And further on, with reference to the body, ‘Now the person who is seen in the eye,’ &c.  Here the following doubt presents itself.  Do these passages point out, as the object of devotion directed on the sphere of the sun and the eye, merely some special individual soul, which, by means of a large measure of knowledge and pious works, has raised itself to a position of eminence; or do they refer to the eternally perfect highest Lord?

The purvapakshin takes the former view.  An individual soul, he says, is referred to, since Scripture speaks of a definite shape.  To the person in the sun special features are ascribed, such as the possession of a beard as bright as gold and so on, and the same features manifestly belong to the person in the eye also, since they are expressly transferred to it in the passage, ’The shape of this person is the same as the shape of that person.’  That, on the other hand, no shape can be ascribed to the highest Lord, follows from the passage (Kau.  Up.  I, 3, 15), ’That which is without sound, without touch, without form, without decay.’  That an individual soul is meant follows moreover from the fact that a definite abode is mentioned, ’He who is in the sun; he who is in the eye.’  About the highest Lord, who has no special abode, but abides in his own glory, no similar statement can be made; compare, for instance, the two following passages, ’Where does he rest?  In his own glory?’ (Ch.  Up.  VII, 24, 1); and ’like the ether he is omnipresent, eternal.’  A further argument for our view is supplied by the fact that the might (of the being in question) is said to be limited; for the passage, ’He is lord of the worlds beyond that, and of the wishes of the devas,’ indicates the limitation of the might of the person in the sun; and the passage, ’He is lord of the worlds beneath that and of the wishes of men,’ indicates the limitation of the might of the person in the eye.  No limit, on the other hand, can be admitted of the might of the highest Lord, as appears from the passage (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 22), ’He is the Lord of all, the king of all things, the protector of all things.  He is a bank and a boundary so that these worlds may not be confounded;’ which passage intimates that the Lord is free from all limiting distinctions.  For all these reasons the person in the eye and the sun cannot be the highest Lord.

To this reasoning the Sutra replies, ’The one within, on account of his qualities being declared.’  The person referred to in the passages concerning the person within the sun and the person within the eye is not a transmigrating being, but the highest Lord.  Why?  Because his qualities are declared.  For the qualities of the highest Lord are indicated in the text as follows.  At first the name of the person within the sun is mentioned—­’his name is Ut’—­and then this name is explained on the ground of that person being free from all evil, ’He has risen above all evil.’  The same name thus explained is then transferred to