Some say that the result of knowledge is different, others say that that of ignorance is different. Thus we have heard from the wise who explained it to us.

Yama presents different opinions on the fruits of vidyā and avidyā. The word anya (different, other) is repeated, emphasizing the controversy. Some teachers teach that vidyā leads to a different world than avidyā; others emphasize that both are distinct temporary worlds from the state of liberation.

The testimony śuśruma (we have heard) indicates that this is revealed tradition, not personal speculation. The dhīrāṇām (serene, wise) are those who have authority to speak because they have experienced directly. Vicacakṣire (explained, illuminated) suggests they not only declared but clarified deeply.

This apparent methodological confusion reflects the complexity of the spiritual path. There is no single answer suitable for everyone — sādhana must be adapted to the temperament and capacity of the seeker. The important thing is that both paths are valid within their limits.

The citation of authorities (iti śuśruma) also establishes epistemic humility. Yama, being the Lord of Death, still refers to the tradition of the wise. This models the attitude of the disciple: receptivity to accumulated wisdom, not mere intellectual arrogance.