Bhashya
मघवन् मर्त्यं वै मरणधर्मीदं शरीरम् ।यन्मन्यसेऽक्ष्या-धारादिलक्षणः संप्रसादलक्षण आत्मा मयोक्तो विनाशमे-वापीतो भवतीति, शृणु तत्र कारणम्— यदिदं शरीरं वैयत्पश्यसि तदेतत् मर्त्यं विनाशि ।तच्च आत्तं मृत्युनाग्रस्तं सततमेव ।कदाचिदेव म्रियत इति मर्त्यमि-त्युक्ते न तथा संत्रासो भवति, यथा ग्रस्तमेव सदाव्याप्तमेव मृत्युनेत्युक्ते—इति वैराग्यार्थं विशेष इत्युच्यते—आत्तं मृत्युनेति ।कथं नाम देहाभिमानतो विरक्तः सन्निवर्तेत इति ।शरीरमित्यत्र सहेन्द्रियमनोभिरुच्यते ।तच्छ-रीरमस्य संप्रसादस्य त्रिस्थानतया गम्यमानस्य अमृतस्य मरणादिदेहेन्द्रियमनोधर्मवर्जितस्येत्येतत्; अमृतस्येत्यनेनैव अशरीरत्वे सिद्धे पुनरशरीरस्येति वचनं वाय्वादिवत् सावयवत्वमूर्तिमत्त्वे मा भूतामिति; आत्मनो भोगाधिष्ठानम्; आत्मनो वा सत ईक्षितुः तेजोबन्नादिक्रमेण उत्पन्नमधिष्ठानम्; जीवरूपेण प्रविश्य सदेवाधितिष्ठत्यस्मिन्निति वा अधिष्ठानम् ।यस्येदमीदृशं नित्यमेव मृत्युग्रस्तं धर्माधर्मजनितत्वात्प्रियाप्रियवदधिष्ठानम्, तदधिष्ठितः तद्वान् सशरीरो भवति ।अशरीरस्वभावस्य आत्मनः तद्देवाहं शरीरं शरीरमेव च अहम्-इत्यविवेकादात्मभावः सशरीरत्वम्; अत एव सशरीरः सन् आत्तः ग्रस्तः प्रियाप्रियाभ्याम् ।प्रसिद्धमेतत् ।तस्य च न वै सशरीरस्य सतः प्रियाप्रिययोः बाह्यविषयसंयोगवियोगनिमित्तयोः बाह्यविषयसंयोगवियोगौ ममेति मन्यमानस्य अपहतिः विनाशः उच्छेदः संततिरूपयोर्नास्तीति ।तं पुनर्देहाभिमानादशरीरस्वरूपविज्ञानेन निवर्तिताविवेकज्ञानमशरीरं सन्तं प्रियाप्रिये न स्पृशतः ।स्पृशिः प्रत्येकं संबध्यत इति प्रियं न स्पृशति अप्रियं न स्पृशतीति वाक्यद्वयं भवति ।'न म्लेच्छाशुच्यधार्मिकैः सह संभाषेत' इति यद्वत् ।धर्माधर्मकार्ये हि ते;अशरीरता तु स्वरूपमिति तत्र धर्माधर्मयोरसंभवात् तत्का-र्यभावो दूरत एवेत्यतो न प्रियाप्रिये स्पृशतः ॥
In plain words
O Indra, this physical form is truly mortal, bound entirely to the law of death. When you imagine that the luminous self of deep serenity, which I described to you, perishes utterly upon the dissolution of the body, listen to the true reason: this body that your eyes perceive is transient and perishable. It is perpetually caught and devoured by mortality. To call something merely 'mortal' does not strike the heart with terror; but to realize that it is ceaselessly swallowed, utterly permeated by death at every moment—that is why the text specifies 'seized by death,' designed precisely to awaken deep detachment. How else might one turn away, disenchanted from identification with the flesh? 'Body' here includes the mind and the senses. That very body belongs to the serene self, who in the three states is understood as immortal, utterly devoid of the mortal attributes of death, body, senses, and mind. Once his immortality is established, the text's further description of him as 'bodiless' serves simply to prevent any notion that he has parts or form like the wind. He is the witness's seat of experience, or the locus evolved through the elements of fire, water, and earth, wherein the Supreme Reality dwells, having entered as the individual soul. Anyone whose support is thus perpetually prey to death—born of past merit and demerit, entangled in the dualities of joy and sorrow—is considered embodied. To superimpose the self onto this, through the blinding lack of discrimination that whispers 'I am the body, the body alone is what I am,'—that is true embodiment. Because of this, the embodied person remains helplessly gripped by pleasant and painful experiences. This is universally known. But for one who is truly established in his incorporeal essence, those dualities—born of contact with external objects and claimed possessively as 'mine'—have no continuous destruction or termination, for they are rooted in delusion. When a person abandons body-identification through the direct realization of his bodiless nature, dissolving ignorance, those dualities of joy and grief touch him no longer. The verb 'touches' applies separately to each, forming two distinct statements: 'It does not touch the pleasant' and 'It does not touch the unpleasant,' just as the scriptural rule reads: 'One should not converse with the unrighteous, the impure, and the outcast.' Joy and sorrow are the mere fruits of merit and demerit; but your true nature is absolute bodilessness. Because virtue and vice have no footing in that pure essence, the very possibility of their effects is banished afar. Therefore, neither pleasure nor pain can ever touch you.
Close to the Sanskrit
O Maghavan, mortal indeed and subject to death is this body. When you think that the self characterized by the eye and serenity, as spoken by me, attains destruction, hear the reason therefor: This body which you see is indeed mortal and perishable. And it is seized and swallowed by death continuously. When it is said 'mortal', terror does not arise as much as when it is said 'swallowed always and pervaded by death'—hence the specification 'seized by death' is stated for the sake of detachment: How indeed might one, detached from body-identification, withdraw? The body here includes the senses and mind. That body of this serene one, who is understood in three states as immortal—devoid of the attributes of death, body, senses, and mind—once immortality is established, the further statement 'of the bodiless' is to prevent any notion of having parts or form like the wind; it is the abode of experience for the self, or the locus produced through the order of fire, water, etc., wherein the existent [Supreme] resides having entered in the form of the jiva. Whoever has this kind of support, constantly seized by death owing to being produced by merit and demerit, along with pleasant and unpleasant, is embodied. The attribution of selfhood to the bodiless nature of the self through non-discrimination—'I am this body, the body alone am I'—is embodiment. Hence being embodied, he is seized and swallowed by pleasant and unpleasant. This is well known. And for that embodied person, the destruction, eradication, and termination in the form of a continuity of the pleasant and unpleasant—which are caused by contact and separation with external objects and which he thinks are 'mine'—do not exist. Him, who is free from body-identification through the knowledge of his bodiless nature and has dispelled non-discrimination, existing as bodiless, the pleasant and unpleasant do not touch. The verb 'touches' connects separately with each, so there are two sentences: 'It does not touch the pleasant' and 'It does not touch the unpleasant,' just like 'One should not converse with mlecchas, the unclean, and the unrighteous.' For those are effects of merit and demerit; whereas bodilessness is the intrinsic nature, and since merit and demerit are impossible there, the absence of their effects is far away indeed; hence pleasant and unpleasant do not touch him.