p. 206
यद्येवं चोदयत एषोऽभिप्रायः—नियोज्यनियोजकत्वादिभेददर्शनादेकस्य कूटस्थस्य तदसम्भवात् भेदेन भवितव्यमिति ।तत्र यदि ब्रह्मण एव नानात्वमभ्युपगम्यते, तदा अत्र अस्मिन् विभेदयोगे ब्रह्मणो नानात्वयोगे दोषो महान्; को दोषः ? अद्वैतिनो ह्यतथ्यवादिनोऽवैदिका भवेयुः, वेदहृदयं परमार्थमद्वैतं च बाध्यं स्यात् ।किञ्च—नानारूपेण परिणतत्वादनित्यत्वादिदोषः, अस्थूलादिवाक्यविरोधश्च प्रसज्येत ।
In plain words
The objector's intent is this: since we observe distinctions like the controller and the controlled, and such duality is impossible in a single, unchanging reality, there must be true plurality. Now, if one accepts that Brahman itself is manifold, a grave flaw arises in such a dualistic view. What flaw? Those who speak of non-duality would become proponents of falsehood and opposed to the Veda; both the innermost heart of the Veda and the non-dual supreme reality would be invalidated. Moreover, because Brahman would be subject to actual transformation into various forms, the fatal defects of impermanence and direct contradiction with scriptural declarations—such as 'it is neither gross nor subtle'—would inevitably follow.
Close to the Sanskrit
Although this is the intention of the objector—because of seeing distinctions such as employer and employed, since that is impossible for the one unchanging reality, there must be plurality. There, if multiplicity of Brahman itself is accepted, then here in this connection with division, in the connection of Brahman with multiplicity, there is a great fault. What fault? The non-dualists would indeed be speakers of untruth and non-Vedic, and the heart of the Veda and the non-dual ultimate reality would be sublated. Furthermore, because of being transformed into manifold forms, the fault of impermanence etc. and contradiction with sentences such as 'not gross' would be incurred.