Source: TW
#Veṅkaṭanātha explicitly endorses the #Mīmāṃsā position on #ahampratyaya: ``Our position has established that the ātman is the meaning of `I’ " (ahamarthasya […] ātmatvam asmanmatena siddham", ŚD 25, p. 121 of the 1940 edition). VN also adds a soteriological reason for this position: “For, no one would listen to a soteriological teaching for the sake of their own destruction” (na hi kaścit svanāśāya mokṣaśāstraṃ śṛṇoti). Ergo, the ātman that survives death & attains liberation must be the I.
An AV objection to this point is that the I cannot be the ātman, because there is no I during deep sleep (ŚD 26). Veṅkaṭanātha answers that the ``I" is not destroyed during deep sleep. There is no interruption of the I during deep sleep, because if there were a real interruption it would be impossible to resume the coordination of cognitions after one wakes up. -
ahamartho nātmā, suṣuptimokṣayor ananuvartamānatvāt. […]
atra brūmaḥ— suṣuptau tāvad ahamarthānanuvṛttau punaḥ-pratisandhānānupapatti-prasaṅgaḥ (ŚD 26, p. 121). 5/
How human would our minds be, if they continued to exist beyond death? In ŚD 27, Veṅkaṭanātha explains that also the Lord, yogins and liberated souls retain their being - an I and their being - a knower, because these are not illusory, otherwise also consciousness would be an illusion, since it has the same appearance (yogināṃ muktānāṃ cāhaṃtva-jñātṛtvādi-pratipattiḥ. anyathā saṃvit-svarūpa-pratibhānasyāpi bhrāntitva-prasaṅgaḥ, ŚD 27, p. 124).
VN against AV: If all consciousnesses were one, whenever a single consciousness, for instance, would be having as its intentional content a pot, as a consequence, every other consciousness would also be cognising it! (ŚD 23). The same point is repeated also in ŚD 33:
ghaṭādi-viṣayaikaikadhiyāṃ […] kvacid api viditāvidita-vibhāgābhāva-prasaṅgaḥ (p. 141)
Soteriological argument: if there is only one mind, you cannot be liberated before me, because there is no you separated from me. Hence, any soteriological effort would be futile. The point is repeated also in ŚD 34:
ato vāstavaṃ jīva-bhedaṃ jīveśvara-bhedaṃ cānabhyupagacchatāṃ mokṣārthopadeśādi-pravṛttir na sambhavatīti (p.144)
ŚD 37 explains the difference between īśvara and jīva bc the latter is devoid of sārvajñya, whereas īśvara never is. Not in pralaya, bc (His) qualities are not destroyed, otherwise no creation would be possible. Not in the avatāras, bc the śruti says otherwise (p. 159)