स वा एष महानज आत्मा योऽयं विज्ञानमयः प्राणेषु ।य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय आकाशस्तस्मिञ्छेते ।सर्वस्य वशी ।सर्वस्येशानः ।सर्वस्याधिपतिः ।स न साधुना कर्मणा भूयान् ।नो एवासाधुना कनीयान् ।एष सर्वेश्वरः ।एष भूताधिपतिः ।एष भूतपालः ।एष सेतुर्विधरण एषां लोकानामसंभेदाय ।तमेतं वेदानुवचनेन ब्राह्मणा विविदिषन्ति यज्ञेन दानेन तपसानाशकेन ।एतमेव विदित्वा मुनिर्भवति ।एतमेव प्रव्राजिनो लोकमिच्छन्तः प्रव्रजन्ति ॥बृह. ४,४.२२ ॥
In plain words
This great unborn Self is that which is made of understanding among the breaths. It lies in that space within the heart, the controller of all, the ruler of all, the overlord of all. It does not become greater by a good deed nor less by a bad one. It is the lord of all, the overlord of beings, the guardian of beings. It is the bridge, the dam, that these worlds may not be confounded. Brahmins seek to know it by the recitation of the Veda, by sacrifice, by giving, by austerity, by fasting. Knowing this alone, one becomes a silent sage; and it is this world alone that wandering mendicants desire when they go forth.
The commentators
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 9.307· bhāṣya
सहेतुकौ बन्धमोक्षौ अभिहितौ मन्त्रब्राह्मणाभ्याम् ; श्लोकैश्च पुनः मोक्षस्वरूपं विस्तरेण प्रतिपादितम् ; एवम् एतस्मिन् आत्मविषये सर्वो वेदः यथा उपयुक्तो भवति, प्रतिवचनत्वेन । स च सर्वस्य ब्रह्मेन्द्रादेः वशी ; सर्वो हि अस्य वशे वर्तते ; उक्तं च ' एतस्य वा अक्षरस्य प्रशासने ' इति । न केवलं वशी, सर्वस्य ईशानः ईशिता च ब्रह्मेन्द्र- प्रभृतीनाम् । ईशितृत्वं च कदाचित् जातिकृतम् , यथा राज- कुमारस्य बलवत्तरानपि भृत्यान्प्रति, तद्वन्मा भूदित्याह- सर्वस्याधिपतिः अधिष्ठाय पालयिता, स्वतन्त्र इत्यर्थः ; न राजपुत्रवत् अमात्यादिभृत्यतन्त्रः । त्रयमप्येतत् वशित्वादि हेतुहेतुमद्रूपम्- यस्मात् सर्वस्याधिपतिः, ततोऽसौ सर्वस्ये- शानः ; यो हि यमधिष्ठाय पालयति, स तं प्रतीष्ट एवेति प्रसिद्धम्, यस्माच्च सर्वस्येशानः, तस्मात् सर्वस्य व- शीति । किंचान्यत् स एवंभूतो हृद्यन्तर्ज्योतिः पुरुषो विज्ञानमयः न साधुना शास्त्रविहितेन कर्मणा भूयान्भवति, न वर्धते पूर्वावस्थातः केनचिद्धर्मेण ; नो एव शास्त्रप्रतिषि- द्धेन असाधुना कर्मणा कनीयान् अल्पतरो भवति, पूर्वाव- स्थातो न हीयत इत्यर्थः । किं च सर्वो हि अधिष्ठानपाल- नादि कुर्वन् परानुग्रहपीडाकृतेन धर्माधर्माख्येन युज्यते ; अस्यैव तु कथं तदभाव इत्युच्यते- यस्मात् एष सर्वेश्वरः सन् कर्मणोऽपीशितुं भवत्येव शीलमस्य, तस्मात् न कर्मणा संबध्यते । किं च एष भूताधिपतिः ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तानां भूतानामधिपतिरित्युक्तार्थं पदम् । एष भूतानां तेषामेव पा- र्लायिता रक्षिता । एष सेतुः ; किंविशिष्ट इत्याह- विधारणः वर्णाश्रमादिव्यवस्थाया विधारयिता ; तदाह- एषां भूरादीनां ब्रह्मलोकान्तानां लोकानाम् असंभेदाय असंभिन्नमर्यादायै ; परमेश्वरेण सेतुवद्विधार्यमाणा लोकाः संभिन्नमर्यादाः स्युः ; अतो लोकानामसंभेदाय सेतुभूतोऽयं परमेश्वरः, यः स्वयं ज्योतिरात्मैव एवंवित् सर्वस्य वशी- इत्यादि ब्रह्मविद्यायाः फलमेतन्निर्दिष्टम् । 'किंज्योतिरयं पुरुषः' इत्येवमादिषष्ठप्रपाठकविहितायामेतस्यां ब्रह्मविद्यायाम् एवंफलायाम् काम्यैकदेशवर्जितं कृत्स्नं कर्मकाण्डं तादर्थ्येन विनियुज्यते ; तत् कथमित्युच्यते- तमेतम् एवंभूतमौपनिषदं पुरुषम्, वेदानुवचनेन मन्त्रब्राह्मणाध्ययनेन नित्यस्वाध्यायलक्षणेन, विविदिषन्ति वेदितुमिच्छन्ति ; के ? ब्राह्मणाः ; ब्राह्मणग्रहणमुपलक्षणार्थम् ; अविशिष्टो हि अधिकारः त्रयाणां वर्णानाम् ; अथवा कर्मकाण्डेन मन्त्रब्राह्मणेन वेदानुवचनेन विविदिषन्ति ; कथं विविदिषन्तीत्युच्यते- यज्ञेनेत्यादि ॥
In plain words
The causes of bondage and of freedom have already been named, and the true shape of freedom has already been drawn out at length. This is what makes the whole Veda matter here: every part of it is finally an answer to one question, the question of who you are. He is the one who holds everything -- Brahma, Indra, every power there is -- under his rule, for everything moves inside his control. Scripture itself says it: under the rule of this Imperishable one. But he is not merely in control the way a ruler holds subjects. He is the ruling power itself, the sovereignty behind every lesser sovereign. A prince rules his servants by accident of birth, even servants stronger than he is -- but do not read it that way here. 'Overlord of all' means independent: he governs and protects because that is simply what he is, not because ministers and attendants prop him up the way they prop up a prince. And these three -- being in control, being ruler, being sovereign power -- are not three separate facts about him; each is the reason for the next. Because he governs all, he rules all; because whoever governs and protects something is, by that very fact, its ruler; and because he rules all, he controls all. Here is something more: he is the light inside your heart, awareness itself, and no good deed done in line with scripture makes him any larger than he already is, and no bad deed forbidden by scripture makes him any smaller. He simply does not move from what he already is. Everyone else, in the act of ruling and protecting, gets entangled in the merit and harm that comes of helping or hurting others. Why does none of that touch him? Because being the Lord of everything, controlling even action is simply his nature -- so action cannot bind him. He is called lord of beings, and that phrase already says what it means: lord of every being from Brahma down to a single blade of grass. He protects them, all of them, and guards them. He is a bridge. What kind of bridge? He holds things apart the way a dike holds back water -- he is what keeps the order of the castes and the stages of life standing. He holds these worlds, from the earth up to the world of Brahma, so that their boundaries never blur into one another; without the Supreme Lord holding them the way a dike holds a river, their limits would collapse into each other. That is why he stands as a bridge, keeping the worlds distinct -- he who is himself the light, the Self, and who, known in this way, rules everything. This is the fruit that this whole teaching about Brahman has pointed to. It is in the service of this very knowledge -- taught from the question 'by what light does a person live' onward, in the sixth chapter, a knowledge with exactly this fruit -- that the entire body of ritual, apart from the portion done for private gain, is put to work. How does it work? Those who wish to know this very person, described here in the Upanishad, seek him through their daily recitation of the Veda -- through studying mantra and the explanatory prose that goes with it. Who seeks him this way? Brahmins -- though naming brahmins is only an example, since this pursuit belongs equally to all three twice-born classes. Or, put differently, they seek to know him through the ritual portion itself, through that same recitation. And how do they seek him? Through sacrifice, and so on.
