Bhashya
एवं तर्हि विद्याप्रत्ययसंतत्यभावात् विपरीतप्रत्ययतत्का-र्ययोश्च दर्शनात् अन्त्य एव आत्मप्रत्ययोऽविद्यानिव-र्तकः, न तु पूर्व इति ।न, प्रथमेनानैकान्तिकत्वात् —यदि हि प्रथम आत्मविषयः प्रत्ययोऽविद्यां न निवर्तयति,तथा अन्त्योऽपि, तुल्यविषयत्वात् ।एवं तर्हि संततोऽवि-द्यानिवर्तकः न विच्छिन्न इति ।न, जीवनादौ सति संत-त्यनुपपत्तेः — न हि जीवनादिहेतुके प्रत्यये सति विद्याप्र-त्ययसंततिरूपपद्यते , विरोधात् ।अथ जीवनादिप्रत्ययति-रस्करणेनैव आ मरणान्तात् विद्यासंततिरिति चेत् , न, प्र-त्ययेयत्तासंतानानवधारणात् शास्त्रार्थानवधारणदोषात् — इ-यतां प्रत्ययानां संततिरविद्याया निवर्तिकेत्यनवधारणात् शा-स्त्रार्थो नावध्रियेत ; तच्चानिष्टम् ।संततिमात्रत्वेऽवधारितएवेति चेत् , न, आद्यन्तयोरविशेषात् — प्रथमा विद्याप्रत्य-यसंततिः मरणकालान्ता वेति विशेषाभावात् , आद्यन्तयोः
In plain words
If that is so, then since an unbroken stream of spiritual realization is impossible, and since we clearly observe erroneous thoughts and their practical consequences, only the very last thought of the Self before death must be what destroys ignorance, not any earlier ones. No, for that makes the first realization ineffective and leads to a logical contradiction. If the first thought that takes the Self as its object cannot dispel ignorance, then the last one cannot either, since both have the exact same object. If you then argue that only an unbroken, continuous stream of realization destroys ignorance, and not a fragmented one... No, because as long as one is alive and active, such absolute continuity is impossible. While thoughts driven by the needs of physical life are present, a continuous stream of pure spiritual realization cannot exist, for they are mutually exclusive. If you suggest that one can suppress all thoughts of physical life and maintain an unbroken stream of realization until death... No, because you can never determine the exact number or duration of thoughts in such a stream. This leads to the serious flaw of leaving the scriptural teachings completely indefinite. If we cannot define how many thoughts constitute the stream that destroys ignorance, the true import of scripture remains unresolved—an unacceptable conclusion. If you say it is defined simply as 'a stream in general' without specifying the number... No, because there is no difference between the beginning and the end. There is no distinguishing factor to decide whether the first stream of realization or the one ending at death is the true destroyer, since the beginning and the end are identical in nature.
Close to the Sanskrit
If that is so, then because of the absence of a continuous stream of knowledge-cognitions, and because of the perception of contrary cognitions and their effects, only the final cognition of the Self is the destroyer of ignorance, not the prior ones. No, because of the inconclusiveness with the first — if indeed the first cognition having the Self as its object does not destroy ignorance, then the final one also [does not], because they have the same object. If that is so, then a continuous stream is the destroyer of ignorance, not an interrupted one. No, because a continuous stream is impossible when life-activities etc. exist — indeed, while cognitions caused by life-activities etc. exist, a continuous stream of knowledge-cognitions is not possible, because of contradiction. If it is argued that by suppressing the cognitions of life-activities etc., there is a continuous stream of knowledge-cognitions up to the end of life (death)... No, because of the non-determination of the quantity and continuity of cognitions, which leads to the defect of not determining the meaning of scripture — since it cannot be determined that 'a stream of this many cognitions is the destroyer of ignorance', the meaning of scripture would not be determined; and that is undesirable. If it is argued that it is determined simply as 'a stream in general'... No, because there is no distinction between the beginning and the end — because there is no distinguishing factor to determine whether the first stream of knowledge-cognitions or that which ends at the time of death [is the destroyer], since the beginning and the end are alike.