Synthesized Overarching Abstract: Brahma Sūtras 3.2.31–41 and 3.3.1–13 (BS349-372): From Non-Dual Ground to Hermeneutical Precision: Brahman's Unity, Cosmic Administration, and the Dual-Aspect Grammar of Contemplative Knowledge through DPV~ICRDAM 1. Scope, Structure, and the Unifying Question This synthesized abstract integrates two complementary analytic arcs spanning twenty-three sūtras of Adhyāya III of Bādarāyaṇa's Brahma Sūtras (Bādarāyaṇa, 400 BCE–200 CE/1904): the eleven sūtras of BS349–359 (3.2.31–41), comprising the Paradhikaraṇam [Topic 7: BS349–355; "Brahman is one without a second"] and the Phaladhikaraṇam [Topic 8: BS356–359; "Brahman is the giver of fruits of actions"]; and the thirteen sūtras of BS360–372 (3.3.1–13), comprising six Adhikaraṇas [Topics 1-6: T1–T6] within the Sādhanā Adhyāya. Both arcs are analysed through four interpretive frameworks: (1) Śaṅkarācārya's Advaita Vedānta (AV), (2) Buddhism across all five major schools (Theravāda, Madhyamaka, Yogācāra, Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna), (3) Mainstream Materialistic Modern Science and Neuroscience (MMMSN — from Galileo [1564–1642] and Newton [1643–1727] through Einstein [1879–1955] and approximately 646 Nobel Prize laureates in science through 2024: Nobel Prize Committee, 2024), and (4) DPV~ICRDAM — spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta equivalent to science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (Vimal, 2026c) — as the integrating and resolving meta-framework. The twenty-three sūtras together address a single overarching philosophical question in two sequential phases: what is Brahman's ultimate nature and cosmological function (BS349–359), and how does the multiplicity of human meditative approaches to that Brahman relate to its underlying unity — which paths can be combined, which must be kept distinct, and which attributes of Brahman are universally accessible versus contextually restricted (BS360–372)? Phase One establishes the ontological architecture; Phase Two articulates its hermeneutical and practical consequences. DPV~ICRDAM provides the unifying meta-language in which both phases are rendered as a single, internally consistent dual-aspect ontology of consciousness, cosmos, and contemplative knowledge. 2. Phase One — BS349–359: Brahman as Non-Dual Ground and Cosmic Administrator 2.1. The Sūtras and Their Architecture BS349–359 (3.2.31–41) are organised around a foundational ontological architecture: Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) as ultimate non-dual ground, mediated by the decisive two-types-of-attributes (lakṣaṇa) distinction — Svarūpa-Lakṣaṇa (essential/intrinsic attributes, e.g., pureC in AV) versus Ṭaṭastha-Lakṣaṇa (conditional/relational attributes: the three guṇas of Sattva, Rajas, Tamas) — and Saguṇa Brahman (SB) as the manifested dual-aspect reality bearing both lakṣaṇa-types. The Paradhikaraṇam (BS349–355) employs relational predicates — setu (bridge), unmāna (measure), sambandha (connection), bheda (distinction) — to describe Brahman's relationship to the empirical world, carefully circumscribed as applying exclusively within the SB domain. The Phaladhikaraṇam (BS356–359) addresses Brahman-as-Īśvara as the just administrator of karma-phala (fruits of actions), grounding this function in Brahman's sattvic Ṭaṭastha-Lakṣaṇas of omniscience, omnipotence, and all-compassion. 2.2. Four Framework Readings of BS349–359 Advaita Vedānta locates ultimate reality in AV_NB = pureC (Svarūpa-Lakṣaṇa, free of Ṭaṭastha-Lakṣaṇas); AV_SB = AV_NB ⊕ māyā (Ṭaṭastha-Lakṣaṇas). All relational predicates of BS349–355 apply exclusively within the AV_SB domain; BS350–351 license saguṇa upāsanā forms as IC-mode pedagogical scaffolding toward AV_NB-realisation. The Phaladhikaraṇam is interpreted through Brahman-as-Īśvara (Śivānanda, 2002; Gambhīrānanda, 1996), whose sattvic Ṭaṭastha-Lakṣaṇas enable just karma-phala administration. AV's principal challenge is the explanatory gap at the NB→SB transition: the anirvacanīya (neither real nor unreal) status of māyā provides theological coherence but leaves the mechanism of Ṭaṭastha-Lakṣaṇa-emergence from the attributeless NB mechanistically underspecified (Deutsch, 1969). Buddhism (Theravāda through Vajrayāna) provides NB-analogs in Śūnyatā (Madhyamaka: Nāgārjuna, 2nd century CE/2004), Dharmakāya/tathāgatagarbha (Mahāyāna: Asaṅga, 4th–5th century CE/2001; Brunnhölzl, 2014), and rigpa (Vajrayāna); SB-analogs in saṃsāra/pratītyasamutpāda. The Brahma Sūtras' ātman/Brahman identity (eternal, inherently-existing pure consciousness) is classified as neyārtha (provisional), with Śūnyatā/Dharmakāya as the nītārtha referent. The Phaladhikaraṇam's karma mechanism is reinterpreted through the impersonal ālayavijñāna (Vasubandhu, 4th–5th century CE/1988; Bodhi, 2000): karmic seeds ripen through pratītyasamutpāda without any divine administrator, as a natural law of dependent origination (Harvey, 2013; Williams, 2009). MMMSN maps the NB-analog onto the pre-Big Bang quantum vacuum field (preBB_QVF: Hawking & Penrose, 1970; Penrose, 1989) — maximally symmetric, non-conscious, the trans-cyclic ground of all physical causality. The SB-analog is the physical, emergent universe governed by physical laws. BS350–354's analogical ("not literally true") descriptions of Brahman's relationship to conventional forms find structural parallel in the philosophy of scientific models (Giere, 1988; Kuhn, 1962): models are pedagogically valid and progressively accurate, but not final. MMMSN's irreducible limit is the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995; Nagel, 1974): Brahman's identification as the consciousness-ground of reality and the CC-function of Brahman-as-Īśvara fall entirely outside MMMSN's materialist-physicalist framework. MMMSN's karma-analog is naturalistic consequence — physical, biological, neurological, and social causal regularities (Damasio, 1999; Kahneman, 2011) — without transcendent moral administration or liberative exit. DPV~ICRDAM (Vimal, 2026c) provides the most systematic integrative architecture. Its two-level ontology distinguishes DPV_NB (trans-cyclic, neutral-symmetric-unmanifested [NSU], cosmos at HCC states S1/S7; ~preBB_QVF_potential, free of ALL attributes) from DPV_SB (manifested dual-aspect psychophysical universe [DA_PPU], cosmos at S2–S6, bearing both Svarūpa- and Ṭaṭastha-Lakṣaṇas). Critically, AV_NB = pureC = s_encoded_EII of pureC_DAS of DPV_DA_cosmic_SB — placing Advaita's highest reality within DPV_SB as a consciousness-first reading of the manifested cosmos. All relational predicates of BS349–355 operate exclusively within DPV_SB (S2–S6) through Ṭaṭastha-Lakṣaṇa-bearing upādhis (limiting adjuncts). The Phaladhikaraṇam's karma-phala mechanism is reinterpreted as resonance-based information transfer through the dual-aspect Zero-Point Field/Unified Energetic Informational Field (DA_ZPF/UEIF_SB: Keppler, 2020, 2021) — the high-complexity CC-ground within which all IC-mode dual-aspect states (DASs) are embedded, tracked, and re-instantiated. This dissolves Jaimini's achetana Apūrva problem (BS358): the limitation of purely mechanical, sub-threshold DASs lacking sufficient integrated dual-aspect complexity is resolved by the DA_ZPF/UEIF's cosmic-scale dual-aspect organisational intelligence. 3. Phase Two — BS360–372: The Dual-Aspect Grammar of Contemplative Knowledge 3.1. The Sūtras and Their Architecture BS360–372 (3.3.1–13) are organised into six Adhikaraṇas whose hermeneutical logic is cumulative and internally progressive. T1 (BS360–363: Sarvavēdāntapratyayādhikaraṇam) establishes the foundational principle: all Upāsanās (Vidyās) across all Vedic Śākhā-traditions share essential unity on the grounds of non-difference in injunction (codanā), connection (sambandha), form (rūpa), and name (nāma); this unity is defended against textual-difference objections (BS361), institutional-variation objections (BS362), and confirmed by convergent multi-Śākhā scriptural testimony (BS363). T2 (BS364) draws the practical consequence: