानं विदार्येतया द्वारा प्रापद्यत’ ‘सर्वाणि रूपाणि विचित्य धीरो नामानि कृत्वाभिवदन् यदास्ते’ ‘त्वं कुमार उत वा कुमारी त्वं जीर्णो दण्डेन वञ्चसि’ ‘पुरश्चक्रे द्विपदः’ ‘रूपं रूपम्’ इति च मन्त्रवर्णान्न परादन्यस्य प्रवेशः ।प्रविष्टानामितरेतरभेदात्परानेकत्वमिति चेत्, न ।‘एको देवो बहुधा संनिविष्टः’ ‘एकः सन्बहुधा विचार’ ‘त्वमेकोऽसि बहूननुप्रविष्टः’ ‘एको देवः सर्वभूतेषु गूढः सर्वव्यापी सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा’ इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः ॥
In plain words
Since Brahman is all-pervading, there can be no spatial distance between Him and anything else to allow for a literal entry. If you suggest it is like qualities entering a substance, we say no: qualities are inherently dependent on their substance, whereas scripture declares Brahman to be absolutely independent. If you suggest it is like a seed entering a fruit, we say no: that would mean Brahman has physical parts and is subject to birth, growth, decay, and death, which contradicts the timeless truth that He is unborn and changeless. If you suggest that a different, limited soul is the one who entered, we say no: scripture explicitly attributes both the creation and the entry to the same supreme Divinity. From the crown of the head to the soles of the feet, it is the one Divine Self that has entered, appearing as the youth, the maiden, and the elder. Nor does the apparent variety of living beings divide this one Self, for the sages sing of the one God hidden in all hearts, all-pervading and undivided.
Close to the Sanskrit
Because spatial separation from another object is impossible. If it is said, 'like the entry of qualities into a substance,' we say no, because Brahman is independent. The entry of a quality, which is eternally dependent, into a substance is only figuratively spoken of; but such entry is not logical for Brahman, because of the scriptural declaration of His absolute independence. If it is said, 'like the seed in the fruit,' we say no, because that would entail having parts, growth, decay, birth, and destruction. And Brahman does not possess such attributes, because it contradicts scriptural texts like 'unborn, decayless' and logical reasoning. If it is said, 'a different, limited transmigrating soul has entered here,' we say no, because starting from 'That deity willed...' up to 'Let me differentiate names and forms,' the agency of both entry and differentiation is heard to belong to that very deity. Likewise, 'Having created that, He entered into it,' 'He, having split this crown of the head, entered through this door,' 'The wise one, having projected all forms and made names, remains calling them,' 'You are the boy, or the girl, you are the old man tottering with a staff,' 'He made two-footed bodies,' and 'He became form after form'—from these mantras, there is no entry of anyone other than the Supreme. If it is said, 'Due to the mutual difference of those who entered, there is multiplicity of the Supreme,' we say no, because of scriptures like: 'One God is seated in many ways,' 'Being one, He moves in many ways,' 'You, being one, have entered many,' 'One God is hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the innermost Self of all beings.'