If It Be The Saguna Brahman, We Again Ask Is It The Conception, That I am Brahman

 - formed when first taught in the Veda, or is it the same idea which has been fixed in the mind by constant meditation (dhyana), that you urge as revealing

- the real nature of the Self? The former of these two cannot be an intuition (pratyaksha), since it is the scriptural text which has given rise to it

- If it be classed as pratyaksha simply because it is a subjective idea, then Dharma and the like would have to be brought under the same category.

- Neither can the idea fixed in the mind by meditation be the intuition pointing to the real nature of the Self; for as produced by mere contemplation (bhavana),

- like the vision of a dead son, it can be no valid proof. Accordingly the Vartikakara (i.e., Suresvaracharaya, who besides some small treatises, wrote an elaborate exposition of the Taittiriya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads elucidating Sankaracharya's commentaries theron)

- says: "Whatever result may be born of bhavana (contemplation), and whatever the result may be of Karma, it should not be regarded as permanent, any more than the company of a ...."

- As to the sakshatkara or intuitive realisation of the Nirguna-Brahman, it is no doubt a subjective intuition; but as produced only by Revelation it comes under agama (Revelation)

- Wherefore that teh Self is one with Brahman cannot be known by pratyaksha or immediate perception. Neither can by anumana or empirical inference the truth be known, for want of argument and illustration- of major and minor premises.