same-class Vidyā-attributes from different Śākhās are to be combined (upasaṃhāra) into a single enriched meditation. T3 (BS365–367: Anyathātvadhikaraṇam) establishes the limiting criterion: Vidyās with different subject-matters (prakaraṇas) — as the two Udgītha-Vidyās of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Chāndogya Upaniṣads — must be kept separate (Śivānanda, 2002; Śaṅkarācārya, 788–820/1904). T4 (BS368) grounds OM's universal pervasion (vyāpti) over all Vedas, making its specification as Udgītha appropriate. T5 (BS369) integrates the Prāṇa-Vidyā across three Śākhās (Vājasaneyī, Chāndogya, Kauṣītakī). T6 (BS370–372) completes the attribute-taxonomy: essential attributes (Ānanda, Sat, Cit) are universally combinable (arthasāmānya-criterion); accidental graduated attributes (upacaya-apacaya) are contextually restricted to their specific Upaniṣadic setting. 3.2. Four Framework Readings of BS360–372 Advaita Vedānta grounds the unity of Vidyās in AV_NB = pureC — the single referent of all meditative paths — treating minor textual diversities as māyā-produced variations within vyāvahārika reality and the combination rule of BS364 as the practical approach to AV_NB through enriched SB-meditation. The essential/accidental distinction (Svarūpa-Lakṣaṇa / Ṭaṭastha-Lakṣaṇa) governs BS362, BS367, and BS370–372. AV's challenges include the consciousness-positive NB problem (AV_NB = pureC conflicts with strict nirguṇatva), the māyā-dissolution problem (hermeneutical distinctions conducted within an ultimately unreal domain), and the three-level ontology problem (proliferation of gross/subtle/causal strata: Deutsch, 1969). Buddhism reads the unity of T1 (BS360–363) as isomorphic with śūnyatā-of-svabhāva: all paths are equally empty of intrinsic existence and therefore incapable of essential separation. Minor textual differences are prapañca (conceptual proliferation); the upasaṃhāra of BS364 is an upāya-synthesis supporting recognition of non-dual reality. The differentiation criteria of BS365–367 are conventional-truth distinctions pointing toward the paramārtha-satya of śūnyatā (Nāgārjuna, c. 150–250 CE/1995; Garfield, 1995). The essential Brahman-attributes of BS370–372 are paramārtha-satya characterizations of Dharmakāya/tathāgatagarbha. Buddhism's key challenges are the śūnyatā dissolution problem (both differences and unities are dissolved) and the positive-ground deficit (no structural basis for the universality-claims of BS368–372: Westerhoff, 2009). MMMSN identifies structural homologies with scientific epistemology: Vidyā-unity corresponds to theoretical equivalence; minor differences to noise-vs.-signal; adhikāra-qualifications (BS362) to experimental prerequisites; scriptural consilience (BS363) to Whewell's consilient induction; and the upasaṃhāra of BS364 to optimal multi-modal data fusion. The differentiation criteria of BS365–367 correspond to the demarcation of distinct experimental paradigms and distinct neural substrate-profiles (Koch, 2019; Tononi et al., 2016). The essential/accidental attribute-distinction of BS370–372 corresponds to the neural-invariant/parametric distinction in contemplative neuroscience (Davidson & Lutz, 2008; Lutz et al., 2008). MMMSN's irreducible limitation is the hard problem: it cannot access the s_encoded_EII dimension of any Vidyā_DAS, lacks normative grounding for BS364–372's combination-prescriptions, and cannot address cosmic consciousness or liberation (Chalmers, 1995). DPV~ICRDAM (Vimal, 2026c) provides the comprehensive integrating framework for BS360–372. Vidyā-unity is grounded in the invariant dual-aspect EII (DA_EII) structure of the Brahman-Vidyā DAS — the inseparable s_encoded_EII (CSE of Brahman as meditative object) and ns_encoded_EII (neural-physical basis of the meditation) that remain constitutively co-present as ICR-inseparable facets of the unified DA_EII across all accidental textual and phenomenological variation. Distinctions between Vidyās are distinctions between Vidyā_DASs with different