Let us journey through these verses as a vivid, faithful narrative. The absence of a certain quality is recognized within the channels, as revealed by scripture, and also in the self. Therefore, it is from this very absence that awakening arises. Yet, despite this, the experience remains the same, owing to karma, memory, and the guidance of scriptural injunctions. For one who is still deluded, attainment is only partial, since some residue remains. Even when considering its location, the distinctive marks of either do not apply to the other, for such marks are found everywhere. If one argues that this is due to difference, it is not so, for scripture does not state this in every instance. Moreover, there are some who hold this view. Indeed, it is likened to the formless, because formlessness predominates. It is also compared to illumination, for otherwise it would lack purpose. The teacher declares it to be simply that. He reveals it thus, and moreover, this is remembered in tradition. Therefore, comparisons are drawn, such as that between the sun and its rays. However, because water is not taken, the analogy is not exact. Increase and decrease are included, and harmony between both is observed. The subject is limited to this extent, for more is denied, and then further declarations are made. It is said to be unmanifest. Even in acts of propitiation, its presence is evident through perception and inference. It is undifferentiated, like illumination and other similar phenomena; and illumination is repeated in action. Therefore, it is infinite, as indicated by the teachings. Both aspects are spoken of, as in the example of the snake and its coil. Or, as with the support of illumination, because its nature is that of light. Or, as previously discussed. And also, because of prohibition. The opponent’s view is contradicted by distinctions in measurement, connection, and designation. Yet, because of generality, it is for the sake of intellect, like the foot. Because of particular location, as with illumination and so on. And because it is reasonable. Likewise, because there is no prohibition regarding the other. By this, omnipresence is inferred from words like ‘space’ and similar terms. Therefore, the result is due to reason. And also, because it is taught. Jaimini holds that it is dharma itself. But Bādarāyaṇa says it is earlier, because the cause is mentioned. Because there is no distinction in injunction and similar matters, conviction arises from all Vedānta texts. If there is difference, even in one case, it is not so. The same applies to self-study, owing to the rule and eligibility for practice. And this is also demonstrated. The conclusion is drawn from the non-difference of meaning, as in the case of supplementary injunctions, and also when the meaning is the same. If it is said to be otherwise because of the word, it is not so, for there is no distinction. Thus, the teachings flow, connecting the subtle truths of absence and awakening, sameness and difference, form and formlessness, illumination and infinity, harmonizing all into a single, profound narrative of the self and its realization.