The sage begins by illustrating a profound truth, drawing upon both direct teaching and the wisdom preserved in tradition. To make this subtle reality clearer, he offers a comparison: just as the sun radiates its rays, so too does the source express itself through its manifestations. Yet, he cautions, the analogy is not exact—unlike the sun’s rays, which may be drawn into water, the essence here is never truly taken or absorbed. He explains further: in this relationship, there is a dynamic of increase and decrease, and a harmonious interplay is observed between the two. The subject is thus limited—only so much can be said, and the teachings themselves declare the boundaries, denying any excess. Ultimately, this principle is described as unmanifest, hidden from ordinary sight. Yet, even when one seeks to propitiate or honor this principle, its presence can be discerned through both perception and inference. It remains undifferentiated, much like illumination itself, which repeats its action again and again. Because of this, the principle is considered infinite—such is the indication given in the teachings. The scriptures offer further analogies: sometimes it is likened to the snake and its coil, where the form and the essence are spoken of together; at other times, it is compared to the support of illumination, for its nature is like light. Or, the analogy may be as previously described, and prohibition in certain contexts also points to its nature. The views of opponents are addressed: their arguments are refuted by distinctions in measurement, connection, and designation, which do not hold up under scrutiny. Yet, there is also the consideration of generality, for the teachings often speak in broad terms. The principle serves the intellect, much like the foot supports movement, and its particular location—like illumination—can be observed. All of this is reasonable, the sage affirms, and there is no prohibition against understanding the other aspect. Through words such as ‘space’ and others, omnipresence is inferred, and reason leads to the same conclusion. Moreover, this teaching is explicitly given in the scriptures. Jaimini, another revered sage, holds that this principle is nothing other than dharma itself. But Bādarāyaṇa, reflecting deeply, asserts that it is prior to dharma, for the cause is mentioned before the effect. The discussion turns to the unity of injunctions and teachings across all Vedānta texts. Because there is no essential distinction in these instructions, conviction arises from the entirety of Vedānta. Should there be even a single case of difference, the unity would not hold—but none is found. The same applies to self-study, for the rule and eligibility for practice are consistent, and this is also demonstrated in the texts. The conclusion is drawn from the non-difference of meaning, just as in the case of supplementary injunctions, and when the teaching is the same. If someone claims otherwise based on the wording, the sage explains that it is not so, for there is no real distinction. Nor does a difference of context imply superiority or inferiority, as is sometimes thought with higher and lower teachings. If the teaching is recognized in a particular way, that has already been addressed, yet it still exists within the broader unity. Because of its pervasiveness, the teaching is reasonable and applicable in all cases except the rare exceptions. Bliss and similar qualities belong to the chief principle, the source. Where there is failure to attain the ‘dear head’ and so on, and where increase and decrease occur, these are due to difference. But the other cases arise from the generality of meaning. Meditation upon this principle serves no further purpose, for the word ‘self’ itself points directly to the truth. Finally, the grasping of the self is as in the other case, following naturally from what has already been taught, and as the teachings unfold, the seeker is guided ever closer to the heart of the matter.