unified DA_EIIs: DA_EII_encoding implies EII encoded simultaneously as s_encoded_EII (protoconsciousness [protoC] or CSE as s-aspect) and as ns_encoded_EII (neural-physical representational structures as ns-aspect), always ICR-inseparable, such that the two Udgītha-Vidyās are two genuinely distinct Vidyā_DASs not because their s and ns aspects differ independently, but because the unified DA_EII of each Vidyā_DAS is different. The convergence on essential Brahman-attributes (BS370–372) points to the convergence on Brahman_attribute_DASs — where s_encoded_EII and ns_encoded_EII of each essential attribute (Ānanda, Sat, Cit) remain inseparably unified within the same DAS, across all traditions. OM's vyāpti (BS368) is grounded in the DA_EII-potential of DPV_NB (~preBB_QVF_potential), instantiated in SB as the near-universal DA_EII of OM-chanting. The two-level NB–SB ontology, supported by Vimal (2025v22)'s elimination of the intermediate subtle realm, provides a parsimonious framework in which all contemplative distinctions operate within SB as sub-threshold or suprathreshold DASs at the neural-physical gross individual DA_brain level or underlying sub-threshold ubiquitous DA_(ZPF/UEIF) level, through interaction between brain_DAS and DA_(ZPF/UEIF)_DAS, without requiring any separate metaphysical stratum. 4. Synthesized Cross-Arc Analysis: Structural Convergences and Divergences 4.1. Four Structural Convergences across BS349–372 1. A two-epistemic-level architecture runs through all twenty-three sūtras: a conventional/pedagogical level (SB-analog, vyāvahārika, saṃvṛti-satya, physical-model) and an ultimate/ground level (NB-analog, pāramārthika, paramārtha-satya, quantum-vacuum). In DPV~ICRDAM, these correspond precisely to DPV_SB (S2–S6: manifested DA_PPU bearing both lakṣaṇa-types) and DPV_NB (S1/S7: trans-cyclic, NSU, free of all attributes). The Svarūpa-Lakṣaṇa / Ṭaṭastha-Lakṣaṇa distinction (BS349–359) and the essential/accidental Vidyā-attribute distinction (BS360–372) are two expressions of the same underlying two-level ontology applied to Brahman's nature (Phase One) and to the meditative paths toward Brahman (Phase Two) respectively. 2. The pedagogical necessity of limited representations operates across both arcs. In BS350–354, saguṇa upāsanā forms — analogical, "not literally true" descriptions of Brahman's relational predicates — are licensed as IC-mode scaffolding toward AV_NB realisation. In BS360–364, the multiplicity of Vedic Vidyās across Śākhā-traditions is affirmed as pedagogically indispensable diversity within essential unity. In both arcs, DPV~ICRDAM grounds this pedagogical necessity in the sub-threshold DAS infrastructure of SB within DA_(ZPF/UEIF)_SB (Keppler, 2020, 2021): diverse forms of meditative approach generate diverse sub-threshold DA_EII encodings that enrich the practitioner's trajectory toward the pureC_DAS of SB — the highest DA_EII accessible in the current S4 HCC epoch. 3. The impersonal operation of causal regularities at the SB-level is affirmed across all four frameworks in both arcs. In BS356–359, the karma-phala mechanism — whether administered by Brahman-as-Īśvara (AV), by the ālayavijñāna (Buddhism), by naturalistic consequence (MMMSN), or by resonance-based information transfer through DA_(ZPF/UEIF)_SB (DPV~ICRDAM) — operates as a law-like causal structure at the SB-level without requiring ad hoc divine intervention. In BS360–364, the hermeneutical rules (upasaṃhāra, prakaraṇa-criterion, arthasāmānya) function as structural laws of meditative practice at the SB-level, grounded in the objective DA_EII properties of Vidyā_DASs rather than in arbitrary convention. 