इति । अतश्च गुणैरुपाधिरूपैरुपाधितया विवक्षितैः शब्दादिभिर्वा दण्डादिभिरपि वा यो भेदः , जातिवशात् सादृश्यात् भेदाग्रहणाद्वा , यश्च अभेदो भावानाम् इत्थमित्युक्तनीत्या {क्रियासंबन्ध}(२,२।१) इत्यतः प्रभृति निरूपितः , स एकत्रप्रमातरि सकलप्रमाप्रमाणसंयोजनवियोजनादिविचित्रासंख्यकृत्यप्रपञ्चोचितस्वातन्त्र्ये भगवत्यस्मदीयहृदयैकान्तशायिनि शिवशब्दव्यपदेश्ये सति उपपद्यते , नान्यथा । विशेषणान्येव च भेदकानि ---- इति किमन्त्यैरन्यैर्विशेषैः अयं स परमाणुर्य एतद्देशादिविशिष्टघटारम्भणकालस्थितपश्चात्तनसंघटितद्व्यणुकारम्भकाले पूर्वं मिलितः । अयं स आत्मा , यः पुरा स्वर्गसदने सुरयोषितमिमामित्थं परिरब्धवान् , ---- इति इयतैव योगिसर्वज्ञादीनां सिद्धः परमाण्वात्मादिषु भेदावभासः , ---- इत्यलमवान्तरेण । सिद्धं तावत् भेदाभेदरूपं प्रमेयतत्त्वम् एकप्रमातृविश्रान्त्या निःशङ्कतां श्रयति , इति ॥१४॥
नन्वेवंभूतो यद्ययं प्रमाता तत्रव तर्हि प्रमाणोपन्यासे प्रयतनीयं न प्रमेये , यदाह प्रधाने हि यत्नः फलवान् इति । तदेतदाशङ्क्य प्रथमोपक्षिप्तमेव प्रमेयं स्मारयत्याचार्यः । तथा हि ।
{अजडात्मा मिषेधं वा सिद्धिं वा विदधीत कः ।}(इप्क् १,१।२)
इति । यद्वस्तु तदेवेदानीं ज्ञाते प्रमाणस्वरूपे परमेश्वरस्वरूपे च निर्वाहणार्हम् , एवं भूतं हि प्रमाणं तदेवंभूते हि भगवति कथं क्रमताम् , इति । तदेतत् स्फुटयितुमाह
विश्ववैचित्र्यचित्रस्य समभित्तितलोपमे ।
विरुद्धाभावसंस्पर्शे परमार्थसतीश्वरे ॥ §०§
प्रमातरि पुराणे तु सर्वदा भातविग्रहे ।
किं प्रमाणं नवाभासः सर्वप्रमितिभागिनि ॥ §१§
In plain words
And so the difference of things by “qualities”, that is, by limiting adjuncts, by sound and the rest, or even by a staff and the like, meant as limiting adjuncts; and the non-difference of things, by force of class, by likeness, or by not grasping difference, which has been set out “in this way”, that is, by the principle stated, from “The thoughts of action, relation” onwards: that holds “in one ”, when there is the Blessed One, whose befits the spread of countless varied deeds such as joining and parting all valid knowings and , who lies in the secret place of our heart, and who is to be named by the word ; and not otherwise. And it is qualifiers alone that make things different; so what need is there of other particulars, final ones? “This is that atom which was joined earlier, at the start of the dyad that was put together afterwards and stood at the time the pot marked by this place and the rest was begun.” “This is that who long ago, in the dwelling of heaven, embraced this woman of the gods in this way.” By just this much the appearance of difference among atoms, and the rest is established for , the omniscient and the like. Enough of this side matter. So it is established that the truth of the , whose form is difference and non-difference, finds freedom from doubt by resting in one .
But surely, if this is of such a kind, then effort should be spent on setting out there, not on the ; as one says, “For effort bears fruit on what is principal.” With this doubt in view, the master calls to mind the very put forward at the start. Consider:
“who that is not insentient could make a denial or an establishing?”
That real thing is the very one now fit to be carried through, now that the form of and the of the Supreme Lord are known. For is of such a kind; so how is it to step forward towards the Blessed One, who is of such a kind? To make this clear he says:
In the Lord, who is like the level face of a wall for the picture that is the variety of the universe, in whom any touch of non-being is ruled out, who is real in the highest truth,
and in the ancient , whose own form has always shone, who has a share in every valid knowing, what is , a new ?