Bhashya
तत्र यदुक्तं सहताभ्या विद्याकर्मभ्या मोक्ष इत्येतदनुपपन्नमिति, तदयुक्तम्, तद्विहितत्वात्कर्मणा श्रुतिविरोध इति चेत्—यद्युपमृद्य कर्त्रादिकारकविशेषमात्मैकत्वविज्ञानं विधीयते सर्पादिश्रान्तिज्ञानोपमर्दकरज्ज्वादिविषयविज्ञानवत्, प्राप्त कर्मविधिश्रुतीना निर्विषयत्वाद्विरोध ।विहितानि च कर्माणि ।स च विरोधो न युक्त , प्रमाणत्वाच्छ्रुतीनामिति चेत्, न, पुरुषार्थोपदेशपरत्वाच्छ्रुतीनाम् ।विद्योपदेशपरा तावच्छ्रुति संसारात्पुरुषा माक्षयितव्य इति संसारहेतोरविद्याया विद्यया निवृत्ति कर्तव्येति विद्याप्रकाशकत्वेन प्रवृत्तेति न विरोध ।एवमपि कर्त्रादिकारकसद्भावप्रतिपादनपरं शास्त्र विरुध्यत एवेति चेत्, न, यथाप्रा-प्तमेव कारकास्तित्वमुपादाय उपात्तदुरितक्षयार्थं कर्माणि
In plain words
Here someone may ask: didn't you say that liberation comes from knowledge and action combined? And if action is enjoined by scripture, wouldn't denying it create a scriptural conflict? If the knowledge of the non-dual Self destroys the distinctions of agent and action—just as the realization of a rope destroys the illusion of a snake—then scriptural injunctions regarding rituals would be left with no object at all, which seems like a contradiction. And yet rituals are indeed enjoined. If you claim such a contradiction cannot be, since the Vedas are infallible authorities, we reply: the primary purport of the Vedas is human liberation. The passages teaching knowledge are designed solely to free the individual from worldly bondage by showing that ignorance must be eradicated through realization; thus there is no real conflict. But what of the scriptural texts that speak of agents and instruments as real? Even there, the scripture does not validate them as absolute truth; it simply takes the world as people ordinarily experience it, and enjoins ritual actions to help wash away accumulated sin.
Close to the Sanskrit
Now, what was stated that liberation is through knowledge and action together—that is untenable, because of its being enjoined; if it is said there is a contradiction with shruti—if the knowledge of the oneness of the Self is enjoined by subverting particular agents and other karakas, just like the knowledge of a rope which destroys the erroneous illusion of a snake, there would result a contradiction because shrutis enjoining actions would be left without an object. And actions are enjoined. And if it is said that such a contradiction is not proper because shrutis are valid means of knowledge, no, because shrutis are intent on teaching the supreme goal of man. The shruti devoted to imparting knowledge functions to reveal that ignorance, the cause of samsara, must be removed by knowledge so that the person may be liberated from samsara; hence there is no contradiction. Even so, if it is argued that the scripture intent on establishing the existence of agents and other karakas is indeed contradicted, no, taking the existence of karakas just as naturally obtained, actions are enjoined for the purpose of destroying accumulated demerit.