When it says “and whatever” [13.4]—it means the inner witness. The term denoting assent (anumantā) is explanatory. The puruṣa is declared to be the experiencer of pleasure and pain — this is the jīva. Puruṣa and prakṛti are to be declared together as jīva and īśvara. Elsewhere there is no opposition to the mahattattva. Indeed mahattattva denotes preeminence. The Śaukara-ayana tradition says: in the unspoken eminent principle there is greatness of all words and all reasons. For Viṣṇu, the infinite supreme, even that (mahat) is subordinate — here there is no doubt. Hence the statement that contradicts this is to be reconciled by reasoning from starting-points. It is neither an authoritative statement of the poets nor a proper reasoning, for speculation without understanding is invalid. Thus the claim that the Upaniṣadic greatness is an appearance leads to the established view that the mahattattva has an inner significance. It is said: the inner meaning and the greatness of mahat are in sattva, indeed there is oneness, for both are infinite; the name ‘śyāmā’ and others are due to designation. The view which imagines only the puruṣa is due to ignorance; not that the revelation (śabda) itself is illusory. Many persons fail to perceive (and so remain in ignorance); therefore even scriptural passages may be misapplied — yet that must not be asserted. Wherefore statements that seem contradictory have been composed (e.g., accounts of many puruṣas versus one). The story of Prajāpati and the others is narrated in that sense. The Bhagavata says that the one puruṣa is exalted and that many puruṣas are narrated as if arising from one womb, for the sake of describing the world and its qualities in the teaching of liberation. The Lord’s words are not to be treated as dreamlike falsity; nor do we accept the view that a single jīva is like a dream-projection. The contrary views have also been stated as alternatives. It is said: this is not a dream, nor is this the case that separation is unreal. There is no fault here: the unity of jīva and īśvara is not declared; the aim is the contemplation of the jīva’s union with īśvara. Is that not without a basis? Thus one should not oppose the reality of the reflected image. The Śākhā of Mādhucchandas teaches that unity too is by reflection — the jīva is indeed a reflection of Viṣṇu, say the sages. In the practice of ahamgraha (identification of the ego), the promised fruit is established in the Agniśravas tradition: the practitioner who takes ahamgraha attains the desired result through habituation; there is no doubt. That “I-ness” (tad-īya aham) is called the cognition of the ahamgraha, as in Vāmana: by the power of that (tad-vaśatva) one says ‘I am’ as if by one’s dependents — not as self-existing. It is a reflective cognition: ‘I am’ and ‘he is a dependent’ — such is the experience. In the same branch it is said: ‘The supreme person is to be worshipped by the reflective cognition “I am” and “he is the servant” ’; the reflective cognition is of the same kind.