त्रयो धर्मस्कन्धा यज्ञोऽध्ययनं दानमिति प्रथमस्तप एव द्वितीयो ब्रह्मचार्याचार्यकुलवासी तृतीयोऽत्यन्तमात्मानमाचार्यकुलेऽवसादयन्सर्व एते पुण्यलोका भवन्ति ब्रह्मसंस्थोऽमृतत्वमेति ॥ २.२३.१ ॥
In plain words
There are three branches of duty. Sacrifice, study and giving is the first; austerity alone is the second; the student of sacred knowledge dwelling in the teacher's house, wearing himself out utterly in the teacher's house, is the third. All these gain the worlds won by merit; but he who is established in Brahman goes to immortality.
The commentators
Chāndogyopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 6.303· bhāṣya
ओंकारस्योपासनविध्यर्थं त्रयो धर्मस्कन्धा इत्याद्यार- भ्यते । नैव मन्तव्यं सामावयवभूतस्यैवोद्गीथादिलक्षणस्यो- कारस्योपासनात्फल प्राप्यत इति, किं तर्हि, यत्सर्वैरपि सामोपासनैः कर्मभिश्चाप्राप्यं तत्फलममृतत्वं केवलादोंकारो- पासनात्प्राप्यत इति । तत्स्तुत्यर्थं सामप्रकरणे तदुपन्यासः । त्रयः त्रिसंख्याका धर्मस्य स्कन्धाः धर्मस्कन्धाः धर्मप्रवि- भागा इत्यर्थः, के ते इति, आह— यज्ञः अग्निहोत्रादिः, अध्ययनं स नियमस्य ऋगादेरभ्यासः, दानं बहिर्वेदि यथा- शक्ति द्रव्यसंविभागो भिक्षमाणेभ्यः, इति एष प्रथमः धर्म- स्कन्ध गृहस्थसमवेतत्वात् तन्निर्वर्तकेन गृहस्थेन निर्दिश्यते, प्रथम एक इत्यर्थः, द्वितीयतृतीयश्रवणात् न आद्यार्थः । तप एव द्वितीयः, तप इति कृच्छ्रचान्द्रायणादि तद्वान् तापसः परिव्राड्वा, न ब्रह्मसंस्थः आश्रमधर्ममात्रसंस्थः, ब्रह्म- संस्थस्य तु अमृतत्वश्रवणात्, द्वितीयः धर्मस्कन्धः । ब्रह्म- चारी आचार्यकुले वस्तुं शीलमस्येत्याचार्यकुलवासी । अत्य- न्तं यावज्जीवम् आत्मानं नियमैः आचार्यकुले अवसादयन् क्षपयन् देहं तृतीयः धर्मस्कन्धः । अत्यन्तमित्यादिविशेषणान्नै- ष्ठिक इति गम्यते । उपकुर्वाणस्य स्वाध्यायग्रहणार्थत्वात् न पुण्यलोकत्वं ब्रह्मचर्येण । सर्व एते त्रयोऽप्याश्रमिणो यथो- क्तैर्धर्मैः पुण्यलोका भवन्ति, पुण्यो लोको येषां त इमे पुण्यलोका आश्रमिणो भवन्ति । अवशिष्टस्त्वनुक्तः परि- व्राट् तुरीयः ब्रह्मसंस्थः ब्रह्मणि सम्यक्स्थितः, सोऽमृतत्वं पुण्यलोकविलक्षणममरणभावमात्यन्तिकम् एति, न आपेक्षि- कम्, देवाद्यमृतत्ववत्, पुण्यलोकात्पृथक् अमृतत्वस्य विभागकरणात् ॥
In plain words
To introduce the contemplation of the sacred syllable Om, the scripture begins: 'There are three branches of duty...' We must not think that the ultimate fruit comes only from meditating on Om as a mere part of the sacrificial chant. Rather, that supreme fruit of absolute immortality—which no ritual or ordinary meditation can ever reach—is attained through the pure contemplation of Om alone. This section introduces it here to sing its praises. The 'three branches' are the divisions of a righteous life. What are they? First: sacrifice, study, and giving. This represents the householder's path. Second: austerity, practiced by the forest hermit or ascetic who is dedicated to penance but not yet fully anchored in the Absolute. Third: the lifelong student who dwells in the home of the teacher, dedicating his entire life and body to sacred discipline. All three of these paths lead to the meritorious worlds of heaven. But the fourth—the wanderer who is fully, beautifully established in the non-dual reality of Brahman—attains true, absolute immortality. This is not the temporary, relative survival enjoyed by the gods, but the ultimate freedom that transcends all worlds.
