Bhashya
यस्मात् पूर्वे ब्राह्मणा एतमात्मानम् असाधनफलस्वभावंविदित्वा सर्वस्मात् साधनफलस्वरूपात् एषणालक्षणात्व्युत्थाय भिक्षाचर्यं चरन्ति स्म, दृष्टादृष्टार्थं कर्म तत्साधनंच हित्वा— तस्मात् अद्यत्वेऽपि ब्राह्मणः ब्रह्मवित्, पा-ण्डित्यं पण्डितभावम्, एतदात्मविज्ञानं पाण्डित्यम्, तत् निर्विद्य निःशेषं विदित्वा, आत्मविज्ञानं निरवशेषं कृत्वेत्यर्थः—आचार्यत आगमतश्च एषणाभ्यो व्युत्थाय—एषणाव्युत्थानावसानमेव हि तत्पाण्डित्यम्, एषणातिरस्कारोद्भवत्वात् एषणाविरुद्धत्वात्; एषणामतिरस्कृत्य न ह्यात्मविषयस्य पाण्डित्यस्योद्भव इति आत्मज्ञानेनैव विहितमेषणाव्युत्थानम् आत्मज्ञानसमानकर्तृकक्त्वाप्रत्ययोपादानलिङ्गश्रुत्या दृढीकृतम् ।तस्मात् एषणाभ्यो व्युत्थाय ज्ञानबलभावेन बाल्येन तिष्ठासेत् स्थातुमिच्छेत्; साधनफलाश्रयणं हि बलम् इतरेषामनात्मविदाम्; तद्बलं हित्वा विद्वान् असाधनफलस्वरूपात्मविज्ञानमेव बलं तद्भावमेव केवलम् आश्रयेत्, तदाश्रयणे हि करणानि एषणाविषये एनं कृत्वा स्थापयितुं नोत्सहन्ते; ज्ञानबलहीनं हि मूढं दृष्टादृष्टविषयायामेषणायामेव एनं करणानि नियोजयन्ति; बलं नाम आत्मविद्यया अशेषविषयदृष्टितिरस्करणम्; अतः तद्भावेन बाल्येन तिष्ठासेत्, तथा 'आत्मना विन्दते वीर्यम्' इति श्रुत्यन्तरात्, 'नायमात्मा बलहीनेन लभ्यः' इति च ।बाल्यं च पाण्डित्यं च निर्विद्य निःशेषं कृत्वा अथ मननान्मुनिः योगी भवति; एतावद्धि ब्राह्मणेन कर्तव्यम्, यदुतसर्वानात्मप्रत्ययतिरस्करणम् ; एतत्कृत्वा कृतकृत्यो योगीभवति ।अमौनं च आत्मज्ञानानात्मप्रत्ययतिरस्कारौ पाण्डि-त्यबाल्यसंज्ञकौ निःशेषं कृत्वा, मौनं नाम अनात्मप्रत्ययति-रस्करणस्य पर्यवसानं फलम्- तच्च निर्विद्य अथ ब्राह्मणःकृतकृत्यो भवति- ब्रह्मैव सर्वमिति प्रत्यय उपजायते ।स ब्राह्मणः कृतकृत्यः, अतो ब्राह्मणः ; निरुपचरितंहि तदा तस्य ब्राह्मण्यं प्राप्तम् ; अत आह- सब्राह्मणः केन स्यात् केन चरणेन भवेत् ? येन स्यात्-येन चरणेन भवेत्, तेन ईदृश एवायम्- येन केनचित्चरणेन स्यात्, तेन ईदृश एव उक्तलक्षण एव ब्राह्मणोभवति ; येन केनचिच्चरणेनेति स्तुत्यर्थम्- येयं ब्राह्मण्याव-स्था सेयं स्तूयते, न तुं चरणेऽनादरः ।अतः एतस्माद्ब्राह्म-ण्यावस्थानात् अशनायाद्यतीतात्मस्वरूपात् नित्यतृप्तात्, अ-न्यत् अविद्याविषयमेषणालक्षणं वस्त्वन्तरम्, आर्तम् विना-शि आर्तिपरिगृहीतं स्वप्नमायामरीच्युदकसमम् असारम्,आत्मैव एकः केवलो नित्यमुक्त इति ।ततो ह कहोलः कौ-षीतकेयः उपरराम ॥
In plain words
The brahmins of old knew this self -- a self that needs no means to reach it and yields no result beyond itself -- and having turned away from everything shaped by craving, they lived on alms, letting go of every action aimed at some visible or invisible reward, and the means to it. That is why, even today, a true brahmin is one who knows brahman. Scholarship, real scholarship, is nothing but this knowledge of the self, worked through completely, left with nothing unfinished -- knowledge gained by walking away from every craving a teacher or a scripture can plant in you. That is all scholarship ever was: the far edge of walking away from craving. It is born from refusing craving, and it stands against craving -- refuse craving, and there is no way scholarship about the self can fail to arise. This is not incidental: the very grammar of the passage locks the two acts to one and the same person. So, having walked away from craving, live like a child -- but a child armed with the strength that is knowledge. For everyone who does not know the self, strength means leaning on some means toward some result. Drop that. Lean instead, only, on the knowledge that you are a self needing no means and yielding no result -- let that be your only strength. Rest there, and the senses cannot drag you back into craving and hold you. But strip a person of that strength, and the senses will do exactly that -- pull a deluded person straight back into craving for whatever can be seen or hoped for. Strength, in truth, is this: refusing, through knowing the self, to keep looking at everything the old way. Stay childlike in that strength -- as another scripture says, 'through the self one finds real vigor,' and, 'this self is not for the weak to reach.' Once childlikeness and scholarship have both been walked all the way through, then, by sustained reflection, one becomes a sage, a yogi. This is the whole of what a brahmin has to do: set aside every thought that is not the self. Do this, and the work is finished. And once both of these -- knowledge of the self and the setting-aside of every not-self thought, called scholarship and childlikeness -- are complete, silence follows. Silence is simply where that setting-aside finally lands. Go through that too, and the brahmin's work is done -- the conviction rises on its own: brahman is all there is. He has done what there was to do; that is what makes him, at last, a brahmin in more than name. So the text asks: by what, then, is