सा ह वागुवाच यद्वा अहं वसिष्ठास्मि त्वं तद्वसिष्ठोऽसीति ।यद्वा अहं प्रतिष्ठास्मि त्वं तत्प्रतिष्ठोऽसीति चक्षुः ।यद्वा अहं संपदस्मि त्वं तत्संपदसीति श्रोत्रम् ।यद्वा अहमायतनमस्मि त्वं तदायतनमसीति मनः ।यद्वा अहं प्रजातिरस्मि त्वं तत्प्रजातिरसीति रेतः ।तस्यो मे किमन्नं किं वास इति ।यदिदं किञ्चा श्वभ्य आ कृमिभ्य आ कीटपतङ्गेभ्यस्तत्तेऽन्नम् ।आपो वास इति ।न ह वा अस्यानन्नं जग्धं भवति नानन्नं प्रतिगृहीतं य एवमेतदनस्यान्नं वेद ।तद्विद्वांसः श्रोत्रिया अशिष्यन्त आचामन्त्यशित्वाचामन्ति ।एतमेव तदन्नमनग्नं कुर्वन्तो मन्यन्ते ॥बृह. ६,१.१४ ॥
In plain words
Speech said, "The richest that I am, that thou art." The eye said, "The foundation that I am, that thou art." The ear said, "Attainment that I am, that thou art." The mind said, "The abiding-place that I am, that thou art." The seed said, "Begetting that I am, that thou art." "Then what is my food and what my clothing?" "Whatever there is here, down to what dogs and worms and insects and moths eat, is thy food; and the waters are thy clothing." For one who knows thus what is the food of ana, the breath, nothing that is eaten is not food and nothing that is received is not food. Therefore learned men who know this sip water before eating and sip water after eating; and they hold that thereby they make that food not naked.
The commentators
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 10.81· bhāṣya
सा ह वाक् प्रथमं बलिदानाय प्रवृत्ता ह किल उवाच उक्तवती — यत् वै अहं वसिष्ठास्मि, यन् मम वसिष्ठत्वम्, तत् तवैव ; तेन वसिष्ठगुणेन त्वं तद्वसिष्ठोऽसीति । यन् वै अहं प्रतिष्ठास्मि, त्वं तत्प्रतिष्ठोऽसि, या मम प्रतिष्ठा सा त्व- मसीति चक्षुः । समानम् अन्यत् । संपदायतनप्रजातित्वगु- णान् क्रमेण समर्पितवन्तः । यद्येवम्, साधु बलिं दत्तवन्तो भवन्तः ; ब्रूत- तस्य उ मे एवंगुणविशिष्टस्य किमन्नम्, किं वास इति ; आहुरितरे — यदिदं लोके किंच किंचित् अन्नं नाम आ श्वभ्यः आ कृमिभ्यः आ कीटपतङ्गेभ्यः, यच्च श्वान्नं कृम्यन्नं कीटपतङ्गान्नं च, तेन सह सर्वमेव यत्किंचित् प्राणिभिरद्यमानम् अन्नम्, तत्सर्वं तवान्नम् । सर्वं प्राणस्या- न्नामिति दृष्टिः अत्र विधीयते ॥
In plain words
Speech was the first to step forward and pay tribute. As the story has it, she said: 'Whatever excellence I have is entirely yours — by that same quality, you are the most excellent one.' Then the eye said the same about being the foothold: 'Whatever foothold I am, you are that too.' And so it went for the rest — hearing, mind, and seed handed over attainment, the abode, and the power to have children, one after another. 'Well then,' he said, 'you've all paid your tribute nicely — now tell me: for someone with all these qualities, what do I eat, and what do I wear?' The others answered: 'Whatever in this world counts as food at all — right down to what dogs eat, what worms eat, what insects and moths eat — every last thing any living creature eats is your food.' And that is the teaching given here: everything, without exception, is Prāṇa's food.