Close to the Sanskrit
The two, bondage and liberation, together with their causes, have been declared by the mantra and brāhmaṇa portions; and again, by the verses, the nature of liberation has been set forth at length. Thus, in this matter of the Self, the entire Veda turns out to be useful in this way, by way of being an answer. And he is the controller of all, beginning with Brahmā and Indra; for everything exists under his control; and it has been said, 'under the rule of this Imperishable' -- thus. Not merely the controller: he is the ruler and the sovereign power of Brahmā, Indra and all such beings. Now lordship is sometimes a mere accident of birth, as with a king's son toward servants who are even stronger than he; lest it be thought to be like that, he says: 'the overlord of all' means one who, having taken charge, then protects -- that is, one who is independent; not, like a prince, dependent on ministers and other servants. All three of these -- being in control, and so on -- stand to one another as cause and effect: because he is the overlord of all, therefore he is the ruler of all; for it is well known that whoever presides over and protects someone is thereby recognized as ruler in relation to that one; and because he is the ruler of all, therefore he is the controller of all. Moreover, he, being of this nature -- the light within the heart, the person consisting of consciousness -- does not become greater through a good action enjoined by scripture, nor does he increase from his prior state through any merit; nor indeed does he become smaller, more diminished, through a bad action forbidden by scripture -- that is, he does not fall short of his prior state. Moreover, everyone, in performing acts of ruling, protecting and the like, becomes bound up with what is called merit and demerit, produced by benefiting or harming others; but how is it said that this is absent in his case alone? Because this one, being the lord of all, has it as his very nature to be able to control even action itself, therefore he is not bound by action. Moreover, this term 'lord of beings' -- lord of beings ranging from Brahmā down to a tuft of grass -- is a term whose meaning has already been stated. He is the protector, the guardian, of those very beings. He is a bridge. Of what distinguishing kind? He says: the sustainer -- the one who upholds the order of the classes and stages of life. He explains further: for the non-confounding, that is, for the unconfounded boundary, of these worlds beginning with the earth and ending in the world of Brahmā; for if the worlds were not being upheld like a dike by the Supreme Lord, their boundaries would become confounded; therefore this Supreme Lord exists as a bridge for the non-confounding of the worlds -- he who is himself the Self of light, who, knowing thus, is the controller of all -- this and the rest of that passage has indicated the fruit of the knowledge of Brahman. In this very knowledge of Brahman, taught beginning with 'by what light does this person live', and so on, in the sixth chapter, and having such a fruit, the entire body of ritual action, excluding the portion prompted by desire, is employed for the sake of that knowledge. How so? It is explained: this very person, of this nature, described in the Upaniṣad, they wish to know -- desire to come to know -- through recitation of the Veda, that is, through the study of mantra and brāhmaṇa, characterized as permanent daily recitation. Who? Brahmins. The mention of 'brahmins' is merely illustrative; for the qualification is undifferentiated among the three classes. Or alternatively, they seek to know through the ritual section, the mantra and brāhmaṇa, that is, through recitation of the Veda. How do they seek to know? It is explained: 'by sacrifice', and so on.
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 9.310· bhāṣya
ये पुनः मन्त्रब्राह्मणलक्षणेन वेदानुवचनेन प्रकाश्यमानं विविदिषन्ति-इति व्याचक्षते, तेषाम् आरण्यकमात्रमेव वेदानुवचनं स्यात् ; न हि कर्मकाण्डेन पर आत्मा प्रकाश्यते ; 'तं त्वौपनिषदम्' इति विशेषश्रुतेः । वेदानुवचनेनेति च अवि- शेषितत्वात् समस्तग्राहि इदं वचनम् ; न च तदेकदेशोत्सर्गो युक्तः । ननु त्वत्पक्षेऽपि उपनिषद्वर्जमिति एकदेशत्वं स्यात्— न, आद्यव्याख्याने अविरोधात् अस्मत्पक्षे नैष दोषो भवति ; यदा वेदानुवचनशब्देन नित्यः स्वाध्यायो विधीयते, तदा उपनिषदपि गृहीतैवेति, वेदानुवचनशब्दार्थैकदेशो न परित्यक्तो भवति । यज्ञादिसहपाठाच्च— यज्ञादीनि कर्माणि एव अनुक्रमिष्यन् वेदानुवचनशब्दं प्रयुङ्क्ते ; तस्मात् कर्मैव वेदानुवचनशब्देनोच्यत इति गम्यते ; कर्म हि नित्यस्वाध्यायः ॥
In plain words
There is another reading worth setting straight. Some explain the passage this way: people seek to know the Self as it is made visible through vedānuvacana -- meaning the study of mantra and brāhmaṇa together. But on that reading, vedānuvacana would shrink down to just the forest treatises, the āraṇyaka portion, since the ritual section of the Veda by itself never reveals the supreme Self; scripture is specific about that -- 'him, though, as taught in the Upaniṣad.' Here is the problem: the word vedānuvacana carries no such restriction anywhere in the text, so it has to cover everything, and cutting off a piece of that meaning is not something you get to do. You might object: but doesn't your own reading exclude the Upaniṣad too, and end up just as partial? No. That problem belongs to the other explanation, not to ours. On our reading, when the word vedānuvacana enjoins the permanent daily recitation, the Upaniṣad is swept in along with everything else -- nothing in the word's meaning gets left outside. And there is a further sign pointing the same way: the word is listed right alongside sacrifice and the other rites, at the very point where the text is about to run through them one by one -- which is why the word vedānuvacana, in that sentence, has to mean action itself. Because that is exactly what this daily, permanently enjoined recitation is: an action.
