This is knowledge: the realization ‘I am the taste’ and similar knowings. Even the non‑denying (abādya) are the same. Yet the words like rasa (taste) indicate, in respect of their nature and essentiality, both the nature (svabhāva) and the essence (sāra) of those who possess rasa; they show the rule (niyamaka) as that same entity, not something bound by non‑denial. Thus the special words such as ‘rasa’ in the passages indicate its essentiality and so on. ‘Bhoga’ (enjoyment) also is specially from rasa, and this is stated for purposes of worship. The Gīta‑commentary has declared the rasas to be rasa‑natured, and likewise their innate essence. Essence is the cause especially in all duties. The enjoyer of the essence is present everywhere, for he is the Lord of the world. He is present throughout the bodies of those endowed with rasa. The non‑deniable and the companions are the objects of meditation; he is Hari to the jñānins. By possession of rasa and the like, Vasudeva is the Lord of the world for others. The nature (svabhāva) is indeed the jīva. Every nature is fixed by Him — what else could there be? There is nothing without that by which the moving and non‑moving become mine. This is said for the purpose of worship: free from duties opposed to dharma and devoid of desires and attachments. The Gīta‑commentary also says: ‘This one, having desire directed by dharma, is to be worshipped — he desires what is desired.’ When desire is absent, desireless ones by meditation grant only knowledge. And so on: ‘punya’ and ‘gandha’ are mentioned with regard to expectant enjoyment. Scripture too says: ‘One goes to the pure (puṇya), not to the gods to sin’ and similar passages. ‘Rita’ and ‘puṇya’: rita is named as puṇya. Rita, truth and dharma, and su‑kṛta are equivalent in their designations. Rita is the dharma of the mind; truth arises by conjunction. The objection ‘one who does not eat is not attacked by another’ (Śvetasvatara etc.) and similar passages are answered by the gross sense of eating mentioned earlier; there is here ‘subtle eating’. In the life of a recluse who subsists on rare food, the body becomes thus for the self. The jīva is not said to be the body, as that would be mere equivocation. From the statement about dream etc., the body is distinguished: the one self is threefold in experience — differing in the states of waking and so on, as Garuḍa says. ‘From this’ indicates the divine activity of the Lord. The two bodies are to be known; the jīva is named ishvara in one sense. The Nārada passages speak of distinction: one is without beginning, boundless, ever‑free, another is ... Given the difference of states, one posits difference of persons, not of substantiation. The Gīta‑commentary says that because one enjoys separately from the body, he (the supreme person) is beyond the body; hence the enjoyer and the enjoyed are the same owing to gross enjoyment. ‘Not “I” in them’ is because there is no basis for that claim. The commentary also says: ‘The whole world is dependent on that; nowhere is it without support.’