Establishment of Brahman 2.28

2.28

syādetat ---
avikalarūpa eva bhāvo hetubhyo jāyate /
tatra bhedākhyaṃ rūpaṃ pratiyogyapekṣam, nānapekṣaṃ kadācidittasya tadvidhatvāttena tadvidhenaiva saha jāyata iti na vikalarūpaprādurbhāvaḥ /
tatrocyate ---
bhavatu tadvidhasya prādurbhāvaḥ, apekṣārthastu vaktavyaḥ, yasya hi yatra kiñcid āyatate, tat tadapekṣata ityucyate, nānyo viśeṣaḥ sāpekṣanirapekṣayorvyapasthāpako nirūpyate /
tatra na tāvadutpattiḥ pratiyoginyāyatate, svahetubhyo 'vikalasyotpatteḥ /
nārthakriyā, tadasaṃnidhāne 'pi tasyārthakriyādarśanāt /
pratītiścet ---
tathā hi, nānapekṣya pratiyoginaṃ bhedaḥ pratīyata iti ---
na tarhi bhedasvabhāvaḥ sāpekṣaḥ, tasminnavasthite vastusthityuttarakālā pratītirarthāntarameva pratiyoginamapekṣate, yathā vyavasthitānapekṣasvabhāvā rūpādayaścakṣurādyapekṣāyāṃ pratītau na sāpekṣasvabhāvāḥ kathyate /
itaretarāśrayācca na pratītirapi parasparāyattāvakalpate /
na ca vastumātrādanavagṛhītabhedādbhedasiddhiḥ, ekasminnapi tatprasaṅgāt /
tasmātpauruṣeyīmapekṣāyāṃ na vastvanuvarttate, ato na vastusvabhāva ityarthaḥ /
anyā vyākhyā ---
na bhedo vastuno rūpam, āpekṣiko hi pratīyate /
na cāpekṣāyāṃ puruṣapratyayaṃ vastvanuvartate, vyavasthitavastupūrvakatvāditi /

It might be argued:
The entity is born from its causes as having an entirely complete form.
There, the form called difference depends on a counterpositive; it is never independent; because it is of that kind, it is born together with that very kind, and so there is no emergence of an incomplete form.
To that, it is said:
Let there be an emergence of such a kind, but the meaning of dependence must be stated. For that in which something depends for something is said to depend on that; no other distinction is discerned that establishes whether something is dependent or independent.
In that case, origination does not depend on a counterpositive, because [the entity's] origination is complete from its own causes.
Nor does causal efficacy [depend on it], because its causal efficacy is observed even in the absence of that [counterpositive].
If it is cognition—
that is to say, difference is not cognised without depending on a counterpositive—
then the nature of difference is not dependent; when that [entity] is established, the cognition occurring subsequent to the establishment of the entity depends on a totally different thing, namely the counterpositive, just as color and other [qualities], which have an established independent nature, are not said to have a dependent nature when their cognition depends on the eye and so forth.
And because of mutual dependence, even cognition cannot be conceived as mutually dependent.
Nor is difference established merely from an entity whose difference is unapprehended, because that would entail it even in a single entity.
Therefore, ‘an entity does not follow human dependence’; hence it is not the nature of an entity, this is the meaning.
Another explanation:
Difference is not the form of an entity, for it is cognised as relative;
and in dependence, an entity does not follow human cognition, because it is preceded by the established entity.