Bhashya
ननु मृत्युवात्मभावः पूर्वत्र ज्ञानकर्मणोः फलमुक्तम् ।उद्गीथज्ञानकर्मणोस्तु मृत्युवात्मभावातिक्रमणं फलं वक्ष्यति ।अतो भिन्नविषयत्वात्फलस्य न पूर्वकर्मज्ञानोद्भवप्रकाशनार्थम् इति चेत्, नायं दोषः; अग्न्यादित्यात्मभावत्वादुद्गीथफलस्य ; पूर्वत्राप्येतदेव फलमुक्तम्—‘एतासां देवतानामेको भवति’ इति ।ननु ‘मृत्युमतिक्रान्तः’ इत्यादि विरुद्धम् ; न, स्वाभाविकपाप्मासङ्गविषयत्वादतिक्रमणस्य ॥
In plain words
If someone objects: 'Earlier, identification with death was described as the fruit of combined knowledge and action. But the fruit of udgītha knowledge and action will be declared as the transcendence of death. Therefore, since the results differ in subject matter, this section cannot be intended to reveal the origin of the previous knowledge and action'—we reply that this is no flaw. Because the fruit of the udgītha is identical with fire and the sun, this very same result was stated earlier as well: 'He becomes one with these deities.' If you ask whether statements like 'he has transcended death' contradict this, we answer: no, because that transcendence simply means freedom from the taint of natural evil.
Close to the Sanskrit
If it is objected: Now, the state of being death's self was stated as the fruit of knowledge and action in the prior context. But the fruit of the udgītha knowledge and action will be stated as the transcendence of the state of death's self. Therefore, because the fruit has a different subject, it is not for the purpose of illuminating the origin of the prior action and knowledge—(we reply): this is not a fault, because the fruit of the udgītha has the nature of the self of fire and the sun; even in the prior context this very fruit was stated—'he becomes one of these deities.' If it is objected: Is not 'having transcended death' and so on contradictory? (We reply): No, because the transcendence relates to the non-attachment to natural evil.