Close to the Sanskrit
Now, those who explain it thus -- 'they seek to know [the Self] as being illumined by vedānuvacana, characterized as the mantra and the brāhmaṇa [portions]' -- for them, vedānuvacana would amount to the āraṇyaka texts only; for the supreme Self is not illumined by the ritual section [alone]; because of the specific scriptural statement, 'but him, as taught in the Upaniṣad'. And since [the term] 'vedānuvacana' is unqualified, this statement covers everything; and it is not right to abandon a part of that [full meaning]. [Objection:] But even on your view, since the Upaniṣad would be excluded, there would likewise be a restriction to a part! [Reply:] No -- because on the first explanation [ours] there is no such contradiction, this fault does not arise on our side; for when by the word 'vedānuvacana' the permanent daily recitation is enjoined, then the Upaniṣad too is included, so no part of the meaning of the word vedānuvacana is left out. And because of being read together with sacrifice and the like: about to enumerate sacrifice and other such actions in order, [the text] employs the word vedānuvacana; therefore it is understood that action alone is meant by the word vedānuvacana; for action, here, is precisely the permanent daily recitation.
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 9.311· bhāṣya
कथं पुनः नित्यस्वाध्यायादिभिः कर्मभिः आत्मानं विविदिषन्ति ? नैव हि तानि आत्मानं प्रकाशयन्ति, यथा उपनिषदः— नैष दोषः, कर्मणां विशुद्धिहेतुत्वात् ; कर्मभिः संस्कृता हि विशुद्धात्मानः शक्नुवन्ति आत्मानमुपनिषत्प्रकाशितम् अप्रतिबन्धेन वेदितुम् ; तथा ह्याथर्वणे— ‘विशुद्धसत्त्वस्ततस्तु तं पश्यते निष्कलं ध्यायमानः’ इति ; स्मृतिश्च ‘ज्ञानमुत्पद्यते पुंसां क्षयात्पापस्य कर्मणः’ इत्यादिः । कथं पुनः नित्यानि कर्माणि संस्कारार्थानीत्यवगम्यते ? ‘स ह वा आत्मयाजी यो वेदेदं मेऽनेनाङ्गं संस्क्रियते इदं मेऽनेनाङ्गमुपधीयते’ इत्यादिश्रुतेः ; सर्वेषु च स्मृतिशास्त्रेषु कर्माणि संस्कारार्थान्येव आचक्षते ‘अष्टाचत्वारिंशत्संस्का- राः' इत्यादिषु । गीतासु च-- 'यज्ञो दानं तपश्चैव पाव- नानि मनीषिणाम् । सर्वेऽप्येते यज्ञविदो यज्ञक्षपितकल्म- षाः' इति । यज्ञेनेति-- द्रव्ययज्ञा ज्ञानयज्ञाश्च संस्का- रार्थाः; संस्कृतस्य च विशुद्धसत्त्वस्य ज्ञानोत्पत्तिरप्रतिबन्धेन भविष्यति ; अतो यज्ञेन विविदिषन्ति । दानेन-- दानमपि पापक्षयहेतुत्वात् धर्मवृद्धिहेतुत्वाच्च । तपसा, तप इति अवि- शेषेण कृच्छ्रचान्द्रायणादिप्राप्तौ विशेषणम्-- अनाशकेनेति ; कामानशनम् अनाशकम्, न तु भोजननिवृत्तिः; भोजन- निवृत्तौ म्रियत एव, न आत्मवेदनम् । वेदानुवचनय- ज्ञानतपःशब्देन सर्वमेव नित्यं कर्म उपलक्ष्यते; एवं काम्यवर्जितं नित्यं कर्मजातं सर्वम् आत्मज्ञानोत्पत्ति- द्वारेण मोक्षसाधनत्वं प्रतिपद्यते ; एवं कर्मकाण्डेन अस्य एकवाक्यतावगतिः । एवं यथोक्तेन न्यायेन एतमेव आत्मानं विदित्वा यथाप्रकाशितम्, मुनिर्भवति, मननान्मु- निः, योगी भवतीत्यर्थः ; एतमेव विदित्वा मुनिर्भवति, ना- न्यम् । ननु अन्यवेदनेऽपि मुनित्वं स्यात्; कथमवधार्यते- एतमेवेति-- बाढम्, अन्यवेदनेऽपि मुनिर्भवेत् ; किं तु अ- न्यवेदने न मुनिरेव स्यात्, किं तर्हि कर्म्यपि भवेत् सः; ए- तं तु औपनिषदं पुरुषं विदित्वा, मुनिरेव स्यात्, न तु कर्मी; अतः असाधारणं मुनित्वं विवक्षितमस्येति अवधारयति- एतमेवेति ; एतस्मिन्हि विदिते, केन कं पश्येदित्येवं क्रिया- संभवात् मननमेव स्यात् । किं च एतमेव आत्मानं स्वं लो- कम् इच्छन्तः प्रार्थयन्तः प्रव्राजिनः प्रव्रजनशीलाः प्रव्रजन्ति प्रकर्षेण व्रजन्ति, सर्वाणि कर्माणि संन्यस्यन्तीत्यर्थः । 'एतमेव लोकमिच्छन्तः' इत्यवधारणात् न बाह्यलोक- त्रयेप्सूनां पारिव्राज्ये अधिकार इति गम्यते ; न हि गङ्गाद्वारं प्रतिपित्सुः काशीदेशनिवासी पूर्वाभिमुखः प्रैति । तस्मात् बाह्यलोकत्रयार्थिनां पुत्रकर्मपरब्रह्मविद्याः साधनम् , 'पुत्रे- णायं लोको जय्यो नान्येन कर्मणा' इत्यादिश्रुतेः ; अतः तदर्थिभिः पुत्रादिसाधनं प्रत्याख्याय, न पारिव्राज्यं प्रतिपत्तुं युक्तम् , अतत्साधनत्वात्पारिव्राज्यस्य । तस्मात् 'एतमेव लो- कमिच्छन्तः प्रव्रजन्ति' इति युक्तमवधारणम् । आत्मलोक- प्राप्तिर्हि अविद्यानिवृत्तौ स्वात्मन्यवस्थानमेव । तस्मात् आ- त्मानं चेत् लोकमिच्छति यः, तस्य सर्वक्रियोपरम एव आत्मलोकसाधनं मुख्यम् अन्तरङ्गम् , यथा पुत्रादिरेव बाह्यलोकत्रयस्य, पुत्रादिकर्मण आत्मलोकं प्रति असा- धनत्वात् । असंभवेन च विरुद्धत्वमवोचाम । तस्मात् आत्मानं लोकमिच्छन्तः प्रव्रजन्त्येव, सर्वक्रियाभ्यो नि- वर्तेरन्नेवेत्यर्थः । यथा च बाह्यलोकत्रयार्थिनः प्रतिनिय- तानि पुत्रादीनि साधनानि विहितानि, एवमात्मलोकार्थिनः सर्वैषणानिवृत्तिः पारिव्राज्यं ब्रह्मविदो विधीयत एव । कुतः पुनः ते आत्मलोकार्थिनः प्रव्रजन्त्येवेत्युच्यते ; तत्र अर्थवादवाक्यरूपेण हेतुं दर्शयति- एतद्ध स्म वै तत् । तदेतत् पारिव्राज्ये कारणमुच्यते- ह स्म वै किल पूर्वे अतिक्रान्तकालीना विद्वांसः आत्मज्ञाः, प्रजां कर्म अपरब्रह्मविद्यां च ; प्रजोपलक्षितं हि त्रयमेतत् बाह्यलोकत्रयसाधनं निर्दिश्यते 'प्रजाम्' इति । प्रजां किम् ? न कामयन्ते, पुत्रादिलोकत्रयसाधनं न अनुतिष्ठन्तीत्यर्थः । ननु अपरब्रह्मदर्शनमनुतिष्ठन्त्येव, तद्वलाद्धि व्युत्थानम्- न अपवादात्, 'ब्रह्म तं परादाद्योऽन्यत्रात्मनो ब्रह्म वेद' 'सर्वं तं परादात्-' इति अपरब्रह्मदर्शनमपि अपवदत्येव, अपरब्रह्मणोऽपि सर्वमध्यान्तर्भावात् ; 'यत्र नान्यत्पश्यति' इति च ; पूर्वापरबाह्यान्तरदर्शनप्रतिषेधाच्च अपूर्वमनपरमनन्तरमबाह्यमिति; 'तत्केन कं पश्येद्विजानीयात्' इति च ; तस्मात् न आत्मदर्शनव्यतिरेकेण अन्यत् व्युत्थानकारणमपेक्षते । कः पुनः तेषामभिप्राय इत्युच्यते- किं प्रयोजनं फलं साध्यं करिष्यामः प्रजया साधनेन ; प्रजा हि बाह्यलोकसाधनं निर्ज्ञाता ; स च बाह्यलोको नास्ति अस्माकम् आत्मव्यतिरिक्तः ; सर्वं हि