Accepting the division of the functions of the mind into buddhi, ahankara and manas we can say that each of them entails its own mode of being of the self of which it is the momentary expression. For buddhi this is certainty or necessity, for ahankara it is insistence and in manas it is elaboration and supplementation. Of the three it is ahankara that is the most relational, that unfolds in what we can identify as sexual patterns. One experiences another will directly through one's own will, but not just as a mode of opposition. Submission too is thus seen as a mode of insistence; it is as if the wills can dance with each other, can penetrate each other and so on. Or alternately, all the forms of sexualised play and of intercourse are the unfolding of the ways in which two wills can encounter and become entangled with each other. The perception of the world through will or ahankara is entirely different metaphysically than through the modes of understanding conditioned by the other modes, manas and buddhi. Will instantly recognises will, and orients itself accordingly, wisely or unwisely, even across species, suggesting a larger commonality. Does all will have the same fundamental character which expressed itself in different ways, or is there, say a masculine and a feminine will? Perhaps the difference is only in the range and freedom of tactical figures that can be assumed, small differences in disposition which lead to large differences in expression.