Bhashya
अथ य एषोऽ तरक्षिणि पुरुषो दृश्यते, पूर्ववत् ।सैव ऋक् अध्यात्म वागाद्या, पृथिव्याद्या च अधिदैवतम्, प्रसिद्धा च ऋक् पादबद्धाक्षरात्मिका, तथा साम, उक्थसाहचर्याद्वा स्तोत्र साम ऋक शब्दम् उक्थाद्यत् तथायजु स्वाहास्वधावषडादि सर्वमेव वाग्यजु तत्स एव ।सर्वात्मकत्वात्सर्वयोनित्वाच्चेति ह्यवोचाम ।ऋगादिप्रकरणात् तद्ब्रह्मेति त्रयो वेदा ।तस्यैतस्य चाक्षुषस्य पुरुषस्य तदेव रूपमतिदिश्यते ।किं तत् ? यदमुष्य आदित्यपुरुषस्य— हिरण्मय इत्यादि यदधिदैवतमुक्तम् , यावमुष्य गेष्णौ पर्वणी, तावेवास्यापि चाक्षुषस्य गेष्णौ, यच्चामुष्य नाम उदित्युद्गीथ इति च तदेवास्य नाम ।स्थानभेदात् रूपगुणनामातिदेशात् ईशितृत्वविषयभेदव्यपदेशाच्च आदित्याचाक्षुषयोर्भेद इति चेत् , न , ‘अमुना’ ‘अनेनैव’ इत्येकस्योभयात्मत्वप्राप्यनुपपत्ते ।द्विधाभावेनोपपद्यत इति चेत् — वक्ष्यति हि ‘स एकधा भवति त्रिधा भवति’ इत्यादि, न , चेतनस्यैकस्य निरवयवत्वाद्द्विधाभावानुपपत्ते ।तस्मादध्यात्मधिदैवतयोरेकत्वमेव ।यत्तु रूपाद्यतिदेशो भेदकारणमवोच , न तद्भेदावगमाय , किं तर्हि, स्थानभेदाद्भेदाशङ्का मा भूदित्येवमर्थम् ॥
In plain words
Now, who is this person perceived within the eye? He has already been described. That very mantra is speech subjectively and earth objectively. The well-known ṛk is composed of metrical feet and syllables; similarly, the sāman is designated as ṛk due to its association with the uktha hymn, and all yajus formulas—such as svāhā, svadhā, and vaṣat—are speech and yajus alike. He is indeed all of them, for we have established that he is the source and nature of everything. In the context of the ṛks and other mantras, that is Brahman, the three Vedas. To this being within the eye, the identical form of the solar being is attributed. What form? That golden splendor described in the cosmic realm, down to the very joints and limbs of the sun's person—the joints of this ocular person are precisely the same. And his name, udgītha, is likewise the same. If it is objected that the solar and ocular beings are distinct because of their different locations, the attribution of specific forms, qualities, and names, and their separate spheres of lordship—we reply: no. It is impossible for a single entity to be described as both unless they are identical. If you suggest that one being divides itself into two, quoting scripture to show that he becomes one and then three—we answer: no, for pure consciousness is partless and cannot be split. Therefore, the subjective and the cosmic are one and the same. The attribution of form was not meant to establish a real division, but solely to prevent the mistaken notion that they are different simply because their locations differ.
Close to the Sanskrit
Now, who is this person seen in the inner eye, as before. That very ṛk is speech internally, and earth objectively; and the well-known ṛk is structured by feet and syllables, similarly sāma, due to association with the uktha or because the stotra shares the ṛk designation derived from uktha, and yajus—svāhā, svadhā, vaṣat and the like, all speech and yajus is that very same one. For we have stated that because he is of the nature of all and the source of all. From the context of ṛk and others, that is Brahman, are the three Vedas. To this ocular person, that very same form is attributed. What is that? What was stated objectively regarding that solar person—golden and so forth, as far as his joints and nodal points, so are the joints of this ocular one also; and what his name is, udgītha—that very same is his name. If it be argued that there is a difference between the sun-dwelling and ocular beings due to difference of place, attribution of form, quality, and name, and declaration of distinct spheres of lordship—no, because it is untenable for one entity to attain both natures through 'by that' and 'by this very one'. If it is claimed that it is tenable by becoming twofold—scripture will state 'He becomes one, he becomes three', etc.—no, because consciousness is partless and partitioning is impossible. Therefore, the subjective and cosmic entities are strictly identical. The attribution of form and other attributes which you alleged as a cause of difference, that is not for conveying a real difference; rather, it is solely for the purpose that the apprehension of difference due to difference of place might not arise.