p. 178
ये पूर्वोक्ते मृत्योरस्तित्वनास्तित्वे ते उभे हे क्षत्रिय, आद्यप्रवृत्ते य आदिसर्गस्तमारभ्य प्रवृत्ते ।अथवा, क्षत्रियाद्य क्षत्रियप्रधान, प्रवृत्ते वर्तमाने ।कथं पुनरुभयोः परस्परविरुद्धयोः अस्तित्वनास्तित्वयोः सत्यत्वमिति? तत्राह— मोहो मृत्युः संमतो यः कवीनामिति ।भवेदयं विरोधः अस्तित्वनास्तित्वयोः, यदि परमार्थरूपो मृत्युः स्यात् ।कस्तर्हि मृत्युः केषांचित् कवीनां मतः; अहं तु न तथा मृत्युं ब्रवीमि ।कथं तर्हि? प्रमादं वै मृत्युमहं ब्रवीमि ।प्रमादः प्रच्युतिः
In plain words
Those two views regarding the existence and non-existence of death, O Kshatriya, have persisted since the dawn of creation. How can these two mutually contradictory ideas both be true? To this the text replies: Delusion is considered death by the wise. Such a contradiction would exist only if death were an absolute reality. What, then, is death according to these poets? I do not speak of death in the ordinary sense. What is it, then? I declare heedlessness itself to be death, and heedlessness is falling away from the truth.
Close to the Sanskrit
Those aforementioned existence and non-existence of death, O Kshatriya, have been present beginning from the primal creation. Or, O prominent Kshatriya, they are present and prevailing. How then is the truth of both mutually contradictory existence and non-existence? Thereupon he says: Delusion is considered death by the wise. This contradiction of existence and non-existence would exist if death were of the nature of absolute reality. What then is death considered by some poets? But I do not speak of death in that way. How then? I indeed speak of heedlessness as death. Heedlessness is falling away.