Sarvadarshanasangraha 16.24

16.24

na tad bhadram/ maṇimantrauṣadhādyupāyabhedena bhūmikādhānavan nānāvidhān dehān pratipadyamānasyāhamālambanasya bhinnasyātmanaḥ śarīrād bhedena bhāsamānatvāt/ ata eva cakṣurādīnām apy ahamālambanatvam aśakyaśaṅkam/ nānyadṛṣṭam smaraty anyaḥ iti nyāyena cakṣurādau naṣṭe ’pi rūpādipratisaṃdhānānupapatteḥ/ nāpy antaḥkaraṇasyāhamālambanatvam āstheyam/ ayam eva bhedo bhedahetur vā yad viruddhadharmādhyāsaḥ kāraṇabhedaś ceti nyāyena kartṛkaraṇabhūtayor ātmāntaḥkaraṇayos takṣavāsivat saṃbhedāsaṃbhavāt/ yady abheda eva nādriyate tarhi sthūlo ’haṃ kṛśo ’haṃ kṛṣṇo ’ham ityādi saṃkhyānam utsannasaṃkathaṃ syāt/

this is not sound. For the self, the distinct referent of ‘I’, which assumes various bodies like taking on dramatic roles by means of different devices such as gems, mantras, and herbs, appears as distinct from the body. For this very reason, it cannot even be suspected that the eye and other [senses] are the referent of ‘I’. By the maxim, “One does not remember what was seen by another,” recollection of color and so forth would be impossible when the eye or another [sense] is destroyed. Nor should it be maintained that the internal organ is the referent of ‘I’. By the maxim, “This alone is difference, or the cause of difference: namely, the superimposition of contradictory properties and difference of causes,” there can be no coalescence between the self and the internal organ, which are the agent and the instrument, just as between a carpenter and an adze. If non-difference is not accepted at all, then expressions such as ‘I am stout’, ‘I am lean’, and ‘I am dark’ would be completely invalidated.