be held to denote Brahman.  The objection (raised above) that from common use the words ‘light’ and ’to shine’ are known to denote effected (physical) light is without force; for as it is known from the general topic of the chapter that Brahman is meant, those two words do not necessarily denote physical light only to the exclusion of Brahman[124], but may also denote Brahman itself, in so far as it is characterised by the physical shining light which is its effect.  Analogously another mantra declares, ’that by which the sun shines kindled with heat’ (Taitt.  Br.  III, 12, 9, 7).  Or else we may suppose that the word jyotis here does not denote at all that light on which the function of the eye depends.  For we see that in other passages it has altogether different meanings; so, for instance, B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 3, 5, ‘With speech only as light man sits,’ and Taitt.  Sa.  I, 6, 3, 3, ‘May the mind, the light, accept,’ &c.  It thus appears that whatever illuminates (in the different senses of the word) something else may be spoken of as ‘light.’  Hence to Brahman also, whose nature is intelligence, the term ‘light’ may be applied; for it gives light to the entire world.  Similarly, other scriptural passages say, ’Him the shining one, everything shines after; by his light all this is lighted’ (Kau.  Up.  II, 5, 15); and ’Him the gods worship as the light of lights, as the immortal’ (B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 16).  Against the further objection that the omnipresent Brahman cannot be viewed as bounded by heaven we remark that the assignment, to Brahman, of a special locality is not contrary to reason because it subserves the purpose of devout meditation.  Nor does it avail anything to say that it is impossible to assign any place to Brahman because Brahman is out of connexion with all place.  For it is possible to make such an assumption, because Brahman is connected with certain limiting adjuncts.  Accordingly Scripture speaks of different kinds of devout meditation on Brahman as specially connected with certain localities, such as the sun, the eye, the heart.  For the same reason it is also possible to attribute to Brahman a multiplicity of abodes, as is done in the clause (quoted above) ‘higher than all.’  The further objection that the light beyond heaven is the mere physical light because it is identified with the gastric fire, which itself is a mere effect and is inferred from perceptible marks such as the heat of the body and a certain sound, is equally devoid of force; for the gastric fire may be viewed as the outward appearance (or symbol) of Brahman, just as Brahman’s name is a mere outward symbol.  Similarly in the passage, ’Let a man meditate on it (the gastric light) as seen and heard,’ the visibility and audibility (here implicitly ascribed to Brahman) must be considered as rendered possible through the gastric fire being the outward appearance of Brahman.  Nor is there any force in the objection that Brahman cannot be meant because the text mentions an inconsiderable