In the course of deep philosophical inquiry, the sages grappled with the nature of knowledge and existence. They observed that, when one attempts to infer the self or consciousness in a manner contrary to tradition, the power of knowledge is found wanting; the inference does not hold, for knowledge cannot arise without a proper basis. Even if one were to accept such an inference, they noted, the object under consideration—the self—would not truly exist in that manner. Furthermore, the sages pointed out that such inferences lead to contradictions and are therefore unreasonable. They likened this confusion to the way the qualities of greatness and length are paired with smallness and shortness, showing that opposites cannot coexist in the same context. In both possible approaches to this problem, no genuine action can be discerned, and thus, the possibility of action is absent. The sages also argued that, due to the acceptance of inherence—where properties are assumed to reside within objects—there is no finality to the inquiry, for similarity alone cannot settle the matter. They affirmed that existence itself is eternal, and when objects possess form and other attributes, the opposite of eternality is observed, further complicating the discussion. In both approaches, faults emerge, highlighting the limitations of reasoning. Because the true self is absolutely non-possessive, it remains completely independent, untouched by attributes or actions. Even when aggregates are said to be caused by multiple factors, the attainment of the self through such means does not occur. If mutual causality is suggested as appropriate, the sages refuted it, since the existence of the aggregate cannot serve as the cause for the self. As time unfolds, when a later state arises, the earlier state ceases; there cannot be simultaneous existence of both. If the earlier state does not exist, the assertion of causality is obstructed; otherwise, one would have to accept simultaneity, which is not reasonable. The attainment of cessation—whether with discrimination or without—is not interrupted, and in both ways, faults persist. In the vastness of space, no distinction can be made, for space itself is undifferentiated. Moreover, the recollection of experiences points to the existence of the self, for memory cannot arise without a subject. The non-existent cannot be said to exist, since it is not observed in experience. This same conclusion applies even to those who remain indifferent; the absence of observation affirms non-existence. Conversely, non-existence cannot be established, for the self is apprehended as existent. The sages clarified that the self is not like a dream or similar illusions, because its nature is fundamentally different. Yet, existence cannot be claimed where it is not apprehended, and such claims are unreasonable in every respect. It is impossible for the self to be contained within one entity, for such limitation cannot be supported. Thus, the sages established the all-pervasiveness of the self, which transcends individual boundaries. They rejected the notion that non-contradiction could be achieved through succession, since transformation and other changes undermine such continuity. When both entities are eternal in their final state, no distinction can be made between them. It is not fitting for the Lord to be subject to such limitations, and the idea of a substratum for the self is unreasonable. If the self were merely an instrument, this would not suffice, for the self is the enjoyer and experiencer, not simply a tool. Otherwise, there would be either finitude or lack of omniscience, which cannot be attributed to the self. Origination of the self is impossible, and the instrument cannot be the agent of action. If cognition and other faculties are acknowledged, then their existence cannot be denied. Yet, mutual contradiction arises in such arguments, further complicating the matter. The sages asserted that the self does not arise from space, for such a thing is not heard in the scriptures. However, the self does exist. This is affirmed by the possibility of secondary meanings and the use of the word itself. For one who seeks, it may be understood as with the word 'Brahman'—the ultimate reality, whose existence is established through the teachings and the wisdom of the sages.