Let us contemplate the nature of the Self and the world, as revealed through the wisdom of the scriptures. It is not possible to compare the Self to inert things such as stone and the like, for their nature is fundamentally different. Some may object, pointing to the dissolution of things as evidence against the eternal Self. But this is not so; the dissolution observed in the world is like that of milk, which transforms but does not truly cease to be—it changes form, yet its essence remains. Just as this is true for the gods and other beings, so too does it apply to the world as a whole. If we were to extend the analogy of dissolution to everything, we would encounter two difficulties: either we would wrongly attribute dissolution to the entirety of existence, or we would contradict the scriptural teaching that the Self is without parts—partless and indivisible. But our understanding must be rooted in scripture, whose authority is established through the revealed word (śabda). The scriptures further teach that various attributes are indeed found in the Self, just as they are observed in the world. Moreover, the views that oppose this understanding are beset with faults, while the scriptural position accounts for all attributes as they are actually seen. If it is argued that the Self cannot possess attributes because it is without organs, this has already been addressed: the Self's reality does not depend on physical organs. Furthermore, the existence of the world and its arrangement has a purpose, as the scriptures indicate. Yet, just as in the world, creation may occur solely for the sake of play—divine lila—rather than from necessity or compulsion. This is not due to partiality or cruelty on the part of the Divine, for the results experienced by beings depend on other factors, such as their own actions. The scriptures make this clear: the diversity of experiences arises not from arbitrariness, but from the interplay of karma. If someone objects that the consequences of actions are not distributed appropriately, it is reasonable to reply that, because the chain of actions is beginningless, the variety we see is indeed justified and is also observed in the world. All possibilities of attributes are thus found to exist. Turning to the question of inference, the order and arrangement of the world cannot be explained by mere logical inference, for activity itself would not be possible without the Self. If it is said that the relation between the Self and the world is like that of milk and water, even there the objection remains unresolved, for the necessary separation is not established, nor is there dependence. Moreover, such a relation is not observed elsewhere; it is not like the mixing of grass and other substances. If it is argued that the Self and the world relate like men and stones, even then the objection persists. The relation of being a principal entity is not possible in such comparisons. When inference is attempted otherwise, it fails due to the absence of the power of knowledge; even if such inference is accepted, the existence of the object is not established. Contradictions arise, making it unreasonable to accept such views. Alternatively, if one tries to explain the relation by comparing the great and the long with the short and the small, it does not resolve the matter. In both ways, there is no action, and therefore, the absence of such action must be accepted. Furthermore, the acceptance of inherence—where one thing exists in another—does not provide a final explanation, as it merely repeats the similarity without resolving the core issue. Existence itself is found to be eternal, as taught in scripture. On the other hand, if one claims that the Self possesses form and similar attributes, the opposite is observed: the Self is formless and beyond such distinctions. In every proposed way, faults are found. Because the Self is absolutely without possession, it enjoys complete independence. Even if one supposes that the aggregate of body and mind is caused by both the Self and the non-Self, true attainment does not occur, for the aggregate itself is not the cause. If it is suggested that mutual causality makes this appropriate, it is not so, because the existence of the aggregate does not serve as the cause. When a later state arises, the earlier ceases; if the earlier does not exist, the assertion of causality is obstructed, and if both exist together, it would imply simultaneity, which is not observed. The attainment of cessation—whether with or without discrimination—is not interrupted by these objections. In every way, faults persist in the opposing views. In the context of space, there is no distinction to be made, for space is undivided. Recollection further supports the continuity and reality of the Self. That which does not exist is not observed to exist; thus, there is no existence of the non-existent. In this way, the same conclusion holds even for those who remain indifferent or unconcerned with these matters. The teachings of the scriptures, grounded in reason and observation, reveal the eternal, independent, and partless nature of the Self, guiding us beyond all doubt.