Bhashya
नन्विदम्भ्यारोहजपविधिशेषोऽर्थवादः, न ज्ञाननिरूपण-परम् ।न, 'य एवं वेद' इति वचनात् ।उद्गीथप्रस्तावे पु-राकल्पश्रवणादुद्गीथविधिपरमिति चेत्, न, अप्रकरणात् ;उद्गीथस्य चान्यत्र विहितत्वात् ; विद्याप्रकरणत्वाच्चास्य ; अ-भ्यारोहजपस्य चानित्यत्वात् एवंवित्प्रयोज्यत्वात्, विज्ञानस्यच नित्यवच्छ्रवणात् ; 'तद्वैतल्लोकजिदेव' इति च श्रुतेः ; प्रा-णस्य वागादीनां च शुद्धयशुद्धिवचनात् ; न ह्युपास्यत्वे—प्राणस्य शुद्धिवचनम्, वागादीनां च सहोपन्यस्तानांमशुद्धि-वचनम्, वागादिनिन्दया मुख्यप्राणस्तुतिश्चाभिप्रेता,—उप-पद्यते— 'मृत्युमतिक्रान्तो दीप्यते' इत्यादि फलवचनं च ।प्राणस्वरूपापत्तेर्हि फलं तत्, यद्वागाद्यग्न्यादिभावः ॥
In plain words
An objection is raised: Is this passage not merely a subsidiary explanatory praise for the muttering of the abhyāroha mantra, rather than an independent teaching of supreme knowledge? We answer: No, because scripture explicitly declares, 'He who knows thus.' If you argue that it merely enjoins the Udgītha because it appears within an ancient legend connected to the Udgītha, we reply: No, because that is out of context, the Udgītha is already enjoined elsewhere, and this entire section belongs to the teaching of vidyā (knowledge). Furthermore, the abhyāroha muttering is optional and meant for one who already possesses this knowledge, whereas knowledge itself is enjoined permanently. Scripture also declares, 'That indeed is the conqueror of worlds,' and speaks of the purity and impurity of prāṇa and the senses. Censure of the senses alongside the purification of prāṇa serves to praise the principal prāṇa, culminating in the rewarding declaration: 'Having crossed death, he shines.' This fruit is nothing less than attaining the nature of prāṇa, expanding into speech, fire, and all cosmic forms.
Close to the Sanskrit
Is not this [passage] a subsidiary explanatory statement to the injunction of the abhyāroha mantra muttering, not intent upon the exposition of knowledge? Not so, because of the statement 'He who knows thus.' If it be argued that, because of hearing an ancient legend in the presentation of the Udgītha, it is intent upon the injunction of the Udgītha—[we reply] no, because of the absence of context; and because the Udgītha is prescribed elsewhere; and because this is in the context of vidyā; and because the abhyāroha mantra muttering is non-permanent and required to be employed by one who knows thus; and because knowledge is heard of as permanent; and because of the Vedic text 'That indeed is the conqueror of worlds'; and because of the statements of purity and impurity of prāṇa and speech and others. For, when [prāṇa] is an object of meditation, the statement of purity of prāṇa and the statement of impurity of speech and others mentioned along with it—intended as the praise of the principal prāṇa through the censure of speech and others—is appropriate, as well as the statement of the result such as 'Having crossed death, he shines.' For that fruit is the attainment of the nature of prāṇa, which is the assuming of the form of speech, fire, and others.