6.  And on account of Sm/ri/ti.

Sm/ri/ti also declares the difference of the embodied Self and the highest Self, viz.  Bha.  Gita XVIII, 61, ’The Lord, O Arjuna, is seated in the heart of all beings, driving round by his magical power all beings (as if they were) mounted on a machine.’

But what, it may be asked, is that so-called embodied Self different from the highest Self which is to be set aside according to the preceding Sutras? Sruti passages, as well as Sm/ri/ti, expressly deny that there is any Self apart from the highest Self; compare, for instance, B/ri/.  Up.  III, 7, 23, ’There is no other seer but he; there is no other hearer but he;’ and Bha.  Gita XIII, 2, ’And know me also, O Bharata, to be the kshetiaj/n/a in all kshetras.’

True, we reply, (there is in reality one universal Self only.) But the highest Self in so far as it is limited by its adjuncts, viz. the body, the senses, and the mind (mano-buddhi), is, by the ignorant, spoken of as if it were embodied.  Similarly the ether, although in reality unlimited, appears limited owing to certain adjuncts, such as jars and other vessels.  With regard to this (unreal limitation of the one Self) the distinction of objects of activity and of agents may be practically assumed, as long as we have not learned—­from the passage, ’That art thou’—­that the Self is one only.  As soon, however, as we grasp the truth that there is only one universal Self, there is an end to the whole practical view of the world with its distinction of bondage, final release, and the like.

7.  If it be said that (the passage does) not (refer to Brahman) on account of the smallness of the abode (mentioned), and on account of the denotations of that (i.e. of minuteness); we say, no; because (Brahman) has thus to be contemplated, and because the case is analogous to that of ether.

On account of the limitation of its abode, which is mentioned in the clause, ‘He is my Self within the heart,’ and on account of the declaration as to its minuteness contained in the direct statement, ’He is smaller than a grain of rice,’ &c.; the embodied soul only, which is of the size of an awl’s point, is spoken of in the passage under discussion, and not the highest Self.  This assertion made above (in the purvapaksha of Sutra I, and restated in the purvapaksha of the present Sutra) has to be refuted.  We therefore maintain that the objection raised does not invalidate our view of the passage.  It is true that a thing occupying a limited space only cannot in any way be spoken of as omnipresent; but, on the other hand, that which is omnipresent, and therefore in all places may, from a certain point of view, be said to occupy a limited space.  Similarly, a prince may be called the ruler of Ayodhya although he is at the same time the ruler of the whole earth.—­But from what point of view can the omnipresent Lord be said to occupy a limited space and to be minute?—­He