If one argues that the embodied self’s change of states (childhood, youth, old age) shows the self is not present in the body, that is not so—for the soul is recognized despite bodily differences, as when one persists through the changes from childhood to later bodies. Nor can the absence of sensory experience in a dead body imply the soul is absent—because perception ceases when the life-principal departs. Likewise, the fact that one says 'I am a man' rests on experiential knowledge and is not mere mental fabrication; scriptural testimony too has authority like perception and is not akin to a mere doctrine of the intellect, because it is apauruṣeya (not of human authorship). One cannot attribute apauruṣeya status to scripture from mere human assertion; without the accepted authority of a statement its apauruṣeya character cannot be posited. If someone refuses to accept scripture, that alone does not make scripture inapplicable; one cannot reject a universally held, authoritative teaching without grounds. Nor can I claim 'I did not hear it'—for that would invite reply, error, or charge of being the cause of all suffering, and would raise doubts about the author of scriptural authority. Nor can the scripture’s freedom from defect be proved by its own words alone; nor can statements that claim apauruṣeya status be shown to be eternal by citing similar sayings, since eternal acceptance requires continuous transmission. Therefore the authority of the sruti is established; hence the wise are not overcome by sophistries. Alternatively, if one grieves expecting the loss of life or the body, neither is lost—life is not lost because the self is eternal, so 'you are not' is spoken of non-acceptance of such loss. Nor is it said that the embodied self is the body: just as grief arises at the loss of childhood because of change of bodily state, similarly grief occurs on losing an old body when another body is obtained.