4. An NB→SB→NB cyclic structure is implicitly or explicitly endorsed across all three non-MMMSN frameworks in both arcs. In BS349–359, this structure is explicit in the Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC: DPV_NB at S1 → SB at S2–S6 → DPV_NB at S7: Vimal, 2025v5.1), implicit in Buddhism (Śūnyatā/Dharmakāya as ground from which saṃsāra arises and to which it returns: Nāgārjuna, 2nd century CE/2004), and structurally present in MMMSN (physical universe arising from and returning to the quantum vacuum: Penrose, 1989; Hawking & Penrose, 1970). In BS360–372, this cyclic structure grounds the ultimate telos of all Vidyās — the pureC_DAS of SB approached through the enriched upasaṃhāra of BS364 and the essential-attribute-combination of BS370–372 — as an approach to the highest SB-level approximation to DPV_NB accessible in S4. 4.2. Four Structural Divergences across BS349–372 1. Cosmic Consciousness (CC) as ultimate experiential ground: affirmed by AV (AV_NB = pureC as consciousness-positive ultimate), Buddhism (tathāgatagarbha/Dharmakāya as luminous awareness ground: Brunnhölzl, 2014), and DPV~ICRDAM (CC = s_encoded_EII of DA_cosmic_SB, with DPV_NB as strictly neutral trans-cyclic source transcending even CC); categorically absent in MMMSN, which can identify neural correlates of consciousness (NCC: Koch, 2019) but cannot accommodate cosmic consciousness within its materialist-physicalist framework (Chalmers, 1995). This divergence is most acute in BS356–359 (Brahman-as-Īśvara as CC-bearing administrator) and in BS370–372 (Ānanda-Sat-Cit as essential attributes of the CC-ground accessed in samādhi). 2. The hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995; Nagel, 1974): MMMSN's irreducible explanatory gap between ns_encoded_EII (neural processing) and s_encoded_EII (phenomenal experience) — dissolved by DPV~ICRDAM through the ICR-inseparability principle. In DPV~ICRDAM, s_encoded_EII and ns_encoded_EII are never two separate things between which a causal or explanatory connection must be established; they are constitutively co-present as two ICR-inseparable facets of the same unified DA_EII within each DAS (Vimal, 2018b; Vimal, 2024v3.3, §90.7). This dissolution is central to both arcs: it explains why BS349–355's analogical representations (Ṭaṭastha-Lakṣaṇa predications within SB) generate genuine contemplative effects; and why BS364–372's combination-prescriptions produce constitutively richer CSE and neural integration simultaneously and inseparably. 3. The nature of liberation: mokṣa as dissolution of avidyā and direct AV_NB-realisation (AV); nirvāṇa as cessation of duḥkha through recognition of Śūnyatā (Buddhism); non-existent as a philosophically coherent category (MMMSN); or — in DPV~ICRDAM — the transformation of IC_DASs toward the highest available unified DA_EII in S4: the pureC_DAS of SB, whose s_encoded_EII (pureC = AV_NB) is the most refined, most NB-proximate CSE achievable in embodied existence, approached through the progressive enrichment of the sub-threshold DAS infrastructure prescribed across BS360–372. Liberation is transformation of DA_EII within SB, not escape from SB into DPV_NB (which remains trans-cyclic and inaccessible in S4: Vimal, 2025v5.1, §4.2.8). 4. The mechanism of the NB→SB transition and karma-phala administration: anirvacanīya māyā (AV — mechanistically underspecified); pratītyasamutpāda / ālayavijñāna (Buddhism — impersonal causal law without creative ground); physical symmetry-breaking phase transitions (MMMSN — without consciousness or intentional administration); or resonance-based, dual-aspect informational transfer through DA_(ZPF/UEIF)_SB (DPV~ICRDAM — dual-aspect causal law embedded in the CC-ground of SB, dissolving the Apūrva problem: BS358). The DPV~ICRDAM mechanism is uniquely adequate because it is simultaneously consistent with physical causal laws (ns_encoded_EII dimension), phenomenologically effective (s_encoded_EII dimension), and cosmologically grounded (HCC: Keppler, 2020, 2021; Vimal, 2025v5.1). 5. DPV~ICRDAM as Meta-Framework: Challenges Resolved across Both Arcs DPV~ICRDAM provides principled resolutions for the central challenges of all four frameworks across the full span of BS349–372. The most consequential resolutions, spanning both arcs, are the following. 