' ' । ' ' ॥ ३१ ॥
In plain words
If Karmas were compulsory and never to be laid aside, Śruti would not teach the identity of Ātman with Paramātman—free from the tools of Karma and from the Jāti and Āśrama distinctions Karma produces—through a decisive sentence such as, 'That is Ātman; you are That.' Nor would it condemn difference with declarations such as, 'This is the eternal greatness of the Brāhmaṇa'; 'untouched by Puṇya, untouched by Pāpa'; and 'Here the thief is no thief.'
Close to the Sanskrit
If Karmas were to be performed and not relinquished, Śruti would not teach the apprehension of the non-difference of Ātman itself from Paramātman—which has no connection with the means of Karma, nor with Jāti, Āśrama, and the rest produced by Karma—through decisive statements such as, 'That is Ātman; you are That.' Nor would it censure the apprehension of difference through passages such as: 'This is the eternal greatness of the Brāhmaṇa'; 'untouched by Puṇya, untouched by Pāpa'; and 'Here the thief is no thief.'