Let us contemplate the nature of existence and non-existence, as revealed by the sages. First, it is declared that non-existence cannot be, for we apprehend it only as something that exists. Unlike the fleeting images of a dream, which are insubstantial and vanish upon waking, non-existence is not of the same nature; its reality is not comparable to dreams or illusions, for it lacks the essential qualities that distinguish the real from the unreal. On the other hand, pure existence, too, cannot be affirmed absolutely, for it is not directly apprehended as such. Reason does not support the idea in any way, and it is impossible to posit it as a singular entity. Thus, the all-pervasiveness of the self is established—pervading all, yet not limited or defined by any one thing. Furthermore, the idea that contradiction is avoided by succession—by things transforming from one to another—does not hold, for transformation itself implies change and contradiction. In the ultimate state, both existence and non-existence are understood to be eternal; hence, there is no real distinction between them. Such differentiation does not befit the nature of the Lord, nor is it reasonable to posit a substratum apart from the self. Should one suggest that the self is merely an instrument, this too is not tenable, for the self is the enjoyer, the subject of experience, not a mere tool. If it were so, then the self would be finite or lack omniscience, which cannot be. Origination, too, cannot be ascribed to it, for the self is birthless and eternal. Moreover, an instrument is not an agent; it does not act of itself. If there is cognition and similar faculties, these are not denied, yet they do not define the self. Rather, contradictions arise when attempting to equate the self with such changing attributes. Turning to the question of origins, it is not from space that things arise, since this is not taught in the scriptures. Yet, existence does persist, as affirmed by the sacred words. Sometimes, the scriptures employ terms with secondary meanings, and as with the word "Brahman," the context may allow for a broader understanding. There is no violation of the scriptural proposition, for there is no true separation between being and its manifestations; the words themselves guide us. The distinctions we perceive endure only as long as modifications last, just as in worldly experience. This reasoning applies equally to air and the other elements. However, in some cases, existence is not a suitable fit, and so, fire is declared as the next principle, followed by water, and then earth—each affirmed by scriptural words and the order of manifestation. Other scriptural terms and the context further clarify these forms. Yet, only through meditation upon the true nature of these elements, guided by the scriptural signs, does their reality become clear. The reverse order of dissolution is also appropriate, as reason and scripture indicate. If it is argued that consciousness and mind should be placed between the elements in the sequence because of certain signs, this is not so, for no true distinction can be made. Rather, such designations are figurative, based on the presence or absence of movement in beings—moving and unmoving. Above all, the self is not produced, for scripture declares it eternal, unlike the elements that arise and dissolve. Therefore, the knower—the self—is eternal. When considering departure, movement, and return, it is by its own nature that the self acts in the latter two cases. If it is objected that the subtle self is not meant, because of some scriptural statement, this is not so, for the broader context applies. The self is also indicated by its own term and by measure, and there is no contradiction—just as sandalwood, though it may appear different when mingled with other substances, is still sandalwood at its core. Thus, the nature of the self, existence, and the elements is clarified by the wisdom of the scriptures.