21.  And there is another one (i.e. the Lord who is different from the individual souls animating the sun, &c.), on account of the declaration of distinction.

There is, moreover, one distinct from the individual souls which animate the sun and other bodies, viz. the Lord who rules within; whose distinction (from all individual souls) is proclaimed in the following scriptural passage, ’He who dwells in the sun and within the sun, whom the sun does not know, whose body the sun is, and who rules the sun within; he is thy Self, the ruler within, the immortal’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 7, 9).  Here the expression, ’He within the sun whom the sun does not know,’ clearly indicates that the Ruler within is distinct from that cognising individual soul whose body is the sun.  With that Ruler within we have to identify the person within the sun, according to the tenet of the sameness of purport of all Vedanta-texts.  It thus remains a settled conclusion that the passage under discussion conveys instruction about the highest Lord.

22.  The aka/s/a, i.e. ether (is Brahman) on account of characteristic marks (of the latter being mentioned).

In the Chandogya (I, 9) the following passage is met with, ’What is the origin of this world?’ ‘Ether,’ he replied.  ’For all these beings take their rise from the ether only, and return into the ether.  Ether is greater than these, ether is their rest.’—­Here the following doubt arises.  Does the word ‘ether’ denote the highest Brahman or the elemental ether?—­Whence the doubt?—­Because the word is seen to be used in both senses.  Its use in the sense of ‘elemental ether’ is well established in ordinary as well as in Vedic speech; and, on the other hand, we see that it is sometimes used to denote Brahman, viz. in cases where we ascertain, either from some complementary sentence or from the fact of special qualities being mentioned, that Brahman is meant.  So, for instance, Taitt.  Up.  II, 7, ’If that bliss existed not in the ether;’ and Ch.  Up.  VIII, 14, ’That which is called ether is the revealer of all forms and names; that within which forms and names are[117] that is Brahman.’  Hence the doubt.—­Which sense is then to be adopted in our case?—­The sense of elemental ether, the purvapakshin replies; because this sense belongs to the word more commonly, and therefore presents itself to the mind more readily.  The word ‘ether’ cannot be taken in both senses equally, because that would involve a (faulty) attribution of several meanings to one and the same word.  Hence the term ‘ether’ applies to Brahman in a secondary (metaphorical) sense only; on account of Brahman being in many of its attributes, such as all pervadingness and the like, similar to ether.  The rule is, that when the primary sense of a word is possible, the word must not be taken in a secondary sense.  And in the passage under discussion only the primary sense of the word ‘ether’ is admissible.  Should it be objected that, if