अस्माकम् आत्मभूतमेव, सर्वस्य च वयम् आत्मभूताः ; आत्मा च नः आत्मत्वादेव न केनचित् साधनेन उत्पाद्यः आप्यः विकार्यः संस्कार्यो वा । यदपि आत्मयाजिनः सं- स्कारार्थं कर्मेति, तदपि कार्यकारणात्मदर्शनविषयमेव, इदं मे अनेन अङ्गं संस्क्रियते- इति अङ्गाङ्गित्वादिश्रवणात् ; न हि विज्ञानघनैकरसनैरन्तर्यदर्शिनः अङ्गाङ्गिसंस्कारोपधानदर्शनं संभवति । तस्मान्न किंचित् प्रजादिसाधनैः करिष्यामः ; अविदुषां हि तत् प्रजादिसाधनैः कर्तव्यं फलम् ; न हि मृग- तृष्णिकायामुदकपानाय तदुदकदर्शी प्रवृत्त इति, तत्र ऊ- षरमात्रमुदकाभावं पश्यतोऽपि प्रवृत्तिर्युक्ता ; एवम् अ- स्माकमपि परमार्थात्मलोकदर्शिनां प्रजादिसाधनसाध्ये मृगतृ- ष्णिकादिसमे अविद्वद्दर्शनविषये न प्रवृत्तिर्युक्तेत्यभिप्रायः । तदेतदुच्यते- येषाम् अस्माकं परमार्थदर्शिनां नः, अय- मात्मा अशनायादिविनिर्मुक्तः साध्वसाधुभ्यामविकार्यः अयं लोकः फलमभिप्रेतम् ; न चास्य आत्मनः साध्यसाधनादि- सर्वसंसारधर्मविनिर्मुक्तस्य साधनं किंचित् एषितव्यम् ; सा- ध्यस्य हि साधनान्वेषणा क्रियते ; असाध्यस्य साधनान्वे- षणायां हि, जलबुद्ध्या स्थल इव तरणं कृतं स्यात्, खे वा शाकुनपदान्वेषणम् । तस्मात् एतमात्मानं विदित्वा प्रव्रजेयुरेव ब्राह्मणाः, न कर्म आरभेरन्नित्यर्थः, यस्मात् पूर्वे ब्राह्मणा एवं विद्वांसः प्रजामकामयमानाः । ते एवं साध्यसाधनसंव्यवहारं निन्दन्तः अविद्वद्विषयोऽय- मिति कृत्वा, किं कृतवन्त इत्युच्यते-- ते ह स्म किल पुत्रैषणायाश्च वित्तैषणायाश्च लोकैषणायाश्च व्युत्थायाथ भिक्षाचर्यं चरन्तीत्यादि व्याख्यातम् ॥
In plain words
How, again, does someone come to know the Self through the daily recitation of scripture and other such rites? Those rites, after all, do not reveal the Self the way the Upanishads do. But there is no flaw here, because rites purify. Someone refined by rites, whose inner being has been made clean, is finally free to know, without any obstruction, the Self the Upanishad has already illuminated. Scripture itself says it: one whose being is purified then sees him, whole and undivided, while absorbed in meditation. And the tradition agrees: knowledge dawns in a person once sinful action has burned away. How do we know that these daily rites exist for the sake of purification? Because scripture describes the self-sacrificer as one who understands: by this, my limb is being refined; by this, my limb is being built up. Every book of tradition says the same -- that rites exist only to purify, right down to naming forty-eight distinct sacraments. The Gita says it too: sacrifice, giving, and austerity purify the wise; everyone who understands sacrifice burns away their stains through it. So when the text says 'by sacrifice,' it means both the sacrifice of substances and the sacrifice of knowledge -- both exist to purify. Once a person is purified, once their inner being is clean, knowledge simply arises, nothing standing in its way. That is why sacrifice is called a way of seeking to know. 'By gift' works the same way -- giving burns away wrong and builds up merit. 'By austerity' needs a further word, because 'austerity' alone could mean any hard discipline, so scripture adds 'without eating' to narrow it down. But that doesn't mean starving to death -- it means choosing to go without food while the hunger is still there. Stop eating altogether and you simply die; you do not thereby come to know the Self. Vedic recitation, sacrifice, austerity: name any of these permanent, obligatory rites and you are pointing at the whole class of them. Strip away the ones done for private gain, and everything left in that class becomes, by clearing the way for knowledge of the Self, a means to freedom. That is how the ritual portion of the Veda and this teaching turn out to be saying one and the same thing. By this reasoning, once a person has known this very Self as it has just been described, he becomes a muni -- a word that comes from thinking, meaning he becomes a yogi. It is knowing this Self, and nothing else, that makes him a muni. Someone might object: surely knowing anything at all could make a person a muni -- why insist it has to be this one? Fair enough: knowing something else might also produce a muni. But knowing something else never produces only a muni -- the same person could still be someone who acts in the world. Know this Person taught in the Upanishad, though, and you become only a muni, never someone who still acts. That is exactly why the phrase insists on 'this one alone' -- it is marking out a munihood nothing else can produce. Once this is known, there is no longer any 'who sees what' left to ask -- and where there is no room left for action, only thought remains. There is more here. Wanting this very Self as their own world, longing for it, those who are inclined to walk away from everything do walk away -- they go, with everything they have, meaning they let go of every action whatsoever. And because the text says 'desiring this world' and no other, we can tell that anyone still wanting the three ordinary worlds has no business renouncing. A person living in Kashi who wants to reach Haridwar does not set out walking east. So for anyone who still wants those three external worlds, a son, ritual action, and knowledge of the lesser Brahman remain the means -- scripture itself says this world is won through a son and nothing else. Which means it would make no sense for someone still