Close to the Sanskrit
For the purpose of the injunction of meditation on Omkara, 'three are the branches of duty' etc. is begun. It should not be thought that the fruit is obtained only from the meditation on Omkara which is a part of the Sama chant, such as Udgitha. What then? That fruit which is immortality, unattainable by all Sama meditations and rituals, is obtained from the meditation on Omkara alone. For its praise, its mention is made in the section on Sama. 'Three' means three in number. 'Of duty' 'branches' means divisions of duty. Which are they? He says: sacrifice, i.e., Agnihotra etc.; study, i.e., the practice of Rigveda etc. with rules; charity, i.e., distribution of wealth outside the altar according to capacity to those who beg. Thus, this first branch of duty, being associated with the householder, is indicated by the householder who performs it. 'First' means one, not the beginning, because of the hearing of second and third. 'Austerity indeed is the second.' Austerity means Krichhra, Chandrayana, etc. One who has that is an ascetic or a wanderer, not one established in Brahman, but one established only in the duties of the ashrama, because immortality is heard of for the one established in Brahman. This is the second branch of duty. A brahmachari is one whose nature is to dwell in the teacher's house, i.e., a resident of the teacher's house. Extremely, i.e., lifelong, wearing down himself with rules in the teacher's house, decaying the body, is the third branch of duty. Because of the qualification 'extremely' etc., a perpetual student (naishthika) is understood. For the temporary student (upakurvana), because his study is for the sake of acquiring knowledge, there is no attainment of holy worlds through brahmacharya. All these three stage-dwellers, by the described duties, become possessors of holy worlds. Those whose world is holy are these holy-world stage-dwellers. But the remaining, unmentioned wanderer, the fourth, established in Brahman, completely established in Brahman, he attains immortality, which is distinct from the holy worlds, absolute deathlessness, not relative like the immortality of the gods, because of the separate classification of immortality from the holy worlds.
Chāndogyopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 6.304· bhāṣya
यदि च पुण्यलोकातिशयमात्रममृतत्वमभविष्यत्, ततः पुण्यलोकत्वाद्विभक्तं नावक्ष्यत् । विभक्तोपदेशाच्च आत्यन्ति- कममृतत्वमिति गम्यते । अत्र च आश्रमधर्मफलोपन्यास प्रणवसेवास्तुत्यर्थं, न तत्फलविध्यर्थं, स्तुतये च प्रणवसेवाया, आश्रमधर्मफलविधये च, इति हि भिद्येत वाक्यम् । तस्मात्स्मृतिप्रसिद्धाश्रमफलानुवादेन प्रणवसेवाफलममृतत्वं ब्रुवन् प्रणवसेवा स्तौति । यथा पूणवर्मण सेवा भक्तपरिधानमात्रफला, राजवर्मणस्तु सेवा राज्यतुल्यफलेति- तद्वत् । प्रणवश्च तत्सत्यं परं ब्रह्म तत्प्रतीकत्वात् । 'एतद्ध्येवाक्षरं ब्रह्म एतद्ध्येवाक्षरं परम्' इत्याद्याम्नानात्काठके, युक्तं तत्सेवातोऽमृतत्वम् ॥
In plain words
Had immortality been nothing more than an elevated condition of the meritorious worlds, the text would not have distinguished it from them. This distinct teaching proves that immortality is absolute and unconditioned. Furthermore, mentioning the rewards of the various life stages here is meant to glorify the meditation on OM, not to prescribe those worldly rewards. Just as serving a minor lord yields mere garments while serving a great king yields an entire kingdom, so it is here...
Close to the Sanskrit
And if immortality had been merely an excess of meritorious worlds, then the scripture would not have spoken of it as separate from the state of meritorious worlds. From the separate teaching, it is understood that immortality is absolute. Here, the mention of the fruits of ashrama duties is for the purpose of praising the worship of Pranava, not for enjoining those fruits...
Chāndogyopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 6.305· bhāṣya
अत्र आहुः केचित्- चतुर्णामाश्रमिणामविशेषेण स्वधर्मानुष्ठानात्पुण्यलोकता इहोक्ता ज्ञानवर्जितानाम् 'सव एते पुण्यलोका भवन्ति' इति। नात्र परिव्राडवशेषित, परिव्राजकस्यापि ज्ञानं यमा नियमाश्च तप एवेति, तप एव द्वितीय इत्यत्र तप शब्देन परिव्राट्तापसौ गृहीतौ । अतस्तेषामेव चतुर्णां यो ब्रह्मसंस्थः प्रणवसेवक सोऽमृतत्वमेतीति चतुर्णामधिकृतत्वाविशेषात्, ब्रह्मसंस्थत्वेऽप्रतिषेधाच्च, स्वकर्मच्छिद्रे च ब्रह्मसंस्थताया सामर्थ्योपपत्ते । न च यववराहादिशब्दवत् ब्रह्मसंस्थशब्द परिव्राजके रूढ, ब्रह्मणि संस्थितिनिमित्तमुपादाय प्रवृत्तत्वात् । न हि रूढिशब्दा निमित्तमुपाददते । सर्वेषा च ब्रह्मणि स्थितिरुपपद्यते । यत्र यत्र निमित्तमस्ति ब्रह्मणि सस्थिति, तस्य तस्य निमित्तवतो वाचक सन्त ब्रह्मसस्थशब्द परिव्राडेकविषये सकोचे कारणाभावात् निरो द्धुमयुक्तम् । न च पारिव्राज्याश्रमधर्ममात्रेणामृतत्त्वम् , ज्ञा नानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गात् । पारिव्राज्यधर्मयुक्तमेव ज्ञानममृतत्वसाध नमिति चेत् , न, आश्रमधर्मत्वाविशेषात् । धर्मो वा ज्ञान- विशिष्टोऽमृतत्वसाधनमित्येतदपि सर्वाश्रमधर्माणामविशिष्टम् । न च वचनमस्ति परिव्राजकस्यैव ब्रह्मसस्थस्य मोक्ष , नान्येषाम् इति । ज्ञानान्मोक्ष इति च सर्वोपनिषदा सिद्धा न्त । तस्माद्य एव ब्रह्मसस्थ स्वाश्रमविहितधर्मवताम् , सोऽमृतत्वमेतीति ॥
In plain words
Some commentators argue here that the attainment of heavenly worlds is promised to all four stages of life alike, provided they perform their duties but lack direct realization. They claim the sannyasi is not excluded from this, since the sannyasi's disciplines are also a form of austerity, and 'austerity' can include both the hermit and the wanderer. Thus, they argue, whichever of the four orders becomes anchored in Brahman and contemplates Om attains immortality, since everyone is equally eligible and there is no rule forbidding anyone from abiding in the Absolute. They even suggest one can meditate on Brahman in the gaps between ritual duties. Furthermore, they claim 'established in Brahman' is not a title exclusive to the sannyasi, but a descriptive term applicable to anyone who abides in the Divine. But this cannot be. If the mere outward lifestyle of a wanderer brought liberation, spiritual wisdom would be useless. If you say wisdom only works when combined with the sannyasi lifestyle, we reply that this lifestyle is still just an outward duty. If you say duty combined with wisdom brings liberation, then this should apply to the duties of all stages of life. There is no scriptural text declaring that only a sannyasi can attain liberation. The final, unshakeable truth of all Upanishads is that liberation comes from wisdom alone. Therefore, whoever is truly established in Brahman—transcending all outward roles—attains absolute immortality.
