Bhāṣya
मुखाभासकः मुखप्रतिबिम्बः दर्पणादौ नानाकारेषु दर्पणेषु इति यावत् दृश्यमानः मुखत्वात् परमार्थतः मुखस्वरूपत्वात् पृथक्त्वेन भेदेन न विद्यते ।यद्यपि मुखाभासको नाम वस्तु नास्त्येव, तथापि उपाधिभेदात् परमार्थसतो मुखात् परस्परं च ते मुखाभासका भिन्नाः प्रतीयन्ते ।तथा च उपाधिगतमलिनत्वादिधर्मैः मलिनत्वादिधर्मकाः प्रतीयन्ते ।तद्वत् मुखाभासकवत् चिदाभासकः आत्मनः प्रतिबिम्बो धीषु बुद्धिषु दृश्यमानो जीव इत्युच्यते यः, सोऽहमात्मा जीवास्ते उपाधिभेदात् भिन्नाः प्रतिभासन्ते ।उपाधिगतसुखदुःखादिभिश्च सुखदुःखादिमन्तश्च प्रतिभासन्ते ।उपाधयश्च व्यवस्थितरूपा एवेति सुखदुःखादीनामैकात्म्यपक्षे व्यवस्था युक्तैवेति नायमात्मभेदः शक्यो व्यवस्थापयितुम् ।श्रुतिश्चैकात्म्यमेव प्रतिपादयति — ‘एकमेवाद्वितीयं ब्रह्म’ इति ।आत्मभेदपक्षं तु इयं सुखदुःखादिव्यवस्था नोपपद्यते ।तथा हि — प्रतिशरीरम् आत्मानो भिन्नाः ते च सर्वे प्रत्येकं सर्वगता इति आत्मभेदवादिनो मन्यन्ते ।तत्र सर्वेषां सर्वगतत्वात् सर्वसंनिधौ सुखादिकमुत्पद्यमानं विशेषहेतोरभावात् कथमेकस्यैव तत् सुखादिकम् , न सर्वेषाम् इत्यवधारयितुं शक्यते ।अथ यत्सम्बन्धिना कार्यकरणसङ्घातेन सुखादिकं जन्यते, तस्यैव तदित्यभिधीयते इति ; तन्न, कार्यकरणसङ्घातस्यापि सर्वात्मसंनिधावुत्पद्यमानस्य विशेषहेतोरभावादेव कथमेकात्मसम्बन्धित्वमिति ।अथ यत्कर्मवशात्कार्यकरणसङ्घातस्योत्पत्तिः, तस्यैव असौ कार्यकरणसङ्घात इति विशेषहेतुरिति चेत् ; न, कर्मणोऽपि सर्वात्मसंनिधावुत्पद्यमानस्य सर्वात्मसम्बन्धित्वेन तज्जनितकार्यकरणसङ्घातस्यापि सर्वात्मसम्बन्धित्वात् तज्जनितस्य सुखदुःखादेरपि सर्वात्मसम्बन्धित्वमिति सुखादिकस्य नानात्मपक्ष एव न व्यवस्थितिः ।पूर्वपुर्वकार्यकरणसङ्घातस्य कर्मापेक्षायां च अनवस्थादोषः ।अनादित्वेन अनवस्थादोषपरिहारश्च अन्धपरम्परेति ।श्रुतिरपि नानात्मपक्षं प्रतिषेधति — ‘नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन’ इति ।अतः साधूक्तम् एकमिति ॥
In plain words
Just as a single face reflected across many diverse mirrors has no real existence apart from the face itself, appearing separate only because of the medium, so too the reflection of consciousness within the mind appears as the individual soul. Because of the differing containers, these souls seem many, taking on the sorrows and joys of the mind. When we understand that the limitations alone have definite forms, the distribution of experience makes complete sense within the vision of a single non-dual Self; the notion of many independent souls cannot withstand scrutiny. Revelation declares this very unity: 'Brahman is one, secondless.' The pluralist view breaks down entirely under logical analysis. If souls are infinite and present everywhere in every body, then whenever happiness arises anywhere, what reason could restrict it to one soul rather than all? To argue that it belongs to whichever body it arises in fails, for the body too arises in the presence of all souls alike. To trace it back to individual karma fails equally, for karma itself arises in the presence of all souls, making its results universal. To keep pushing backward to prior karma lands you in an endless regress, and calling that regress 'beginningless' is merely the blind leading the blind. Scripture explicitly bars the door to plurality: 'There is nothing manifold here whatsoever.' Therefore, it is perfectly established: the truth is One.
Close to the Sanskrit
The reflection of the face, seen in mirrors and other diverse forms, has no separate existence from the face due to being the face, its absolute nature being that of the face. Although a face-reflection as such does not exist as a real entity, yet due to the difference of limiting adjuncts, the reflections appear distinct from the truly real face and from one another. And similarly, they appear possessed of blemishes through the blemish-properties belonging to the adjuncts. Like that, the reflection of consciousness, which is seen in intellects and minds as the reflection of the Self, is called the 'jīva'; and those jīvas appear different due to the difference of limiting adjuncts, and appear endowed with happiness and sorrow owing to the happiness and sorrow belonging to the adjuncts. Since the adjuncts alone have established forms, the logical arrangement of happiness and sorrow is perfectly rational under the hypothesis of the unity of the Self, and this plurality of the Self cannot be established. Scripture also declares only the unity of the Self: 'One only, without a second, Brahman.' But this arrangement of happiness, sorrow, etc., is untenable on the hypothesis of the plurality of selves. For proponents of the plurality of selves maintain that souls are separate in every body and that they are all all-pervading individually. There, since all are all-pervading, an experience of happiness arising in the presence of all, due to the absence of a differentiating cause, cannot be ascertained as belonging to just one and not to all. If it is argued: 'That to whose associated psycho-physical aggregate happiness is produced, to that very one it belongs,' we reply: not so, because even the psycho-physical aggregate arises in the presence of all selves, and how could it relate to only one self due to the absence of any differentiating cause? If it is argued: 'Since the origin of the psycho-physical aggregate depends on karma, that aggregate belongs exclusively to that very one whose karma it is, which serves as the differentiating cause,' we reply: not so, because karma also arises in the presence of all selves and, being related to all selves, the psycho-physical aggregate generated by it is also related to all selves, and consequently the happiness and sorrow generated by it would also relate to all selves. Thus under the hypothesis of a multiplicity of selves, no logical stability regarding happiness and sorrow is possible. If dependence on prior karma is invoked for each preceding psycho-physical aggregate, there arises the fault of infinite regress. And attempting to remedy the infinite regress by declaring the series beginningless is merely a blind tradition. Scripture also prohibits the hypothesis of plurality: 'There is no plurality here whatsoever.' Therefore, it is well said: 'One.'