Close to the Sanskrit
She, Speech, having first set about giving tribute, indeed, so it is said, spoke, saying: 'Whatever, verily, I am — Vasiṣṭhā — whatever excellence is mine, that belongs to you alone; by that quality of excellence, you are that Vasiṣṭha' — thus. 'Whatever, verily, I am — the foothold — you are that foothold; whatever foothold is mine, that you are' — thus [said] the eye. The procedure is the same for the rest: they conferred, in sequence, the qualities of attainment, abode, and procreation-ness. 'If this is so, well have all of you given tribute; tell me, then — for me, thus distinguished by these qualities, what is food, or what is clothing?' The others said: 'Whatever in the world is called food at all, down to dogs, down to worms, down to insects and moths, and whatever is the dog's food, the worm's food, the insect's and moth's food too — together with that, absolutely everything whatsoever that is eaten by living creatures as food — all of that is your food.' The view that everything is Prāṇa's food is here being taught.
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 10.82· bhāṣya
केचित्तु सर्वभक्षणे दोषाभावं वदन्ति प्राणान्नविदः; तत् असत्, शास्त्रान्तरेण प्रतिषिद्धत्वात् । तेनास्य विकल्प इति चेत्, न, अविधायकत्वात् । न ह वा अस्यानन्नं जग्धं भवतीति- सर्वं प्राणस्यान्नमित्येतस्य विज्ञानस्य विहितस्य स्तुत्यर्थमेतत्; तेनैकवाक्यतापत्तेः ; न तु शास्त्रान्तरविहितस्य बाधने सामर्थ्यम्, अन्यपरत्वादस्य । प्राणमात्रस्य सर्वमन्नम् इत्येतद्दर्शनम् इह विधित्सितम्, न तु सर्वं भक्षयेदिति । यत्तु सर्वभक्षणे दोषाभावज्ञानम्, तत् मिथ्यैव, प्रमाणाभा- वात् । विदुषः प्राणत्वात् सर्वान्नोपपत्तेः सामर्थ्यात् अदोष एवेति चेत्, न, अशेषान्नत्वानुपपत्तेः ; सत्यं यद्यपि विद्वान् प्राणः, येन कार्यकारणसंघातेन विशिष्टस्य विद्वत्ता तेन कार्य- करणसंघातेन कृमिकीटदेवाद्यशेषान्नभक्षणं नोपपद्यते ; तेन तत्र अशेषान्नभक्षणे दोषाभावज्ञापनमनर्थकम्, अप्राप्तत्वा- दशेषान्नभक्षणदोषस्य । ननु प्राणः सन् भक्षयत्येव कृमिकी- टाद्यन्नमपि ; बाढम्, किंतु न तद्विषयः प्रतिषेधोऽस्ति ; तस्मात्- दैवरक्तं किंशुकम्- तत्र दोषाभावः ; अतः तद्रूपेण दोषाभावज्ञापनमनर्थकम्, अप्राप्तत्वात् अशेषान्नभक्षणदोष- स्य । येन तु कार्यकारणसंघातसंबन्धेन प्रतिषेधः क्रियते, तत्संबन्धेन तु इह नैव प्रतिप्रसवोऽस्ति । तस्मात् तत्प्रतिषेधातिक्रमे दोष एव स्यात्, अन्यविषयत्वात् 'न ह वै' इत्यादिः । न च ब्राह्मणादिशरीरस्य सर्वान्नत्वदर्शनमिह विधीयते, किंतु प्राणमात्रस्यैव । यथा च सामान्येन सर्वान्नस्य प्राणस्य किंचित् अन्नजातं कस्यचित् जीवनहेतुः, यथा विषं विषजस्य क्रिमेः, तदेव अन्यस्य प्राणान्नमपि सन् दृष्टमेव दोषमुत्पादयति मरणादिलक्षणम्— तथा सर्वान्नस्यापि प्राणस्य ,प्रतिषिद्धान्नभक्षणे ब्राह्मणत्वादिदेहसंबन्धात् दोष एव स्यात् । तस्मात् मिथ्याज्ञानमेव अभक्ष्यभक्षणे दोषाभावज्ञानम् ॥
In plain words
Some people say there's nothing wrong with eating absolutely anything, calling themselves knowers of the teaching that prana eats everything. That's simply wrong — another scripture forbids it outright. And no, this doesn't create some optional loophole, because that teaching was never issuing a command in the first place. When the Upanishad says nothing eaten is truly 'not-food' for the one who knows this, it isn't licensing you to eat whatever you like — it's praising a piece of knowledge already enjoined elsewhere, folding into that single teaching, not overriding a separate prohibition whose whole point lies elsewhere. What's actually being taught here is a vision — everything is food for prana — not an instruction that you should eat everything. The claim that there's no fault in eating everything is simply false, because nothing backs it up. Yes, the knower is identified with prana — but the very body and senses that make him a knower are the same body and senses that cannot possibly eat every last worm, insect, and god without remainder. So pointing to 'no fault' in eating literally everything solves nothing, because that fault was never on the table to begin with. 'But prana still eats the worm's food, doesn't it?' Granted — but that was never what the prohibition was about. Like a kiṃśuka flower that happens to be red by nature, not by anyone's hand, there's no fault in what happens by mere chance. Where the prohibition targets the body's actual connection to the act, though, nothing lifts it. Break it, and the fault stands — that old line about nothing being truly inedible was never talking about this. Nor is anyone teaching that a brahmin's own body is food for the whole world — only that prana is. And just as, in general, some particular food that keeps one creature alive — poison, for the worm that lives on poison — is still, for someone else, visibly fatal, so too: even though prana eats everything, eating forbidden food while wearing a body such as a brahmin's still carries its fault. The idea that there's no fault in eating what shouldn't be eaten is nothing but a mistaken idea.
