चिद्रूपस्यैकत्वं यदि वास्तवं भेदः पुनरयमविद्योपप्लवात् , ---- इत्युच्यते तदा कस्यायमविद्योपप्लवः , ---- इति न संगच्छते ब्रह्मणो हि विद्यैकरूपस्य कथमविद्यारूपता , न चान्यः कश्चितस्ति वस्तुतो जीवादिर्यस्याविद्या भवेत् । अनिर्वाच्येयमविद्या , ---- इति चेत् , कस्य अनिर्वाच्या , ---- इति न विद्मः ; स्वरूपेण च भाति , न चानिर्वाच्या , ---- इति किमेतत् ? ; युक्त्या नोपपद्यते , ---- इति चेत् संवेदतिरस्कारिणी का खलु युक्तिर्नाम , अनुपपत्तिश्च भासमानस्य कान्या भविष्यति । सद्रूपमेव ब्रह्माभिन्नं चकास्त्यविकल्पके , विकल्पबलात्तु भेदो ऽयम् , ---- इति चेत् , कस्यायं विकल्पनव्यापारो नाम ? ब्रह्मणश्चेत् , अविद्यायोगे न च अन्योऽस्ति ; अविकल्पलं च सत्यं विकल्पकमसत्यम् , ---- इति कुतो विभागो भासमानत्वस्याविशेषात् । भासमानोऽपि भेदो बाधितः , ---- इति चेत् , अभेदोऽपि एवम् , भेदभासनेन तस्य बाधात् । विपरीतसंवेदनोदय एव हि बाधो नान्यः कश्चित् । बाधोऽपि च भासमानत्वादेव सन् नान्यतः , ---- इति भेदोऽपि भासमानः कथमविद्या । भासनमवधीर्य आगमप्रमाणको ऽयमभेदः ---- इति चेत् आगमो ऽपि भेदात्मक एव वस्तुभूतः प्रमातृप्रमाणप्रमेयविभागश्च , ---- इति न किंचिदेतत् । तस्मात् वास्तवं चिदेकत्वमभ्युपगम्यापि तस्य कर्तृत्वलक्स्।अणा भिन्नरूपसमावेशात्मिका क्रिया नोपपद्यते ; परामर्शस्वरूपं तु स्वातन्त्र्यं यदि भवति तदोपपद्यते सर्वम् । परामर्शो हि चिकीर्षारूपेच्छा , तस्यां च सर्वमन्तर्भूतं निर्मातव्यमभेदकल्पेनास्ते , ---- इत्युक्तं
{स्वामिनश्चात्मसंस्थास्य ॥॥॥॥। ।}(इप्क् १,५।१०)
इत्यत्र । तेन स्वात्मरूपमेव विश्वं सत्यरूपं प्रकाशात्मतापरमार्थमत्रुटितप्रकाशाभेदमेव सत् प्रकाशपरमार्थेनैव भेदेन भासयति महेश्वरः , ---- इति तदेवास्यातिदुर्घटकारित्वलक्षणं स्वातन्त्र्यमैश्वर्यमुच्यते । आभासभिन्नयोरिति क्रियापेक्षा संबन्धसामान्ये षष्ठी , पश्चाद्ययोचितं विभज्यते । आभासेन भिन्नौ जडाजडाभासौ , जडो घटादिः कर्मरूपश्चिदाभासः कर्तृरूपः , ---- इति तयोः क्रिया , एकस्य क्रियमाणत्वमपरस्य कर्तृत्वं न भवेत् । चिकीर्षारूपेण निर्मातव्याभेदपरामर्शात्मना विना एका चासौ क्रिया कथं भिन्नयोः स्वभावभूता भवेत् । कार्यकारणताप्रस्तावात् कर्तृकर्मणी उक्ते , कारकान्तराण्यपि तु एककर्तृत्वानुप्रवेशीनि परमार्थतोऽन्यथा करणादौ भिन्ने कारकव्राते कथमभिन्ना सा । यदि वा आभासेन यौ भिन्नौ जडचेतनौ तयोर्या चिकीर्षा एकस्येष्यमाणता , परस्यैषितृता तस्स्वभावमेकत्वपरामर्शं विना , ---- इति । यद्वा आभासभिन्नयोः अहमिदम् इति यः परामर्श एकविश्रान्तिरूपश्चिकीर्षात्मा तं विना , ---- इति । आभासभिन्नयोरेकपरामर्शं विना चिकीर्षालक्षणा कथं क्रिया , ---- इति वा । एवं क्रियां वा चिकीर्षां वा परामर्शं वा अपेक्ष्य ष्।अष्ठी , नित्यसापेक्षत्वाच्च समासः ॥२०॥
In plain words
If it is said that the oneness of what is in form is real, while this difference comes from the flood of , then whose is this flood of ? It does not fit. For how could , whose one form is , have the form of ? And in truth there is no one else, a or the like, whose it could be. If it is said that this cannot be spoken of, we do not know to whom it cannot be spoken of; and it shines in its own form, and yet cannot be spoken of: what is this? If it is said that it does not hold by reasoning, what reasoning, pray, could set aside awareness? And for what is shining, what else could not holding be? If it is said that in what is free of alone shines, undivided, in the form of being, while this difference comes from the force of , then whose is this work of forming ? If ’s, it is joined with ; and there is no other. And “what is free of is true, what has is untrue”: where does that division come from, when shining is the same in both? If it is said that difference, though it shines, is cancelled, then so is non-difference, since the shining of difference cancels it. For cancelling is just the rising of a contrary awareness, and nothing else. And cancelling too is real only because it shines, and from nothing else; so how is difference, which also shines, ? If it is said that, setting shining aside, this non-difference has scripture for its , then scripture too is made of difference, a real thing, and so is the division into , and ; so this is nothing. Therefore, even granting that the oneness of is real, action does not hold for it, action marked by being the doer and made of the coming together of different forms. But if there is , whose is , then everything holds. For is will in the form of the wish to do, and in it everything that is to be made lies within, as though not different, as was said,
“And of the Master, standing in His own self,”
in that passage. So the Great Lord makes the universe shine, which is nothing but the form of His own self, true in form, whose highest truth is being , and which, while it is unbroken and not different from , shines through a difference whose highest truth too is . That is just what is called His , His sovereignty, marked by doing what is very hard to do. “Ābhāsabhinnayoḥ”: the genitive looks to the action and is in the sense of relation in general; afterwards it is divided as fits. The two different in are the of the insentient and the of what is not insentient: the insentient, a pot and the like, in the form of the object, and the of in the form of the doer. The action of these two, the one’s being done and the other’s being the doer, would not be. Without that which is in the form of the wish to do, whose self is the of not being different from what is to be made, how could this one action be the own nature of two that are different? Doer and object are named because the relation of cause and effect is the matter in hand; but in the highest truth the other factors too enter into the being the doer of one. Otherwise, with the throng of factors, instrument and the rest, being different, how could that action be undivided? Or else: there would be no wish to do of the two, insentient and sentient, that are different by , the one’s being wished and the other’s being the one who wishes, without the of oneness which is its own nature. Or: without the of the two different in , “I this”, whose form is resting in one and whose self is the wish to do. Or: without one of the two different in , how could there be action marked by the wish to do? So the genitive looks to action, or to the wish to do, or to ; and there is a compound because the word always looks to another.