Acharya Prashant explains that when a sage is asked by whom the entire world is pervaded, the answer is Brahman. He distinguishes this from smaller, scientific answers. For instance, one could explain that planets and satellites are bound by mutual gravitation, or detail the various physical forces that govern all matter in the world. However, such explanations are endless and will not bring a final resolution. Even physics has reached a point where it must ask fundamental questions like "What is it? Why is it?" and, most importantly, "For whom is it?" This inquiry leads to the question of the observer. Physics is now grappling with the problem of "Who is the observer?" and the relationship between the observer and the observed phenomenon. This is not merely a spiritual or psychological issue but a problem within physics itself. This question is fundamentally about consciousness. Even this line of inquiry has its limits. One might conclude that the seen depends on the seer, and the seer is composed of all things seen, but the question of what lies beneath both remains. This ultimate question cannot be resolved through thought; its answer is silence. The purpose of this silence is for the question itself to cease. Silence is recommended for those who have delved deeply into a question. To reach this depth, curiosity and questions are necessary. However, for the one who has gone deep, the purpose of all inquiry is fulfilled, and they are advised to let go of the inquiry and become silent. The purpose of all inquiry is to cut through falsehoods. When all falsehoods are gone, the last remaining falsehood is the inquiry itself, which must also be removed. The method to cut this final falsehood is called Brahman. However, Brahman is useful only for those who have already used inquiry and satsang to quiet all their inner questions. The speaker warns against misusing this concept, such as answering a child's scientific question with "Brahman," which is superstition. One must first exhaust the limits of inquiry. Spirituality is intensely scientific; it is the pinnacle of the scientific temper, investigating both the seen and the seer. It is not unscientific or opposed to science. He cautions against using spiritual concepts to explain away physical phenomena or personal irresponsibility, emphasizing that for material matters, a scientific approach is appropriate.