Bhashya
किं पुनरत्र षष्ठे वाक्यप्रमाणेन जनितं फलमात्मनि ? कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वयोरधिकृतत्वविज्ञाननिवृत्तिः तस्य फलम्, यमवोचाम त्वंशब्दवाच्यमर्थं श्रोतुं मन्तुं च अधिकृत-मविज्ञातविज्ञानफलार्थम् ।प्राक्च एतस्माद्विज्ञानात् अह-मेवं करिष्याम्यग्निहोत्रादीनि कर्माणि, अहमत्राधिकृतः,एषां च कर्मणां फलमिहामुत्र च भोक्ष्ये, कृतेषु वा कर्मसुकृतकर्तव्यः स्याम्- इत्येवं कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वयोरधिकृतोऽस्मी-त्यात्मनि यद्विज्ञानमभूत् तस्य, यत्सज्जगतो मूलम् एकमे-वाद्वितीयं तत्त्वमसीत्यनेन वाक्येन प्रतिबुद्धस्य निवर्तते,विरोधात्- न हि एकस्मिन्नद्वितीये आत्मनि अयमहमस्मी-ति विज्ञाते ममेदम् अन्यदनेन कर्तव्यम् इदं कृत्वा अस्यफलं भोक्ष्ये- इति वा भेदविज्ञानमुपपद्यते ।तस्मात् सत्स-त्याद्वितीयात्मविज्ञाने विकारानृतजीवात्मविज्ञानं निवर्ततेइति युक्तम् ।ननु 'तत्त्वमसि' इत्यत्र त्वंशब्दवाच्येऽर्थे सद्धु-
In plain words
What, then, is the actual result produced in the self by the authority of this great sentence in the sixth chapter? Its result is the complete cessation of the belief that one is an agent bound by duties and an experiencer of their fruits. This refers to the individual self—denoted by the word 'thou'—whom we previously described as eligible to hear and contemplate the teachings, seeking the fruit of realizing what was hitherto unknown. Prior to this realization, one thought: 'I will perform rituals like the fire-offering; I am authorized to do this; I will enjoy the fruits of these actions in this world and the next; and once the rituals are done, my duties will be fulfilled.' But when a person is awakened by the sentence, 'That which is the source of the world, one without a second—That thou art,' this entire notion of being an active agent and experiencer vanishes. It vanishes because they are completely incompatible. Once the one, non-dual Self is realized as 'I am This,' there is no longer any room for the perception of difference—such as thinking, 'This is mine, I must do that, and after doing it I will enjoy its reward.' Therefore, it is entirely logical that when the non-dual Self—which is pure Existence and Truth—is realized, the false notion of a separate, changing individual self disappears. An objector might say: 'But in the statement "That thou art," regarding the literal meaning of the word "thou"...'
Close to the Sanskrit
What, indeed, is the fruit produced in the self by the authority of the sentence here in the sixth chapter? The cessation of the idea of being qualified for doership and enjoyership is its fruit—of that which we spoke of as the object denoted by the word 'thou', who is qualified to hear and reflect, for the sake of the fruit of knowing the unknown. And prior to this realization, 'I shall perform actions like Agnihotra in this manner, I am qualified here, and I shall enjoy the fruit of these actions here and in the hereafter, or when actions are completed, I should be one who has fulfilled his duties'—thus, the knowledge that was in the self, 'I am qualified for doership and enjoyership', of him who is awakened by this sentence, 'That which is the root of the world, one indeed without a second, That thou art', ceases, because of contradiction. For indeed, when the one, secondless Self is realized as 'This I am', the knowledge of difference, 'This is mine, another is to be done by this, having done this I shall enjoy its fruit', is not logical. Therefore, it is proper that upon the realization of the Self which is Existence, Truth, and non-dual, the false knowledge of the individual self as a modification ceases. But is it not that, in 'That thou art', in the meaning denoted by the word 'thou'...