Let us contemplate the subtle deliberations of the sages as they unfold the truths of scripture. The discussion begins by affirming that when there appears to be a contradiction between scriptural statements and other sources of knowledge, the words of the scriptures hold greater authority. Thus, no real contradiction exists. This is supported by the connections and distinctions observed in various forms of knowledge, as has been previously stated. Even when considering generalities, perception still occurs, just as it does in the case of death—there is no contradiction in the world, for such perceptions are part of our experience. Further, when examining the predominance of words in later passages, the connection between teachings is affirmed. This is because the self exists as one within the body, and distinctions arise due to the presence of that self, not in the manner of mere sensory perception. However, those elements connected with the limbs are not found in the branches—this holds true across all the Vedas. Again, there is no contradiction here, just as there is none with mantras and similar elements. Because of the greatness of certain rites, some are considered superior, as the texts themselves show. This is further underlined by the diversity of words and expressions found in scripture. Sometimes, alternatives exist when the results of actions are not clearly distinguished. For those rites performed with desire, they may be combined or not, as one wishes, since the prior cause is absent. In the case of limbs or subsidiary acts, their status depends on their support, and this is also indicated by what is left over after the main act. Combination is possible, especially when the scripture declares a common attribute among them. Or, perhaps not, if the scripture does not mention their simultaneous existence, and this is borne out by observation. Therefore, as Bādarāyaṇa teaches, the ultimate purpose is the fulfillment of the person, as indicated by the words of the scripture. Jaimini adds that because these teachings are subordinate, they serve the purpose of the individual, just as in other cases. This is further supported by the observation of established practice and the authority of scripture regarding these matters. The beginning and repetition of certain acts, as well as injunctions directed at those who possess certain qualifications, reinforce this understanding. Sometimes, there is restriction, but when the scripture teaches the superiority of a particular practice, as Bādarāyaṇa notes, it is indeed so, for this is seen in the tradition. Nevertheless, the observation of practice remains similar across cases, but it is not universal. Distinctions exist, much like the difference between a hundred and one, or as in the case of one who has only studied but not practiced. In some instances, there is no essential difference, and the scriptural statements serve either as praise or perhaps as permission. According to some, one may act at one’s own will, and sometimes, suppression of certain acts is also indicated. For those with upward-flowing energy, the scriptures do make mention, pointing to special cases. Jaimini holds that there should be no contact in such cases, since there is no explicit injunction. But Bādarāyaṇa maintains that the act should be performed, because similar scriptural statements exist, or perhaps there is an injunction, as with the practice of retention. If one argues that such statements are mere praise because of their inclusion, this is not so, for the case is unprecedented. Furthermore, the very words of scripture indicate their existence and importance. Thus, the sages, with reverence and precision, guide us through the intricate web of scriptural teaching, always upholding the primacy of the revealed word and the ultimate purpose of spiritual practice.