chasing that goal to throw away a son and the rest and take up renunciation instead -- renunciation was never a means to what they want. So the restriction stands: it is only those desiring this world, the Self, who walk away. Reaching the world of the Self is nothing more than resting in your own Self once ignorance has lifted. So for anyone who wants the Self as their world, letting go of every action is itself the direct, essential means -- exactly as a son is the means to the other three worlds. Ritual action and a son simply cannot deliver you to the world of the Self; we have already shown why that is flatly impossible. So anyone who wants the Self as their world does walk away -- must walk away from every action there is. Just as fixed means are prescribed for someone chasing the three ordinary worlds, renunciation, the complete laying-down of every craving, is exactly what is prescribed for the knower of Brahman who wants the world of the Self. Why do we say those who want the Self as their world always renounce? Scripture answers with a story: 'this, indeed, was that.' Here is the reasoning it gives for renunciation. Long ago, so the tradition says, the wise of an earlier age, people who knew the Self, did not want children, ritual, or knowledge of the lesser Brahman -- the word 'progeny' there stands in for all three, since a son represents the whole path to the three outer worlds. What did they do about progeny? They simply did not want it -- meaning they never took up the path that begins with having a son. But wait, someone might say -- surely they kept worshipping the lesser Brahman, since that very practice is what gives renunciation its strength, not its absence! No. Scripture says Brahman turns away from anyone who thinks of Brahman as something apart from the Self -- the All itself turns away from him -- and that includes worship of the lesser Brahman too, since the lesser Brahman is also swallowed up inside the All. Scripture also says: where a person sees nothing else at all. And because scripture forbids any sense of before, after, outside, or inside here, it calls this reality without a before, without an after, without an inside, without an outside. And again: in that state, what would you see, and by what would you see it? So renunciation needs no cause beyond seeing the Self -- nothing else is required. What, then, were they after? Scripture puts the question in their own mouths: what purpose, what fruit, what goal could we possibly reach through a son as our means? A son, after all, is well known as a means to some outer world -- and that outer world is not, for us, anything apart from the Self. Everything really is nothing but our own Self, and we are the Self of everything there is. And the Self, precisely because it is already our own Self, cannot be produced, obtained, changed, or purified by any means at all. As for the claim that a self-sacrificer performs rites in order to be purified -- that claim only makes sense within the view that sees the Self as an effect tied to its cause, because scripture speaks of this limb of mine being refined by that rite, which assumes a relationship between a limb and the one who has it. But someone who sees the unbroken oneness of a single mass of awareness has no room left for any such idea of a limb being refined or overlaid onto its possessor. So we will accomplish nothing at all through a son or any of these means -- that is a fruit worth chasing only for the ignorant. A person who actually sees water in a mirage does not really run to drink it; and no one would think it reasonable to act at all if what they actually saw there was only bare, cracked earth -- no water whatsoever. It is the same for us: we see the world of the Self as it truly is, and reaching for what a son or similar means can deliver -- a mirage, real only to someone who has not yet seen -- is simply not reasonable. That is the whole point. Here, then, is what is actually meant: for those of us who see the ultimate truth, this Self -- free of hunger and every such need, untouched by anything good or bad we do -- this is the world we are actually after. And this Self, already free of every trace of the whole apparatus of goals and means that makes up worldly life, needs no means sought for it at all. A search for means only makes sense for something that still has to be accomplished. Search for a means to something that was never accomplishable in the first place, and you are swimming on dry land because you mistook it for water, or hunting the sky for the footprints birds leave behind. So brahmins, once they have known this Self, should indeed walk away from everything -- not take up ritual action -- that is the meaning here, because the brahmins of an earlier time, wise in just this way, wanted nothing to do with progeny. Having renounced the entire business of goals and means as belonging only to the world of the ignorant, what did they actually do? Scripture answers: they let go of the desire for children, the desire for wealth, and the desire for worlds, and from then on lived by begging for their food -- and everything that follows has already been explained.
