Bhashya
प्रवेश उपपद्यते नोपपद्यत इति—तिष्ठतु तावत् ; प्रविष्टानां संसारित्वात्तदनन्यत्वाच्च परस्य संसारित्वमिति चेत्,न; अशनायाद्यत्ययश्रुतेः ।सुखित्वदुःखित्वादिदर्शनान्नेतिचेत्, न; ‘न लिप्यते लोकदुःखेन बाह्यः’ इति श्रुतेः ।प्रत्यक्षादिविरोधादयुक्तमिति चेत्, न; उपाध्याश्रयजनित-विशेषविषयत्वात्प्रत्यक्षादेः ।‘न दृष्टेर्द्रष्टारं पश्येः’ ‘वि-ज्ञातारमरे केन विजानीयात्’ ‘अविज्ञातं विज्ञातृ’ इत्या-दिश्रुतिभ्यो न आत्मविषयं विज्ञानम्; किं तर्हि? बुद्ध्याद्यु-पाध्यासप्रतिच्छायाविषयमेव ‘सुखितोऽहं’ ‘दुःखितोऽहम्’इत्येवमादि प्रत्यक्षविज्ञानम्; ‘अयम् अहम्’ इति विष-येण विषयिणः सामानाधिकरण्योपचारात्; ‘नान्यदतो-ऽस्ति द्रष्टृ’ इत्यन्यात्मप्रतिषेधाच्च ।देहावयवविशेष्यत्वाच्च सु-खदुःखयोर्विषयधर्मत्वम् ।‘आत्मनस्तु कामाय’ इत्यात्मार्थ-त्वश्रुतेरयुक्तमिति चेत्, न; ‘यत्र वा अन्यदिव स्यात्’इत्यविद्याविषयात्मार्थत्वाभ्युपगमात्, ‘तत्केन कं पश्येत्’‘नेह नानास्ति किंचन’ ‘तत्र को मोहः कः शोक एकत्वम-नुपश्यतः’ इत्यादिना विद्याविषये तत्प्रतिषेधाच्च न आत्मधर्मत्व-म् ।तार्किकसमयविरोधादयुक्तमिति चेत्, न; युक्त्याप्यात्मनोदुःखित्वानुपपत्तेः ।न हि दुःखेन प्रत्यक्षविषयेणात्मनो विशे-ष्यत्वम्, प्रत्यक्षाविषयत्वात् ।आकाशस्य शब्दगुणवत्त्ववदात्म-नो दुःखित्वमिति चेत्, न; एकप्रत्ययविषयत्वानुपपत्तेः ।न हिह्यमृतं ततः' इत्यादिस्मृतिभ्यश्च ।भेददर्शनापवादाच्च, सृष्ट्यादिवाक्यानामात्मैकत्वदर्शनार्थपरत्वोपपत्तिः ।तस्मात्कार्यस्थस्योपलभ्यत्वमेव प्रवेश इत्युपचर्यते ॥
In plain words
Does the Supreme's entry into the body make sense, or not? Let that question rest for a moment. If someone objects that since the souls that enter are subject to saṃsāra and are non-different from the Supreme, the Supreme must also be subject to saṃsāra—we answer: not so, because scripture declares that the Supreme transcends hunger and thirst. If you argue that we actually observe individuals experiencing happiness and misery, and therefore the Supreme must also experience them—we answer: not so, because scripture states, 'External, he is untouched by the sorrow of the world.' If you object that denying this contradicts direct sensory perception and is therefore untenable—we answer: not so, because perception and other valid means of knowledge operate only within the realm of limiting adjuncts. Texts like 'You would not see the seer of sight,' 'By what would you know the knower, O dear one?', and 'The unknown knower' show that the Self is never an object of objective cognition. What then is the nature of ordinary sensory awareness like 'I am happy' or 'I am miserable'? It is merely a reflection cast upon the mind and its adjuncts, falsely attributed to the true subject through the loose linguistic usage of identifying the ego with the Self, and refuted by the text 'There is no other seer than this.' Furthermore, because pleasure and pain are experienced in connection with the limbs of the body, they belong strictly to the bodily adjuncts, not to the pure Self. If you object that the Upanishadic text 'Everything is for the sake of the Self' proves that the Self desires and experiences objects—we answer: not so, because that subservience applies only to the realm of ignorance. In the state of true knowledge, scripture explicitly negates duality, declaring: 'Where there is as it were another, then by what and whom would one see?', 'There is no multiplicity here whatsoever,' and 'What delusion or sorrow can there be for one who sees the absolute oneness?' Thus, misery is never an attribute of the Self. If logicians object that this conflicts with their philosophical systems—we answer: not so, because even sound reasoning shows that suffering cannot belong to the Self. Suffering is a perceptible object, but the Self is never an object of sensory perception. If you argue by analogy that the Self possesses misery just as space possesses the attribute of sound—we answer: not so, because the Self and suffering cannot form a single, homogeneous object of awareness. Moreover, traditional smriti texts confirm: 'The immortal is beyond that.' Since all descriptions of creation and manifestation ultimately serve to reveal the non-dual unity of the Self, the scriptural mention of the Supreme's 'entry' into the body is simply a figurative way of describing how the transcendent consciousness becomes manifest within the physical frame.
Close to the Sanskrit
Does entry make sense or not? Let this rest for the moment. If it is objected that because those who have entered have transmigratory nature and are non-different from that, the supreme also has transmigratory nature—not so, because of the scriptural statement of passing beyond hunger and the like. If it is objected that because of the observation of happiness and misery and the like it is not so—not so, because of the scriptural text 'Untouched is he by the world's misery, external.' If it is objected that it is improper because of contradiction with perception and other means—not so, because perception and others have as their object particulars produced by dependence on adjuncts. Based on scriptural passages such as 'You would not see the seer of sight,' 'By what would you know the knower, O dear one?', 'The unknown knower,' there is no cognition having the Self as its object; what then? Perceptual cognition such as 'I am happy, I am miserable' has as its object solely the reflected image produced by the superimposition of the intellect and other adjuncts, due to the metaphorical use of co-ordinate syntax between the object and the subject, and because of the prohibition of any other seer by 'There is no other seer than this.' And because of being qualified by bodily limbs, misery is an attribute of the object. If it is objected that this is improper because of the scriptural text stating that everything is for the sake of the Self—not so, because it is admitted that it pertains to the Self in the realm of ignorance, as stated by 'Where there is as it were another, then by what would one see whom?', 'There is no multiplicity here whatsoever,' 'What delusion is there, what sorrow, for one who perceives the oneness?' and similar texts, and because of the prohibition of it in the realm of true knowledge, misery is not an attribute of the Self. If it is objected that it is improper because it contradicts the doctrines of logicians—not so, because even through reasoning, misery cannot belong to the Self. Indeed, the Self cannot be qualified by misery, which is an object of perception, since the Self is not an object of perception. If it is objected that the Self has misery like space having the attribute of sound—not so, because of the impossibility of being the object of a single unified cognition. And from smriti texts such as 'Indeed the immortal is from that.' And because of the sublation of the perception of difference, creation and other passages are reasonably understood as having the realization of the oneness of the Self as their ultimate purport. Therefore, the entry is figuratively spoken of as merely the being cognized of the one located in the effect.