In the ongoing inquiry into the nature of the Self and its relationship with the world, it is explained that the arguments concerning Yoga are addressed by the preceding reasoning. Yet, doubts may arise—one might think that Yoga, or union, is of a different nature, and the very use of the word suggests this distinction. The scriptures clarify that when identification or oneness is spoken of, it is only due to the presence of distinctions; the apparent unity arises because differences exist to be overcome. This is not merely a theoretical claim—it is something observed in experience. If someone were to argue that the Self or the experiencer does not exist at all, this cannot be accepted, for such an argument is simply a negation, not a positive explanation. Furthermore, if this logic were applied to everyday acts like eating, it would lead to unreasonable consequences, for the same problem would arise: who is the eater? But this comparison does not hold, because there is no true parallel example to support it. Moreover, this line of reasoning brings defects into the very position of the one who argues so, and the reasoning itself lacks a stable foundation. Even if one tries to infer the Self’s nature in some other way, it only leads to endless uncertainty, never to true clarity. By this chain of reasoning, the acceptance or rejection of other remaining views on the Self is also addressed. If someone claims that the absence of an experiencer is due to the lack of differentiation, it would be like saying the world itself does not exist—an untenable position. The non-difference of the Self is established by scriptural words such as “origin” and similar terms, which affirm both unity and distinction. Furthermore, perception takes place only when there is presence—something must exist to perceive. It is also pointed out that the “other”—the world—truly exists. If one objects that scriptures describe the world as non-existent, this is not so, for the rest of the sentence and other scriptural words indicate that another attribute is being described, not absolute non-existence. This is illustrated by examples such as cloth, which is described in terms of its threads, or breath and similar phenomena, where the underlying reality is not denied but described in terms of its manifestations. When the world is designated as “other” than the Self, certain defects arise, such as the impossibility of action—how could anything happen if there were absolute separation? Yet, scripture teaches that there is something extra, a remainder, because difference is specified. If someone tries to compare the Self and the world to stone and similar insentient things, this analogy fails; their relationship is not like that. If it is objected that dissolution—the disappearance of the individual soul into the Self—is observed, the reply is that this is like milk mixing into milk, not like destruction; the essence remains. Similarly, just as gods and other beings exist in their own way, so too does the world, each with its own reality. If one insists that the Self must be either wholly extended through all things or completely partless, this leads to contradiction, for scripture describes the Self in both ways, depending on context. Ultimately, it is the authority of scripture—the revealed word—that is the true source of knowledge in these matters. Scripture also reveals that various attributes are indeed found in the Self, and this is supported by observation. The opposing view, which denies these attributes, is itself flawed. All attributes that are necessary or possible are found present, as is evident from experience and scripture. If it is objected that the Self cannot possess these attributes because it is without organs or parts, this has already been answered. The Self has a purpose, and just as in the world, creation occurs not out of necessity or compulsion, but for the sake of divine play, for the joy of manifestation. It is not due to partiality or cruelty that the world is as it is, for everything depends on other factors—such is the teaching of scripture. If someone objects that actions are not distributed fairly among beings, it is explained that, because the cycle of action is beginningless, this is reasonable and observed in the world. All attributes that are needed for the explanation of reality are possible in the Self. Furthermore, the arrangement of the world cannot be explained by inference alone, for inference does not suffice, nor is there activity without a conscious principle. If someone tries to compare the Self’s relationship with the world to that of milk mixing with water, the objection remains unresolved. Separation between the Self and the world is not established, nor is there dependence as in such mixtures. No example from grass or similar things is found to be appropriate. Even if the relationship is compared to that between men and stones, the problem persists—the analogy does not fit. Ultimately, the relation of principal and subordinate entities is not possible in this context, for the nature of the Self transcends such comparisons. Thus, through careful reasoning, observation, and the authority of scripture, these subtle truths about the Self, the world, and their relationship are revealed and clarified.