Bhashya
ततः अन्नरसेन अनुपचीयमानः पिण्डः कार्श्यमापद्यते, तदुच्यते- उपतपता वेति; अणिमानं निगच्छति ।यदा अत्यन्तकार्श्यं प्रतिपन्नः जरादिनिमित्तैः, तदा ऊर्ध्वोच्छ्वासी भवति ; यदा ऊर्ध्वोच्छ्वासी, तदा भृशाहितसंभारशकटवत् उत्सर्जन्द्याति ।जराभिभवः रोगादिपीडनं कार्श्यापत्तिश्च शरीरवतः अवश्यंभाविन एतेऽनर्था इति वैराग्याय इदमुच्यते ।यदा असौ उत्सर्जन्द्याति, तदा कथं शरीरं विमुञ्चतीति दृष्टान्त उच्यते- तत् तत्र यथा आम्रं वा फलम्, उदुम्बरं वा फलम्, पिप्पलं वा फलम्; विषमानेकदृष्टान्तोपादानं मरणस्यानियतनिमित्तत्वख्यापनार्थम् ; अनियतानि हि मरणस्य निमित्तानि असंख्यातानि च; एतदपि वैराग्यार्थमेव- यस्मात् अयम् अनेकमरणनिमित्तवान् तस्मात् सर्वदा मृत्योरास्ये वर्तते इति ।बन्धनात्- बध्यते येन वृन्तेन सह, स बन्धनकारणो रसः, यस्मिन्वा बध्यत इति वृन्तमेव उच्यते बन्धनम्- तस्मात् रसात् वृन्ताद्वा बन्धनात् प्रमुच्यते वाताद्यनेकनिमित्तम्; एवमेव अयं पुरुषः लिङ्गात्मा लिङ्गोपाधिः एभ्योऽङ्गेभ्यः चक्षुरादिदेहावयवेभ्यः, संप्रमुच्य सम्यङ्निर्लेपेन प्रमुच्य- न सुषुप्तगमनकाल इव प्राणेन रक्षन्, किं तर्हि सह वायुना उपसंहृत्य, पुनः प्रतिन्यायम्- पुनःशब्दात् पूर्वमपि अयंदेहात् देहान्तरम् असकृत् गतवान् यथा स्वप्नबुद्धान्तौ पुनःपुनर्गच्छति तथा, पुनः प्रतिन्यायम् प्रतिगमनं यथागत-मित्यर्थः, प्रतियोनिं योनिं योनिं प्रति कर्मश्रुतादिवशात्आद्रवति; किमर्थम्? प्राणायैव प्राणव्यूहायैवेत्यर्थः; सप्राणएव हि गच्छति, ततः ‘प्राणायैव’ इति विशेषणमनर्थ-कम्; प्राणव्यूहाय हि गमनं देहात् देहान्तरं प्रति; तेन हिअस्य कर्मफलोपभोगार्थसिद्धिः, न प्राणसत्तामात्रेण ।तस्मा-त् तादर्थ्यार्थं युक्तं विशेषणम्- प्राणव्यूहायेति ॥
In plain words
As the body stops being fed by the nourishment food gives it, it begins to waste away — that is what 'being consumed' means — it grows thin. And when old age and its companions finally bring it to complete emaciation, the breath starts pulling upward. And once the breath is pulling upward, the person goes the way an overloaded cart goes: creaking under its own weight. Old age closing in, disease, the body wasting away — these are simply what a body guarantees, sooner or later, and naming them plainly is meant to loosen your grip, not frighten you. So how does this creaking self actually let go of the body? Think of a piece of fruit — a mango, a fig, a banyan fruit; it hardly matters which, and that is the point of naming several: whatever finally severs a fruit from its tree is never fixed or predictable, and neither is whatever finally severs you from this body — which is exactly why you live, always, in death's own mouth. What holds the fruit to the tree is its stalk and the sap running through it; that connection is the bond. And whatever eventually breaks that bond — wind, time, its own ripening — is exactly what breaks the bond tying you, the self wrapped in a subtle body, to these limbs, these eyes and organs. You let go completely, with nothing left clinging — not the way you let go in ordinary deep sleep, where the breath still quietly keeps the house running. Here you gather yourself up with the outgoing breath and go, as you always have: this is not the first time. Every night you go from waking into dream and back; death is only the same journey on a longer road, carrying you into whichever womb your past actions call for. And why go at all? Not simply to keep on breathing, but so that the whole instrument of experience can be assembled again, fitted exactly to what your own actions have earned.
Close to the Sanskrit
Then, not being nourished by the essence of food, the body attains emaciation — that is stated as 'being consumed', or similarly; it goes to a diminished state. When, owing to causes such as old age, one has attained extreme emaciation, then one becomes a person whose breath goes upward. When one becomes one whose breath goes upward, then, like a cart heavily laden with its burden, one goes creaking. The onslaught of old age, affliction by disease and the like, and the falling into emaciation — these unavoidable ills belonging to one who has a body — this is stated for the sake of dispassion. When this one goes creaking, then how does it release the body? An illustration is stated: just as a mango fruit, or a fig fruit, or a banyan fruit — the use of these various, multiple examples is to show that the causes of death are not fixed; for the causes of death are indeed unfixed and innumerable; this too is said only for dispassion — because this one has many causes of death, therefore he always exists in the very mouth of death. As for the bond: the stalk by which the fruit is bound — that sap is the cause of the binding; or, that in which it is bound is itself called the bond, namely the stalk; from that bond, whether sap or stalk, it is released, by many causes such as wind. In just the same way, this person, the self identified with the subtle body, whose limiting adjunct is that subtle body, having released himself completely, with total non-attachment, from these limbs, the parts of the body beginning with the eye — not, as at the time of going into deep sleep, protecting them by means of the breath — but, having gathered himself together with the vital air, again according to precedent — from the word 'again' it follows that even before this he has gone repeatedly from body to body, just as, between dream and waking, he goes back and forth again and again; again, 'according to precedent' means a return, exactly as he had come, that is the meaning — toward each and every womb, by the force of karma, scripture and the like, he runs. For what purpose? 'For the sake of breath alone' means 'for the sake of the array of the vital breaths alone', that is the meaning; for he goes only together with breath, indeed; therefore the qualifier 'for the sake of breath alone' would be meaningless taken that way; rather, it is for the sake of the array of the vital breaths that the going from body to body occurs; for by that the accomplishment of the purpose — the experiencing of the fruit of his action — is his, not by the mere existence of breath. Therefore the qualifier 'for the sake of the array of breaths' is fitting, for that very purpose.