Bhashya
आख्यायिकासंबन्धः प्रसिद्ध एव ।मृत्योरतिमुक्तिर्व्या-ख्याता काललक्षणात् कर्मलक्षणाच्च ; कः पुनरसौ मृत्युः,यस्मात् अतिमुक्तिर्व्याख्याता ? स च स्वाभाविकाज्ञानस-ङ्गास्पदः अध्यात्माधिभूतविषयपरिक्लिन्नः ग्रहातिग्रहलक्षणोमृत्युः ।तस्मात्परिच्छिन्नरूपान्मृत्योरतिमुक्तस्य रूपाणि अ-ग्न्यादित्यादीनि उद्गीथप्रकरणे व्याख्यातानि ; अश्वलप्रश्ने चतद्गतो विशेषः कश्चित् ; तच्च एतत् कर्मणां ज्ञानसहितानांफलम् ।एतस्मात्साध्यसाधनरूपात्संसारान्मोक्षः कर्तव्य इत्य-तः बन्धनरूपस्य मृत्योः स्वरूपमुच्यते ; बद्धस्य हि मोक्षःकर्तव्यः ।यदपि अतिमुक्तस्य स्वरूपमुक्तम् , तत्रापि ग्रहाति-ग्रहाभ्यामविनिर्मुक्त एव मृत्युरूपाभ्याम् ; तथा चोक्तम्—' अशनाया हि मृत्युः ' ; ' एष एव मृत्युः ' इति आदित्यस्थंपुरुषमङ्गीकृत्य आह, ' एको मृत्युर्बहवा ' इति च ; तदात्मभा-वापन्नो हि मृत्योराप्रिमतिमुच्यत इत्युच्यते ; न च तत्र ग्रहा-तिग्रहौ मृत्युरूपौ न स्तः ; ' अथैतस्य मनसो द्यौः शरीरं ज्यो-तीरूपमसावादित्यः ' ' मनश्च ग्रहः स कामेनातिग्राहेण गृहीतानाम्, अन्यस्यानुनिष्पादितत्वे प्रमाणानुपपत्तिः- न प्र-त्यक्षम्, नानुमानम्, अत एव च न आगमः ।उभयम्एकेन वाक्येन प्रदर्श्यत इति चेत्, कुल्याप्रणयनालोकादि-वत्- तन्नैवम्, वाक्यधर्मानुपपत्तेः; न च एकवाक्यगत-स्यार्थस्य प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिसाधनत्वमवगन्तुं शक्यते; कुल्याप्र-णयनालोकादौ अर्थस्य प्रत्यक्षत्वाददोषः ।यदप्युच्यते-मन्त्रा अस्मिन्नर्थे दृष्टा इति- अयमेव तु तावदर्थः प्रमा-णागम्यः; मन्त्राः पुनः किमस्मिन्नर्थे आहोस्विदन्यस्मि-न्नर्थे इति मृग्यमेतत् ।तस्माद्ग्रहातिग्रहलक्षणो मृत्युः बन्धः,तस्मात् मोक्षो वक्तव्य इत्यत इदमारभ्यते ।न च जानीमोविषयसंबन्धाविव अन्तरालेऽवस्थानम् अर्धजरतीयं कौश-लम् ।यत्तु मृत्योरतिमुच्यत इत्युक्त्वा ग्रहातिग्रहावुच्येते,तत्तु अर्थसंबन्धात्; सर्वोऽयं साध्यसाधनलक्षणो बन्धः, ग्र-हातिग्रहाविनिर्मोकात्; निगडे हि निर्ज्ञाते निगडितस्य मो-क्षाय यत्नः कर्तव्यो भवति ।तस्मात् तादर्थ्येन आरम्भः ॥
In plain words
The link between this story and what came before is plain enough. We already explained the further release from death — once by way of time, once by way of ritual action. But what, exactly, is this death from which we've been describing release? It is death marked by the 'grasper' and the 'over-grasper' — the very seat of our natural, built-in ignorance and clinging, soaked through the whole territory of self and world. So the shapes this death takes once someone is freed from its limited form — fire, the sun, and so on — were already set out in the Udgītha section, and Aśvala's question added one more detail of its own; all of it is simply the fruit of ritual action joined with knowledge. Since liberation has to be won out of this entire cycle of ends and means, we now turn to describe what death itself actually is, in its aspect as bondage — because release only needs seeking for someone who is genuinely bound. And notice: even what was said earlier about the released state has not actually escaped the grasper and the over-grasper, which are death's own two shapes. That is exactly why it was said, 'hunger indeed is death,' and, speaking of the person who dwells in the sun, 'this alone is death,' and again, 'death is one, and yet many.' Because someone who has come to identify with that very self is said to be freed from death's grip — not that the grasper and the over-grasper, death's two forms, simply stop existing. 'Now, this mind's body is the sky; that sun yonder, made of light, is its self'; 'and the mind is a grasper, itself seized by desire as its over-grasper' — but for the things seized that are named next, there is no way to prove they came from some other source: not by direct sight, not by inference, and so not by scripture either. And if someone objects that a single sentence can show both a plain fact and an instruction at once — the way 'dig the channel, then look' does both at once — that does not hold here, because no sentence works that way; what one sentence says cannot serve at the same time as something to pursue and as something to give up. In 'dig the channel, then look,' there is no such problem, because what is being pointed to there is something you can simply see for yourself. And saying that certain mantras were 'seen' as applying here does not rescue the point either — whether this very topic can be settled by any means of knowledge at all is precisely what is in question, and whether those mantras even apply here or somewhere else still needs to be worked