IPVV — V2-L ARGUMENT MAP (the ṣaṣṭho vimarśa: the apohanaśakti, the "I"-recollection is not a construction, kārikās 1–5)

The apohanaśakti is examined in 11 verses: one says the pratyavamarśa's distinction is the vikalpa; one removes the apohana-operation in the pure "I"-recollection; one says the apohana-operation is in our view; two say the un-pure "I"-recollection's construction-ness, and the anusandhāna's too is a construction; one says the thus-natured synthesis is the Lord's creating-ness; one (on the cidātmā) sums up the appearance-being; two say in the experience/memory the appearance is the varied; one ties this to the present self-form recognition. (The prior 1.5.11: "the vimarśa is the manifestation's nature.") The objection: "the vimarśa is by the word-joining, and that necessarily makes it a construction — and that, being the saṃsāric/māyā-form, how could it be in the Lord?" — answered by the sūt

> The "I"-recollection (ahaṃ-pratyavamarśa), which, though of the manifestation-nature, has the word > as its body — that is not a construction; it is the fit, the two-throwing (dvayākṣepī), the > determination (niścaya). The pure "I"-recollection — of the manifestation free of the body-and-the-rest contraction, of the self-nature, of the freedom-rest, the supreme, the foundation — that is not a vikalpa. The doubt: the word-bodied (vāgvapuḥ) — even the word-body, the sound-graspable-form-exceeding-inner-appearance, the word-nature, the word-body — [seems to be a construction]. Why is it not a vikalpa? Because (sahi): the construction (vividha-kalpanā) is the joining of the distinct (like the molasses, the curd, the pepper), or the many-fold construction of the one, or the construction/spl