Close to the Sanskrit
How again do people seek to know the Self through permanent daily recitation and other such rites? For indeed those rites do not illumine the Self, the way the Upaniṣads do. This is not a flaw, because rites are a cause of purification; for those who have been purified by rites, having a purified inner being, are able to know without obstruction the Self as illumined by the Upaniṣad. Thus indeed it is said in the Atharvan text: 'one of purified being then sees him, the partless one, while meditating.' And smṛti too: 'knowledge arises for men from the destruction of sinful action,' and so on. How again is it understood that permanent rites exist for the purpose of purification? Because of the scriptural passage: 'he indeed is a self-sacrificer who knows: by this my limb is being purified, by this my limb is being furnished,' and so on. And in all the smṛti-treatises rites are declared to be for the purpose of purification only, in passages such as 'the forty-eight sacraments.' And in the Gītā: 'sacrifice, gift and austerity are purifying for the wise; all these, knowers of sacrifice, have their taints destroyed by sacrifice.' 'By sacrifice': material sacrifices and knowledge-sacrifices are both for the purpose of purification; and for one who is purified, of purified being, the arising of knowledge will occur without obstruction; therefore it is said they seek to know through sacrifice. 'By gift': gift too, because it is a cause of the destruction of sin and a cause of the increase of merit. 'By austerity': since the word 'austerity' unqualified would apply indiscriminately to the attaining of penances like kṛcchra and cāndrāyaṇa, there is a further qualifying word, 'by not-eating.' 'Not-eating' means the voluntary abstention from food; it does not mean the total cessation of eating -- in the total cessation of eating one simply dies, not knowledge of the Self. By the terms vedānuvacana, sacrifice and austerity, the entire class of permanent action is indicated; thus the whole body of permanent action, excluding the desire-motivated portion, attains the status of a means to liberation by way of the arising of Self-knowledge. Thus is understood the unity of purport of this teaching with the ritual section. Thus, by the reasoning stated, having known this very Self as it has been illumined, one becomes a muni -- a muni from the root 'to think' -- meaning he becomes a yogi. Having known this very one does one become a muni, not another. But surely, even in knowing something else, munihood could occur -- how is it ascertained that it is 'this very one'? Granted, even in knowing something else one might become a muni; but in knowing something else, one would not become only a muni -- he might also become one who still performs action. But having known this Person taught in the Upaniṣad, one would become only a muni, not one who performs action. Therefore, to indicate that an exclusive munihood is intended here, he fixes the phrase 'this very one.' For when this is known, since activity in the sense of 'by what would one see what' becomes impossible, only thinking remains possible. Moreover, desiring and seeking this very Self as their own world, those inclined to wander forth do wander forth -- that is, they go forth intensely -- meaning, they renounce all actions. From the restrictive phrase 'desiring this very world,' it is understood that those who desire the three external worlds have no entitlement to renunciation; for indeed one wishing to reach Gaṅgādvāra, while residing in the region of Kāśī, does not set out facing east. Therefore, for those who desire the three external worlds, a son, ritual action and the knowledge of the lower Brahman are the means, because of the scriptural statement, 'this world is to be won by a son, not by any other action.' Therefore it is not proper for those who desire that to reject the means beginning with a son and undertake renunciation, since renunciation is not a means to that. Therefore the restriction 'desiring this very world do they wander forth' is a fitting one. For the attainment of the world of the Self is nothing but abiding in one's own self upon the cessation of ignorance. Therefore, for one who desires the Self as his world, the cessation of all activity alone is the principal, direct means to the attainment of the Self's world -- just as a son and the like alone are the means to the three external worlds -- since a son and ritual action are not a means to the world of the Self. And we have already stated the incompatibility of the two in terms of impossibility. Therefore those who desire the Self as their world do indeed renounce -- meaning, they must indeed cease from all activities. And just as, for one who desires the three external worlds, the specifically fixed means -- a son and the rest -- are enjoined, so too for the knower of Brahman who desires the world of the Self, renunciation -- the cessation of all desires -- is indeed enjoined. How again is it said that those who desire the world of the Self do indeed renounce? There, in the form of an explanatory statement, he shows the reason: 'this indeed was that.' That very passage is now stated as the reason for renunciation: indeed, formerly, the wise of a bygone era, knowers of the Self, did not desire progeny, ritual action and the knowledge of the lower Brahman -- for this triad, with progeny standing representatively for it, being the means to the three external worlds, is indicated by the word 'progeny.' 'Progeny' -- what of it? They do not desire it -- meaning, they do not undertake the means to the three worlds beginning with a son. But surely they do practice the vision of the lower Brahman -- for renunciation comes from the strength of that itself, not from its exclusion! No: because scripture says, 'Brahman abandons him who knows Brahman as other than the Self,' 'the All likewise abandons him' -- thus, it does indeed exclude the vision of the lower Brahman as well, since the lower Brahman too is included within the All. And also: 'where one sees nothing else' -- thus; and because of the prohibition of any perception of prior, posterior, outer or inner, as in 'without prior, without posterior, without interior, without exterior.' And also: 'by what would one see or know what, in that state?' Therefore renunciation requires no cause other than the vision of the Self. What again is their intention? It is explained: 'what purpose, what fruit, what goal shall we accomplish through progeny as a means?' For progeny is well known to be a means to an external world; and that external world does not exist for us as anything separate from the Self; for everything indeed is, for us, nothing but the Self, and we are the Self of everything; and the Self, precisely because it is our very Self, cannot be produced, attained, modified or purified by any means whatsoever. And as for the claim that, for the self-sacrificer, ritual action is for the purpose of purification -- that too pertains only to the sphere of the vision of the Self as effect and instrument, because of the scriptural statement 'by this, this limb of mine is purified,' which implies the relation of limb and possessor-of-limb. For indeed, for one who perceives the uninterrupted non-difference of a single mass of consciousness, no notion of the purification or superimposition of limb and possessor-of-limb is possible. Therefore we shall accomplish nothing whatsoever by means of progeny and the rest; for that is a fruit to be accomplished, through means beginning with progeny, only for the ignorant. For it is not that one who sees the water in a mirage actually sets out to drink that water; and it would not be reasonable to act, even for one who sees there only bare, salt-crusted ground -- the very absence of water. Similarly, for us who see the world of the Self in its ultimate truth, engaging in what is achievable only through means like progeny -- comparable to a mirage, and existing only within the field of vision of the ignorant -- is not reasonable: this is the intended point. This very thing is now stated: for us who see the ultimate truth, this Self -- free from hunger and the rest, unmodified by good or bad deeds -- this is the world intended as the fruit; and for this Self, which is free from all the conditions of transmigratory existence beginning with being-a-goal and being-a-means, no means whatsoever is to be sought. For it is only for something accomplishable that a search for a means is undertaken; for in searching for a means to something unaccomplishable, it would be like swimming on dry land, mistaking it for water, or searching in the sky for the footprints of birds. Therefore, having known this Self, brahmins should indeed renounce; they should not undertake ritual action -- that is the meaning -- since formerly brahmins, being wise in this way, did not desire progeny. They, thus condemning the whole transaction of goal-and-means, having concluded 'this belongs to the domain of the ignorant,' did what? It is explained: 'they indeed, having renounced the desire for progeny, the desire for wealth and the desire for worlds, then wander about living on alms' -- and so on, has already been explained.
