Proof — Verse 1.90

व्यज्यमाने तथा वाक्ये वाक्याभिव्यक्तिहेतुभिः ।
भागावग्रहरूपेण पूर्वं बुद्धिः प्रवर्तते ॥ ९० ॥

— so, while the sentence is being manifested by the causes of its manifestation, cognition first proceeds in the form of a seizing of parts.

Endorsed axioms (each cite is verbatim commentary)

• {"kind": "relation", "name": "pravartate", "from": "buddhi", "to": "bhagavagraha"}“the hearer's buddhi runs ahead in bhaga-avagraha-rupa, the form of part-seizure”
• {"kind": "predication", "name": "anyatha", "of": "bhaga"}“These part-graspings are the anyatha-determinations of 1.89: committed, useful, and destined to be superseded when the vakya-sphota is seized whole”
• {"kind": "relation", "name": "vivartate", "from": "bhagavagraha", "to": "sphota"}“destined to be superseded when the vakya-sphota is seized whole”

Denials

• {"kind": "predication", "name": "nitya", "of": "bhaga"}“destined to be superseded when the vakya-sphota is seized whole”

Rejected readings (refuted by compiled theorems)

• “Cognition directly grasps the undivided whole meaning without intermediate part-seizure.” — Bypasses the necessary intermediate stage of bhāgāvagraha (part-seizure) that the commentary emphasizes. This reverses the directional flow and violates the explicit sequence of the verse.
• “The part-seizures constitute the final and permanent grasp of meaning.” — Directly contradicts the commentary's explicit statement that part-graspings are 'destined to be superseded when the vakya-sphota is seized whole'. Part-grasps are provisional scaffolding, not endpoint.
• “The sentence (vākya) is the final object of comprehension rather than the sphota.” — Confuses the manifestation (vākya) with its ontological ground. The commentary establishes that part-grasps are transcended by sphota seizure, making sphota the true endpoint.

Lean module

/- Verse 1.90 — generated from data/contracts/1.90.json. DO NOT EDIT.
   Axiom cites are verbatim commentary quotations, validated by
   tests/test_contracts.py. -/
import VakyaVallari.Adequacy

namespace VakyaVallari.Verses.V1_90

open VakyaVallari

def vakya : Entity := ⟨"vākya", Sorta.linguisticItem⟩
def buddhi : Entity := ⟨"buddhi", Sorta.cognition⟩
def bhagavagraha : Entity := ⟨"bhāgāvagraha", Sorta.power⟩
def sphota : Entity := ⟨"sphota", Sorta.linguisticItem⟩
def bhaga : Entity := ⟨"bhāga", Sorta.manifestation⟩

def contract : Contract :=
  { axioms := [ Claim.relation "pravartate" (Node.ent buddhi) (Node.ent bhagavagraha)
    , Claim.predication "anyatha" bhaga
    , Claim.relation "vivartate" (Node.ent bhagavagraha) (Node.ent sphota) ]
  , denials := [ Claim.predication "nitya" bhaga ]
  , reported := [] }

def accepted : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.relation "pravartate" (Node.ent buddhi) (Node.ent bhagavagraha)
    , Claim.relation "vivartate" (Node.ent bhagavagraha) (Node.ent sphota) ] }

theorem accepted_adequate : contract.Adequate accepted := by decide

namespace Counterexamples

/- 'Cognition directly grasps the undivided whole meaning without intermediate part-seizure.'
   Why rejected: Bypasses the necessary intermediate stage of bhāgāvagraha (part-seizure) that the commentary emphasizes. This reverses the directional flow and violates the explicit sequence of the verse. -/
def direct_whole_grasp : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.relation "vivartate" (Node.ent buddhi) (Node.ent sphota) ] }
theorem direct_whole_grasp_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate direct_whole_grasp := by decide
#guard contract.licenses direct_whole_grasp = false

/- 'The part-seizures constitute the final and permanent grasp of meaning.'
   Why rejected: Directly contradicts the commentary's explicit statement that part-graspings are 'destined to be superseded when the vakya-sphota is seized whole'. Part-grasps are provisional scaffolding, not endpoint. -/
def permanent_parts : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.predication "nitya" bhaga ] }
theorem permanent_parts_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate permanent_parts := by decide
#guard contract.contradicts permanent_parts = true

/- 'The sentence (vākya) is the final object of comprehension rather than the sphota.'
   Why rejected: Confuses the manifestation (vākya) with its ontological ground. The commentary establishes that part-grasps are transcended by sphota seizure, making sphota the true endpoint. -/
def vakya_absolute : Entity := ⟨"vākya", Sorta.absolute⟩
def sentence_as_final : Reading :=
  { claims := [ Claim.relation "vivartate" (Node.ent bhagavagraha) (Node.ent vakya_absolute) ] }
theorem sentence_as_final_inadequate : ¬ contract.Adequate sentence_as_final := by decide
#guard contract.licenses sentence_as_final = false
theorem sentence_as_final_sort_error : vakya_absolute ≠ vakya := by decide

end Counterexamples

end VakyaVallari.Verses.V1_90