Objection: It does not seem tenable to assert that the cessation of savilāsa-ājñāna (ignorance along with its manifest powers) and the attainment of paramānanda (supreme bliss) constitute the prayojana (purpose) of this text. For nivṛtti (cessation) means complete annihilation (niśśeṣa-nāśa), and nāśa itself is the state of pradhvaṁsa-abhāva (absolute non-existence after destruction). Therefore, in the state of mukti (liberation), there cannot be a common substratum (sāmānādhikaraṇya) for anartha-nivṛtti (the non-existence of evil or bondage) which is a kind of abhāva (absence), and for paramānanda-prāpti (the attainment of supreme bliss) which is a bhāva (positive existence). For there exists mutual contradiction between bhāva and abhāva, and it is logically untenable that the properties of two mutually contradictory entities should simultaneously inhere in a single locus. Hence, the previously stated prayojana of the text cannot be accepted — so goes the objection.