At the time when funeral rites are performed, it is understood that there is no crossing over, as this is declared by others versed in tradition. The possibility exists, however, for the crossing to occur at will, since there is no contradiction in either position. Whether the crossing happens or not, the intended purpose is fulfilled in both ways; otherwise, there would be inconsistency in the teachings. This appropriateness arises because the essential purpose is attained, much like in ordinary worldly affairs. The actions of the officiants continue only as long as their commission lasts; their function is not indefinite. There is no restriction for everyone involved, and this absence of limitation is supported both by scriptural statement and by inference. However, for those who meditate upon the imperishable, there is a restriction, owing to the general and particular nature of their practice—similar to how subordinate rites are treated, as previously explained. This restriction arises from such reflection and contemplation. If one were to argue that, like the elements, there would be no distinction of the self during the interval, this is not accepted, for the scripture teaches otherwise. The tradition declares that interchange does occur, as is the case with lesser entities. Indeed, qualities such as truth and others remain the same throughout. Desires and similar attributes, whether here or elsewhere, arise from the senses and their associated faculties. Sometimes, omission of certain actions is practiced out of respect. When the relevant factor is present, actions are performed, as indicated by statements to that effect. There is no fixed rule for determining the outcome, since experience shows that the result is not impeded by separation. This is comparable to the act of giving, as has been previously stated. Whenever an indicative sign is predominant, it is considered stronger—even overriding other considerations. The earlier alternative may arise due to the context, just as when an action is being undertaken. This is further supported by the principle of extension. Ultimately, it is only knowledge that matters, as determined both by reasoning and by observation. Because scriptural statements are more authoritative, no contradiction arises. Through connection and similar factors, and as seen in the differentiation of other forms of knowledge, this point has been established. Even generality does not pose a problem, for perception occurs as in the case of death, and there is no contradiction in worldly experience. Furthermore, since the word is more predominant in later contexts, the connection applies accordingly. This is because there exists one self within the body. The distinction arises due to the existence of that self, not in the same manner as perception. Those entities associated with the limbs are not found in the branches, and this holds true in every Veda. There is no contradiction, just as is the case with mantras and similar elements. Because of its greatness, a particular rite is considered superior, as the text indeed indicates. This superiority is also due to the diversity of words and related factors. Alternatives exist because the result is not distinctly specified. As for those actions performed with desire, they may be combined or not, according to one’s wish, since the prior cause is absent. In the case of limbs, their state depends on the support they receive, and this is also evident from what remains after the main action. Combination is another factor to consider. Moreover, scripture declares a common attribute among these actions. Alternatively, simultaneous existence is not affirmed, since scripture does not mention it. This is also observed in practice. Therefore, as Bādarāyaṇa states, the purpose centers around the person, based on the scriptural word. Because these teachings are subordinate, they serve the person’s purpose, as is the case in other situations—so says Jaimini.