तत्र प्रथमं नरेश्वरभेदवादि-प्रातिपक्ष्येण चैतन्यपरमार्थतः शिव एव विश्वस्य आत्मा इति आदिशति -चैतन्यमात्मा ॥ १ ॥इह अचेतितस्य कस्यापि सत्त्वाभावात् चितिक्रिया सर्वसामान्यरूपा इति चेतयते इति चेतनः सर्वज्ञानक्रियास्वतन्त्रः तस्य भावः चैतन्यं सर्वज्ञानक्रियासंबन्धमयं परिपूर्णं स्वातन्त्र्यम् उच्यते ।तच्च परमशिवस्यैव भगवतः अस्ति अनाश्रितान्तानां तत्परतन्त्रवृत्तित्वात् ।स च यद्यपि नित्यत्व-व्यापकत्वामूर्तत्वाद्यनन्तधर्मात्मा तथापि नित्यत्वादीनाम् अन्यत्रापि संभाव्यत्वात् अन्यासंभविनः स्वातन्त्र्यस्यैव उद्धुरीकारप्रदर्शनमिदम् ।इत्थं धर्मान्तरप्रतिक्षेपतश्च चैतन्यमिति भावप्रत्ययेन दर्शितम् ।तदेतत् आत्मा न पुनरन्यः कोऽपि भेदवाद्यभ्युपगतो भिन्नभिन्नस्वभावः ।तस्य अचैतन्ये जडतया अनात्मत्वात् ।चिदात्मत्वे भेदानुपपत्तेः चितो देशकालाकारैः चिद्व्यतिरेकात् अचेत्यमानत्वेन असद्भिः चेत्यमानत्वेन तु चिदात्मभिः भेदस्य आधातुम् अशक्यत्वात् चिन्मात्रत्वे तु आत्मनां स्वभावभेदस्य अघटनात् वक्ष्यमाणनीत्या अव्यतिरिक्तमलसंबन्धयोगेनापि भेदस्य अनुपपत्तेः प्राक् मलस्य सत्त्वेऽपि मुक्तिदशायां तदुपशमनात् नानात्मवादस्य वक्तुम् अशक्यत्वात् मलसंस्कारसंभवे वा अनादिशिवात् कथंचित् अपकर्षे वा मुक्तशिवाः संसारिण एव स्युरिति ।यथोक्तम्चैतन्यमेक एवात्मा …इति नानात्मवादस्य अनुपपत्तिः सूचिता ।अथ च आत्मा क इति जिज्ञासून् उपदेश्यान् प्रति बोधयितुं न शरीर-प्राण-बुद्धि-शून्यानि लौकिक-चार्वाक-वैदिक-योगाचार-माध्यमिकाद्यभ्युपगतानि आत्मा अपि तु यथोक्तं चैतन्यमेव ।तस्यैव शरीरादि कल्पितप्रमातृपदेऽपि अकल्पिताहंविमर्शमय-सत्यप्रमातृत्वेन स्फुरणात् ।तदुक्तं श्रीमृत्युजिद्भट्टारकेपरमात्मस्वरूपं तु सर्वोपाधिविवर्जितम् ।चैतन्यमात्मनो रूपं सर्वशास्त्रेषु पठ्यते ॥इति ।श्रीविज्ञानभैरवेऽपिचिद्धर्मा सर्वदेहेषु विशेषो नास्ति कुत्रचित् ।अतश्च तन्मयं सर्वं भावयन् भवजिज्जनः ॥इति ।एतदेवयतः करणवर्गोऽयं … ।इति कारिकाद्वयेन संगृह्य उपदेश्यान् प्रति साभिज्ञानं गुरुणा उपदिष्टं श्रीस्पन्दे ।किंच यदेतत् चैतन्यम् उक्तं स एव आत्मा स्वभावः विशेषाचोदनात् भावाभावरूपस्य विश्वस्य जगतः ।नहि अचेत्यमानः कोऽपि कस्यापि कदाचिदपि स्वभावो भवति ।चेत्यमानस्तु स्वप्रकाशचिदेकीभूतत्वात् चैतन्यात्मैव ।तदुक्तं श्रीमदुच्छुष्मभैरवेयावन्न वेदका एते तावद्वेद्याः कथं प्रिये ।वेदकं वेद्यमेकं तु तत्त्वं नास्त्यशुचिस्ततः ॥इति ।एतदेवयस्मात्सर्वमयो जीवः … ।इति कारिकाद्वयेन संगृहीतम् ।यतः चैतन्यं विश्वस्य स्वभावः तत एव तत्साधनाय प्रमाणादि वराकम् अनुपयुक्तम् तस्यापि स्वप्रकाशचैतन्याधीनसिद्धिकत्वात् चैतन्यस्य च प्रोक्तयुक्त्या केनापि आवरीतुम् अशक्यत्वात् सदा प्रकाशमानत्वात् ।यदुक्तं श्रीत्रिकहृदयेस्वपदा स्वशिरश्छायां यद्वल्लङ्घितुमीहते ।पादोद्देशे शिरो न स्यात्तथेयं बैन्दवी कला ॥इति ।यो लङ्घितुम् ईहते तस्य यथा पादोद्देशे शिरो न स्यात् तथा इयमिति अत्र संबन्धः ।अनेनैव आशयेन स्पन्देयत्र स्थितम् … ।इत्यादि उपक्रम्य… तदस्ति परमार्थतः ॥इत्यन्तेन महता ग्रन्थेन शङ्करात्मक-स्पन्द-तत्त्वरूपं चैतन्यं सर्वदा स्वप्रकाशं परमार्थसत् अस्ति इति प्रमाणीकृतम् ॥ १ ॥
In plain words
Consciousness is the Self. First, then, against those who hold that the soul and the Lord are different, he teaches that Śiva alone, whose highest reality is consciousness, is the Self of the universe. Here, since nothing whatever can exist that is not an object of awareness, the activity of consciousness is the form shared by everything. One who is conscious is one who is free in all knowing and doing, and the being of such a one is caitanya, consciousness: the full freedom made of relation to all knowing and doing is what is meant. This belongs to the Lord, Paramaśiva, alone, because everything up to Anāśrita functions in dependence on him. Although he is the self of endless qualities, eternity, all-pervasiveness, formlessness and the rest, yet because eternity and the others may be found elsewhere too, this word brings to the fore his freedom alone, which is found nowhere else. And so, setting other qualities aside, it is shown by the abstract ending of the