Bhashya
प्रतिषिद्धानिष्टफलसंबन्धश्च वेदादेव विज्ञायते ।न चानु-ष्ठेयः सः ।न च प्रतिषिद्धविषये प्रवृत्तक्रियस्य अकरणाद्-न्यदनुष्ठेयमस्ति ।अकर्तव्यताज्ञाननिष्ठतैव हि परमार्थतःप्रतिषेधविधीनां स्यात् ।क्षुधार्तस्य प्रतिषेधज्ञानसंस्कृतस्य,अभक्ष्येऽभोज्ये वा प्रत्युपस्थिते कलञ्जाभिशस्तान्नादौ 'इदंभक्ष्यम्' 'अदो भोज्यम्' इति वा ज्ञानमुत्पन्नम्, तद्वि-षयया प्रतिषेधज्ञानस्मृत्या बाध्यते; मृगतृष्णिकायामिव पेय-ज्ञानं तद्विषययाथात्म्यविज्ञानेन ।तस्मिन्बाधिते स्वाभावि-कविपरीतज्ञानेऽनर्थकरी तद्भक्षणभोजनप्रवृत्तिर्न भवति ।विपरीतज्ञाननिमित्तायाः प्रवृत्तेर्निवृत्तिरेव, न पुनर्यत्नः कार्य-स्तदभावे ।तस्मात्प्रतिषेधविधीनां वस्तुयाथात्म्यज्ञाननिष्ठतैव,न पुरुषव्यापारनिष्ठतागन्धोऽप्यस्ति ।तथैहापि परमात्मादि-याथात्म्यज्ञानविधीनां तावन्मात्रपर्यवसानतैव स्यात् ।तथातद्विज्ञानसंस्कृतस्य, तद्विपरीतार्थज्ञाननिमित्तानां प्रवृत्तीनाम्,अनर्थार्थत्वेन ज्ञायमानत्वात् परमात्मादियाथात्म्यज्ञानस्मृत्यास्वाभाविके तन्निमित्तविज्ञाने बाधिते, अभावः स्यात् ।ननुकलञ्जादिभक्षणादेरनर्थार्थत्ववस्तुयाथात्म्यज्ञानस्मृत्या स्वाभा-रेकेण किंचित्कर्म विहितमुपलभ्यते ।कर्मनिमित्तदेवतादि-सर्वसाधनविज्ञानोपमर्देन ह्यात्मज्ञानं विधीयते ।न चोपम-र्दितक्रियाकारकादिविज्ञानस्य कर्मप्रवृत्तिरुपपद्यते, विशिष्ट-क्रियासाधनादिविज्ञानपूर्वकत्वात्क्रियाप्रवृत्तेः ।न हि देशकाला-द्यनवच्छिन्नास्थूलाद्वयादिब्रह्मप्रत्ययधारिणः कर्मावसरोऽस्ति ।भोजनादिप्रवृत्त्यवसरवत्स्यादिति चेत्, न; अविद्यादिकेव-लदोषनिमित्तत्वाद्भोजनादिप्रवृत्तेरावश्यकत्वानुपपत्तेः ।न तु,तथा अनियतं कदाचित्क्रियते कदाचिन्न क्रियते चेति, नित्यंकर्मोपपद्यते ।केवलदोषनिमित्तत्वात्तु भोजनादिकर्मणोऽनिय-तत्वं स्यात्, दोषोद्भवाभिभवयोरनियतत्वात्, कामानामिवकाम्येषु ।शास्त्रनिमित्तकालाद्यपेक्षत्वाच्च नित्यानामनियतत्वा-नुपपत्तिः; दोषनिमित्तत्वे सत्यपि, यथा काम्याग्निहोत्रस्यशास्त्रविहितत्वात्सायंप्रातःकालाद्यपेक्षत्वम्, एवम् ।तद्भौ-जनादिप्रवृत्तौ नियमवत्स्यादिति चेत्, न; नियमस्य अक्रि-यात्वात् क्रियायाश्चाप्रयोजकत्वात् नासौ ज्ञानस्यापवादकरः ।तस्मात्, परमात्मयाथात्म्यज्ञानविधेरपि तद्विपरीतस्थूलद्वै-तादिज्ञाननिवर्तकत्वात् सामर्थ्यात्सर्वकर्मप्रतिषेधविध्यर्थत्वंसंपद्यते कर्मप्रवृत्त्यभावस्य तुल्यत्वात्, यथा प्रतिषे-धविषये ।तस्मात्, प्रतिषेधविधिवच्च, वस्तुप्रतिपादनं तत्प-रत्वं च सिद्धं शास्त्रस्य ॥
In plain words
The fact that forbidden actions lead to unwanted results is known solely from the Veda, and such actions are not to be performed. In matters concerning prohibitions, once a person is inclined toward a forbidden act, refraining from it is the only course; there is no positive duty to be performed. In the ultimate sense, negative injunctions consist simply in being firmly established in the knowledge of what must not be done. When a hungry person, conditioned by the awareness of prohibitions, encounters forbidden food and the thought arises that it is edible or fit to be consumed, that thought is dispelled by the memory of the prohibition—just as the illusion of water in a mirage is dispelled by knowing the actual nature of the mirage. Once that natural misconception is sublated, the harmful urge to consume that food no longer arises. The cessation of an activity born of ignorance happens simply through the removal of its cause; no extra effort is needed once the illusion is gone. Therefore, the true purport of scriptural prohibitions is simply to establish the mind in the truth of reality, without even a trace of dependence on human effort. In the exact same way, scriptural injunctions concerning the knowledge of the Supreme Self culminate solely in that realization. For one whose mind is purified by such knowledge, the tendencies born of misconception are recognized as ruinous; when those natural misconceptions are sublated by the constant remembrance of the Supreme Self, those tendencies simply disappear. If someone objects that certain actions are prescribed even while remembering the harmful nature of eating kalanja—since self-knowledge is enjoined by subverting the knowledge of all ritual means such as deities—we answer that one whose understanding of actions and agents has been destroyed can no longer engage in ritual action, because action depends on the prior awareness of specific means. For one who abides in the realization of Brahman as infinite, non-gross, and non-dual, there is simply no room for action. If one argues that ritual action might still find a place just as the urge to eat does, we reply that this is not so, because eating stems purely from defects like ignorance and has no inherent necessity. Daily obligatory