Close to the Sanskrit
Some, however, [claiming to be] knowers of prāṇa-as-food, say there is no fault in eating everything; that is untrue, because it is prohibited by another scripture. If it be said that this creates an option, no — because that text does not enjoin an action. It is not that, for one who knows thus, non-food eaten becomes something [wrongly] eaten — the statement 'everything is prāṇa's food' is for the sake of praising the knowledge already enjoined, because it thereby forms one coherent statement with it; it does not have the power to override what is enjoined by another scripture, since its purport lies elsewhere. What is intended to be enjoined here is only the vision that everything is food for prāṇa alone, not that one should eat everything. As for the notion that there is no fault in eating everything, that is simply false, for lack of any valid proof. If it be said that, because the knower is prāṇa, since the capacity to eat all food is thereby established, there is no fault — no, because it cannot be established that literally everything without exception is eaten. True, although the knower is prāṇa, by that very body-and-senses aggregate by which the person so qualified has knowerhood, the eating of every food without exception — worms, insects, gods, and so on — is not possible; therefore, declaring there to be no fault in eating everything without exception is pointless, since that fault was never a real possibility to begin with. [Objection:] But surely prāṇa, existing [in the body], does eat even the food of worms and insects; [Answer:] granted — but that is not the topic of the prohibition; therefore, like the kiṃśuka reddened by mere chance, there is no fault there; hence, declaring there to be no fault in that mode is pointless, since that fault was never applicable there. But where the prohibition is made with reference to the connection through the body-and-senses aggregate, with respect to that very connection there is indeed no retraction here. Therefore, in transgressing that prohibition, there would indeed be a fault, since the phrase 'na ha vai' and so on concerns a different matter. Nor is the vision of all-foodness of a body such as a brahmin's being enjoined here, but only of prāṇa alone. And just as, generally, of prāṇa for whom everything is food, some particular kind of food is a cause of life for one creature — as poison is for the worm born of poison — that very thing, though it is also food for prāṇa in another, visibly produces a fault such as death — so too, even though prāṇa is the eater of all food, in eating forbidden food, on account of the connection with a body such as a brahmin's, there would indeed be a fault. Therefore, the notion that there is no fault in eating the inedible is simply false knowledge.
Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 10.83· bhāṣya
आपो वास इति ; आपः भक्ष्यमाणाः वासःस्थानीयास्तव । अत्र च प्राणस्य आपो वास इत्येतद्दर्शनं विधीयते ; न तु वासःकार्ये आपो विनियोक्तुं शक्याः ; तस्मात् यथाप्राप्ते अब्भक्षणे दर्शनमात्रं कर्तव्यम् । न ह वै अस्य सर्वं प्राणस्यान्नमित्येवंविदः अनन्नम् अनदनीयं जग्धं भुक्तं न भवति ह ; यद्यपि अनेन अनदनीयं भुक्तम्, अदनीयमेव भुक्तं स्यात्, न तु तत्कृतदोषेण लिप्यते— इत्येतत् विद्यास्तुतिरित्यावोचाम । तथा न अनन्नं प्रतिगृहीतम् ; यद्यपि अप्रतिग्राह्यं ता आचमनस्य स्यान्; न च कार्यद्वयम् आचमनस्य एकस्य युक्तम्; यदि प्रायत्यार्थम्, न अनग्नतार्थम्; अथ अनग्न- तार्थम्, न प्रायत्यार्थम्; यस्मादेवम्, तस्मात् द्वितीयम् आ- चमनान्तरं प्राणस्यानग्नताकरणाय भवतु- न, क्रियाद्वि- त्वोपपत्तेः; द्वे ह्येते किये, भोक्ष्यमाणस्य भुक्तवतश्च यत् आचमनं स्मृतिविहितम्, तत् प्रायत्यार्थं भवति क्रियामा- त्रमेव; न तु तत्र प्रायत्यं दर्शनादि अपेक्ष्यते, तत्र च आचमनाङ्गभूतास्वप्सु वासोविज्ञानं प्राणस्य इतिकर्तव्यतया चोद्यते, न तु तस्मिन्क्रियमाणे आचमनस्य प्रायत्यार्थता बाध्यते, क्रियान्तरत्वादाचमनस्य । तस्मात् भोक्ष्यमाणस्य भुक्तवतश्च यत् आचमनम्, तत्र आपो वासः प्राणस्येति दर्शनमात्रं विधीयते, अप्राप्तत्वादन्यतः ॥
In plain words
'Water is a garment' — when you drink it, water plays the part of clothing for you, prana. Here too, what's being taught is only a way of seeing: water as prana's garment. Water obviously can't actually function as clothing, so all that's asked, when you drink water as you normally would, is to hold that vision in mind. As already said: for someone who knows that everything is prana's food, eating something inedible doesn't make him a transgressor — he still eats what's technically not-food, but he isn't stained by the fault of it. That was praise for the teaching, not a license. In the same way, water isn't wrongly 'accepted' as a gift by drinking it. And a single ritual sipping can't be doing two jobs at once — either it's for purity or it's for removing a kind of ritual 'nakedness,' not both. So don't imagine a second sipping is needed to clothe prana: two acts are already built into the practice, one before eating and one after, both prescribed by tradition purely for purity, nothing more. No visible cleanliness is required there. What is required, in those very waters used for sipping, is simply remembering: this water is prana's garment. That doesn't cancel the sipping's real purpose of purity — recognizing water as a garment is a separate act entirely. So in both sippings, before the meal and after, all that's enjoined is this one vision, water as prana's garment, because there was nowhere else you could have learned it.
Close to the Sanskrit
'Water is a garment' — waters, being drunk, stand in the place of a garment for you. Here too, the vision that water, belonging to prāṇa, is a garment is enjoined; but water cannot actually be employed for the function a garment serves; therefore, on the ordinary occasion of drinking water, only the vision is to be performed. It is not that, for one who knows thus that everything is prāṇa's food, non-food — the inedible — eaten becomes something [wrongly] eaten; even though the inedible is eaten by him, it would be as if the edible alone were eaten, but he is not tainted by the fault caused by it — this point, we have already stated, is a praise of the teaching. Likewise, non-food is not [wrongly] accepted as a gift; even though, if water were unacceptable, that would belong to the sipping-rite — nor is a double function proper for the single sipping-rite; if it is for the sake of purity, it is not for the sake of removing 'nakedness'; if it is for the sake of removing 'nakedness', it is not for the sake of purity; since this is so, therefore [one might propose that] a second act of sipping should exist, for effecting prāṇa's 'non-nakedness' — no, because a duality of acts is already accounted for; these are indeed two acts: for one about to eat and for one who has eaten, the sipping enjoined by the smṛti texts is for the sake of purity, being a mere act alone; there, purity by way of seeing and the like is not required; and there, in the waters forming part of the sipping-rite, the recognition that water is a garment for prāṇa is prescribed as one detail of how the rite is performed — but it is not that, when that recognition is being performed, the sipping-rite's purpose of purity is thereby cancelled, since it is a separate act from the sipping-rite itself. Therefore, in the sipping done by one about to eat and one who has eaten, there the vision alone that water is prāṇa's garment is enjoined, because it could not have been known from any other source.