In the course of discussing the rituals and their results, it is observed that alternatives exist because the outcome of certain actions is not distinctly specified. When it comes to those rites performed with a specific desire in mind, they may be combined or left separate according to the individual's preference, since there is no prior cause compelling a fixed arrangement. The status of subsidiary parts, or limbs, of a rite depends upon their supporting elements, and this is further affirmed by what remains after the main ritual is performed. The possibility of combining rites is recognized, and scripture even declares a shared attribute among them. However, this combination is not always necessary, for the sacred texts do not mandate their simultaneous existence. The actual practice confirms this flexibility. Therefore, as Bādarāyaṇa teaches, the ultimate purpose is for the benefit of the individual, as indicated by the scriptural word. Jaimini further explains that since these teachings are subordinate, they are meant for the sake of the person, as is the case in other contexts. This is supported by the observation of established practice, by scriptural references, and by the repeated beginnings and instructions found within the texts. The injunctions are given to those who possess the necessary qualifications, and restrictions are also noted. Yet, Bādarāyaṇa points out that, owing to the teaching of superiority and the evidence seen, certain practices are indeed to be preferred. The observations regarding these practices are similar, but they are not universal; distinctions arise, much like the difference among a hundred individuals, or as in the case of one who has merely studied. Where no difference is found, it may be for the sake of praise or perhaps permission, and according to some authorities, even at one's own discretion. Suppression of certain actions is also allowed. In the case of those with upward-flowing energy, the scriptures indeed mention such practices. Jaimini, however, denies the necessity of contact, since there is no explicit injunction. Bādarāyaṇa, on the other hand, holds that the act should be performed, because the scriptural statement is similar to other prescribed actions. There may even be an injunction, as in the case of retention. If it is argued that the scriptural mention is merely for praise due to its inclusion, this is not so, because it is unprecedented and also because the word used indicates actual existence. Should one claim that the meaning is scattered or interspersed throughout the text, this is refuted, for the instruction is specifically stated. Furthermore, the connection is made within a single sentence, reinforcing the unity of the teaching. Therefore, there is no dependence on external elements such as fire, fuel, and the like. Yet, in certain cases, like the horse sacrifice, there is dependence on all components, as scripture declares. One should be endowed with tranquility, self-control, and similar virtues; nevertheless, since these are prescribed as auxiliaries, they must also be practiced without exception. Permission is not granted for all actions, except in cases where life is in danger, as can be observed. There is no prohibition either, and tradition remembers these practices. Moreover, there is scriptural authority for actions not motivated by desire, and even the duties associated with the stages of life are enjoined, affirming their importance and necessity. Thus, the sacred texts weave together guidance for ritual, intention, and virtue, always grounding their instructions in the welfare of the individual and the wisdom of tradition.