Utpaladeva’s detailed commentary (the Vivṛti or Ṭīkā) on his own magnum opus (the Īśvarapratyabhijñākārikā) was certainly the most important philosophical text of the Pratyabhijñā corpus. Unfortunately, however, to date we only have access to fragments of this work. We owe to Raffaele Torella the discovery, edition and translation of an important passage of Utpaladeva’s lost commentary on the basis of a unique, very incomplete Vivṛti manuscript; but more Vivṛti fragments have recently come to light. These newly discovered fragments (the lengthiest of which covers several chapters of the treatise) were found in annotations written in the margins of manuscripts containing other Pratyabhijñā texts (see I. Ratié, “In search of Utpaladeva’s lost Vivṛti on the Pratyabhijñā treatise: a report on the latest discoveries,” Journal of Indian Philosophy, 2016, published online at http://link.springer.com/ article/10.1007/s10781-016-9302-2). The following article is the continuation of a series of papers devoted to the edition, translation and explanation of fragments found in such marginal annotations. It deals with the commentary on verse 1.3.5 where Utpaladeva, while arguing in favour of the existence of the Self (ātman), criticizes the Buddhist view of memory. https://paris3.academia.edu/IsabelleRati%C3%A9