निश्चयः पुनरेषोऽत्रत्वदधिष्ठानमेव हिप्रसादो मनसः स्वामिन्सा सिद्धिस्तत्परं पदम् ॥ ११८ ॥हे स्वामिन्, मनसि - संवेदने, प्रसन्ने - परिपक्वमले संजातकर्मसाम्ये वा सति, किं त्वं निविशसे - स्वशक्त्यधिष्ठानं करोषि, उत त्वत्प्रवेशात् - शक्त्यधिष्ठानात् तत् प्रसादं गच्छेत् - मलपरिपाकादिकम् आसादयेत् इति जनो दोलायते - संदेग्धि ।अत्र पुनरयं निश्चयः, यत् त्वदधिष्ठानं - स्वरूपगोपनानिमज्जनेन त्वत्स्वतन्त्रशक्त्युन्मीलनमेव केवलं मनसः - संवेदनस्य प्रसादो, न तु मलपरिपाककर्मसाम्यादि किंचित्; तथा हि यदि मलपरिपाकः शक्तिपातस्य हेतुः कर्मसाम्यं वा, तदपि तर्हि किंहेतुकं ? समधिष्ठात्री भगवच्छक्तिः इति, तद्धेतुकमिति चेत् अलंतेन, भगवच्छक्तिरेव स्वतन्त्रानुग्राहिका भविष्यति, अहेतुकमिति चेत् सर्वस्य युगपत् किं न भविष्यति, कस्मिंश्चित्काले भवति, इति चेत् सर्वेषां बन्धकोटेः अनादित्वात् कालनियमः किं न कृतः, किं कुर्मः, तत् कदाचित् कस्यचित् कथञ्चित् भवति, इति चेत् मलस्य स्वशक्त्या निरोधकत्वेन न अवस्थितस्य जडस्य विजातीयकारणानुप्रवेशं विना परिपाकलक्षणविलक्षणकार्यजननानुपपत्तिः ।कश्चिदेव कालोऽत्र सहकारिकारणम् इति चेत्, कोऽसौ इति प्रश्ने नोत्तरं लभ्यते ।परिणमन्मलः परिपाकात्मकं विशेषमेति, इति चेत् अत्रापि दुग्धदधिपरिणाम इव उष्णस्पर्शस्य विरोधिनः कारणस्य अननुप्रवेशे विलक्षणपरिणामानुपपत्तिः ।यथा स्वतन्त्रशक्तिपातवादिपक्षे कर्मभोगवैचित्र्यं मुक्तिश्च कालनियमेन, भगवदेककर्तृके च जगति मायाकालादीनां क्रमेण कार्यकारणभावः, तथैव एतद्भविष्यति इति चेत् चाशपञ्चाशन्याय आयातः, यतः तत्पक्षे भगवानेव स्वातन्त्र्यात् गृहीतसंकोचाभासो यथा तत्तत्तत्त्वात्मना भाति, तथा तद्गतनियतपौर्वापर्यात्मककार्यकारणभावाभासात्मनापि नियतकर्मतत्फलवैचित्र्यात्मनापि क्रमाभासमयेन, न तु अत्र कालकर्मादेः कस्यापि निजं तत्त्वम् अस्ति इति यथा असौ इत्थं भोगवैचित्र्यम् आभासयति, तथा स्वस्वातन्त्र्यात् अनुग्रहवैचित्र्यमपि इति नात्र निग्रहानुग्रहभाक् कश्चित् अन्योऽस्ति इति निरवद्य एवायं पक्षः ।मलपरिपाकादिपक्षस्तु उक्तदूषणैः सावद्य एव - इति कथमिव संभावनासाम्यमात्रेणाभ्युपगन्तुं शक्यम्, क्रमिके च विरुद्धे द्वे समबले कर्मणी कथं युगपत् फलदानेऽपि समबलत्वात् विरुद्धत्वाच्च तयोः प्रतिबन्धात् फलदानाशक्तत्वे जातु शक्तिपातः स्यात् ।कथं वा तस्मिन् अवसरे कर्मान्तरं फलं न ददाति, तस्य भिन्नकालार्जितस्य भिन्न एव परिपाककाल इति चेत् तयोरपि भिन्नकालार्जितयोः कथम् एककालः परिपाकः ।ईश्वरेच्छात इति चेत् सैव भगवती स्वतन्त्रानुग्राहिका अस्तु; अलम् अनेन आलजालप्रायेण मलपरिपाकादिना ।वितत्य च एतत् मयैव श्रीस्वच्छन्दविवृतौ पञ्चमपटलान्ते दीक्षासमर्थनावसरे विचारितम् ।यथा च आगमेषु मलस्वरूपं, यथा च एतन्निवृत्तिः भवति तदपि तत्रैव निर्वाहितम् इति अलम् इह अभ्यधिकेन, तदेतत् गर्भीकृत्य स्तोत्रकारेण उक्तम् ।निश्चयः पुनरेषोऽत्र यत् त्वच्छक्त्यधिष्ठानमेव, मनसः - संवेदनस्य प्रसादः न तु मलपरिपाकाद्यपि, त्वदधिष्ठानमेव च सिद्धिः तदेव परं पदमिति ।इदमत्र तत्त्वं, यच्चितिशक्तिरेव भगवती स्वस्वातन्त्र्यात् गृहीतसंकोचा चित्तभूमिं संसार्यात्मरूपां बहुशाखामाभास्य, पुनः स्वेच्छयैव क्वचित् संकोचं प्रशमय्य, पूर्णतया स्फुरति इत्येव तत्परं पदम् ।यदुक्तं केनचिन्महायोगीन्द्रेणचैतन्यपूरितमिदं निखिलं हि विश्वंचित्तं चिदात्मनि यदास्तमुपैति शश्वत् ।एवं चितेरपृथगेव सुसंस्थितत्वा -दुक्तो निरस्तकरणः परमः समाधिः ॥इति ॥ ११८ ॥
In plain words
But here this is the certainty: it is indeed Your presiding alone, O Master, that is the clearness of the mind; that is accomplishment, that the supreme state. O Master, ‘when the mind’, that is, awareness, ‘is clear’, that is, when its mala has ripened or when the balancing of karma has come about, ‘is it then that You enter it’, that is, exercise the presiding of Your own power? ‘Or, through Your entering’, that is, through Your power presiding over it, ‘would it become clear’, that is, would it come to the ripening of mala and the rest? ‘So people swing to and fro’, that is, they are in doubt. ‘But here this is the certainty’: that ‘Your presiding’, that is, the opening of Your free power through the sinking of the concealment of Your own form, alone is ‘the clearness of the mind’, that is, of awareness, and not anything such as the ripening of mala or the balancing of karma. For if the ripening of mala is the cause of śaktipāta, or the balancing of karma, then what in turn is the cause of that? If it is said, ‘The Lord's power, presiding over it,’ so that it has that as its cause, enough