reward only; for there is no reason compelling us to have recourse to Brahman for the purpose of such and such a reward only, and not for the purpose of such and such another reward.  Wherever the text represents the highest Brahman—­which is free from all connexion with distinguishing attributes—­as the universal Self, it is understood that the result of that instruction is one only, viz. final release.  Wherever, on the other hand, Brahman is taught to be connected with distinguishing attributes or outward symbols, there, we see, all the various rewards which this world can offer are spoken of; cp. for instance, B/ri/.  Up.  IV, 4, 24, ’This is he who eats all food, the giver of wealth.  He who knows this obtains wealth.’  Although in the passage itself which treats of the light no characteristic mark of Brahman is mentioned, yet, as the Sutra intimates, the mark stated in a preceding passage (viz. the mantra, ‘Such is the greatness of it,’ &c.) has to be taken in connexion with the passage about the light as well.  The question how the mere circumstance of Brahman being mentioned in a not distant passage can have the power of divorcing from its natural object and transferring to another object the direct statement about light implied in the word ‘light,’ may be answered without difficulty.  The passage under discussion runs[125], ’which above this heaven, the light.’  The relative pronoun with which this clause begins intimates, according to its grammatical force[126], the same Brahman which was mentioned in the previous passage, and which is here recognised (as being the same which was mentioned before) through its connexion with heaven; hence the word jyotis also—­which stands in grammatical co-ordination to ’which’—­must have Brahman for its object.  From all this it follows that the word ‘light’ here denotes Brahman.

25.  If it be objected that (Brahman is) not (denoted) on account of the metre being denoted; (we reply) not so, because thus (i.e. by means of the metre) the direction of the mind (on Brahman) is declared; for thus it is seen (in other passages also).

We now address ourselves to the refutation of the assertion (made in the purvapaksha of the preceding Sutra) that in the previous passage also Brahman is not referred to, because in the sentence, ’Gayatri is everything whatsoever here exists,’ the metre called Gayatri is spoken of.—­How (we ask the purvapakshin) can it be maintained that, on account of the metre being spoken of, Brahman is not denoted, while yet the mantra ‘such is the greatness of it,’ &c., clearly sets forth Brahman with its four quarters?—­You are mistaken (the purvapakshin replies).  The sentence, ‘Gayatri is everything,’ starts the discussion of Gayatri.  The same Gayatri is thereupon described under the various forms of all beings, earth, body, heart, speech, breath; to which there refers also the verse, ‘that Gayatri has four feet and is sixfold.’  After that we meet with the mantra, ‘Such is the greatness