Bhashya
सदेव सदिति अस्तितामात्रं वस्तु सूक्ष्मं निर्विशेषं सर्व-गतमेकं निरञ्जनं निरवयवं विज्ञानम्, यदवगम्यते सर्ववे-दान्तेभ्यः ।एव-शब्दः अवधारणार्थः ।किं तदवध्रियतइति, आह— इदं जगत्, नामरूपक्रियावद्विकृतमुपलभ्यतेयत्, तत्सदेवासीत् इति आसीच्छब्देन संबध्यते ।कदासदेवेदमासीदिति, उच्यते— अग्रे जगतः प्रागुत्पत्तेः ।किं नेदानीमिदं सत्, येन अग्रे आसीदिति विशेष्यते ?न ।कथं तर्हि विशेषणम् ? इदानीमपीदं सदेव, किंतुनामरूपविशेषणवदिदंशब्दबुद्धिविषयं च इतीदं च भवति ।प्रागुत्पत्तेस्तु अग्रे केवलसच्छब्दबुद्धिमात्रगम्यमेवेति सदेवे-दमग्र आसीदित्यवधार्यते ।न हि प्रागुत्पत्तेः नामवद्रूपवद्वाइदमिति ग्रहीतुं शक्यं वस्तु सुषुप्तकाले इव ।यथा सुषु-प्तादुत्थितः सत्त्वमात्रमवगच्छति सुषुप्ते सन्मात्रमेव केवलंवस्त्विति, तथा प्रागुत्पत्तेरित्यभिप्रायः ।यथा इदमुच्यते
In plain words
The word 'sat' denotes pure existence—subtle, featureless, all-pervading, one, unstained, partless consciousness known through all the Upanishads. The particle 'eva' is exclusive. What does it restrict? It refers to this very universe, which we now perceive diversified by name and form. It is said to have been 'sat' prior to the creation of the world. Does this imply it does not exist now? No. Why then the qualification? Even now it is truly being, but it is perceived as 'this' because it is clothed in names and forms. Before creation, however, it could be apprehended only through the bare concept of being. Just as a person waking from deep sleep remembers only that pure existence remained, so too is the pre-creation state to be understood. As illustrated here—
Close to the Sanskrit
Being as 'sat', existence-mere, subtle, featureless, all-pervading, one, unstained, partless, consciousness, which is understood from all the Upanishads. The word 'eva' has the sense of restriction. What is restricted thereby, he says—this universe, which is perceived as modified with name, form, and action, that was 'sat' thus is connected with the word 'was'. When was this being alone in the beginning? It is said—at first, prior to the origination of the world. Is not this now existent, by which it is qualified as having been in the beginning? No. How then is it a qualification? Now also this is being indeed, but it becomes 'this' being an object of the word-and-thought 'this' possessing name and form qualifications. But prior to creation, at first it is ascertainable only by the word-and-thought of pure being; thus 'being alone this was in the beginning' is ascertained. For prior to creation, this cannot be grasped as having name or form, like an object in the time of deep sleep. As one risen from deep sleep understands mere existence, that in deep sleep there was only pure substance, such is the meaning regarding prior to creation. As this is stated—