The sages, seeking clarity on the nature of the self and its journey, discussed the scriptural references that illuminate its subtle mysteries. They noted that purification is spoken of in relation to the self, and its absence is also mentioned, showing that the self is something distinct, requiring purification and yet sometimes absent from certain states. This absence determines the activities associated with the self, revealing its influence even when it is not directly present. They observed that hearing and study are prohibited in certain contexts, reinforcing the notion that the self is unique and not always accessible through ordinary means. Tradition too supports these distinctions, as passed down by the wise. When the self departs, trembling occurs, a sign of its significance. Light is sometimes seen, marking its presence, and space is referred to as something different, with various designations that further distinguish it. There are distinctions made in states such as deep sleep and departure, showing the self’s varying manifestations. Words like “lord” and others are used, indicating its elevated status. Some argue that inference is possible for certain individuals, but the sages reject this, explaining that acceptance is established through analogies, such as that of the body, which is clearly demonstrated. The self is subtle, as is fitting for its nature. Its existence depends on that subtlety, making its presence meaningful. There is no clear statement regarding its knowability, emphasizing its transcendence. If one claims that the self speaks, the wise do not accept this, as context reveals that such speech is not attributed to the self. Thus, the inquiry and teaching focus only on three elements, and also on the great one, the supreme self. There is no distinction, just as with the sacrificial cup, which serves its purpose regardless of its form. Some begin their study with light, as certain traditions emphasize this approach. Instruction is often given through illustrations, such as honey and similar examples, removing any contradiction in understanding. Even when numbers are included, there is no conflict, for knowledge is absent and excess is avoided. Vital forces and other elements are considered, as indicated by the remainder of the scriptural passages. For some, light is not regarded as real food, and space and other elements are mentioned as causes, as stated. Attraction is another factor, as the self is drawn towards certain experiences. The world is spoken of in relation to the self, showing its connection to all that exists. If it is said that the marks belong to the individual soul or the chief vital force, this has already been explained. Jaimini, a sage, holds that these marks serve another purpose, based on the questions and explanations found in scripture, and some others agree with him. The connection of sentences in the texts supports this view. Āśmarathya asserts that the mark is established by the proposition itself, while Audulomi states that it is about to depart, due to its current state. Kāśakṛtsna maintains that the self continues to exist. The original nature of the self is affirmed, as there is no contradiction arising from the propositions and illustrations provided. Teaching regarding intention further clarifies its purpose, and both traditions declare this directly, leaving no room for doubt. The self acts for its own sake, undergoing transformation, and its source is spoken of in the scriptures. By understanding this, all aspects have been explained, and the sages affirm: all have been explained, all have been explained. When an objection arises that Smṛti, or traditional memory texts, would be excluded, the sages clarify that this fault does not occur here, for such exclusion arises only in other Smṛtis. Moreover, other alternatives are not observed, confirming the unique and comprehensive nature of the teaching. Thus, the inquiry into the self reaches its fulfillment, guided by tradition, illustration, and wise reasoning.