Bhashya
कानि पुनस्तानि साधुदृष्टिविशिष्टानि, समस्तानि सामान्युपास्यानीति, इमानि ता उच्यन्ते — लोकेषु पञ्चविधम् इत्यादीनि ।ननु लोकादिदृष्ट्या तान्युपास्यानि साधुदृष्ट्या च इति विरुद्धम्, न, साध्वर्थस्य लोकादिकार्येषु कारणस्यानुगतत्वात् — मृदादिवद्घटादिविकारेषु ।साधुशब्दवाच्योऽर्थो धर्मो ब्रह्म वा सर्वथापि लोकादिकार्येष्वनुगतम् ।अत यथा यत्र घटादिदृष्टि मृदादिदृष्ट्यनुगतैव सा, तथा साधुदृष्ट्यनुगतैव लोकादिदृष्टि — धर्मादिकार्यत्वाल्लोकादीनाम् ।यद्यपि कारणत्वमविशिष्टं ब्रह्मधर्मयो , तथापि धर्म एव साधुशब्दवाच्य इति युक्तम् , साधुकारी साधुर्भवति इति धर्मविषय साधुशब्दप्रयोगात् ।ननु लोकादिकार्येषु कारणस्यानुगतत्वादर्थप्राप्तैव तद्दृष्टिरिति ‘साधु सामेत्युपास्ते’ इति न वक्तव्यम्,न, शास्त्रगम्यत्वात्तद्दृष्टे , सर्वत्र हि शास्त्रप्रापिता एव धर्माउपास्या , न विद्यमाना अन्यशाखीया ॥
In plain words
What are those complete sāmans characterized by the vision of goodness that are to be meditated upon? These are now stated, beginning with 'Meditate on the fivefold sāman in the worlds.' Is there a contradiction in meditating on them through the perspective of the worlds as well as through the perspective of goodness? Not at all. Just as clay pervades its modifications like pots, the fundamental reality denoted by 'sādhu'—whether it be dharma or Brahman—pervades all worldly effects. Since the worlds are products of dharma, the perception of the worlds is inherently pervaded by the perception of goodness, just as the perception of a pot is pervaded by clay. Although both Brahman and dharma share the nature of being the cause, 'sādhu' appropriately refers to dharma, since the word is applied to one who performs righteous deeds. If you object that since the cause is already present in its effects, this meditative vision is naturally understood and need not be specially enjoined by the text 'One meditates on the sāman as good,' we reply: not so, because such meditation must be learned from scripture alone. Scriptural duties alone are to be practiced, not merely whatever happens to exist in other recensions.
Close to the Sanskrit
Which again are those characterized by the vision of goodness, complete sāmans to be meditated upon? These are stated—beginning with 'In the worlds, fivefold...'. Is it not contradictory that they are to be meditated upon through the vision of worlds and also through the vision of goodness? No, because the meaning of goodness is pervaded in the effects such as worlds as a cause—like clay in modifications such as a pot. The meaning denoted by the word 'sādhu', whether dharma or Brahman, is pervaded in every way in worldly effects. Therefore, just as wherever the perception of a pot is pervaded by the perception of clay, so the perception of worlds is pervaded by the perception of goodness, since worlds are effects of dharma and others. Although the causality is undifferentiated between Brahman and dharma, nevertheless it is proper that dharma alone is denoted by the word 'sādhu', because the word 'sādhu' is used regarding dharma in the sense 'one who does good is good'. If it is objected that since the cause is pervaded in worldly effects, that vision is naturally attained, and therefore the statement 'one meditates upon the sāman as good' should not be spoken—no, because that vision is to be gained through scripture; for everywhere only those duties established by scripture are to be meditated upon, not merely existing ones from other branches.