Close to the Sanskrit
Here some say: The attainment of holy worlds is stated here for the four stage-dwellers without distinction, who perform their own duties but are devoid of knowledge, as 'all these become possessors of holy worlds.' The wanderer is not excluded here, because for the wanderer also, knowledge, restraints, and observances are austerity indeed, and by the word 'austerity' in 'austerity indeed is the second,' both the wanderer and the ascetic are taken. Therefore, among those four, whoever is established in Brahman, a worshipper of Pranava, he attains immortality, because of the equal qualification of the four and because of the lack of prohibition against being established in Brahman, and because of the feasibility of being established in Brahman in the intervals of one's own actions. And the word 'established in Brahman' is not conventionally fixed on the wanderer like the words 'yava' or 'varaha', because it is applied by taking the cause of being established in Brahman. Conventional words do not take a cause. And establishment in Brahman is possible for all. Wherever there is the cause, namely establishment in Brahman, the word 'established in Brahman' is expressive of that possessor of the cause, and it is improper to restrict it to the wanderer alone due to the absence of any reason for restriction. And immortality is not by the mere duty of the order of sannyasa, because of the consequence of the uselessness of knowledge. If it is said that knowledge accompanied by the duty of sannyasa is the means to immortality, no, because of the equal status of being an ashrama duty. Or, if duty qualified by knowledge is the means to immortality, this also is common to all ashrama duties. And there is no statement that liberation is only for the wanderer who is established in Brahman, not for others. And liberation is from knowledge, which is the established conclusion of all Upanishads. Therefore, whoever among those possessing the duties ordained for their own ashrama is established in Brahman, he attains immortality.
Chāndogyopaniṣadbhāṣyam· Leaf 6.306· bhāṣya
न, कर्मनिमित्तविद्याप्रत्यययोर्विरोधात् । कर्त्रादिकारकक्रि याफलभेदप्रत्ययवत्त्व हि निमित्तमुपादाय इद कुरु इद मा कार्षी इति कर्मविधय प्रवृत्ता । तच्च निमित्त न शास्त्रकृ तम्, सर्वप्राणिषु दर्शनात् । 'सत् एकमेवाद्वितीयम्' 'आत्मैवेद सर्वम्' 'ब्रह्मैवेद सर्वम्' इति शास्त्रजन्य प्रत्य- यो विद्यारूप स्वाभाविक क्रियाकारकफलभेदप्रत्यय कमवि- विनिमित्तमनुपमृद्य न जायते, भेदाभेदप्रत्यययोर्विरोधात् । न हि तैमिरिकद्विचन्द्रादिभेदप्रत्ययमनुपमृद्य तिमिरापगमे चन्द्राद्येकत्वप्रत्यय उपजायते, विद्याविद्याप्रत्यययोर्विरोधात् । कामात्मता न प्रशस्तेत्येव विज्ञानवद्भि काम्यानि कर्माणि नानुष्ठीयन्त इति, काम्यकर्मविधय उच्छिद्यन्ते, अनुष्ठीयन्त एव कामिभिरिति, तथा ब्रह्मसंस्थैर्ब्रह्मविद्भिर्नानुष्ठीयन्ते कर्माणीति न तद्विधय उच्छिद्यन्ते, अब्रह्मविद्भि रनुष्ठीयन्त एवेति । परिव्राजकाना भिक्षाचरणादिवत् उत्पन्नैकत्वप्रत्य यानामपि गृहस्थादीनामग्निहोत्रादिकर्मानिवृत्तिरिति चेत्, न, प्रामाण्यचिन्ताया पुरुषप्रवृत्तेरदृष्टान्तत्वात्— न हि, नाभिचरेदिति प्रतिषिद्धमप्यभिचरण कश्चित्कुर्वन्दृष्ट इति, शास्त्रौ द्वेषरहितेनापि विवेकिना अभिचरण क्रियते । न च कर्मविधिप्रवृत्तिनिमित्ते भेदप्रत्यये बाधिते अग्निहोत्रादौ प्रव र्तक निमित्तमस्ति, परिव्राजकस्येव भिक्षाचरणादौ बुभुक्षादि प्रवर्तकम् । इहाप्यकरणे प्रत्यवायभय प्रवर्तकमिति चेत्, न, भेदप्रत्ययवतोऽधिकृतत्वात् । भेदप्रत्ययवान् अनुपमर्दितभेदबु द्धिर्विषया य, स कर्मण्यधिकृत इत्यवोचाम, यो हि अधिकृत कर्मणि, तस्य तदकरणे प्रत्यवाय, न निवृत्ताधि कारस्य, गृहस्थस्येव, ब्रह्मचारिणो विशेषधर्माननुष्ठाने । एव तर्हि सर्व स्वाश्रमस्थ उत्पन्नैकत्वप्रत्यय परिव्राडिति चेत्, न, स्वस्वामित्वभेदबुद्ध्यनिवृत्ते, कर्मार्थत्वाच्च इतराश्रमा णाम्— ‘अथ कर्म कुर्वीय’ इति श्रुते । तस्मात् स्वस्वा-
In plain words
This is incorrect, because the mindset required for ritual action directly contradicts the realization of truth. Ritual commands operate entirely within the world of duality, telling you 'do this' or 'avoid that' based on the assumption that you are an active agent who will reap a specific result. This sense of separation is not taught by scripture; it is a natural, instinctive delusion shared by all creatures. But the wisdom born of scripture declares: 'Reality is One without a second,' 'All this is the Self,' and 'All this is Brahman.' This liberating knowledge cannot even arise until you dissolve the instinctive belief in doership and division, because the perception of oneness and the