Bhashya
तस्मात् आत्मानं लोकमिच्छन्तः प्रव्रजन्ति प्रव्रजेयुः-- इत्येष विधिः अर्थवादेन संगच्छते; न हि सार्थवादस्य अस्य लोकस्तुत्याभिमुख्यम् उपपद्यते; प्रव्रजन्तीत्यस्यार्थवादरूपो हि 'एतद्ध स्म' इत्यादिउत्तरों ग्रन्थः; अर्थवादश्चेत्, नार्थवादान्तरमपेक्षेत; अपेक्षते तु 'एतद्ध स्म' इत्याद्यर्थवादं 'प्रव्रजन्ति' इत्येतत् ।यस्मात् पूर्वे विद्वांसः प्रजादिकर्मभ्यो निवृत्ताः प्रव्रजितवन्त एव, तस्मात् अधुनातना अपि प्रव्रजन्ति प्रव्रजेयुः-- इत्येवं संबध्यमानं न लोकस्तुत्यभिमुखं भवितुमर्हति; विज्ञानसमानकर्तृकत्वोपदेशादित्यादिना अवोचाम ।वेदानुवचनादिसहपाठाच्च; यथा आत्मवेदनसाधनत्वेन विहितानां वेदानुवचनादीनां यथार्थत्वमेव, नार्थवादत्वम्, तथा तैरेव सह पठितस्य पारिव्राज्यस्य आत्मलोकप्राप्तिसाधनत्वेन अर्थवादत्वमयुक्तम् ।फलविभागोपदेशाच्च; 'एतमेवात्मानं लोकं विदित्वा' इति अन्यस्मात् बाह्यात् लोकात् आत्मानं फलान्तरत्वेन प्रविभजति, यथा- पुत्रेणैवायं लोको जय्यः नान्येन कर्मणा, कर्मणा पितृलोकः- इति ।न च प्रव्रजन्तीत्येतत् प्राप्तवत् लोकस्तुतिपरम्, प्रधानवच्च अर्थ-स्वयं ज्योतिः एक एवाद्वयः अपूर्वोऽनपरोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्यः—इत्येतत् आगमतस्तर्कतश्च स्थापितम्, विशेषतश्चेह जनकयाज्ञवल्क्यसंवादे अस्मिन्; तस्मात् एवंलक्षणे आत्मनि विदिते आत्मत्वेन नैव कर्मांरम्भ उपपद्यते ।तस्मादात्मा निर्विशेषः ।न हि चक्षुष्मान् पथि प्रवृत्तः अहनि कूपे कण्टके वा पतति; कृत्स्नस्य च कर्मफलस्य विद्याफलेऽन्तर्भावात्; न च अयत्नप्राप्ये वस्तुनि विद्वान् यत्नमातिष्ठति; 'अर्के चेन्मधु विन्देत किमर्थं पर्वतं व्रजेत् ।इष्टस्यार्थस्य संप्राप्तौ को विद्वान्यत्नमाचरेत्' 'सर्वं कर्माखिलं पार्थ ज्ञाने परिसमाप्यते—' इति गीतासु ।इहापि च एतस्यैव परमानन्दस्य ब्रह्मवित्प्राप्यस्य अन्यानि भूतानि मात्रामुपजीवन्तीत्युक्तम् ।अतो ब्रह्मविदां न कर्मांरम्भः ॥
In plain words
So when the text says those who desire the Self as their true home renounce the world — that line is not standing alone; it is an injunction, and it leans on the praise that follows it, the way any rule leans on the reason given for it. That praise cannot simply be admiring the world, because a passage that already carries its own eulogy would need no further one — and this passage clearly does reach for more, the whole 'etad dha sma' section that follows it. The wise of old did not merely talk about renouncing; they renounced. So when the text says people renounce today too, it is not flattering some ordinary world achievement — it is naming what those who know the Self actually do, exactly as it names Vedic recitation and study as real disciplines rather than mere ornament, and exactly as it marks off the Self, once known, as a fruit distinct from any world a ritual could ever win you. A son wins you one world; the Self is not won that way at all — knowing it is its own different kind of arrival, not a decoration on top of an already-won reward. And here is the deeper reason underneath all of it: the Self has been shown, by scripture and by reason both, and especially in this very conversation between Janaka and Yajnavalkya, to be self-luminous, one without a second, with nothing before it, nothing after it, no inside and no outside. Once you know a Self like that, there is simply nothing left for you to go do about it. The Self has no more work waiting inside it — which is exactly why it is called without distinguishing marks. A man who can see does not walk into a well in broad daylight; he has no need to feel his way with a stick. Whatever any action could ever earn you is already contained inside the fruit of this knowledge, and no one who actually understands that keeps striving for what they already have — if you could find honey right there in the flower, why climb a mountain for it? Once you already hold what you wanted, what wise person keeps working for it? The Gita says the same thing: all action, without exception, comes to rest in knowledge. And this very text has already said that every other being survives on nothing but a fragment of the bliss that belongs, whole, to the one who knows Brahman. That is why, for someone who knows Brahman, there is nothing left to undertake.
Close to the Sanskrit
Therefore, [the statement] 'those desiring the Self as the world renounce, should renounce' — this injunction connects with an arthavāda; for an orientation toward mere praise of the world is not tenable for this passage together with its arthavāda. For the subsequent text beginning 'etad dha sma' is, in the form of an arthavāda, an elaboration of this word 'pravrajanti'; if it were merely an arthavāda, it would not require another arthavāda — but this word 'pravrajanti' does require the arthavāda beginning 'etad dha sma'. Since the wise men of old, having ceased from rites such as begetting progeny, did indeed renounce, therefore [the statement] 'those of today too renounce, should renounce', construed thus, cannot be oriented merely toward praise of the world — as we have already stated by the argument beginning 'because of the teaching of a common agent [for both action and knowledge]'. And because of being read together with duties such as Vedic study and recitation: just as those duties, enjoined as a means to Self-knowledge, have only literal validity and not the status of arthavāda, so too renunciation, read together with them, cannot properly be called an arthavāda when it functions as a means to attaining the Self as the world. And because of the teaching of a distinction of fruits: 'having known this very Self as the world' distinguishes the Self, as a separate fruit, from another, external world — just as 'this world is to be won only by a son, not by any other rite; the world of the fathers by ritual action'. So this statement 'they renounce' is not, like praise of something already attained, meant merely for praise of the world, nor, like eulogy of a principal element, is that its purport. That the Self is self-luminous, one only, non-dual, without anything prior, without anything subsequent, without an interior, without an exterior — this has been established both from scripture and from reasoning, particularly here in this very dialogue of Janaka and Yājñavalkya. Therefore, when the Self so characterized is known, no undertaking of action is at all possible with respect to it as the Self. Therefore the Self is without differentiation. For indeed a sighted man walking on a path does not fall by day into a well or onto a thorn; and because the entire fruit of action is included within the fruit of knowledge; and a wise person does not exert effort toward a thing attainable without effort — 'if one could find honey in the arka plant itself, why go to the mountain? When the desired object is already attained, what wise person would exert effort?' — and 'all action, entirely, O Pārtha, culminates in knowledge', in the Gītā. And here too it has been said that other beings live off a mere fraction of this very supreme bliss to be attained by the knower of Brahman. Therefore, for knowers of Brahman, there is no undertaking of action.