Bhashya
यतीति चेत्— न, भिक्षाचर्यस्याप्रयोजकत्वात्— हुत्वोत्तर-कालभक्षणवत् ; शेषप्रतिपत्तिकर्मत्वात् अप्रयोजकं हि तत् ;असंस्कारकत्वाच्च— भक्षणं पुरुषसंस्कारकमपि स्यात्, न तुभिक्षाचर्यम् ; नियमादृष्टस्यापि ब्रह्मविदः अनिष्टत्वात् ।नियमादृष्टस्यानिष्टत्वे किं भिक्षाचर्येणेति चेत्— न, अन्य-साधनात् व्युत्थानस्य विहितत्वात् ।तथापि किं तेनेतिचेत्— यदि स्यात्, बाढम् अभ्युपगम्यते हि तत् ।यानिपारिव्राज्येऽभिहितानि वचनानि ‘ यज्ञोपवीत्येवाधीयीत ’इत्यादीनि, तानि अविद्वत्पारिव्राज्यमात्रविषयाणीति परिह-तानि ; इतरथात्मज्ञानबाधः स्यादिति ह्युक्तम् ; ‘ निराशिषम-नारम्भं निर्नमस्कारमस्तुतिम् ।अक्षीणं क्षीणकर्माणं तं देवाब्राह्मणं विदुः ’ इति सर्वकर्माभावं दर्शयति स्मृतिः विदुषः—‘ विद्वाँल्लिङ्गविवर्जितः ’, ‘ तस्मादलिङ्गो धर्मज्ञः ’ इति च ।तस्मात् परमहंसपारिव्राज्यमेव व्युत्थानलक्षणं प्रतिपद्येतआत्मवित् सर्वकर्मसाधनपरित्यागरूपमिति ॥
In plain words
[The source opens mid-argument here, with a fragment of an earlier objection.] ...but no — begging has no independent force of its own, the way the meal that follows a fire-offering has none either. Begging is just the act that rounds off what renunciation leaves unfinished; it purifies nothing. Eating after the oblation might refine the person who eats, but wandering for alms does not do that. And even the quiet, unseen merit that a rule normally earns means nothing to someone who already knows Brahman. So what, then, is the point of begging at all, if that unseen merit is worthless to him? It is not pointless — it is commanded through a different channel altogether: as the lived expression of a renunciation already commanded. And if someone presses further and asks what that expression actually achieves — well, whatever it achieves, that is granted without argument. As for the texts about mendicancy that say things like "let him study the Veda only while still wearing the sacred thread" — those have already been dealt with: they speak only to the mendicancy of someone who has not yet realized the Self. Applied to the knower, they would contradict the very knowledge that has dawned in him — as has already been said. A verse of the law-books makes this plain: "Free of every wish, undertaking nothing, bowing to no one, chanting no hymn, undiminished though his ritual works have burned away — him the gods recognize as a true brāhmaṇa." That verse shows the complete absence of ritual action in the knower. And elsewhere: "the knower carries no mark," "therefore the one who knows dharma bears no sign." So the knower of the Self should take up nothing less than the mendicancy of the paramahaṃsa itself — a life defined by renunciation, which means letting go, completely, of every rite and everything a rite requires.
Close to the Sanskrit
[Objection, opening fragment as preserved in the source, apparently continuing an earlier point about the wandering ascetic:] ...if [it be said thus] — [Reply:] No, because the practice of begging has no independent motivating force of its own, like the eating that follows the oblation. For that [practice of begging] is indeed without independent motivating force, since it is merely an action completing what remains [of renunciation]; and also because it does not effect any purification — the eating [after the oblation] might indeed purify the person, but the practice of begging does not. [This is also] because even the unseen merit of a mere rule holds no purpose for the knower of Brahman. [Objection:] If the unseen merit of a rule holds no purpose, then what is the use of the practice of begging? [Reply:] No, because renunciation is enjoined through a different means, [namely, this practice, as its expression]. [Objection:] Even so, what does that accomplish? [Reply:] If there is some purpose, it is readily granted. Those statements declared with regard to mendicancy — such as "let him study the Veda only while wearing the sacred thread" and the like — have [already] been set aside as applying only to the mendicancy of the non-knower; for otherwise there would be a contradiction of Self-knowledge, as has indeed already been stated. The smṛti verse — "free of desire, undertaking nothing, offering no salutation, reciting no praise, undecaying, though his ritual works are exhausted — him the gods know as a [true] brāhmaṇa" — shows the total absence of all ritual action for the knower: "the knower is devoid of [any] mark," "therefore the one who knows dharma is without mark," and so on. Therefore the knower of the Self should adopt precisely the mendicancy of the paramahaṃsa, characterized by renunciation, consisting in the total abandonment of all ritual action and its means.