The revered teachings of the scriptures unfold with clarity, guiding seekers through subtle truths. The path of knowledge is to be understood as the scriptures themselves present it, just as the sage Vamadeva realized. Even when doubts arise—perhaps because the individual soul and the chief vital force seem to have distinguishing marks—the scriptures resolve them. Both are included in the threefold meditations described, and their connection is established through the teachings. This teaching is found everywhere, for it is well known and widely acknowledged. The qualities described are fitting for the intended subject. Yet, it cannot be the embodied soul that is ultimately meant, for that would be impossible. The texts refer to agency and action, but the words used are distinct and precise, and tradition remembers it so. If one objects, saying that childhood or certain designations imply otherwise, that is not correct; for, like space, the true subject is open to instruction and realization. Nor is the highest state simply enjoyment, for there remains a distinction. The one described as the "eater" is so called because it grasps both the moving and unmoving aspects of existence, and the context further confirms this. Scripture speaks of two selves entering the cave of the heart, and this is witnessed in the sacred texts. The presence of a qualifier distinguishes them, and the inner presence is affirmed. The texts speak of location and other attributes, and there is mention of a distinction marked by happiness. Therefore, the one truly meant is Brahman. The Upanishads describe a particular course, and this supports the teaching. The other, the individual soul, cannot be intended, for it is subject to endless wandering and limitation, which is impossible for Brahman. In the teachings about the inner ruler, the divine, the world, and so forth, the qualities of Brahman are clearly attributed. Tradition does not ascribe these qualities to the individual soul, for it remains embodied. Both—the individual soul and the inner ruler—are studied as distinct. The attributes of Brahman, such as invisibility, are explicitly stated. Because of the distinction in qualification and designation, neither the individual soul nor the chief vital force is meant. The mention of form further clarifies the teaching. When the term Vaiśvānara is used, it is intended as a specific application of a general term. If some say that inference is remembered, that may be so, but it does not contradict the scripture. If it is argued that, because Brahman is established within by words and so on, it cannot be so, this is not correct. Perception and instruction support the scriptural teaching, and Brahman is also studied as the person. Therefore, the subject is neither a deity nor an element. Even if one considers direct experience, there is no contradiction, as Jaimini says. Āśmarathya explains that it is because of manifestation; Bādari, because of recollection; and Jaimini, because of attainment, for so the scriptures show. In this context, the wise declare him thus. Brahman is described as the abode of heaven and earth, using its own unique term. The liberated are said to approach this abode, and inference does not apply, for the term does not fit, and Brahman is the supporter of life. The texts designate difference to clarify, and the context throughout confirms this understanding.