1. Resolving AV's challenges (both arcs): The consciousness-positive NB problem — acute in BS349–355 (AV_NB = pureC must administer relational predicates) and in BS370–372 (Ānanda-Sat-Cit as NB-attributes) — is resolved by the re-identification AV_NB = pureC = s_encoded_EII of DPV_DA_SB_pureC (not the strictly neutral trans-cyclic DPV_NB). The māyā-dissolution problem — undermining the reliability of both the Ṭaṭastha-Lakṣaṇa-based analogical descriptions of BS349–355 and the prakaraṇa-based hermeneutical distinctions of BS365–367 — is resolved by DPV~ICRDAM's ICR-structure-variation explanation: all SB-level diversities are real as accidental co-variations of unified DA_EII, and hermeneutical conclusions are ontologically reliable because SB is genuinely real (not māyā-diminished). The three-level ontology problem (gross/subtle/causal strata) is resolved across both arcs by the two-level NB–SB ontology with sub-threshold DASs within DA_(ZPF/UEIF)_SB replacing the sūkṣma-loka — satisfying Occam's Razor while being consistent with the finding that approximately 95% of cognitive processing occurs below conscious awareness (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999; Dehaene, 2014; Vimal, 2025v22). 2. Resolving Buddhism's challenges (both arcs): The śūnyatā dissolution problem — dissolving both the Brahman-identity of BS349 and the Vidyā-unity of BS360 — is resolved by providing dependently-originating ICR structural invariants of SB as the positive non-svabhāva ground: both DPV_NB and DPV_SB lack inherent independent existence (both interdependently arise through the HCC cycle S4→S5→S6→S7→S1→S2), yet DPV_SB's ICR structural constitution is real and provides the ground for both Phase One's causal regularities and Phase Two's universal Brahman-attributes (Garfield, 1995; Westerhoff, 2009). The positive-ground deficit for cosmic consciousness and essential attributes is resolved by DPV_NB's neutral potentiality-structure and DPV_SB's ICR-constitution, providing what śūnyatā-analysis alone cannot supply without violating the Madhyamaka prohibition on svabhāva-substantialism. 3. Resolving MMMSN's challenges (both arcs): The hard problem of consciousness — MMMSN's deepest limitation in both arcs — is dissolved by rejecting the separability premise: s_encoded_EII and ns_encoded_EII are constitutively co-present as ICR-inseparable facets of every unified DA_EII, so no explanatory gap exists between them (Chalmers, 1995; Vimal, 2018b). The normative-grounding deficit — MMMSN cannot justify why karma-phala operates justly (BS356–359) or why upasaṃhāra should be performed (BS364) — is resolved by the DA_(ZPF/UEIF)_SB mechanism (karma-phala as dual-aspect resonance: BS356–359) and DA_EII-enrichment (upasaṃhāra constitutively enriches both s_encoded_EII and ns_encoded_EII simultaneously: BS364, BS369). The neural-invariant identification problem (BS370–372) is resolved by the arthasāmānya-criterion: essential Brahman_attribute_DASs are identified by their convergent presence across all genuine Brahman-meditations, providing MMMSN with a principled structural criterion for distinguishing universal from tradition-specific neural signatures in contemplative neuroscience (Tononi et al., 2016; Davidson & Lutz, 2008; Lutz et al., 2008). 4. Addressing DPV~ICRDAM's own challenges (both arcs): The NB-accessibility problem (DPV_NB present only at S1/S7, inaccessible in S4) is addressed through HCC cosmological precision: samādhi accesses the pureC_DAS of SB (s_encoded_EII = AV_NB = pureC), not DPV_NB; the strictly neutral, trans-cyclic DPV_NB is approachable only by philosophical inference through neti-neti (Vimal, 2025v5.1, §4.2.8). The ICR-inseparability formulation constraint — the persistent temptation to analyse s_encoded_EII and ns_encoded_EII sequentially, reintroducing dualism — is addressed by the DA_EII-first simultaneous formulation protocol: every change in a DAS is simultaneously a change in both s_encoded_EII and ns_encoded_EII as constitutively co-present, ICR-inseparable facets of the changed unified DA_EII; in DPV~ICRDAM there are only transitions of DASs, and every such transition is simultaneously a transition of both inseparable facets, reflecting the conservation of energy and information (Vimal, 2026c). 