Bhashya
यत्तु ऋणैः प्रतिबध्यत इति, तन्न, अविद्यावद्विषयत्वात्- अविद्यावान्हि ऋणी, तस्य कर्तृत्वाद्युपपत्तेः, 'यत्र वा अन्यदिव स्यात्तत्रान्योऽन्यत्पश्येत्' इति हि वक्ष्यति- अनन्यत् सद्वस्तु आत्माख्यं यत्राविद्यायां सत्यामन्यदिव स्यात् तिमिरकृतद्वितीयचन्द्रवत् तत्राविद्याकृतानेककारकापेक्षं दर्शनादिकर्म तत्कृतं फलं च दर्शयति, तत्रान्योऽन्यत्पश्येदित्यादिना ; यत्र पुनर्विद्यायां सत्यामविद्याकृतानेकत्वभ्रमप्रहाणम्, 'तत्केन कं पश्येत्' इति कर्मासंभवं दर्शयति, तस्मादविद्यावद्विषय एव ऋणित्वम्, कर्मसंभवात्, नेतरत्र ।एतच्चोत्तरत्र व्याचिख्यासिष्यमाणैरेव वाक्यैर्विस्तरेण दर्शयिष्यामः ॥
In plain words
As for the objection that a person is bound by debts—that applies only to one who lives in ignorance. The debtor is exclusively the ignorant person, because agency and worldly roles belong only to him. As scripture itself declares: 'Where there is duality as it were, there one sees another'—meaning that when the non-dual reality called the Self appears to be divided because of ignorance, just like seeing a second moon due to an eye defect, it gives rise to all the manifold activities of seeing and acting created by nescience. But where true knowledge destroys the illusion of multiplicity, scripture shows the impossibility of action, asking: 'Then by what means and whom should one see?' Therefore, being a debtor belongs solely to the domain of ignorance, where action is still possible, never in liberation. We will explain this in full detail in the passages that follow.
Close to the Sanskrit
Now, as for the objection that one is bound by debts—that is not so, because it has the ignorant person as its domain; for the ignorant person alone is a debtor, since agency and the like are appropriate for him. As the scripture will state: 'Where indeed there is something like duality, there one might see another'—when the non-dual real entity named the Self appears as if it were something else due to ignorance, like a second moon produced by eye disease, then it displays seeing and other actions dependent upon numerous factors created by ignorance, and the fruit produced by that, through such passages as 'there one might see another'. On the other hand, where in the state of realization there is the abandonment of the illusion of multiplicity created by ignorance, it shows the impossibility of action through 'then by what means should one see whom?'. Therefore, the state of being a debtor belongs exclusively to the sphere of the ignorant, because action is possible, and not elsewhere. And this we will show in detail by sentences which we intend to explain further on.