Bhashya
तदेत-दात्मतत्त्वम्, प्रेयः प्रियतरम्, पुत्रात् ; पुत्रो हि लोके प्रियःप्रसिद्धः, तस्मादपि प्रियतरम्- इति निरतिशयप्रियत्वंदर्शयति ; तथा वित्तात् हिरण्यरत्नादेः ; तथा अन्यस्मात्ह्मविद्यया ; ब्रह्म परमात्मा, तन् यया वेद्यते सा ब्रह्मविद्यातया ब्रह्मविद्यया, सर्वं निरवशेषम्, भविष्यन्तः भविष्यामइत्येवम्, मनुष्या यन् मन्यन्ते ; मनुष्यग्रहणं विशेषतोऽधि-कारज्ञापनार्थम् ; मनुष्या एव हि विशेषतोऽभ्युदयनिःश्रेय-ससाधनेऽधिकृता इत्यभिप्रायः ; यथा कर्मविषये फलप्राप्तिंध्रुवां कर्मभ्यो मन्यन्ते, तथा ब्रह्मविद्यायाः सर्वात्मभा-वफलप्राप्तिं ध्रुवामेव मन्यन्ते, वेदप्रामाण्यस्योभयत्राविशे-षात् ; तत्र विप्रतिषिद्धं वस्तु लक्ष्यते ; अतः पृच्छामः —किमु तद्ब्रह्म, यस्य विज्ञानात्सर्वं भविष्यन्तो मनुष्या मन्य-न्ते ? तत्किमवेत्, यस्माद्विज्ञानात्तद्ब्रह्म सर्वमभवत् ? ब्रह्म चसर्वमिति श्रूयते, तन् यदि अविज्ञाय किञ्चित्सर्वमभवत् ,तथान्येषामप्यस्तु ; किं ब्रह्मविद्यया ? अथ विज्ञाय सर्वम-भवत्, विज्ञानसाध्यत्वात्कर्मफलेन तुल्यमेवेत्यनित्यत्वप्रसङ्गःसर्वभावस्य ब्रह्मविद्याफलस्य ; अनवस्थादोषश्च — तदप्यन्य-द्विज्ञाय सर्वमभवत् . ततः पूर्वमप्यन्यद्विज्ञायेति ।न ताव-दविज्ञाय सर्वमभवत्, शास्त्रार्थवैरूप्यदोषात् ।फलानित्य-त्वदोषस्तर्हि ? — नैकोऽपि दोषः, अर्थविशेषोपपत्तेः ॥
In plain words
This reality of the Self is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth, dearer than all else, for it is innermost. Brahman is the Supreme Self, and brahmavidyā is the science through which it is known. Thinking 'We shall become all,' humans conceive this—and humans are specifically mentioned to show they alone are qualified for worldly and spiritual fulfillment. Just as people are certain of the results of ritual actions, they are equally certain of the all-inclusive fruit of brahmavidyā, since Vedic authority applies equally to both. Yet a contradiction arises here, prompting the question: What is that Brahman through knowing which people expect to become all? What did it know, that it became everything? And scripture declares that Brahman is everything. If it became all without knowing, the same should apply to others, making brahmavidyā useless. But if it became all through knowledge, then since the result is produced by knowledge, brahmavidyā's fruit would be impermanent, like ritual results, leading to an endless regress. It certainly did not become all without knowing, for that contradicts scripture. Is there then the flaw of an impermanent result? There is no flaw whatsoever, because of the true nature of this special knowledge.
Close to the Sanskrit
This very Self-reality is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth, and dearer than anything else, being supreme knowledge. Brahman is the Supreme Self; that science by which it is known is the knowledge of Brahman. Thinking thus, 'We shall become all, without remainder,' human beings think—the mention of humans specifically indicates their qualification, meaning that humans alone are qualified for the means of prosperity and liberation. Just as they consider the attainment of results from rituals to be certain, they consider the attainment of the all-self result of brahmavidyā to be equally certain, since Vedic authority is identical in both cases. There, a contradictory matter is observed; therefore we ask: What is that Brahman by the knowledge of which humans think they will become all? What did it know, from the realization of which that Brahman became all? And it is heard that Brahman is all. If it became all without knowing anything, let it be so for others too; what is the use of brahmavidyā? Or if it became all after knowing, then because it is produced by knowledge, there arises the flaw of impermanence for the fruit of brahmavidyā, and the defect of infinite regress—that it became all having known something else, and before that too having known something else. It did not become all without knowing, because of the flaw of contradicting scriptural meaning. Then is there the flaw of impermanence of the fruit? There is not even a single flaw, because of the validity of a special interpretation.