Bhāṣya
एवं च सति ज्ञानमात्रान्मुक्तिरिति प्रतिपादनादेव कर्मणो मुक्तिहेतुत्वमपास्तं वेदितव्यम् ।तथा हि — न तावत्केवलात्कर्मणो मुक्तिश्रवणात् ।नापि तत एव ज्ञानसहितात् , अश्रुतेरेव ।ननु ‘तं विद्याकर्मणी समन्वारभेते पूर्वप्रज्ञा च’ इति विद्याकर्मणोः सहभावः श्रूयते ; सत्यम् , संसारविषयं तच्छ्रवणं न मुक्तिविषयम् इति ।‘यावज्जीवमग्निहोत्रं जुहोति’ इत्यादिचोदनाप्राप्तानां नित्यनैमित्तिककर्मणां ज्ञानस्य च अर्थात्समुच्चय इति चेत् ; न, विनियोजकप्रमाणाभावात् ।‘तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन दानेन तपसानाशकेन’ इत्यत्र तृतीयाश्रुतिः विनियोजिका इति चेत् ; न, विविदिषासम्बन्धात् कर्मणां ज्ञानार्थत्वप्रतीतेः मोक्षार्थत्वं नावगम्यते इति ।किं च, न हि ज्ञानम् अज्ञाननिवृत्तौ उपकारकमपेक्षते, उत्पन्नादेव तस्मात् अज्ञाननिवृत्तेरवश्यम्भावात् ।तथा च श्रुतिः — ‘तमेव विदित्वातिमृत्युमेति नान्यः पन्था विद्यतेऽयनाय’ इति ।अपि च यदि कर्मफलं मोक्षो भवेत् , तदा अनित्यत्वं प्रसज्यते घटादिवत्स्वर्गादिवच्चेति ।अमुमेवार्थं श्रुतिरप्याह — तद्यथेह कर्मचितो लोकः क्षीयते एवमेवामुत्र पुण्यचितो लोकः क्षीयते’ इति ।‘अग्निहोत्रादि तु तत्कार्यायैव’ इति सूत्रकारेण परम्परया कर्मणां मुक्तिहेतुत्वमभिहितं प्रयाजादिवत् ।अतः ज्ञानार्थत्वेन कर्मणामुपयोगोऽस्त्येव ।ज्ञानोत्पत्तेस्तु परं कर्मणामुपयोगाभावेऽपि लोकसङ्ग्रहार्थमनुष्ठानं कर्तव्यमेवेति सर्वं समञ्जसम् ॥
In plain words
Given that liberation springs solely from pure realization, you must understand that ritual action's claim to be a cause of freedom has been completely set aside. After all, scripture nowhere speaks of liberation arising from mere action, nor from action coupled with knowledge. If you cite the Vedic passage, ‘Both knowledge and action follow him, along with past awareness,’ we grant that this is stated—yet it concerns the realm of worldly life, not the domain of ultimate freedom. Should you argue that daily and occasional duties like the agnihotra are naturally combined with knowledge because injunctions mandate them for life, we reply that no scriptural proof links them in a direct functional bond. If you point to the instrumental case in the text where brahmins seek to know the Self through Vedic study, sacrifice, charity, and austerity, we answer that these acts relate solely to the desire to know, and thus are never understood to be direct causes of liberation itself. Besides, knowledge needs no assistant to dispel illusion, for once it dawns, ignorance vanishes by its own inherent nature. As scripture confirms: ‘Knowing Him alone, one crosses beyond death; there is no other path to the journey.’ Furthermore, if liberation were the product of action, it would have to be impermanent, just like an earthen pot or a heavenly realm. Scripture itself declares: ‘Just as the world won by action perishes here, so too the world won by good deeds perishes hereafter.’ As the Sūtrakāra establishes in the aphorism, ‘Agnihotra and other rites are for that very purpose,’ ritual acts possess an indirect causality toward liberation, much like preliminary sacrificial offerings. Thus, actions do have a vital place as a means to awaken knowledge. Even though they have no further function once realization is attained, one must continue performing them simply to guide and steady the world. Therefore, everything is entirely consistent and clear.
Close to the Sanskrit
Thus this being, that liberation arises from pure knowledge alone being established, the status of ritual action as a cause of liberation must be understood to be discarded. For instance: not first from mere ritual action because liberation is not heard of; nor even from that accompanied by knowledge, on account of the very absence of such scriptural hearing. Now, if it is objected that the coexistence of knowledge and action is heard in the scriptural text ‘Him knowledge and action follow, and prior awareness too’; true, that scriptural hearing pertains to the realm of worldly existence, not to the realm of liberation. If it is argued that there is an implication of combination between knowledge and the daily and occasional ritual actions obtained by injunctions such as ‘As long as life lasts he offers the agnihotra sacrifice’; no, because of the absence of an engaging proof. If it is stated that the instrumental case-hearing in ‘This very Self brahmins seek to know through the study of the Vedas, through sacrifice, through charity, through austerity without emaciation’ is engaging; no, because actions are understood to have the purpose of knowledge due to their connection with the desire to know, and thus their purpose as liberation is not comprehended. Furthermore, knowledge does not require an auxiliary in the removal of ignorance, because the removal of ignorance inevitably happens from knowledge itself once it has arisen. And thus scripture says: ‘Having known Him alone one transcends death; there is no other path for the journey.’ Moreover, if liberation were the result of action, then impermanence would follow, just like a pot and just like heaven. Scripture itself declares this very meaning: ‘Just as here the world accumulated by action perishes, even so there the world accumulated by merit perishes.’ By the Sūtrakāra, through ‘Agnihotra and the rest are for that very purpose’ [Brahma Sūtra 3.4.25], the causality of actions regarding liberation has been stated indirectly, like the prayāja offerings. Therefore, the utility of actions as serving knowledge certainly exists. Even though there is no utility of actions after the arising of knowledge, their performance for the sake of guiding the world must indeed be carried out; thus everything is harmonious.