of that: the Lord's power alone will be the one who freely graces. If it is said to have no cause, why does it not happen to all at once? If it is said, ‘It happens at a certain time,’ then, since the state of bondage of all is beginningless, why has no rule of time been made? If it is said, ‘What are we to do? It happens at some time, to someone, somehow,’ then for mala, which is inert and does not abide by its own power as an obstructor, the bringing forth of a distinct effect marked by ripening is not possible without the entry of a cause of another kind. If it is said, ‘Some particular time is the auxiliary cause here,’ then to the question ‘Which is it?’ no answer is found. If it is said, ‘Mala, as it transforms, reaches a particular state that is ripening,’ here too, as in the transformation of milk into curd, a distinct transformation is not possible without the entry of a contrary cause, the touch of heat. If it is said, ‘Just as on the side of those who hold that śaktipāta is free, the variety of the enjoyment of karma, and liberation, come by a rule of time, and in the world, whose one maker is the Lord, māyā, kāla and the rest stand in the relation of cause and effect in sequence, so too will this be,’ then the maxim of cāśapañcāśa has arrived. For on that side it is the Lord alone who, by His freedom, having taken on the appearance of contraction, shines as these and those tattvas, and so too as the appearance of the relation of cause and effect that belongs to them, made of a fixed before and after, and as the variety of fixed karma and its fruit, in a form made of the appearing of sequence; and here nothing, kāla, karma or anything else, has a reality of its own. So, just as He makes the variety of enjoyment appear in this way, so by His own freedom He makes the variety of grace appear too; and so there is no one else here who has a share in restraining and gracing, and this side is without fault. But the side of the ripening of mala and the rest is faulty, by the faults stated: so how could it be accepted merely because the two are equally conceivable? And two opposed karmas of equal strength, which come in sequence: how, even in giving fruit at once, could śaktipāta ever arise when, through obstructing each other because they are of equal strength and opposed, they are unable to give fruit? Or how is it that at that moment another karma does not give its fruit? If it is said, ‘That one, gathered at a different time, has its own different time of ripening,’ then how do these two, gathered at different times, ripen at one time? If it is said, ‘From the will of the Lord,’ then let that same Blessed One be the one who freely graces. Enough of this ripening of mala and the rest, which is mostly idle chatter. And this was weighed at length by me myself in the Vivṛti on the venerable Svacchanda, at the end of the fifth chapter, on the occasion of establishing initiation. And how the nature of mala is set out in the Āgamas, and how its removal comes about, that too was worked out there; so enough here of saying more. Holding this within, the author of the hymn has said: ‘But here this is the certainty’, that the presiding of Your power alone is ‘the clearness of the mind’, that is, of awareness, and not the ripening of mala and the rest; and Your presiding alone is ‘accomplishment’, that alone is ‘the supreme state’. This is the truth here: that the power of citi herself, the Blessed One, by her own freedom having taken on contraction, makes appear the ground of the mind, whose form is the self of the saṃsārin, with many branches, and then again by her own will alone, stilling the contraction somewhere, shines forth in fullness: that alone is ‘the supreme state’. As was said by a certain great lord of yogīs: “For this whole universe is filled with consciousness; when the mind goes to rest for ever in the Self that is cit, so, by abiding firmly as not separate at all from citi, the supreme samādhi is declared, in which the organs are cast aside.” So it is said.