p. 179
यमानं जीवचैतन्यं त्वंपदवाच्यार्थः ।तत् परोक्षतया प्रतीयमानमीश्वरचैतन्यं तत्पदवाच्यार्थः ।इतिशब्दः एवकारार्थः ।तथा च वादिभेदसिद्धान्तः अनूदितः ।सांख्यमते प्रकृतिर्जगत्कर्त्री, जीवो नानाचेतनः भोक्ता इत्यतः ईश्वर एव नास्तीत्यङ्गीकृतम् ।भागवतमते तु 'गुणी सर्ववित्' इति श्रुतेः नित्यगुणविशिष्टात् परमेश्वराविष्णोर्जीवानामुत्पत्तिविनाशवत्त्वेन अनित्यत्वात् स एव भगवान् पारमार्थिकः एक इत्यङ्गीकृतम् ।तदुभयवादिसिद्धान्तस्य औपनिषदमते निरस्तत्वात् तदुभयविधया अनिर्देश्या ।परमार्थसच्चिदानन्दरूपतया छान्दाेग्यगतदेवताशब्दार्थस्य प्रतिपादनादिति भावः अथवा, तटस्थेश्वरवादिकाणादादिसिद्धान्तवत् व्यवस्थितभेदवज्जीवेश्वररूपतया अनिर्देश्या ।भेदव्यवस्थाया एष साधितुमशक्यत्वादिति एतत्तदित्यनिर्देश्या ॥ॐ एतत्तदित्यनिर्देश्यायै नमः ॥एकानन्दचिदाकृतिः ।एका मुख्या मोक्षरूपत्वेन प्रापित्सिता ।आनन्दः सुखम् ।चित् चैतन्यं प्रकाशज्ञानम् ।आनन्दश्चासौ चिच्च आनन्दचित् एका चासावानन्दचिच्च एकानन्दचित् आकृतिः स्वरूपं यस्याः सा ।सच्चिदानन्द-
In plain words
The limited awareness of the individual is the literal sense of 'thvam', while the indirect apprehension of the divine presence is the literal sense of 'tat'. Various philosophical schools advance their own partial views: Samkhya eliminates the Lord entirely, arguing that insentient nature creates while individual souls merely experience; Bhagavata posits an eternal Vishnu as the sole ultimate reality while treating souls as transient. But the Upanishadic teaching supersedes both, revealing her as indefinable by any dualistic category. Because scripture establishes her as the ultimate reality of pure being, consciousness, and bliss—the very sense of 'deity' in the Chandogya Upanishad—she cannot be captured by the external Creator models of other systems. She transcends all fixed divisions between the soul and God, defying any attempt to categorize her as either 'this' or 'that'. Salutations to her, the transcendent presence who cannot be pointed to as 'this' or 'that', whose very form is the peerless radiance of pure bliss and awareness.
Close to the Sanskrit
The individual consciousness subject to control is the direct meaning of the word 'tvam'. That consciousness of the Lord, perceived indirectly, is the direct meaning of the word 'tat'. The word 'iti' serves the purpose of the emphatic particle 'eva'. Thus the doctrine of the difference among disputants is restated. In the Samkhya system, primordial nature is the creator of the world, and the soul is a manifold conscious enjoyer; hence it is accepted that there is no Lord whatsoever. In the Bhagavata system, however, on the authority of the shruti 'possessing qualities, omniscient', since individual souls originate and perish in relation to the supreme Lord Vishnu and are thus non-eternal, that Bhagavan alone is ultimately real and one—this is accepted. Since the doctrine of both these disputants is refuted in the Upanishadic view, she is indefinable by either of those ways, because her nature is established as the supreme existence-consciousness-bliss, which is the meaning of the word 'deity' found in the Chandogya Upanishad—such is the intent. Alternatively, like the doctrine of the Naiyayika-Kanada schools concerning a peripheral Lord, she is indefinable as a jiva and an Ishvara possessing fixed difference, because the establishment of difference cannot be proven; therefore she is indefinable as 'this' or 'that'. Obeisance to her who is indefinable as 'this' or 'that'. She whose form is sole bliss and consciousness. 'Eka' means primary, sought after as liberation. 'Ananda' is happiness. 'Cit' is consciousness, luminous knowledge. Bliss and that consciousness is bliss-consciousness; one and that bliss-consciousness is single bliss-consciousness; whose form or intrinsic nature is that is she, whose essence is existence-consciousness-bliss...