Acharya Prashant explains that the sense of 'I am' is never independent; it is always contingent upon something external. He asserts that it is nonsensical to claim 'I am nothing' because even in that statement, one has unnecessarily attached themselves to the concept of nothingness. The human ego, or the 'I am' sense, functions like a highly reactive free radical in chemistry, constantly seeking association with objects, roles, or identities such as being a father, an employee, or a seeker. This sense of self cannot tolerate its own loneliness and must find something—a new hobby, a scripture, or a partner—to fill its inherent void. He further clarifies that the 'I am' sense lacks true individuality because it is entirely dependent on what it attaches to. When an individual identifies with the body or an object like gold, they cease to exist as anything separate from that object. This dependency is so profound that when an attachment is lost, such as after a relationship breakup, the individual immediately seeks a new attachment to avoid the intolerable void. Ultimately, Acharya Prashant suggests that the self has no independent reality or existence. He concludes that since the 'I' does not truly exist, there is nothing meaningful to say about oneself, and even the innocence of babies is only relative as they carry inherited inclinations.