Bhashya
न, कर्मनिमित्तविद्याप्रत्यययोर्विरोधात् ।कर्त्रादिकारकक्रि याफलभेदप्रत्ययवत्त्व हि निमित्तमुपादाय इद कुरु इद मा कार्षी इति कर्मविधय प्रवृत्ता ।तच्च निमित्त न शास्त्रकृ तम्, सर्वप्राणिषु दर्शनात् ।'सत् एकमेवाद्वितीयम्' 'आत्मैवेद सर्वम्' 'ब्रह्मैवेद सर्वम्' इति शास्त्रजन्य प्रत्य- यो विद्यारूप स्वाभाविक क्रियाकारकफलभेदप्रत्यय कमवि- विनिमित्तमनुपमृद्य न जायते, भेदाभेदप्रत्यययोर्विरोधात् ।न हि तैमिरिकद्विचन्द्रादिभेदप्रत्ययमनुपमृद्य तिमिरापगमे चन्द्राद्येकत्वप्रत्यय उपजायते, विद्याविद्याप्रत्यययोर्विरोधात् ।कामात्मता न प्रशस्तेत्येव विज्ञानवद्भि काम्यानि कर्माणिनानुष्ठीयन्त इति, काम्यकर्मविधय उच्छिद्यन्ते, अनुष्ठीयन्तएव कामिभिरिति, तथा ब्रह्मसंस्थैर्ब्रह्मविद्भिर्नानुष्ठीयन्तेकर्माणीति न तद्विधय उच्छिद्यन्ते, अब्रह्मविद्भि रनुष्ठीयन्तएवेति ।परिव्राजकाना भिक्षाचरणादिवत् उत्पन्नैकत्वप्रत्ययानामपि गृहस्थादीनामग्निहोत्रादिकर्मानिवृत्तिरिति चेत्,न, प्रामाण्यचिन्ताया पुरुषप्रवृत्तेरदृष्टान्तत्वात्— न हि,नाभिचरेदिति प्रतिषिद्धमप्यभिचरण कश्चित्कुर्वन्दृष्ट इति,शास्त्रौ द्वेषरहितेनापि विवेकिना अभिचरण क्रियते ।न चकर्मविधिप्रवृत्तिनिमित्ते भेदप्रत्यये बाधिते अग्निहोत्रादौ प्रवर्तक निमित्तमस्ति, परिव्राजकस्येव भिक्षाचरणादौ बुभुक्षादिप्रवर्तकम् ।इहाप्यकरणे प्रत्यवायभय प्रवर्तकमिति चेत्, न,भेदप्रत्ययवतोऽधिकृतत्वात् ।भेदप्रत्ययवान् अनुपमर्दितभेदबुद्धिर्विषया य, स कर्मण्यधिकृत इत्यवोचाम, यो हिअधिकृत कर्मणि, तस्य तदकरणे प्रत्यवाय, न निवृत्ताधिकारस्य, गृहस्थस्येव, ब्रह्मचारिणो विशेषधर्माननुष्ठाने ।एवतर्हि सर्व स्वाश्रमस्थ उत्पन्नैकत्वप्रत्यय परिव्राडिति चेत्,न, स्वस्वामित्वभेदबुद्ध्यनिवृत्ते, कर्मार्थत्वाच्च इतराश्रमाणाम्— ‘अथ कर्म कुर्वीय’ इति श्रुते ।तस्मात् स्वस्वा-
In plain words
This is incorrect, because the mindset required for ritual action directly contradicts the realization of truth. Ritual commands operate entirely within the world of duality, telling you 'do this' or 'avoid that' based on the assumption that you are an active agent who will reap a specific result. This sense of separation is not taught by scripture; it is a natural, instinctive delusion shared by all creatures. But the wisdom born of scripture declares: 'Reality is One without a second,' 'All this is the Self,' and 'All this is Brahman.' This liberating knowledge cannot even arise until you dissolve the instinctive belief in doership and division, because the perception of oneness and the perception of separation cannot coexist. Just as a person cured of double vision can no longer see two moons, a mind awakened to truth can no longer perceive duality. You might object that if the wise stop performing rituals, the scriptural commands will become useless. We reply: those commands remain valid for those who are still driven by desire and have not yet realized Brahman. You might also argue that just as an enlightened sannyasi still begs for food, an enlightened householder can continue performing fire rituals. But human habits cannot dictate scriptural truth. Just because some people practice forbidden rites out of malice does not mean a wise, loving person would do so. Once the illusion of duality is shattered, there is no longer any inner drive to perform rituals—unlike the physical hunger that naturally impels a sannyasi to beg. Nor can the fear of sin motivate an enlightened soul, because ritual obligations only apply to those who still believe in separation. A householder who realizes oneness is no longer bound by householder duties, just as a householder is no longer bound by the rules of a student. If you then claim that anyone in any stage of life who realizes oneness is effectively a sannyasi, we say no: the very structure of the other stages of life is built upon ownership, possessions, and the active performance of work. Therefore, true renunciation is distinct.
Close to the Sanskrit
No, because of the contradiction between the cognitions of the cause of action and knowledge. For, taking the cause which is the possession of the cognition of distinction of agent, instrument, action, and fruit, the injunctions of action are active, as 'do this, do not do this.' And that cause is not made by scripture, because of being observed in all living beings. The cognition generated by scripture, of the nature of knowledge, as 'Existence is one alone without a second,' 'All this is indeed the Self,' 'All this is indeed Brahman,' does not arise without destroying the natural cognition of distinction of action, agent, and fruit, which is the cause of the injunctions of action, because of the contradiction between the cognitions of difference and non-difference. Indeed, the cognition of oneness of the moon does not arise upon the removal of ophthalmia without destroying the perception of two moons by the person with ophthalmia, because of the contradiction between the cognitions of knowledge and ignorance. If it is said that because desire-filled nature is not praised, desire-driven actions are not performed by the wise, and thus desire-driven injunctions are abolished, no, they are performed indeed by those with desire; similarly, actions are not performed by those established in Brahman, the knowers of Brahman, and thus those injunctions are not abolished, because they are performed indeed by those who do not know Brahman. If it is said that like the begging of alms by wanderers, even for householders who have attained the cognition of oneness, there is non-cessation of rituals like Agnihotra, no, because human behavior cannot serve as an example in the inquiry into scriptural authority. Indeed, because someone is seen performing black magic which is prohibited as 'one should not perform black magic,' black magic is not performed by a wise person who is free from hatred. And when the cognition of difference, which is the cause of the activity of ritual injunctions, is negated, there is no motivating cause in Agnihotra etc., like hunger etc. which are motivating in the begging of alms for a wanderer. If it is said that here also, the fear of sin upon non-performance is the motivator, no, because only the one who has the cognition of difference is qualified. We have said that he who has the cognition of difference, whose intellect of difference is undestroyed, is the subject qualified for action. For, he who is qualified for action, for him there is sin upon its non-performance, not for the one whose qualification has ceased, like a householder upon the non-performance of the specific duties of a brahmachari. If it is said that in that case, everyone who is established in his own ashrama and has attained the cognition of oneness is a wanderer, no, because of the non-cessation of the cognition of difference of ownership, and because other ashramas are meant for action, as in the scripture 'then I shall perform action.' Therefore, own and own...