out. So: death, marked by the grasper and the over-grasper, is bondage, and its release now has to be explained — that is why we begin here. And we won't accept some halfway position sitting between two rival readings, as if two different senses could coexist — that is the trick of the proverbial 'half old woman,' keeping one custom in one hand and its opposite in the other. As for saying 'he is released from death' and then immediately bringing up the grasper and the over-grasper again — that is simply because the two ideas are tied together in meaning: this whole bondage, built out of ends and means, exists only because the grasper and the over-grasper have not yet been shed. Once you recognize the shackle for what it is, the effort to free the shackled person follows on its own. And it is exactly for that purpose that this discussion now begins.
Close to the Sanskrit
The narrative's connection [to what precedes] is indeed well known. The further release from death has been explained, on the basis of the time-characterization and on the basis of the action-characterization; but what, then, is this death, from which the further release has been explained? It is death characterized by the seizer and the over-seizer, which is the seat of natural ignorance-attachment, steeped in the domain of the self and the elements. Therefore, the forms of one released beyond that death of limited form — fire, the sun, and so on — have been explained in the Udgītha section; and in Aśvala's question, too, there is a certain particular point belonging to that; and this is the fruit of actions accompanied by knowledge. Since liberation must be brought about from this transmigratory existence which has the form of ends and means, for this reason the essential nature of death, which has the form of bondage, is [now] stated; for release must be brought about for one who is bound. Even that which was stated as the essential nature of the one released beyond [death] is, even there, not freed from the seizer and the over-seizer, which have the form of death; and accordingly it has been said: 'hunger indeed is death'; 'this alone is death' — taking as reference the person dwelling in the sun, he says — and 'death is one, [yet] manifold,' too. For one who has attained that very self-hood is said to become released from the bond of death — and it is not that the seizer and the over-seizer, which have the form of death, thereby cease to exist. 'Now, of this mind, heaven is the body; that yonder, of the form of light, is the sun'; 'and mind is a seizer, it seized by desire as the over-seizer' — of those [things] seized [as spoken of next], there is no valid means of establishing that they were produced by something else: not direct perception, nor inference, and therefore not scriptural testimony either. If it is objected that both [the fact and the injunction] are shown by a single sentence — as in 'lead the canal, then look,' and so on — that is not so, because a sentence cannot behave in that way; nor can the object contained in a single sentence be understood to serve as the means to both engagement and cessation; in 'lead the canal, then look,' and so on, there is no fault, because the object there is directly perceptible. As for what is also said — that mantras are seen as applying to this matter — this very matter, at any rate, is not to be established by [these] means of knowledge; and whether the mantras apply to this matter or to another matter is itself something to be investigated. Therefore, since death, characterized by the seizer and the over-seizer, is bondage, and liberation from it must be described — for this reason the present discussion is begun. Nor do we accept, as though there were two rival sense-object connections, some remaining in between — that would be the inconsistent expedient of 'half an old woman.' As for the fact that, having said 'he is released from death,' the seizer and the over-seizer are then spoken of — that is on account of their connection in meaning; this entire bondage, characterized by ends and means, exists because the seizer and the over-seizer have not been shed; for once the shackle is known, effort toward the release of the one shackled naturally follows. Therefore, precisely for that purpose, the discussion is begun.