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 9.316· bhāṣya
तस्मात् आत्मानं लोकमिच्छन्तः प्रव्रजन्ति प्रव्रजेयुः-- इत्येष विधिः अर्थवादेन संगच्छते; न हि सार्थवादस्य अस्य लोकस्तुत्याभिमुख्यम् उपपद्यते; प्रव्रजन्तीत्यस्यार्थवादरूपो हि 'एतद्ध स्म' इत्यादिउत्तरों ग्रन्थः; अर्थवादश्चेत्, नार्थवादान्तरमपेक्षेत; अपेक्षते तु 'एतद्ध स्म' इत्याद्यर्थवादं 'प्रव्रजन्ति' इत्येतत्। यस्मात् पूर्वे विद्वांसः प्रजादिकर्मभ्यो निवृत्ताः प्रव्रजितवन्त एव, तस्मात् अधुनातना अपि प्रव्रजन्ति प्रव्रजेयुः-- इत्येवं संबध्यमानं न लोकस्तुत्यभिमुखं भवितुमर्हति; विज्ञानसमानकर्तृकत्वोपदेशादित्यादिना अवोचाम। वेदानुवचनादिसहपाठाच्च; यथा आत्मवेदनसाधनत्वेन विहितानां वेदानुवचनादीनां यथार्थत्वमेव, नार्थवादत्वम्, तथा तैरेव सह पठितस्य पारिव्राज्यस्य आत्मलोकप्राप्तिसाधनत्वेन अर्थवादत्वमयुक्तम्। फलविभागोपदेशाच्च; 'एतमेवात्मानं लोकं विदित्वा' इति अन्यस्मात् बाह्यात् लोकात् आत्मानं फलान्तरत्वेन प्रविभजति, यथा- पुत्रेणैवायं लोको जय्यः नान्येन कर्मणा, कर्मणा पितृलोकः- इति। न च प्रव्रजन्तीत्येतत् प्राप्तवत् लोकस्तुतिपरम्, प्रधानवच्च अर्थ- स्वयं ज्योतिः एक एवाद्वयः अपूर्वोऽनपरोऽनन्तरोऽबाह्यः—इत्येतत् आगमतस्तर्कतश्च स्थापितम्, विशेषतश्चेह जनकयाज्ञवल्क्यसंवादे अस्मिन्; तस्मात् एवंलक्षणे आत्मनि विदिते आत्मत्वेन नैव कर्मांरम्भ उपपद्यते। तस्मादात्मा निर्विशेषः। न हि चक्षुष्मान् पथि प्रवृत्तः अहनि कूपे कण्टके वा पतति; कृत्स्नस्य च कर्मफलस्य विद्याफलेऽन्तर्भावात्; न च अयत्नप्राप्ये वस्तुनि विद्वान् यत्नमातिष्ठति; 'अर्के चेन्मधु विन्देत किमर्थं पर्वतं व्रजेत्। इष्टस्यार्थस्य संप्राप्तौ को विद्वान्यत्नमाचरेत्' 'सर्वं कर्माखिलं पार्थ ज्ञाने परिसमाप्यते—' इति गीतासु। इहापि च एतस्यैव परमानन्दस्य ब्रह्मवित्प्राप्यस्य अन्यानि भूतानि मात्रामुपजीवन्तीत्युक्तम्। अतो ब्रह्मविदां न कर्मांरम्भः॥
In plain words
So when the text says those who desire the Self as their true home renounce the world — that line is not standing alone; it is an injunction, and it leans on the praise that follows it, the way any rule leans on the reason given for it. That praise cannot simply be admiring the world, because a passage that already carries its own eulogy would need no further one — and this passage clearly does reach for more, the whole 'etad dha sma' section that follows it. The wise of old did not merely talk about renouncing; they renounced. So when the text says people renounce today too, it is not flattering some ordinary world achievement — it is naming what those who know the Self actually do, exactly as it names Vedic recitation and study as real disciplines rather than mere ornament, and exactly as it marks off the Self, once known, as a fruit distinct from any world a ritual could ever win you. A son wins you one world; the Self is not won that way at all — knowing it is its own different kind of arrival, not a decoration on top of an already-won reward. And here is the deeper reason underneath all of it: the Self has been shown, by scripture and by reason both, and especially in this very conversation between Janaka and Yajnavalkya, to be self-luminous, one without a second, with nothing before it, nothing after it, no inside and no outside. Once you know a Self like that, there is simply nothing left for you to go do about it. The Self has no more work waiting inside it — which is exactly why it is called without distinguishing marks. A man who can see does not walk into a well in broad daylight; he has no need to feel his way with a stick. Whatever any action could ever earn you is already contained inside the fruit of this knowledge, and no one who actually understands that keeps striving for what they already have — if you could find honey right there in the flower, why climb a mountain for it? Once you already hold what you wanted, what wise person keeps working for it? The Gita says the same thing: all action, without exception, comes to rest in knowledge. And this very text has already said that every other being survives on nothing but a fragment of the bliss that belongs, whole, to the one who knows Brahman. That is why, for someone who knows Brahman, there is nothing left to undertake.
