Let us contemplate the nature of the self, as revealed in the revered Brahma Sutras. Some might wonder, could the self be like an instrument, a mere tool among tools? But this cannot be so, for the self is the enjoyer, the experiencer of pleasure, pain, and all sensations. An instrument alone does not experience; it is not the agent of enjoyment. If the self were like an instrument, then it would be limited, finite—lacking the all-knowing quality that the scriptures ascribe to the true self. Moreover, if the self were produced like an instrument, then origination would be possible. But the self is eternal; it does not arise or perish like created things. Furthermore, an instrument is never the agent—it cannot act on its own, but is always wielded by another. Yet, if one says that cognition and awareness do exist in the self, that is not denied; for the scriptures affirm the self as the knower and the witness. However, to equate the self with an instrument leads to contradictions, for the self’s nature is unique and cannot be reduced to that of a tool. Turning to the question of the elements and their origins, the scriptures declare that the self does not arise from space, for such an idea is not heard in the sacred texts. Still, space itself does exist, and its existence is affirmed by the words of scripture and by the possibility of secondary meanings. For some, the word “Brahman” serves as an example: it is used to indicate the ultimate reality, even while distinctions appear in the world. There is no violation of the teaching, for the self and Brahman are not truly separate; their apparent distinction arises only from words and persists only as long as modifications exist, just as in worldly experience. This reasoning applies equally to air, fire, water, and earth—the other elements. Their distinctions, too, are explained by the context and the words used in the scriptures. Yet, existence as such does not fit these elements absolutely, and so the teaching moves from space to fire, then to water, and then to earth, as the scriptures say. The sequence of these elements is sometimes reversed, and this is appropriate according to the context. If it is argued that consciousness and mind should be placed between the elements because of certain indications, this is not so, for the distinction is not found in the true nature of reality. Instead, the designations of moving and unmoving are only figurative, based on the presence or absence of movement. The self, unlike the elements, is not produced. The scriptures declare it eternal, standing apart from all that is created. Therefore, the self is the knower, the one who departs, moves, and returns in the cycles of life. In the latter two—movement and return—the self acts by its own nature. If someone objects, saying that the subtle self is not meant here because of another scriptural reference, this is not correct, for the context is different in each case. Furthermore, the self is indicated by its own term and by the measure given in the texts. There is no contradiction here, just as with the example of sandalwood, which retains its fragrance despite appearing in different forms. If it is argued that the self’s states differ and thus it cannot be the same, this too is not so; for the self is always present in the heart, and its acceptance is constant. Or, if one points to differences in quality, as in worldly things, the scriptures show that distinction arises as with fragrance—distinct, yet not separate from its source. The teachings are given separately for clarity, but the designation of the self by its qualities is like calling someone wise because of their wisdom. As long as the self possesses these qualities, there is no fault in such designation, for this is seen in the world. Just as maleness and other attributes are spoken of in relation to their manifestation, so too is the self’s existence connected with its manifestations. Otherwise, there would arise the problem of constant perception or non-perception, or an unnecessary restriction to one or the other. The self is the agent, for the scriptures have meaning and speak of the self’s actions. Moreover, the texts mention the self’s taking up and departing—further affirming its role as the true doer and experiencer in all the worlds.