The fruit of knowledge is declared: “One established in buddhi” (2.50). Even meritorious actions can yield results displeasing to some—human pleasures and the like—and inferior fruits are given by ritual observances; action is not thereby destroyed. Scriptural passages (e.g. Brāhmaṇa statements) show that through ignorance one performs sacrifices and austerities for many thousands of years and obtains results accordingly. Hence the texts about the exhaustion of action apply everywhere to ignorance; even the passages about both exhaustions refer to undesirable objects; the exhaustion of meritorious action has no useful purpose. A knower’s activity is not annihilated. Some objects are indeed desired: if one wishes for the world of the fathers, the fathers arise at his resolve; if one longs for the assembly of Prajāpati, fame among Brahmins, companionship of women, or vehicles, those are produced by one’s wish—scriptural statements testify to this. Desire creates those very things in the soul; desire-wishes move along in the form of desires. Though numerous, because the self’s blissful nature is repeated, the pleasure from action conflicts with the self’s bliss and with power of experience and with God’s grace and with scriptural testimony. The body’s destruction does not precede that [liberation]. He goes there [to the happy realm]; that blissful self enters it—scripture and reply-state this. He is not absorbed completely by Brahman. Criticisms that in supreme knowledge the immersed one would be afflicted are answered: the removal of names and distinctions prevents those objections. The world-penetration and renunciation of worldly affairs, taught for men like Śuka, show that by relying on this knowledge one attains the sameness with me (Vishnu). On the removal of adjuncts, the reflected form is also removed. We do not find the distinct honor of the wholly absorbed in separate knowledge; the objection that the absorbed one would be miserable in supreme knowledge is answered by the absence of distinction. Nor do we see in the world the identity of reflection and reflected: upon removal of the adjunct there is an honor or estimation. The statement “in supreme knowledge what greater misery could there be?” is answered by noting that as long as the sense of self remains, suffering may be spoken of; the texts treat the adjuncts as impermanent. Therefore even a single-statement presentation, though stylistic, is acceptable. Your visions of the Lord and the differences reported by Nārada are described: branches and singlefoldness are asserted in various passages. In disputes force belongs to reasoned argument; the texts such as “the immersed one” are cited. Thus water is said to be one with water; purity remains pure—rivers meet the sea, and mutual selfhood still coexists; distinctions among great ones can arise. The sea has mouths though it is one; greatness causes difference. The poet praised the waters and their giver. The gods like Brahmā and others may not attain what the capable ones obtain; Nārada’s prohibition and the scriptural deliberation establish the decision about liberation. Where one sees nothing else, the statements such as “he is one” are to be understood as referring to the subordinate entity. Otherwise how would sovereignty and so on arise? It is not said that that place is composed of māyā; otherwise why would textually it be called “one” there? Nor is it opposed that the self has a body. The distinction and special nature of bodies are non-physical and produced by Lordly power; in the narrative of Narāyaṇa the body is born by the sixteen impulses called kalā. Scripts treat worldly signs—lack of unusual features, lack of rejoicing, un-rapture, happiness and sorrow—as applying to those bodies; they do not perish in creation nor arise in dissolution, etc. Ordinary practice refers to that. The bodies of Vaikuṇṭha-dwellers lack sense-organs; liberation is not some minor, secondary thing: one does not attain a partial absence of bondage; the scripture’s decision is that the yogi attains full release in due measure. Those who enter the Lord right here, they afterward go there; fitness is here determined. Other criticisms by Yudhiṣṭhira are also answered. Union (sāyujya) is likened to acquiring a deity-spot. Freed ones in the excellent world enjoy external enjoyments; hence separation from the undesirable is appropriate. They are free from sorrow and all sorrow — the great bliss where one does not grieve is specially mentioned. Those whose hunger is acute do not attain sāyujya; they have only proximity, etc. Because remnants of past actions remain, after enjoying those they attain union. All such scriptural statements about contraction follow from the respective authority. Entry into the supreme Lord Viṣṇu is certain. Therefore complete separation from the undesirable is affirmed. One prays even to Brahmā and others asking “I desire supreme-Brahmanhood,” proving that liberation is sought from Them too. Liberation surpasses any other happiness; Vaishṇava bliss is large and perceivable by word and mind. Thus one should strive for yoga and knowledge as means; action is the skill in means. (End of commentary excerpt.)