Bhashya
ननु कथमेकः सन् नान्यत्पश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति ना-न्यद्विजानाति स भूमा कामांश्च ब्राह्मलौकिकान्पश्यन्रमतेइति च विरुद्धम्, यथा एको यस्मिन्नेव क्षणे पश्यति सतस्मिन्नेव क्षणे न पश्यति च इति ।नैष दोषः, श्रुत्यन्तरेपरिहृतत्वात् ।द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपात्पश्यन्नेव भवति ;द्रष्टुरन्यत्वेन कामानामभावान्न पश्यति च इति ।यद्यपि
In plain words
An objection is raised: how can it be consistent to say both that 'being one, he sees nothing else, hears nothing else, knows nothing else, but as the infinite he rejoices, seeing desires belonging to Brahman'—which seems as contradictory as saying that someone who sees at a given moment does not see at that very moment? There is no flaw here, because the issue is resolved elsewhere in the Upanishads: since the vision of the seer is never destroyed, he is eternally seeing, yet because there are no desires apart from the seer, he does not see an 'other'...
Close to the Sanskrit
Now, is it not contradictory that 'being one he does not see another, does not hear another, does not know another; that he, the infinite, seeing desires pertaining to Brahman rejoices', just as one who sees at a certain moment does not see at that very moment? This is no fault, because it is resolved in another Vedic text: on account of the non-destruction of the seer's vision he is seeing indeed; and because of the non-existence of desires as other than the seer he does not see, and...