तत्र स्वात्मदेवतैव प्रबुद्ध्यमानावस्थायां स्वात्मानं परामर्शांशेनावतरन्तं पृच्छति ।तत उच्यते श्रीदेव्युवाच इति ।किं पृच्छति ? तदाह -अनुत्तरं कथं देव स्वतः कौलिकासिद्धिदम् ।येन विज्ञातमात्रेण खेचरीसमतां व्रजेत् ॥ १ ॥हे स्वात्मरूप देव सर्वत्र ज्ञाने करणे च प्रथममभिमुखीभूत, तव तावदनुत्तरं रूपम् उत्तरम् उत्कृष्टमुपरिवर्ति, तच्च जडापेक्षया ग्राहकरूपम् ।तस्य तु चिदात्मनः स्वप्रकाशस्य न ग्राहकान्तरमस्तीति अनुत्तरत्वम् ।तेन अनुत्तरं संविद्रूपं सदा सर्वत्रावभासितं पूर्वापरदेशकालविहीनमनपह्नवनीयम्, किं तत्रोच्यताम् ।इदं तु तत्रोच्यते तत्किल कथं केन प्रकारेण कौलिकस्य कुलसमूहस्य देहाक्षभुवनादेः अपूर्वरूपस्य स्वतः स्वतन्त्रतः सिद्धिं उभयेन्द्रियसंवेद्यतया अभिव्यक्तिं ददाति, दा दाने दोऽवखण्डने इति च धातुगत्या सृजति संहरति चेत्यर्थः ।अनुत्तरं चिदेकरूपं सत् कथं नवनवेन अत एव पर्यनुयोज्येन वेद्यवेदनवेदकादिभेदेन भातीत्यर्थः ।ननु किमेतेन ।ज्ञातेनानेन प्रकारेण ज्ञातमात्रेण खेचरी बोधभूमिसंचारिणी सती इयं संविच्छक्तिः समताम् अविकल्पत्वं पूर्णत्वमात्मनो व्रजेत् गच्छेज्जानीयात् ।तत्प्रकारापरिज्ञाने तु न खेचरी अबोधरूपे वेद्यांशे संचरणात् ।तत एव वेद्यैः नीलादिभिर्नियन्त्रितेति न पूर्णशक्तिः ।किंच धारणादिक्रमेण प्राणयोगादिकृताः सिद्धयः सन्ति अनुत्तरं संविन्मात्ररूपमक्रमं कथं कौलिकसिद्धिं सक्रमां ददाति येन ज्ञातमात्रेण देवीरूपत्वं व्रजेत् ॥ १ ॥
In plain words
There, the divinity who is one's own Self, she herself, in the state of awakening, questions her own Self as it descends by a portion of parāmarśa. Hence the words ‘The venerable Goddess said’. What does she ask? He tells it: How, O God, does the anuttara, of itself, give the kaulika accomplishment, by the mere knowing of which one would come to sameness with Khecarī? O God whose form is one's own Self, who in all knowing and doing are first turned face to face: your form, to begin with, is anuttara. ‘Uttara’ is what is higher, what excels, what stands above; and that, relative to the inert, is the form of the perceiver. But for that whose self is cit and which shines by its own light there is no other perceiver, and this is its being anuttara. So of the anuttara, whose form is saṃvid, made to shine always and everywhere, without before or after, without place or time, not to be denied, what is there to be said about it? But this is what is said here: how indeed, that is, in what manner, does it give, of itself, that is, freely, the accomplishment, that is, the manifestation as experienced through both kinds of sense, of the kaulika, that is, of the assemblage that is kula, body, senses, worlds and the rest, whose form is unprecedented? And by the course of the roots ‘dā, in giving’ and ‘do, in cutting’, the meaning is: it emanates and withdraws. How does the anuttara, being of the one form of cit, shine through a division into the knowable, knowing, the knower and the rest, a division ever new and for that very reason open to question? That is the meaning. But what is gained by this? By this manner being known, by its mere knowing, this power of saṃvid, being ‘khecarī’, moving in the ground of awakening, would come to sameness, that is, to the freedom from vikalpa and the fullness of the Self; she would go to it, that is, she would know it. But when that manner is not known, she is not khecarī, since she moves in the portion of the knowable, whose form is not awakening; and for that very reason, held fast by knowables, blue and the rest, she is not of full power. Moreover, there are accomplishments brought about through the yoga of prāṇa and the like, by the sequence of dhāraṇā and the rest: how does the anuttara, whose form is saṃvid alone and without sequence, give the kaulika accomplishment, which has sequence, by the mere knowing of which one would come to the form of the Goddess?