Mukunda was greatly pleased with the Acharya's reasoning, as he was inly grieved and angry at the speech of Sárvabhauma. The Acharya came to Chaitanya's house and invited Him on behalf of the Bhattáchárya. As he talked with Mukunda he spoke ill of Sárvabhauma in a pained spirit. But the Master broke in with, "Say not so. The Bhattáchárya has really favoured me; he wants to safeguard my monastic life, and has taken pity on me out of tenderness. Why blame him for it?" Next day, the Master visited the temple of Jagannáth in the company of the Bhattáchárya, and then accompanied him to his house. The Bhattáchárya seated the Master first and began to teach Him _Vedánta_. With mingled tenderness and reverence he said, "It is a _sannyasi's_ duty to hear the Vedánta read. You should constantly attend to it." The Master answered, "Show me thy favour. Whatever you bid me is indeed my duty." For seven days did the Master thus listen to the expounding of the Vedánta, without making any comment of His own. On the eighth day, Sárvabhauma asked Him, "For seven days have you heard me in unbroken silence. I know not whether you follow me or not." The Master replied, "I am ignorant, and have not studied [the subject]. I merely listen at your bidding. I listen only because such is a sannyasi's duty. But I cannot follow your interpretation." The Bhattáchárya retorted, "He who is conscious of his own ignorance asks for a second explanation. But you remain ever silent as you listen. I know not your mind's workings." The Master replied, "I understand the verses clearly enough. But it is your commentary that puzzles me. A commentary should elucidate the text, whereas your exposition conceals the text! You do not expound the plain meaning of the aphorisms, but cover them up with your fanciful interpretation. The primary meaning is the plain sense of the terms of the _Upanishad_, and Vyas says it in his aphorisms. You [on the other hand] let the primary sense go, and give a conjectural secondary sense. You reject the meanings of words as given in lexicons, and attribute to them meanings evolved from your imagination. _Shruti_ is the chief of proofs. The primary meaning as given by _Shruti_ can alone carry conviction. "What are conchshells and cowdung but naturally unclean things, _viz._, the bone and ordure of animals? And yet they are taken as very pure, because _Shruti_ says so. Of the spiritual truth that is held forth [in Vedánta] the meaning is plain and self-evident. Fanciful interpretation only spoils the clear sense. The sense of Vyas's aphorisms is clear like the sun; you are only enveloping it with the cloud of your conjectural commentary. The _Vedas_ and the _Purans_ tell us how to discern Brahma. That Brahma is [only another name for] God in His totality. The Supreme Being is full of all powers, and yet you describe Him as formless? The _Shrutis_ that speak of Him as abstract (_nir-bishesha_), exclude the natural and set up the unnatural.