word caitanya. That is the Self, and not any other self with a nature separate in each, as the dualists hold. If such a self were not conscious it would be inert, and so not a self at all. If it were consciousness, difference would be impossible, for no difference can be set in consciousness by place, time or form: if they are other than consciousness, they are not perceived and so do not exist; if they are perceived, they are one with consciousness. If the selves are consciousness alone, a difference in their nature cannot come about; and, as will be explained, even through a connection with a mala that is not separate from them, difference cannot be established. Even if mala exists before liberation, in the state of liberation it is stilled, so the doctrine of many selves cannot even be stated. And if some trace of mala remained, or if the liberated were in any way lower than the beginningless Śiva, then the liberated Śivas would be nothing but souls still wandering in saṃsāra. As it is said: "Consciousness is the one and only Self …" In this way the doctrine of many selves is shown to be untenable. Further, to teach those who are to be taught and who wish to know, "What is the Self?", he says that the Self is not the body, the prāṇa, the intellect or the void, as the worldly, the Cārvākas, the Vedic thinkers, the Yogācāras, the Mādhyamikas and others take it to be; it is consciousness alone, as stated. For even in the place of the constructed knower, the body and the rest, it is consciousness alone that shines forth as the true knower, made of the reflective awareness "I" that nothing has constructed. As the Mṛtyujit Bhaṭṭāraka says: "The own form of the supreme Self, free of every limiting condition, consciousness, is taught in all the scriptures as the nature of the Self." And the Vijñānabhairava too: "Consciousness is the quality in all bodies; nowhere is there any distinction. And so one who contemplates all things as made of it conquers becoming." This very point the teacher has gathered up in two verses of the Spanda, beginning "From which this group of the senses …", and taught to those who are to be taught, together with a sign by which it is recognised. Moreover, the consciousness spoken of here is the Self, that is, the very nature, of the universe of being and non-being, for the sūtra does not say whose Self it is. Nothing that is not perceived is ever anyone's nature; and what is perceived is consciousness itself, because it is one with self-luminous cit. As the Ucchuṣmabhairava says: "So long as there are no knowers, how can there be things to be known, beloved? But knower and known are one reality; therefore nothing is impure." This very point is gathered up in two verses beginning "Since the living being is made of everything …". And because consciousness is the nature of the universe, the means of knowledge and the rest are of no use in proving it, poor things; for their own establishment depends on self-luminous consciousness, and consciousness, by the reasoning already given, cannot be veiled by anything, since it is always shining. As the Trikahṛdaya says: "As one who tries to step with one's own foot over the shadow of one's own head never finds the head at the place of the foot, so is this kalā of the bindu." The construction here is: as for one who tries to step over it the head is never where the foot is, so is this. With this same intent the Spanda, in a long passage beginning "That in which stands …" and ending "… that exists in the highest sense", establishes that consciousness, the reality of spanda which is Śaṅkara himself, always self-luminous, exists as the highest truth.