perception of separation cannot coexist. Just as a person cured of double vision can no longer see two moons, a mind awakened to truth can no longer perceive duality. You might object that if the wise stop performing rituals, the scriptural commands will become useless. We reply: those commands remain valid for those who are still driven by desire and have not yet realized Brahman. You might also argue that just as an enlightened sannyasi still begs for food, an enlightened householder can continue performing fire rituals. But human habits cannot dictate scriptural truth. Just because some people practice forbidden rites out of malice does not mean a wise, loving person would do so. Once the illusion of duality is shattered, there is no longer any inner drive to perform rituals—unlike the physical hunger that naturally impels a sannyasi to beg. Nor can the fear of sin motivate an enlightened soul, because ritual obligations only apply to those who still believe in separation. A householder who realizes oneness is no longer bound by householder duties, just as a householder is no longer bound by the rules of a student. If you then claim that anyone in any stage of life who realizes oneness is effectively a sannyasi, we say no: the very structure of the other stages of life is built upon ownership, possessions, and the active performance of work. Therefore, true renunciation is distinct.
Close to the Sanskrit
No, because of the contradiction between the cognitions of the cause of action and knowledge. For, taking the cause which is the possession of the cognition of distinction of agent, instrument, action, and fruit, the injunctions of action are active, as 'do this, do not do this.' And that cause is not made by scripture, because of being observed in all living beings. The cognition generated by scripture, of the nature of knowledge, as 'Existence is one alone without a second,' 'All this is indeed the Self,' 'All this is indeed Brahman,' does not arise without destroying the natural cognition of distinction of action, agent, and fruit, which is the cause of the injunctions of action, because of the contradiction between the cognitions of difference and non-difference. Indeed, the cognition of oneness of the moon does not arise upon the removal of ophthalmia without destroying the perception of two moons by the person with ophthalmia, because of the contradiction between the cognitions of knowledge and ignorance. If it is said that because desire-filled nature is not praised, desire-driven actions are not performed by the wise, and thus desire-driven injunctions are abolished, no, they are performed indeed by those with desire; similarly, actions are not performed by those established in Brahman, the knowers of Brahman, and thus those injunctions are not abolished, because they are performed indeed by those who do not know Brahman. If it is said that like the begging of alms by wanderers, even for householders who have attained the cognition of oneness, there is non-cessation of rituals like Agnihotra, no, because human behavior cannot serve as an example in the inquiry into scriptural authority. Indeed, because someone is seen performing black magic which is prohibited as 'one should not perform black magic,' black magic is not performed by a wise person who is free from hatred. And when the cognition of difference, which is the cause of the activity of ritual injunctions, is negated, there is no motivating cause in Agnihotra etc., like hunger etc. which are motivating in the begging of alms for a wanderer. If it is said that here also, the fear of sin upon non-performance is the motivator, no, because only the one who has the cognition of difference is qualified. We have said that he who has the cognition of difference, whose intellect of difference is undestroyed, is the subject qualified for action. For, he who is qualified for action, for him there is sin upon its non-performance, not for the one whose qualification has ceased, like a householder upon the non-performance of the specific duties of a brahmachari. If it is said that in that case, everyone who is established in his own ashrama and has attained the cognition of oneness is a wanderer, no, because of the non-cessation of the cognition of difference of ownership, and because other ashramas are meant for action, as in the scripture 'then I shall perform action.' Therefore, own and own...