He who knows, in the manner described, the Puruṣa directly, as 'I', and Nature, of the character described, marked by ignorance, together with the qualities, its own modifications, brought by knowledge to non-being, made into an absence: such a one, however he may be conducting himself, in whatever state, is not born again, after the falling of this body of the knower, for another body; he does not take on another body. By the word 'however' it is understood, all the more, that one who keeps to his own conduct is not born. Now, although the absence of rebirth after the arising of knowledge has been stated, still, of the actions done before the arising of knowledge, and of those done in the time after, and of those done in countless past births that have gone by, the destruction without their giving fruit is not fitting; so there would be three births, since the loss of what has been done is not fitting, as with the actions, set toward their fruit, that have begun the present birth. And no distinction among actions is grasped. Therefore the three kinds of action would begin three births, or all together would begin one birth; otherwise, with what has been done destroyed, there would follow a lack of all assurance everywhere, and scripture would be purposeless. So what was said, that he is not born again, would be unfitting. This is wrong. The burning-up of all the actions of the knower has been told by hundreds of scriptures, 'who knows Brahman becomes Brahman itself' (Muṇḍaka 3.2.9), 'for him the delay is only so long' (Chāndogya 6.14.2), 'all his actions are burnt up like the tip of a reed' (Chāndogya 5.24.3) and the like. Here too the burning-up of all action has been told, by 'as a kindled fire' (Gītā 4.37) and the like, and will be told again. And it is so by reasoning: actions whose seed-occasion is the afflictions, ignorance and desire, begin the sprout of another birth, and here too the Blessed Lord has said, here and there, that actions joined with the sense of I and with aim begin a fruit, not the others. And it is said, 'as seeds burnt by fire do not sprout again, so the Self does not come to be again, the afflictions being burnt by knowledge'. Let it be granted that the actions done in the time after the arising of knowledge are burnt by knowledge, since they keep company with knowledge; but the burning of the actions done before the arising of knowledge in this birth, and of those done in past births, is not fitting. No: because of the qualification 'all actions'. If it be said that only all the actions done in the time after the arising of knowledge are meant, the answer is no: because there is no cause for the narrowing-down. As for what was said, that, just as the actions that have begun the present birth are not destroyed but are set toward giving their fruit even when knowledge is present, so the destruction of the actions whose fruit has not begun is not fitting: that is wrong. They are like a released arrow, since their fruit has begun. As an arrow released to pierce a target, even after the piercing of the target, comes to rest only by falling, when the speed it was given is spent: so the action that has begun the body, even when the purpose of the body's continuance has ceased, goes on, as before, until the speed of its impression is spent. But as that same arrow, not released but only fitted to the bow, with the speed that would occasion its flight not begun, is drawn back: so the actions whose fruit has not begun, standing in their own seat, are made seedless by knowledge. Therefore it is rightly said, and is established, that after the falling of this body of the knower he is not born again. Here, with regard to the seeing of the Self, these means, meditation and the rest, are told as alternatives.
Contemporary English rendering of the Sanskrit bhāṣya, pending scholar review.