the six months of the northern progress of the sun, on that way those who know Brahman go, when they have died, to Brahman.’  Now that very same way is seen to be stated, in our text, for him who knows the person within the eye.  For we read (Ch.  Up.  IV, 15, 5), ’Now whether people perform obsequies for him or no he goes to light;’ and later on, ’From the sun (he goes) to the moon, from the moon to lightning.  There is a person not human, he leads them to Brahman.  This is the path of the gods, the path that leads to Brahman.  Those who proceed on that path do not return to the life of man.’  From this description of the way which is known to be the way of him who knows Brahman we ascertain that the person within the eye is Brahman.

17. (The person within the eye is the highest), not any other Self; on account of the non-permanency (of the other Selfs) and on account of the impossibility (of the qualities of the person in the eye being ascribed to the other Selfs).

To the assertion made in the purvapaksha that the person in the eye is either the reflected Self or the cognitional Self (the individual soul) or the Self of some deity the following answer is given.—­No other Self such as, for instance, the reflected Self can be assumed here, on account of non-permanency.—­The reflected Self, in the first place, does not permanently abide in the eye.  For when some person approaches the eye the reflection of that person is seen in the eye, but when the person moves away the reflection is seen no longer.  The passage ’That person within the eye’ must, moreover, be held, on the ground of proximity, to intimate that the person seen in a man’s own eye is the object of (that man’s) devout meditation (and not the reflected image of his own person which he may see in the eye of another man). [Let, then, another man approach the devout man, and let the latter meditate on the image reflected in his own eye, but seen by the other man only.  No, we reply, for] we have no right to make the (complicated) assumption that the devout man is, at the time of devotion, to bring close to his eye another man in order to produce a reflected image in his own eye.  Scripture, moreover, (viz.  Ch.  Up.  VIII, 9, 1, ’It (the reflected Self) perishes as soon as the body perishes,’) declares the non-permanency of the reflected Self.—­And, further, ‘on account of impossibility’ (the person in the eye cannot be the reflected Self).  For immortality and the other qualities ascribed to the person in the eye are not to be perceived in the reflected Self.—­Of the cognitional Self, in the second place, which is in general connexion with the whole body and all the senses, it can likewise not be said that it has its permanent station in the eye only.  That, on the other hand, Brahman although all-pervading may, for the purpose of contemplation, be spoken of as connected with particular places such as the heart and the like, we have seen already.  The cognitional Self shares