"Egoism" (_asmitá_) is the notion that the two separate things, the soul and the quality of purity,[418] are one and the same, as is said (ii. 6), "Egoism is the identifying of the seer with the power of sight." "Desire" (_rága_) is a longing, in the shape of a thirst, for the means of enjoyment, preceded by the remembrance of enjoyment, on the part of one who has known joy. "Aversion" (_dvesha_) is the feeling of blame felt towards the means of pain, similarly preceded by the remembrance of pain, on the part of one who has known it. This is expressed in the two aphorisms, "Desire is what dwells on pleasure;" "Aversion is what dwells on pain" (ii. 7, 8). Here a grammatical question may be raised, "Are we to consider this word _anuśayin_ ('dwelling') as formed by the _kṛit_ affix _ṇini_ in the sense of 'what is habitual,' or the _taddhita_ affix _ini_ in the sense of _matup_? It cannot be the former, since the affix _ṇini_ cannot be used after a root compounded with a preposition as _anuśí_; for, as the word _supi_ has already occurred in the Sútra, iii. 2, 4, and has been exerting its influence in the following sútras, this word must have been introduced a second time in the Sútra, iii. 2, 78, _supy ajátau ṇinis táchchhílye_,[419] on purpose to exclude prepositions, as these have no case terminations; and even if we did strain a point to allow them, still it would follow by the Sútra, vii. 2, 115, _acho ñṇiti_,[420] that the radical vowel must be subject to _vṛiddhi_, and so the word must be _anuśáyin_, in accordance with the analogy of such words as _atiśáyin_, &c. Nor is the latter view tenable (_i.e._, that it is the _taddhita_ affix _ini_[421]), since _ini_ is forbidden by the technical verse-- 'These two affixes[422] are not used after a monosyllable nor a _kṛit_ formation, nor a word meaning 'genus,' nor with a word in the locative case;' and the word _anuśaya_ is clearly a _kṛit_ formation as it ends with the affix _ach_[423] [which brings it under this prohibition, and so renders it insusceptible of the affix _ini_]. Consequently, the word _anuśayin_ in the Yoga aphorism is one the formation of which it is very hard to justify."[424] This cavil, however, is not to be admitted; since the rule is only to be understood as applying generally, not absolutely, as it does not refer to something of essential importance. Hence the author of the Vṛitti has said-- "The word _iti_, as implying the idea of popular acceptation, is everywhere connected with the examples of this rule[425] [_i.e._, it is not an absolute law]."