of the meditation in words indicatory of the individual soul.  For this reason we maintain that the meditation spoken of has the individual soul for its object.  The other attributes also subsequently stated in the text, ’He to whom all works, all desires belong,’ &c. may rightly be held to refer to the individual soul.  The attributes, finally, of being what abides in the heart and of being extremely minute which are mentioned in the passage, ’He is my Self within the heart, smaller than a corn of rice, smaller than a corn of barley,’ may be ascribed to the individual soul which has the size of the point of a goad, but not to the unlimited Brahman.  If it be objected that the immediately following passage, ‘greater than the earth,’ &c., cannot refer to something limited, we reply that smallness and greatness which are mutually opposite cannot indeed be ascribed to one and the same thing; and that, if one attribute only is to be ascribed to the subject of the passage, smallness is preferable because it is mentioned first; while the greatness mentioned later on may be attributed to the soul in so far as it is one with Brahman.  If it is once settled that the whole passage refers to the individual soul, it follows that the declaration of Brahman also, contained in the passage, ‘That is Brahman’ (III, 14, 4), refers to the individual soul[137], as it is clearly connected with the general topic.  Therefore the individual soul is the object of meditation indicated by the qualities of consisting of mind and so on.

To all this we reply:  The highest Brahman only is what is to be meditated upon as distinguished by the attributes of consisting of mind and so on.—­Why?—­’On account of there being taught here what is known from everywhere.’  What is known from all Vedanta-passages to be the sense of the word Brahman, viz. the cause of the world, and what is mentioned here in the beginning words of the passage, (’all this indeed is Brahman,’) the same we must assume to be taught here as distinguished by certain qualities, viz. consisting of mind and so on.  Thus we avoid the fault of dropping the subject-matter under discussion and needlessly introducing a new topic.—­But, it may be said, it has been shown that Brahman is, in the beginning of the passage, introduced merely for the purpose of intimating the injunction of calmness of mind, not for the purpose of intimating Brahman itself.—­True, we reply; but the fact nevertheless remains that, where the qualities of consisting of mind, &c. are spoken of, Brahman only is proximate (i.e. mentioned not far off so that it may be concluded to be the thing referred to), while the individual soul is neither proximate nor intimated by any word directly pointing to it.  The cases of Brahman and the individual soul are therefore not equal.

2.  And because the qualities desired to be expressed are possible (in Brahman; therefore the passage refers to Brahman).