Kāśakṛtsna, the revered sage, explains that the self continues to exist because of its enduring nature. Its original character remains intact, as there is no contradiction between the philosophical proposition and the illustrative examples provided. Furthermore, the scriptures teach about the self’s intention, affirming its authenticity. Both traditions, the ancient lineages, directly declare the self’s existence and nature, leaving no doubt. The self, he says, exists for its own sake, not for anything else. The process of transformation within the self is acknowledged, and the source of all, the origin, is spoken of in the sacred texts. With these explanations, Kāśakṛtsna asserts that all relevant aspects have been addressed—everything has been explained. Moving into the next section, a possible objection arises: if one follows this reasoning, would it exclude the scope for Smṛti, the remembered tradition? This is not the case, for such exclusion applies only to other Smṛtis, not the ones under discussion. Moreover, alternative views are not observed in practice. By these arguments, even the path of Yoga is clarified and answered. Another objection is raised: is the self not different? The response is clear—it is indeed different, and the very words of the scriptures indicate this distinction. The apparent identification arises only due to the presence of distinctions. This is not merely theoretical; it is observed in experience. If someone claims the self is non-existent, that cannot be so—it is only a negation, not a positive assertion. Even in common actions like eating, such a consequence would arise, which is unreasonable. The argument fails because there is no comparable example to support it. The defects in such opposing positions become apparent, and reasoning without a firm foundation cannot stand. If one infers otherwise, endless uncertainty follows, leaving the matter unresolved. By these arguments, the acceptance or rejection of other remaining views is also clarified. If the absence of an experiencer is due to non-differentiation, then it would be like the world, indistinct and undifferentiated. Yet, non-difference is established through words such as ‘origin’ and others, which point to the unique nature of the self. Perception occurs only in the presence of the self, further confirming its existence. The other, that which is not the self, is also existent. If it is objected that the self is called non-existent, this is not so, for other attributes are indicated by the remainder of the sentence and by other words. The analogy of cloth is used—just as cloth is made of threads, so too the self has its components. Similarly, breath and other functions illustrate the presence of the self. Because the self is designated as ‘other’, defects such as the impossibility of action arise if one denies its existence. Yet, there is something extra, for difference is specified in the scriptures. The analogy of stone and the like is invoked, showing that such impossibility does not apply. If it is objected that dissolution is observed, the answer is that it is like milk—milk changes form but its essence remains. The same applies to gods and other beings; what is true for them is also true in the world. If one argues that this would lead to an undue extension to the whole, or contradict the statement that the self is partless, the scriptures provide clarity. The source of truth is the word (śabda) of the sacred texts. Various attributes are indeed found in the self, as scripture and experience both attest. The faults in the opposing views are exposed, and all attributes are found in the self, as is seen. If it is said that this is not so, because the self is without organs, that objection has already been answered. The final word is this: the self exists because it has purpose. Thus, through careful reasoning, analogy, and scriptural testimony, the continued existence, nature, and purpose of the self are established, and all doubts are resolved.