duties, on the other hand, are constant, whereas actions like eating are intermittent and optional, fluctuating with the rise and fall of personal desires and defects. Nor can daily duties be irregular, because they depend on specific scriptural times and conditions; even when an action has a defect at its root, it is regulated by scriptural prescription, exactly as a voluntary agnihotra is bound to morning and evening times. If it is suggested that eating might likewise be regulated, we say no: a rule of restraint is essentially non-action and cannot prompt an external deed, and therefore it cannot conflict with true knowledge. Therefore, just as scriptural prohibitions dispel contrary notions of gross duality by their very nature, they effectively result in the prohibition of all ritual action, since the absence of action is common to both. Thus, like negative injunctions, scripture has for its sole purport the revelation of ultimate reality.
Close to the Sanskrit
The connection with prohibited unwanted results is known from the Veda itself, and that is not to be performed. And in the sphere of the prohibited, there is nothing else to be performed by one whose activity has begun, other than non-doing. Indeed, in the supreme sense, the establishment in the knowledge of what is not to be done would be the nature of prohibitory injunctions. For a starving person, refined by the knowledge of prohibition, when forbidden items like kalanja or food from a degraded person are present, if the thought 'this is edible, that is consumable' arises, it is sublated by the recollection of the prohibition knowledge, just like the perception of water in a mirage is sublated by the knowledge of the true nature of that object. When that natural contrary knowledge is sublated, the harm-producing tendency to eat and consume that does not happen. The cessation of activity caused by erroneous knowledge is alone the result, not any further effort when that is absent. Therefore, the core purpose of prohibitory injunctions is simply firm establishment in the knowledge of the reality of objects, and there is not even a trace of reliance on human effort. Similarly, the instructions regarding the knowledge of the reality of the Supreme Self culminate solely in that. Likewise, for one refined by that knowledge, when the tendencies caused by contrary understanding are known to be ruinous, once natural cognition related to them is sublated by the remembrance of the reality of the Supreme Self, their absence would result. Now, someone might object: from the recollection of the reality that things like eating kalanja produce harm, some action is seen to be enjoined. For self-knowledge is enjoined by crushing the knowledge of all means such as deities which prompt action. And the engagement in action is not tenable for one whose knowledge of action and agents has been crushed, since action requires prior knowledge of specific actions and means. For one who holds the conception of Brahman as unconditioned by space and time, non-gross, and non-dual, there is no opportunity for action. If it is said that it might be like the occasion for eating activities, we reply: not so, because eating and similar activities are prompted solely by flaws like ignorance, and their necessity cannot be established. On the contrary, an obligatory duty is constant, whereas actions like eating are occasional, being performed sometimes and omitted at other times because they stem purely from flaws, just like desires in relation to voluntary objects. Nor can daily duties be irregular, since they depend on scriptural causes, times, and other factors; even when caused by a defect, just as a voluntary agnihotra depends on evening and morning times due to scriptural prescription, there could be regulation in eating activity. If it is maintained thus, we reply: not so, because a rule consists of non-action and cannot prompt action, hence it does not subvert knowledge. Therefore, because the injunction to know the reality of the Supreme Self sublated contrary notions of gross duality, by its intrinsic force it effectively serves as a prohibition of all actions, since the absence of action engagement is equivalent, just as in the case of prohibitions. Therefore, like prohibitory injunctions, the revelation of reality and its sole dedication to that are established for scripture.