Bhashya
केचित्तु सर्वभक्षणे दोषाभावं वदन्ति प्राणान्नविदः; तत्असत्, शास्त्रान्तरेण प्रतिषिद्धत्वात् ।तेनास्य विकल्प इतिचेत्, न, अविधायकत्वात् ।न ह वा अस्यानन्नं जग्धंभवतीति- सर्वं प्राणस्यान्नमित्येतस्य विज्ञानस्य विहितस्यस्तुत्यर्थमेतत्; तेनैकवाक्यतापत्तेः ; न तु शास्त्रान्तरविहितस्यबाधने सामर्थ्यम्, अन्यपरत्वादस्य ।प्राणमात्रस्य सर्वमन्नम्इत्येतद्दर्शनम् इह विधित्सितम्, न तु सर्वं भक्षयेदिति ।यत्तु सर्वभक्षणे दोषाभावज्ञानम्, तत् मिथ्यैव, प्रमाणाभा-वात् ।विदुषः प्राणत्वात् सर्वान्नोपपत्तेः सामर्थ्यात् अदोषएवेति चेत्, न, अशेषान्नत्वानुपपत्तेः ; सत्यं यद्यपि विद्वान्प्राणः, येन कार्यकारणसंघातेन विशिष्टस्य विद्वत्ता तेन कार्य-करणसंघातेन कृमिकीटदेवाद्यशेषान्नभक्षणं नोपपद्यते ; तेनतत्र अशेषान्नभक्षणे दोषाभावज्ञापनमनर्थकम्, अप्राप्तत्वा-दशेषान्नभक्षणदोषस्य ।ननु प्राणः सन् भक्षयत्येव कृमिकी-टाद्यन्नमपि ; बाढम्, किंतु न तद्विषयः प्रतिषेधोऽस्ति ;तस्मात्- दैवरक्तं किंशुकम्- तत्र दोषाभावः ; अतः तद्रूपेणदोषाभावज्ञापनमनर्थकम्, अप्राप्तत्वात् अशेषान्नभक्षणदोष-स्य ।येन तु कार्यकारणसंघातसंबन्धेन प्रतिषेधः क्रियते, तत्संबन्धेन तु इह नैव प्रतिप्रसवोऽस्ति ।तस्मात् तत्प्रतिषेधातिक्रमे दोष एव स्यात्, अन्यविषयत्वात् 'न ह वै' इत्यादिः ।न च ब्राह्मणादिशरीरस्य सर्वान्नत्वदर्शनमिह विधीयते, किंतु प्राणमात्रस्यैव ।यथा च सामान्येन सर्वान्नस्य प्राणस्य किंचित् अन्नजातं कस्यचित् जीवनहेतुः, यथा विषं विषजस्य क्रिमेः, तदेव अन्यस्य प्राणान्नमपि सन् दृष्टमेव दोषमुत्पादयति मरणादिलक्षणम्— तथा सर्वान्नस्यापि प्राणस्य ,प्रतिषिद्धान्नभक्षणे ब्राह्मणत्वादिदेहसंबन्धात् दोष एव स्यात् ।तस्मात् मिथ्याज्ञानमेव अभक्ष्यभक्षणे दोषाभावज्ञानम् ॥
In plain words
Some people say there's nothing wrong with eating absolutely anything, calling themselves knowers of the teaching that prana eats everything. That's simply wrong — another scripture forbids it outright. And no, this doesn't create some optional loophole, because that teaching was never issuing a command in the first place. When the Upanishad says nothing eaten is truly 'not-food' for the one who knows this, it isn't licensing you to eat whatever you like — it's praising a piece of knowledge already enjoined elsewhere, folding into that single teaching, not overriding a separate prohibition whose whole point lies elsewhere. What's actually being taught here is a vision — everything is food for prana — not an instruction that you should eat everything. The claim that there's no fault in eating everything is simply false, because nothing backs it up. Yes, the knower is identified with prana — but the very body and senses that make him a knower are the same body and senses that cannot possibly eat every last worm, insect, and god without remainder. So pointing to 'no fault' in eating literally everything solves nothing, because that fault was never on the table to begin with. 'But prana still eats the worm's food, doesn't it?' Granted — but that was never what the prohibition was about. Like a kiṃśuka flower that happens to be red by nature, not by anyone's hand, there's no fault in what happens by mere chance. Where the prohibition targets the body's actual connection to the act, though, nothing lifts it. Break it, and the fault stands — that old line about nothing being truly inedible was never talking about this. Nor is anyone teaching that a brahmin's own body is food for the whole world — only that prana is. And just as, in general, some particular food that keeps one creature alive — poison, for the worm that lives on poison — is still, for someone else, visibly fatal, so too: even though prana eats everything, eating forbidden food while wearing a body such as a brahmin's still carries its fault. The idea that there's no fault in eating what shouldn't be eaten is nothing but a mistaken idea.
Close to the Sanskrit
Some, however, [claiming to be] knowers of prāṇa-as-food, say there is no fault in eating everything; that is untrue, because it is prohibited by another scripture. If it be said that this creates an option, no — because that text does not enjoin an action. It is not that, for one who knows thus, non-food eaten becomes something [wrongly] eaten — the statement 'everything is prāṇa's food' is for the sake of praising the knowledge already enjoined, because it thereby forms one coherent statement with it; it does not have the power to override what is enjoined by another scripture, since its purport lies elsewhere. What is intended to be enjoined here is only the vision that everything is food for prāṇa alone, not that one should eat everything. As for the notion that there is no fault in eating everything, that is simply false, for lack of any valid proof. If it be said that, because the knower is prāṇa, since the capacity to eat all food is thereby established, there is no fault — no, because it cannot be established that literally everything without exception is eaten. True, although the knower is prāṇa, by that very body-and-senses aggregate by which the person so qualified has knowerhood, the eating of every food without exception — worms, insects, gods, and so on — is not possible; therefore, declaring there to be no fault in eating everything without exception is pointless, since that fault was never a real possibility to begin with. [Objection:] But surely prāṇa, existing [in the body], does eat even the food of worms and insects; [Answer:] granted — but that is not the topic of the prohibition; therefore, like the kiṃśuka reddened by mere chance, there is no fault there; hence, declaring there to be no fault in that mode is pointless, since that fault was never applicable there. But where the prohibition is made with reference to the connection through the body-and-senses aggregate, with respect to that very connection there is indeed no retraction here. Therefore, in transgressing that prohibition, there would indeed be a fault, since the phrase 'na ha vai' and so on concerns a different matter. Nor is the vision of all-foodness of a body such as a brahmin's being enjoined here, but only of prāṇa alone. And just as, generally, of prāṇa for whom everything is food, some particular kind of food is a cause of life for one creature — as poison is for the worm born of poison — that very thing, though it is also food for prāṇa in another, visibly produces a fault such as death — so too, even though prāṇa is the eater of all food, in eating forbidden food, on account of the connection with a body such as a brahmin's, there would indeed be a fault. Therefore, the notion that there is no fault in eating the inedible is simply false knowledge.