In the inquiry into the nature of creation and the workings of the universe, the sages observed that, much like in the world where play exists solely for its own sake, creation too arises not out of necessity but as a divine sport, a lila. This process, however, is not born from partiality or cruelty on the part of the Lord, for it depends upon other factors—so the scriptures reveal. If one objects that this cannot be so, since actions are not distributed according to merit or demerit, the response is that the chain of actions is beginningless; thus, it is reasonable and also evidenced by experience. Furthermore, all attributes—such as pleasure, pain, and so forth—are seen to be possible within this framework. When considering the arrangement of the universe, it becomes clear that it cannot be established by inference alone, as there is no independent activity apart from the divine. If one suggests an analogy, such as milk mixing with water, even then the objection remains unresolved. The separation of cause and effect is not established, nor is there any dependence upon anything else. Since such a relationship is not found elsewhere—not even like grass and other objects—these analogies do not hold. If another analogy is drawn, such as men and stones, the same objection persists. The relation of being a principal entity is not possible in these cases, and inference otherwise is not valid due to the absence of the power of knowledge. Even if such a relation is accepted, the object itself does not truly exist as separate. Contradictions arise, making such positions unreasonable. Some may compare this to the relationship between the great and the long, or the short and the small, but in both ways, no real action is possible; therefore, such action is truly absent. If inherence is accepted due to similarity, it still does not provide a final explanation. Existence is indeed eternal, and where objects possess form and the like, the opposite of inherence is observed. In both ways, faults arise in the argument. Because the self is absolutely unpossessed, it is completely independent. Even if it is suggested that the aggregate of body and self is caused by both, true attainment does not occur. If mutual causality is proposed, it is not appropriate, for the existence of the aggregate does not serve as a cause. When a later state arises, the earlier one ceases. If the earlier does not exist, then the assertion of causality is obstructed; otherwise, simultaneity would result, which is not observed. The attainment of cessation—whether with or without discrimination—is not interrupted by these considerations, and again, faults arise in both approaches. In space, there is no distinction; all is one. Recollection further supports this, as memory persists. There is no existence of the non-existent, for it is not observed. In this manner, the same conclusion applies even to those who are indifferent. There is no true non-existence, for it is apprehended as existence. Nor can the world be likened to a dream, because the nature of dream and waking is different. There is no independent existence of the non-existent, for it is not apprehended. In every way, such positions are unreasonable. Not even in a single entity is this possible. Thus, it is established that the self is all-pervasive. Nor is there non-contradiction even by succession, due to the continuous process of transformation. In the final state, both the self and the Lord are eternal, and so there is no distinction. Such a division is not fitting for the Lord, and the idea of a separate substratum is not reasonable. In this way, the sages affirm the unity and independence of the self, the eternal nature of existence, and the unfathomable play of the divine, which transcends all limited analogies and conceptions.