Proof — Verse 1.118

शब्देष्वेवाश्रिता शक्तिर्विश्वस्यास्य निबन्धनी ।
यन्नेत्रः प्रतिभात्मायं भेदरूपः प्रतीयते ॥ ११८ ॥

The power residing in words themselves is what binds this universe; and this self, whose essence is the flash of insight, whose eye is that power, is perceived in the form of difference.

Endorsed axioms (each cite is verbatim commentary)

• {"kind": "relation", "name": "asrita", "from": "sakti", "to": "sabda"}“the sakti lodged sabdesv eva, in words themselves”
• {"kind": "predication", "name": "nibandhani", "of": "sakti"}“is the *binder of this universe*”
• {"kind": "predication", "name": "svarupa", "of": "atman"}“the atman, pratibha-atma, whose essence is pratibha — the immediate flash of understanding”
• {"kind": "relation", "name": "netra", "from": "atman", "to": "sakti"}“sees *through* that word-power (yan-netra, 'whose eye is it')”
• {"kind": "predication", "name": "bheda-rupa", "of": "atman"}“pratiyate bheda-rupah, is perceived in the form of difference”

Denials

• {"kind": "predication", "name": "bheda", "of": "atman"}“an undivided seer, seeing through the instrument of the word-power, appears divided *because its eye is the differentiating instrument*”

Rejected readings (refuted by compiled theorems)

• “The self is truly divided into many forms; difference is its real nature.” — The commentary explicitly states the seer is undivided (akhaṇḍa) and only *appears* divided because its differentiating instrument (the word-power) colours its perception. Making bheda an actual property of ātman contradicts the vivarta structure where multiplicity arises from the lens, not from the subject.
• “The word-power stands apart from the self and independently generates the appearance of the universe.” — Severs the constitutive unity in 'whose eye is that power': the commentary emphasizes that the power IS the self's very organ of self-perception, not an external force. The atman perceives *through* the word-power as its instrument (netra); they are inseparable in the perceptual act.
• “The atman actually transforms (parinama) into the differentiated world through the word-power's action.” — The verse's metaphor of the eye colouring the seen denies real transformation. The atman remains undivided; the appearance of difference is an artefact of the perceptual instrument (word-power), not a real change in the ātman's substance.

Lean module

/- Verse 1.118 — generated from data/contracts/1.118.json. DO NOT EDIT.
   Axiom cites are verbatim commentary quotations, validated by
   tests/test_contracts.py. -/
import VakyaVallari.Adequacy

namespace VakyaVallari.Verses.V1_118

open VakyaVallari

def sakti : Entity := ⟨"śakti", Sorta.power⟩
def sabda : Entity := ⟨"śabda", Sorta.linguisticItem⟩
def visva : Entity := ⟨"viśva", Sorta.manifestation⟩
def atman : Entity := ⟨"ātman", Sorta.absolute⟩
def pratibha : Entity := ⟨"pratibha", Sorta.cognition⟩
def bheda : Entity := ⟨"bheda", Sorta.manifestation⟩

def contract : Contract :=
  { axioms := [ Claim.relation "asrita" (Node.ent sakti) (Node.ent sabda)
    , Claim.predication "nibandhani" sakti
    , Claim.predication "svarupa" atman
    , Claim.relation "netra" (Node.ent atman) (Node.ent sakti)
    , Claim.predication "bheda-rupa" atman ]
  , denials := [ Claim.predication "bheda" atman ]
  , reported := [] }

def accepted : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.relation "asrita" (Node.ent sakti) (Node.ent sabda)
    , Claim.predication "nibandhani" sakti
    , Claim.relation "netra" (Node.ent atman) (Node.ent sakti)
    , Claim.predication "bheda-rupa" atman ] }

theorem accepted_adequate : contract.Adequate accepted := by decide

namespace Counterexamples

/- 'The self is truly divided into many forms; difference is its real nature.'
   Why rejected: The commentary explicitly states the seer is undivided (akhaṇḍa) and only *appears* divided because its differentiating instrument (the word-power) colours its perception. Making bheda an actual property of ātman contradicts the vivarta structure where multiplicity arises from the lens, not from the subject. -/
def atman_truly_divided : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.predication "bheda" atman ] }
theorem atman_truly_divided_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate atman_truly_divided := by decide
#guard contract.contradicts atman_truly_divided = true

/- 'The word-power stands apart from the self and independently generates the appearance of the universe.'
   Why rejected: Severs the constitutive unity in 'whose eye is that power': the commentary emphasizes that the power IS the self's very organ of self-perception, not an external force. The atman perceives *through* the word-power as its instrument (netra); they are inseparable in the perceptual act. -/
def sakti_without_instrument_role : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.relation "svatantra" (Node.ent sakti) (Node.ent visva) ] }
theorem sakti_without_instrument_role_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate sakti_without_instrument_role := by decide
#guard contract.licenses sakti_without_instrument_role = false

/- "The atman actually transforms (parinama) into the differentiated world through the word-power's action."
   Why rejected: The verse's metaphor of the eye colouring the seen denies real transformation. The atman remains undivided; the appearance of difference is an artefact of the perceptual instrument (word-power), not a real change in the ātman's substance. -/
def parinama_appearance : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.relation "parinamate" (Node.ent atman) (Node.ent visva) ] }
theorem parinama_appearance_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate parinama_appearance := by decide
#guard contract.licenses parinama_appearance = false

end Counterexamples

end VakyaVallari.Verses.V1_118