Bhashya
सर्वम्' इति प्रतिज्ञातस्य आत्मोत्पत्तिस्थितिलयत्वं हेतु-मुक्त्वा, पुनः आगमप्रधानेन मधुब्राह्मणेन प्रतिज्ञातस्य अ-र्थस्य निगमनं क्रियते ; तथाहि नैयायिकैरुक्तम्-'हेत्वपदे-शात्प्रतिज्ञायाः पुनर्वचनं निगमनम्' इति ।अन्यैर्व्याख्या-तम्-आ दुन्दुभिदृष्टान्तात् श्रोतव्यार्थमागमवचनम्, प्रा-ञ्चाद्युब्राह्मणात् मन्तव्यार्थम् उपपत्तिप्रदर्शनेन, मधुब्राह्मणेन तु निदिध्यासनविधिरुच्यत इति ।सर्वथापि तु यथा आग-मेनावधारितम्, तर्कतस्तथैव मन्तव्यम् ; यथा तर्कतो मत-म्, तस्य तर्कागमाभ्यां निश्चितस्य तथैव निदिध्यासनं क्रि-यत इति पृथक् निदिध्यासनविधिरनर्थक एव ; तस्मात् पृथक् प्रकरणविभागः अनर्थक इत्यस्मदभिप्रायः श्रवणमन-ननिदिध्यासनानामिति ।सर्वथापि तु अध्यायद्वयस्यार्थः अस्मिन्ब्राह्मणे उपसंह्रियते ॥
In plain words
Having given the reason for that claim -- that the Self is where everything comes from, rests in, and returns to -- the text now uses the Madhu-Brāhmaṇa, which leans heavily on scripture, to bring the argument home. That is exactly what logicians call a conclusion: restating the thesis once the reason has been given. Some teachers read the structure differently: up through the drum simile is for hearing the teaching, the section on the directions is for reasoning it through, and the Madhu-Brāhmaṇa is for meditating on it. But truthfully, it doesn't work that way in neat separate boxes. Whatever scripture settles, reason has to confirm the same way; and whatever reason settles, once scripture and reason agree on it, that is exactly what gets meditated on. So a separate rule just for meditation adds nothing. Carving the text into separate sections for hearing, reasoning, and meditating is, to my mind, beside the point -- all three are really doing the same work throughout. Either way, this section is where the teaching of these two whole chapters comes together.
Close to the Sanskrit
Having stated the reason for the thesis proposed -- 'the Self alone is all this' -- namely the Self's being the origination, subsistence, and dissolution [of everything], now, by the Madhu-Brāhmaṇa, which is predominantly scriptural, a conclusion of the proposed point is made. For thus it has been said by the logicians: 'The restatement of the thesis after the mention of the reason is the conclusion.' Others have explained it thus: up to the drum-simile, [there is] scriptural statement for the purpose of what is to be heard; from the section beginning with the eastern [quarter], [there is matter] for the purpose of reflection, through the demonstration of reasoning; while by the Madhu-Brāhmaṇa, the procedure for meditation is stated. In any case, however: whatever is ascertained by scripture must likewise be reflected upon by reasoning; and whatever is concluded by reasoning, once settled by both reasoning and scripture, is meditated upon in that same way -- so a separate injunction for meditation is simply pointless. Therefore a separate division into sections is, in our view, pointless -- for hearing, reflection, and meditation alike. In any case, the meaning of the two chapters is gathered up in this brāhmaṇa.