अप्रबुद्धो निष्कलश्च क्वचित्प्रलयकेवली ।आत्मबोधी विकलवत्क्वचिद्विज्ञानकेवली ॥ ४३ ॥स्वशिवत्वमजानन्निव पश्वात्मव्यपदेशमासाद्य स्थितः ।स्वरूपाभेदाख्यातिरेव हि मायाशक्तिकृता ग्राह्यग्राहकरूपसंसारात्मतया अवतिष्ठते ।तत्र ग्राहकः पशुः पुर्यष्टकावच्छिन्नं चैतन्यम् ।स एव परिमितत्वादणुः चैतन्यात्मतया नित्योऽमूर्तश्च, विश्वात्मतात्यागेनाज्ञः, अस्वातन्त्र्यात् क्रियागुणरहितोऽनीश्वरश्च, वेद्यपुर्यष्टकात्मनि भिन्न इव रागितया भोगोपायविचिन्तको, मायाकृतत्वात् मायोदरान्तःस्थः ।स्वशिवत्वाज्ञानं शिवभट्टारकस्यायुक्तं नित्यनिर्मलस्वभावत्वात्, तद्विना मलानामेवानुत्पत्तेस्तदधिष्ठानात्तेषाम् ।ततस्तदज्ञानभागणुः तदैव मायाशक्तिवशात् उत्तिष्ठतीत्याणवमायामलद्वयोद्भवः ।कार्ममलश्च तत्प्रभवः ।स्वशिवत्वमिवेति इवग्रहणं व्यपदेशग्रहणं च अज्ञानात्मकमेतत् न वस्तुतः कश्चित् ग्राह्यग्राहकभेद इति वक्तुं ।एतच्च ईश्वरप्रत्यभिज्ञायां निपुणं विवेचितम् ।क्वचिन्महामायापरपर्यायविद्याशक्तिवशात्तद्रूपत्वेन आत्मानं पश्यन् सर्वथा विश्वात्मतामनुगतः शान्त इव ।अत्रापि इवशब्दो ज्ञानविशेषेण शान्तता, नतु वस्तुतः सार्वात्म्यविरह इति वक्तुम् ।उत्तरत्रापीवशब्दस्तदर्थं योजनीयः ।विद्याशक्तितारतम्यतश्च भेदात् क्वचिद्वैशेषिकादिमतकेवलेश्वरमात्रदृढाभिमानेन स्थितः, क्वचित् केवलशंभुसंज्ञा शिवभेदेन, क्वाप्यवस्थाभेदावस्थितविज्ञानमय एवाम्लानपशुभावः मायाख्यमलोपस्थापितभिन्नग्राह्यशून्यः प्रलयकेवली भवति ।अन्यत्र आत्मबोधी नतु पुर्यष्टकस्थः, प्रलयाकलवच्च ग्राह्यरहितः, कार्ममलास्पर्शी विज्ञानकेवलिरूपः ॥ ४३ ॥
In plain words
in another, unawakened and without kalā, a pralayakevalin; in another, aware of the self, like one bereft of kalā, a vijñānakevalin. As though not knowing his own being Śiva, he stands, having taken on the name of the self of a paśu. For it is the non-recognition of non-difference from his own form, brought about by the power of māyā, that abides as saṃsāra, in the form of the perceived and the perceiver. There, the perceiver is the paśu, consciousness bounded by the puryaṣṭaka. He himself is aṇu because he is limited; as consciousness, he is eternal and without form; through giving up being the self of the universe, he does not know; through lack of freedom, he is without action and qualities, and is not a lord; as though separate in the puryaṣṭaka, which is something known, he thinks, out of attachment, of the means to enjoyment; and since he is made by māyā, he stands within the belly of māyā. Not knowing his own being Śiva does not fit Lord Śiva, since his nature is eternally stainless; and without him the malas themselves would not arise, since they rest upon him. Hence, at that very moment, through the power of māyā, the aṇu who shares in that not knowing arises: so the two malas, āṇava and māyīya, arise. And kārma mala springs from them. In ‘his own being Śiva, as though’, the word ‘as though’ is taken, and the word ‘named’, to say that this is made of not knowing, and that in truth there is no difference whatever of perceived and perceiver. And this has been examined with skill in the Īśvarapratyabhijñā. In one place, through the power of vidyā, whose other name is Mahāmāyā, ‘seeing himself as having that form’, he has come wholly to be the self of the universe, ‘as though at peace’. Here too the word ‘as though’ is there to say that his being at peace comes from a particular knowledge, and not that in truth he lacks being the self of all. Further on too, the word ‘as though’ is to be joined for that purpose. And because of difference, through the gradations of the power of vidyā, in one place he stands with a firm conviction of nothing but the sole Lord of the doctrine of the Vaiśeṣikas and others; in another he bears the name ‘Śaṃbhu alone’, through a difference from Śiva; somewhere else, made of knowledge alone that abides in the difference of states, his state as a paśu unfaded, empty of the separate perceived that the mala called māyā brings forward, he is a pralayakevalin. Elsewhere he is ‘aware of the self’ and does not stand in the puryaṣṭaka; and, like the pralayākala, he is without anything perceived; untouched by kārma mala, he has the form of a vijñānakevalin.