प्रवृत्तस्य निमित्तानामपरेषां क्व मार्गणम् ।मायाशक्तिकृतपूर्णस्वरूपाख्यातिमयचित्रकार्यतापन्नस्वरूपप्रसरणरसात् प्रभोरस्य तद्रूपस्य कार्यभेदस्य कुत्सितत्वमयुक्तम् ।तथाहि परापरावस्थायां सदाशिवेश्वररूपत्वे विश्वमहमिति विश्वरूपत्वमेव संविदि स्फुरति ।अपरावस्थायामपि अहं घटमिमं वेद्मि घटोऽयमिति वा द्वैतदृष्टौ चिदात्मकतां विना प्रकाशमानतैव नोपपद्यते इति तद्रूपतैव, किंतु मायाशक्तिवशादभेदापरामर्श इति सर्वदा स्वरूपप्रसरणमेवेति कथं गर्हितत्वम् ।अभेदापरामर्शनमेव भ्रान्तिरूपं कुत्सितं, तच्च न किञ्चित् अख्यातिरूपमात्रत्वात् ।न त्वपूर्वस्य कस्यचित्प्रथा ।विश्वात्मत्वं च चिन्मयस्य प्रतिबिम्बानामिव दर्पणपरमार्थत्वेन भावानां स्वच्छचिन्मात्रसतत्त्वतयावस्थानात् ।एतच्च सर्वमीश्वरप्रत्यभिज्ञाटीकायां निपुणमालोचितम् ।सर्गस्थितिप्रलयानुग्रहतिरोधानलक्षणपञ्चप्रकारं कृत्यं यस्य तस्योक्तिः पञ्चविधकृत्यो यदुच्यते तच्छिवत्वं ततः निजकर्मणे तत्त्वादिरूपप्रसरणरूपाय प्रवृत्तस्य निमित्तानां दयादीनां क्व मार्गणं निमित्तान्वेषणप्रसङ्गस्यैवाभावात् कथमेवं प्रसरतीति न चोद्यमिति तावदकुत्सितविषयमेवौन्मुख्यमिति समर्थितम् ॥ १२ ॥तदिदानीं निदर्शनेन स्फुटीकर्तुमाहगच्छतो निस्तरङ्गस्य जलस्यातितरङ्गिताम् ॥ १३ ॥
In plain words
where is the search for other causes? Since it comes from the Lord's delight in spreading forth his own form, which has become the manifold effect made of the non-recognition of his full form that the power of māyā brings about, it is unreasonable that this particular effect, which is of that form, should be contemptible. For in the supreme-and-lower state, in the form of Sadāśiva and Īśvara, it is being the universe alone that shines forth in saṃvid, as ‘I am the universe’. In the lower state too, in the view of duality, ‘I know this pot’ or ‘this is a pot’, its very shining cannot be accounted for without its being of the nature of cit, so it is of that form all the same; only, by force of the power of māyā, there is no parāmarśa of non-difference. So it is always the spreading forth of his own form alone: how then is it blameworthy? Only the absence of parāmarśa of non-difference, which is of the form of error, is contemptible; and that is nothing at all, since it is merely of the form of non-recognition. It is not the appearing of anything new. And he who is made of cit is the self of the universe because things abide with clear cit alone as their reality, as reflections have the mirror as their highest truth. All this has been examined with care in the Ṭīkā on the Īśvarapratyabhijñā. He whose act is of five kinds, marked by emanation, maintenance, dissolution, grace and concealment, is spoken of as ‘having the five acts’; what is so spoken of is being Śiva. From that, ‘for one who has set out on his own work’, which is spreading forth in the form of the tattvas and the rest, ‘where is the search for other causes’, compassion and the rest? Since there is no room at all for looking for a cause, the objection ‘why does he spread forth so?’ cannot be raised. So it has been upheld, to begin with, that aunmukhya has for its object only what is not contemptible. To make that clear now by an illustration, he says: When water without waves is going into great waves,