Let us contemplate the subtle wisdom revealed in these revered verses, which unfold a careful inquiry into the nature of the ultimate reality, Brahman, and its distinction from other entities described in the sacred texts. The teaching begins by considering what lies within, for the scriptures speak of an inner attribute, an essential quality that is the focus of inquiry. Yet, the texts also designate a difference, making it clear that this inner reality is not the same as other entities—it is another, distinct in its nature. When space is mentioned, it is not without purpose; there is an indicative mark, a sign, that points to something deeper. In the same way, the vital force—prāṇa—is also considered, for similar reasons. And when light is spoken of, it is not merely the physical light, but the mention of its course, its path, hints at a greater principle. Should one raise an objection, arguing that the mention of metre in the texts means the reference is not to the ultimate, the reply is that this is not so. For the scripture speaks of the offering of the mind, and thus is the true vision understood—not merely the external, but the internal sacrifice. Moreover, the appropriateness of the designation is affirmed, for the cause of the elements and all that follows is rightly attributed to that inner reality. If another objection is raised, pointing to a difference in teaching, it is clarified: there is no contradiction, for both teachings can be harmonized. The vital force is again brought into connection, showing its subsequent relationship to the ultimate. If it is questioned whether the teacher refers only to his own self, the answer is that the ground is the relation to the self, the ātman, which is the foundation of all instruction. The teaching, therefore, proceeds according to the view of the scripture, just as in the case of the sage Vamadeva, who realized the truth through scriptural vision. If doubts arise because of the marks of the individual soul and the chief vital force, it is explained that the threefold meditation is based on both, and their connection is established here. This teaching is found everywhere, for it is well known in all the scriptures. The intended attribute—what is meant to be taught—is always appropriate to Brahman, the ultimate. But this is not the embodied soul, for that would be impossible; the texts do not support such an identification. Further, the embodied soul is described as agent and doer of action, which is not the nature of Brahman. The distinctive use of words in the scriptures makes this clear, and what is remembered from tradition supports this view. If someone argues that childhood or other designations imply the embodied soul, it is not so; for the self is indeed subject to instruction, just as space is, and so the teaching remains valid. If it is suggested that enjoyment is the goal, the answer is that this is not so, for there is a distinction between the enjoyer and the enjoyed. Brahman is described as the eater, the one who grasps both the moving and the unmoving, and the context of the teaching supports this understanding. The scriptures speak of two selves entering the cave of the heart, and such is seen by the wise. The presence of a qualifier, the inner presence, and the designation of place and so on—all point to the distinction of Brahman. Moreover, Brahman is distinguished by happiness, and thus, it is affirmed: this is Brahman. The journey, the course described in the Upanishads, is also mentioned, and no other can fulfill these characteristics, for only Brahman is endless and beyond all impossibility. When the inner ruler, the divine, the world, and so on are spoken of, the qualities attributed are those of Brahman. Nor is it the one described in tradition as a limited self, for those qualities are not attributed to Brahman, and the traditional self is embodied. Both—the individual soul and the chief vital force—are studied as distinct. Brahman is described by qualities such as invisibility, which are stated as its attributes. Because of the distinction in qualification and designation, the other two—the individual soul and the vital force—are not meant. The mention of form in the scriptures further clarifies the teaching. Vaiśvānara, the cosmic fire, is indicated by the specific use of a general term, showing the subtlety of scriptural language. If it is said that inference is remembered, that may be so, but it does not alter the essential teaching. If it is objected that the reference is only to what is established within by words and so on, this is not the case; for perception and instruction show otherwise, and this is also studied as the person, the puruṣa. For this very reason, it is not a deity or an element that is being taught, but Brahman itself—the ultimate, all-pervading reality revealed through the scriptures.