he a brahmin -- through what practice does he become one? Whatever the practice, by that very practice he becomes exactly this. Any practice at all will do, because the point being praised is the state itself, not any particular path to it -- praising the goal is not dismissing the road. And so: set beside this state -- beyond hunger, beyond every such want, forever full -- everything else is only another thing, shaped by ignorance and craving. It aches, it falls apart, it is held in the grip of pain, no more real than a dream, a trick of the eye, water shimmering that is not there. The self alone is one, alone, and free -- always. And with that, Kahola, son of Kusitaka, fell silent.
Close to the Sanskrit
Since the ancient brahmins, having known this self whose nature involves neither means nor result, having risen up from everything of the nature of means-and-result characterized by desire, used to wander in mendicancy, having abandoned action aimed at seen and unseen ends and its means -- therefore, even now, the brahmin who is a knower of brahman attains 'pandityam', the state of a scholar; this very knowledge of the self is pandityam; having transcended that, having known it without remainder -- meaning, having made the knowledge of the self complete -- having risen up from the desires that come from teacher and from scripture. For that pandityam is nothing but the culmination of the rising-up from desire, because it arises from the rejection of desire, because it is opposed to desire. For without rejecting desire there is no arising of pandityam whose object is the self; therefore the rising-up from desire is enjoined precisely by the knowledge of the self -- this is confirmed by the scriptural mark of the absolutive suffix requiring one and the same agent as that of self-knowledge. Therefore, having risen up from desires, one should desire to abide in childlikeness that has the character of the strength of knowledge; for reliance on means and result is 'strength' for others who are not knowers of the self. Having abandoned that strength, the knowing one should rely solely on that state which is the knowledge of the self whose nature involves neither means nor result, as the sole strength. For when one relies on that, the sense-organs are not able to place him within the domain of desire and keep him there; for the sense-organs engage a person devoid of the strength of knowledge -- a deluded person -- precisely in the desire whose object is the seen and unseen. 'Strength', namely, is the setting-aside, through knowledge of the self, of the view directed to every object without exception. Therefore one should desire to abide in childlikeness of that character -- so also from another scriptural text: 'by the self one obtains vigor', and 'this self is not to be attained by one devoid of strength'. Having transcended both childlikeness and pandityam completely, then, through reflection, one becomes a sage, a yogin; for this much alone is to be done by the brahmin, namely, the setting-aside of every notion of the not-self. Having done this, the yogin becomes one whose task is accomplished. And having completed the two -- the knowledge of the self and the rejection of notions of the not-self, called pandityam and balyam -- silence follows; 'silence', namely, is the culminating fruit of the rejection of notions of the not-self. And having transcended that too, then the brahmin becomes one whose task is accomplished -- the conviction arises: 'brahman alone is everything'. He, the brahmin, is one whose task is accomplished; therefore he is a brahmin; for then his brahmin-hood is attained in its non-figurative, primary sense. Hence it is said: by what would he be a brahmin, by what conduct would he become one? By whatever means he would be, by whatever conduct he would become -- by that he is indeed such; by any conduct whatsoever he might be, by that he indeed becomes, indeed, a brahmin of the very character stated. 'By any conduct whatsoever' is for the purpose of praise: it is this very state of brahmin-hood that is being praised, not that there is disregard for right conduct. Therefore, apart from this state of brahmin-hood -- whose true nature has gone beyond hunger and the rest, ever-satisfied -- anything else, a different entity characterized by desire, having ignorance as its domain, is afflicted, perishable, seized by affliction, resembling a dream, an illusion, a mirage, water -- without essence; the self alone is one, sole, ever-free. Then indeed Kahola Kausitakeya fell silent.