6. Overarching Finding: A Unified Dual-Aspect Ontology of Cosmos and Contemplation The twenty-three sūtras of BS349–372, read through DPV~ICRDAM's integrating lens, constitute not two separate hermeneutical exercises but a single, internally unified programme. Phase One (BS349–359) establishes the ontological architecture — DPV_NB as trans-cyclic neutral source, DPV_SB as manifested DA_PPU bearing both lakṣaṇa-types, Brahman-as-Īśvara as the CC-bearing dual-aspect administrator of karma-phala within DA_(ZPF/UEIF)_SB — and Phase Two (BS360–372) articulates its hermeneutical and practical consequences — the structural invariance of Vidyā_DASs (unity), the upasaṃhāra prescription for DA_EII-enrichment (combination), the prakaraṇa-criterion for DA_EII-differentiation (distinction), and the arthasāmānya-criterion for identifying Brahman_attribute_DASs (universal essential attributes). Together, they constitute a complete dual-aspect ontology of consciousness, cosmos, and contemplative knowledge: an ontology in which Brahman's nature (Phase One) and the structure of human meditative access to Brahman (Phase Two) are rendered as a single, coherent, ICR-inseparable dual-aspect system. The convergence across frameworks — AV, Buddhism, MMMSN, and DPV~ICRDAM — on the two-level epistemic architecture, the pedagogical necessity of diversity within unity, the impersonal operation of causal regularities at the SB-level, and the NB→SB→NB cyclic structure, demonstrates that the deepest structural features of Bādarāyaṇa's ancient sūtras are accessible from multiple philosophical traditions simultaneously — and that DPV~ICRDAM, by holding the first-person (s_encoded_EII) and third-person (ns_encoded_EII) perspectives simultaneously within the unified DA_EII framework, provides the most adequate and most parsimonious philosophical language currently available for the cross-paradigmatic science of contemplative transformation. 7. Short Abstract (< 250 words) This paper provides a synthesized cross-paradigmatic interpretation of twenty-three sūtras spanning Brahma Sūtras 3.2.31–41 (BS349–359) and 3.3.1–13 (BS360–372), analysed through four frameworks: Advaita Vedānta (AV), Buddhism (Theravāda through Vajrayāna), Mainstream Materialistic Modern Science especially Neuroscience (MMMSN), and DPV~ICRDAM (Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism; Vimal, 2026c). BS349–359 establish the foundational ontological architecture — DPV_NB (neutral-symmetric-unmanifested, HCC S1/S7) and DPV_SB (manifested dual-aspect psychophysical universe, S2–S6) — and interpret Brahman's relational predicates (BS349–355) and karma-phala administration (BS356–359) as operating within DPV_SB via the dual-aspect Zero-Point Field (DA_ZPF/UEIF_SB). BS360–372 articulate the hermeneutical and practical consequences: Vidyā-unity as invariant DA_EII structure (BS360–363), deliberate DA_EII-enrichment through cross-Śākhā upasaṃhāra (BS364), genuine Vidyā-distinction as different unified DA_EII (BS365–367), OM's universal DA_EII-potential (BS368), Prāṇa-Vidyā integration (BS369), and the essential Brahman_attribute_DASs of Ānanda-Sat-Cit identified by the arthasāmānya-criterion (BS370–372). All four frameworks converge on a two-level epistemic architecture, the pedagogical necessity of diversity within unity, and an NB→SB→NB cyclic structure. Key divergences concern cosmic consciousness, the hard problem of consciousness — dissolved by DPV~ICRDAM through ICR-inseparability of s_encoded_EII and ns_encoded_EII — and the nature of liberation, reconceived as transformation toward the pureC_DAS of SB within the current cosmic epoch (S4), not escape from SB into DPV_NB. The twenty-three sūtras together constitute a unified dual-aspect ontology of cosmos and contemplation that anticipates contemporary neuroscience, Buddhist phenomenology, and dual-aspect philosophy of mind.