Close to the Sanskrit
Therefore, [the statement] 'those desiring the Self as the world renounce, should renounce' — this injunction connects with an arthavāda; for an orientation toward mere praise of the world is not tenable for this passage together with its arthavāda. For the subsequent text beginning 'etad dha sma' is, in the form of an arthavāda, an elaboration of this word 'pravrajanti'; if it were merely an arthavāda, it would not require another arthavāda — but this word 'pravrajanti' does require the arthavāda beginning 'etad dha sma'. Since the wise men of old, having ceased from rites such as begetting progeny, did indeed renounce, therefore [the statement] 'those of today too renounce, should renounce', construed thus, cannot be oriented merely toward praise of the world — as we have already stated by the argument beginning 'because of the teaching of a common agent [for both action and knowledge]'. And because of being read together with duties such as Vedic study and recitation: just as those duties, enjoined as a means to Self-knowledge, have only literal validity and not the status of arthavāda, so too renunciation, read together with them, cannot properly be called an arthavāda when it functions as a means to attaining the Self as the world. And because of the teaching of a distinction of fruits: 'having known this very Self as the world' distinguishes the Self, as a separate fruit, from another, external world — just as 'this world is to be won only by a son, not by any other rite; the world of the fathers by ritual action'. So this statement 'they renounce' is not, like praise of something already attained, meant merely for praise of the world, nor, like eulogy of a principal element, is that its purport. That the Self is self-luminous, one only, non-dual, without anything prior, without anything subsequent, without an interior, without an exterior — this has been established both from scripture and from reasoning, particularly here in this very dialogue of Janaka and Yājñavalkya. Therefore, when the Self so characterized is known, no undertaking of action is at all possible with respect to it as the Self. Therefore the Self is without differentiation. For indeed a sighted man walking on a path does not fall by day into a well or onto a thorn; and because the entire fruit of action is included within the fruit of knowledge; and a wise person does not exert effort toward a thing attainable without effort — 'if one could find honey in the arka plant itself, why go to the mountain? When the desired object is already attained, what wise person would exert effort?' — and 'all action, entirely, O Pārtha, culminates in knowledge', in the Gītā. And here too it has been said that other beings live off a mere fraction of this very supreme bliss to be attained by the knower of Brahman. Therefore, for knowers of Brahman, there is no undertaking of action.
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 9.318· bhāṣya
यस्मात् सर्वैषणाविनिवृत्तः स एष नेति नेत्यात्मानमात्मत्वेनोपगम्य तद्रूपेणैव वर्तते, तस्मात् एतम् एवंविदं नेति नेत्यात्मभूतम्, उ ह एव एते वक्ष्यमाणे न तरतः न प्राप्नुतः—इति युक्तमेवेति वाक्यशेषः। के ते इत्युच्यते—अतः अस्मान्निमित्तात् शरीरधारणादिहेतोः, पापम् अपुण्यं कर्म अकरवं कृतवानस्मि—कष्टं खलु मम वृत्तम्, अनेन पापेन कर्मणा अहं नरकं प्रतिपत्स्ये—इति योऽयं पश्चात् पापं कर्म कृतवतः—परितापः स एनं नेति नेत्यात्मभूतं न तरति ; तथा अतः कल्याणं फलविषयकामाग्निमित्तात् यज्ञदानादिलक्षणं पुण्यं शोभनं कर्म कृतवानस्मि, अतोऽहम् अस्य फलं सुखमुपभोक्ष्ये देहान्तरे— इत्येषोऽपि हर्षः तं न तरति । उभे उ ह एव एषः ब्रह्मवित् एते कर्मणी तरति पुण्यपापलक्षणे । एवं ब्रह्मविदः संन्यासिन उभे अपि कर्मणी क्षीयेते— पूर्वजन्मनि कृते ये ते, इह जन्मनि कृते ये ते च ; अपूर्वे च न आरभ्येते । किं च नैनं कृताकृते, कृतं नित्यानुष्ठानम्, अकृतं तस्यैव अक्रिया, ते अपि कृताकृते एनं न तपातः ; अनात्मज्ञं हि, कृतं फलदानेन, अकृतं प्रत्यवायोत्पादनेन, तपातः ; अयं तु ब्रह्मवित् आत्मविद्याग्निना सर्वाणि कर्माणि भस्मीकरोति, ‘यथैधांसि समिद्धोऽग्निः’ इत्यादिस्मृतेः ; शरीरारम्भकयोस्तु उपभोगेनैव क्षयः । अतो ब्रह्मवित् अकर्मसम्बन्धी ॥
In plain words
Someone who has let go of every craving, who has met this Self — the one named only by 'not this, not this' — as his very own Self, now simply lives as that. So when it is said that these two things to come do not touch him, do not reach him, it fits perfectly — the rest of the sentence explains which two. What are they? Here is the voice of ordinary remorse: 'Because I had to keep this body going, I did something wrong — how wretched, what I've done — and now this sin will drag me down to ruin.' That guilt, the ache that follows a bad act, cannot touch the one who has become 'not this, not this'. And here is the voice of ordinary pride: 'Because I wanted a reward, I did something good — sacrifices, gifts — and now I'll enjoy the sweetness of it in another life.' That pleasure, too, cannot touch him. This knower of Brahman moves past both, merit and demerit alike. Both kinds of action wear away for the renunciant who knows this: whatever he did in an earlier life, whatever he has done in this one — and nothing new begins. Nor do the done and the undone burn him: the done is simply the routine you keep up, the undone is simply not keeping it up — neither has any grip on him. They only burn someone who doesn't know the Self — reward for the done, guilt for the undone. But this knower burns every action to ash in the fire of knowing the Self, exactly as the old teaching says: a blazing fire turns fuel to ash. Only the two actions that started this very body still have to run their course, and they wear off simply by being lived through. So the one who knows Brahman has, in the end, nothing left to do with action at all.
Close to the Sanskrit
Since he who has turned away from all desire, having approached this Self characterized as 'not this, not this' in the capacity of his own Self, abides only in that very form — therefore, concerning this one who knows thus, who has become that Self known as 'not this, not this', these two things about to be stated do not overcome him, do not reach him: this is indeed a fitting reading; such is the remainder of the sentence. Which two are they? It is explained: 'Because of this — for reasons such as the maintenance of the body — I have done a sinful, unmeritorious deed; wretched indeed is my conduct; by this sinful act I shall fall into hell' — this remorse, arising afterward in one who has done a sinful deed, does not overcome him who has become that Self known as 'not this, not this'. Likewise: 'Because of this fire of desire for a fruit, I have done a good, meritorious deed marked by sacrifice, gift-giving, and so on; therefore I shall enjoy its pleasant fruit in another body' — this joy, too, does not overcome him. This knower of Brahman indeed overcomes both these actions, characterized as merit and demerit. Thus, for the renunciant knower of Brahman, both actions perish — those done in a former birth and those done in this birth — and new ones are not begun. Moreover, neither the done nor the undone torment him: the 'done' is the constant observance, the 'undone' is simply its non-performance; these too do not torment him. They do torment one who does not know the Self — the 'done' by giving its fruit, the 'undone' by producing a lapse. But this knower of Brahman reduces all actions to ashes by the fire of Self-knowledge, as in the smṛti beginning 'as a blazing fire consumes fuel'. For the two actions that initiate a body, however, exhaustion comes only through experience. Therefore the knower of Brahman has no connection with action at all.