Proof — Verse 1.8

तस्यार्थवादरूपाणि निश्रिताः स्वविकल्पजाः ।
एकत्विनां द्वैतिनां च प्रवादा बहुधा मताः ॥ ८ ॥

Resting on its arthavada portions, the manifold doctrines of the monists and the dualists are held — arising from their own conceptual constructions.

Endorsed axioms (each cite is verbatim commentary)

• {"kind": "relation", "name": "niśrita", "from": "ekatva_pravada", "to": "arthavada"}“take their stand on precisely these portions”
• {"kind": "relation", "name": "niśrita", "from": "dvaita_pravada", "to": "arthavada"}“take their stand on precisely these portions”
• {"kind": "relation", "name": "nikalpaja", "from": "ekatva_pravada", "to": "vikalpa"}“born of their own vikalpa, their own conceptual construction”
• {"kind": "relation", "name": "nikalpaja", "from": "dvaita_pravada", "to": "vikalpa"}“born of their own vikalpa, their own conceptual construction”

Denials

• {"kind": "relation", "name": "niśrita", "from": "ekatva_pravada", "to": "vidhi"}“the explanatory or laudatory material that does not directly command action”
• {"kind": "relation", "name": "niśrita", "from": "dvaita_pravada", "to": "vidhi"}“the explanatory or laudatory material that does not directly command action”

Rejected readings (refuted by compiled theorems)

• “The monist and dualist doctrines rest on the injunctive commands of the Veda.” — Misidentifies the foundation as vidhi (injunctive portions) when the verse explicitly states it is arthavada (non-injunctive explanatory material). This category error undermines the commentary's key point: that ambiguous non-injunctive material permits multiple constructions.
• “The monist and dualist doctrines converge on a single underlying truth derived from the Veda.” — Ignores the verse's emphasis on manifold (bahudhā) conflicting doctrines arising from their own differing constructions (svavikalpajāh). The commentary explicitly notes they 'multiply and conflict' precisely because they rest on non-injunctive ambiguous material.
• “The monist and dualist doctrines are directly revealed by Vedic knowledge, not mental constructions.” — Contradicts the explicit statement that they are svavikalpajāh (born from their own conceptual constructions). The verse places the doctrines squarely in the domain of vikalpa (conceptual elaboration), not revelation.

Lean module

/- Verse 1.8 — generated from data/contracts/1.8.json. DO NOT EDIT.
   Axiom cites are verbatim commentary quotations, validated by
   tests/test_contracts.py. -/
import VakyaVallari.Adequacy

namespace VakyaVallari.Verses.V1_8

open VakyaVallari

def arthavada : Entity := ⟨"arthavāda", Sorta.linguisticItem⟩
def vidhi : Entity := ⟨"vidhi", Sorta.linguisticItem⟩
def ekatva_pravada : Entity := ⟨"ekativā-pravāda", Sorta.cognition⟩
def dvaita_pravada : Entity := ⟨"dvaitā-pravāda", Sorta.cognition⟩
def vikalpa : Entity := ⟨"vikalpa", Sorta.cognition⟩

def contract : Contract :=
  { axioms := [ Claim.relation "niśrita" (Node.ent ekatva_pravada) (Node.ent arthavada)
    , Claim.relation "niśrita" (Node.ent dvaita_pravada) (Node.ent arthavada)
    , Claim.relation "nikalpaja" (Node.ent ekatva_pravada) (Node.ent vikalpa)
    , Claim.relation "nikalpaja" (Node.ent dvaita_pravada) (Node.ent vikalpa) ]
  , denials := [ Claim.relation "niśrita" (Node.ent ekatva_pravada) (Node.ent vidhi)
    , Claim.relation "niśrita" (Node.ent dvaita_pravada) (Node.ent vidhi) ]
  , reported := [] }

def accepted : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.relation "niśrita" (Node.ent ekatva_pravada) (Node.ent arthavada)
    , Claim.relation "niśrita" (Node.ent dvaita_pravada) (Node.ent arthavada)
    , Claim.relation "nikalpaja" (Node.ent ekatva_pravada) (Node.ent vikalpa)
    , Claim.relation "nikalpaja" (Node.ent dvaita_pravada) (Node.ent vikalpa) ] }

theorem accepted_adequate : contract.Adequate accepted := by decide

namespace Counterexamples

/- 'The monist and dualist doctrines rest on the injunctive commands of the Veda.'
   Why rejected: Misidentifies the foundation as vidhi (injunctive portions) when the verse explicitly states it is arthavada (non-injunctive explanatory material). This category error undermines the commentary's key point: that ambiguous non-injunctive material permits multiple constructions. -/
def injunctive_foundation : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.relation "niśrita" (Node.ent ekatva_pravada) (Node.ent vidhi)
    , Claim.relation "niśrita" (Node.ent dvaita_pravada) (Node.ent vidhi) ] }
theorem injunctive_foundation_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate injunctive_foundation := by decide
#guard contract.contradicts injunctive_foundation = true

/- 'The monist and dualist doctrines converge on a single underlying truth derived from the Veda.'
   Why rejected: Ignores the verse's emphasis on manifold (bahudhā) conflicting doctrines arising from their own differing constructions (svavikalpajāh). The commentary explicitly notes they 'multiply and conflict' precisely because they rest on non-injunctive ambiguous material. -/
def unified_pravada : Entity := ⟨"ekā pravāda", Sorta.cognition⟩
def unified_doctrine : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.identity ekatva_pravada unified_pravada
    , Claim.identity dvaita_pravada unified_pravada ] }
theorem unified_doctrine_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate unified_doctrine := by decide
#guard contract.licenses unified_doctrine = false

/- 'The monist and dualist doctrines are directly revealed by Vedic knowledge, not mental constructions.'
   Why rejected: Contradicts the explicit statement that they are svavikalpajāh (born from their own conceptual constructions). The verse places the doctrines squarely in the domain of vikalpa (conceptual elaboration), not revelation. -/
def revelation : Entity := ⟨"śruti", Sorta.cognition⟩
def revealed_not_constructed : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.relation "nikalpaja" (Node.ent ekatva_pravada) (Node.ent revelation) ] }
theorem revealed_not_constructed_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate revealed_not_constructed := by decide
#guard contract.licenses revealed_not_constructed = false

end Counterexamples

end VakyaVallari.Verses.V1_8