एष एव हि विज्ञेयो न्याय इच्छां प्रति स्फुटम् ।ननु जानातीति ज्ञानं बोधो बुद्धिवृत्तिः कथं वृत्तिमतीं बुद्धिं विना स्यात् ।बुद्धिश्च प्रकृतेः प्रजाता जडा ।नच तया तस्य सर्वशक्तेः शिवतत्त्वस्य निर्मलस्य संबन्ध इत्येवं चेत्, तन्न ।अपरावस्थायामभेदाख्यातावेकरसायां पुर्यष्टकप्रमातॄणां सा बुद्धिः ।यत्पुनः पूर्णतायां परावस्थस्य अत एव सूक्ष्ममभिन्नं वेद्यतामनुपयातमत एव सर्वदिक्कं दिक्कालाखण्डितं ज्ञानं बोधमात्रमबोध्यरूपं, तत्तस्य शिवस्य सहजं सदा प्राकृतबुद्ध्युल्लासेऽपि तत्सद्भावात् तद्विना तदभावात् ।ननु एवमपि न्यायवैशेषिकादि साम्यमायाति ज्ञानस्य शिवाश्रितत्वोपगमे, ज्ञानं हि तेषामात्मसमवेतमिष्टं शिवश्चात्मरूप इत्युक्तं न्यायादिभिरिति, तन्न तुल्यत्वं प्राकृत्यां भेददशायां बुद्धियोगात्मनो ज्ञानस्य तथाभिधानात्, नत्वीश्वरे पररूपे ज्ञातरि, तदुक्तम् एष एव न्याय इच्छां प्रति स्फुटं ज्ञेयः ।इच्छा चितेः प्रत्यगात्माश्रिता भेदमय्येव उक्ता यान्यैर्मनःसंकल्परूपा, नतु परमेश्वरस्वभावभूता परापरावस्थास्थिता वा ॥ २८ ॥सर्वतत्त्वमयतया शिवतत्त्वावस्थानमाहतदेवं प्रसृतो देवः कदाचिच्छक्तिमात्रके ॥ २९ ॥
In plain words
This very principle, indeed, is to be understood clearly with regard to will. But surely, ‘he knows’ is knowledge, awareness, a working of the intellect: how could it be without the intellect, to which the workings belong? And the intellect is born of prakṛti and is inert, and it has no connection with the Śiva-tattva, which holds every power and is stainless. If this is said, it is not so. In the lower state, in the non-recognition of non-difference, where all is of one savour, that intellect belongs to the knowers in the puryaṣṭaka. But the knowledge of the one who stands in the supreme state, in fullness, which for that very reason is ‘subtle’, undivided, not come to be something knowable, and for that very reason ‘in every direction’, unbroken by space and time, awareness alone, whose form is not something to be known: that is innate to that Śiva, ‘always’, since it is present even when the intellect of prakṛti unfolds, and without it that intellect would not be. But surely, even so, likeness with Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika and the rest follows if knowledge is accepted as resting in Śiva; for they hold knowledge to inhere in the self, and Śiva has the form of the self. That is what ‘with Nyāya and the rest’ refers to. There is no such likeness, for they speak in that way of knowledge whose nature is union with the intellect, in the state of difference that belongs to prakṛti, and not of knowledge in the Lord, the knower whose form is supreme. So it is said: ‘This very principle is to be understood clearly with regard to will.’ The will that others speak of, the will of citi that rests in the individual self, is made of difference alone, in the form of the mind's intention; it is not the will that is the very nature of the Supreme Lord, or that which stands in the supreme-and-lower state. Speaking of the Śiva-tattva as standing in the form of all the tattvas, he says: So, having spread forth in this way, the god, at one time, in power alone,