The purvapakshin maintains that the word ‘light’ denotes nothing else but the light of the sun and the like, since that is the ordinary well-established meaning of the term.  The common use of language, he says, teaches us that the two words ‘light’ and ‘darkness’ denote mutually opposite things, darkness being the term for whatever interferes with the function of the sense of sight, as, for instance, the gloom of the night, while sunshine and whatever else favours the action of the eye is called light.  The word ‘shines’ also, which the text exhibits, is known ordinarily to refer to the sun and similar sources of light; while of Brahman, which is devoid of colour, it cannot be said, in the primary sense of the word, that it ‘shines.’  Further, the word jyotis must here denote light because it is said to be bounded by the sky (’that light which shines above this heaven’).  For while it is impossible to consider the sky as being the boundary of Brahman, which is the Self of all and the source of all things movable or immovable, the sky may be looked upon as forming the boundary of light, which is a mere product and as such limited; accordingly the text says, ’the light beyond heaven.’—­But light, although a mere product, is perceived everywhere; it would therefore be wrong to declare that it is bounded by the sky!—­Well, then, the purvapakshin replies, let us assume that the light meant is the first-born (original) light which has not yet become tripartite[122].  This explanation again cannot be admitted, because the non-tripartite light does not serve any purpose.—­But, the purvapakshin resumes, Why should its purpose not be found therein that it is the object of devout meditation?—­That cannot be, we reply; for we see that only such things are represented as objects of devotion as have some other independent use of their own; so, for instance, the sun (which dispels darkness and so on).  Moreover the scriptural passage, ‘Let me make each of these three (fire, water, and earth) tripartite,’ does not indicate any difference[123].  And even of the non-tripartite light it is not known that the sky constitutes its boundary.—­Well, then (the purvapakshin resumes, dropping the idea of the non-tripartite light), let us assume that the light of which the text speaks is the tripartite (ordinary) light.  The objection that light is seen to exist also beneath the sky, viz. in the form of fire and the like, we invalidate by the remark that there is nothing contrary to reason in assigning a special locality to fire, although the latter is observed everywhere; while to assume a special place for Brahman, to which the idea of place does not apply at all, would be most unsuitable.  Moreover, the clause ’higher than everything, in the highest worlds beyond which there are no other worlds,’ which indicates a multiplicity of abodes, agrees much better with light, which is a mere product (than with Brahman).  There is moreover that other clause, also, ’That