18. For what purpose does the Buddhist observe vows while denying the existence of Atman?

Pratyabhijna is no illusion.

If pratyabhijna, the recognition of identity, be an illusion, why should one eat or do any such thing?

19. It is only in the belief that to-day food will satisfy the craving as yesterday's food did, that even a child resorts to eating.

This would be impossible if one and the same individual were not the subject of the two days' experiences.

Atman's continuous Existence.

20. As affording space, Akasa has a purpose to serve. So also, as the doer and the cogniser, Atman has a purpose to serve.

Thus, the contention that a continuous Atman, like akasa, is a non-entity as serving no purpose, falls to the ground. Akasa is not a non-entity, not a mere negative state of being unoccupied; it is, on the other hand, a diffused principle affording space for creatures to exist and move. So, having a purpose to serve as the doer and the knower, Atman's continuous existence cannot be denied.

21. Even during sushupti, Atman is endued with being, consciousness, and bliss, because self-identity is recognise.; in the consciousness "I slept happy."

The Buddhist cannot consistently regard this consciousness of self-identity as a mere illusion based on similarity; for, according to his theory, there is no conscious entity persisting so long as to perceive a similarity between two things occurring in two different moments.

22. The expression "Atman is recognised " is in the reflexive passive voice. Being self-luminous, Atman knows Himself by Himself.

The expression "Atman is recognised." is in the reflexive voice, and it is equivalent to "Atman recognises Himself" in the active voice. Thus, the expression does not mean that Atman is perceived by another and so forms an object of consciousness like external objects. The use of the given expression does not, therefore, detract from the self-luminousness of Atman.

23. Deluded as He is by Maya in sushupti, He then appears as inert and unconscious; He shines as non-luminous and self-luminous.

In so far as He is not manifested in any special form of cognition, Atman shines as non-luminous. As His inherent consciousness never fails, He appears as self-luminous.

24. From the physical body and other upadhis which are all unconscious in themselves, He is clearly distinguished as their Lord.

The upadhis are insentient. They are unconscious of themselves and of their own or others' functions; whereas Atman, who is conscious of His own self-identity, illumines all thus: I, who then saw, now hear, now taste, now speak, now go, and so on. Thus Atman is clearly distinguishable from other things as the Lord of them all, as one to whom all else is subservient, subserving His interests and glory as it were.