may, we reply, be spoken of thus, ‘because he is to be contemplated thus.’  The passage under discussion teaches us to contemplate the Lord as abiding within the lotus of the heart, characterised by minuteness and similar qualities—­which apprehension of the Lord is rendered possible through a modification of the mind—­just as Hari is contemplated in the sacred stone called Salagram.  Although present everywhere, the Lord is pleased when meditated upon as dwelling in the heart.  The case is, moreover, to be viewed as analogous to that of the ether.  The ether, although all-pervading, is spoken of as limited and minute, if considered in its connexion with the eye of a needle; so Brahman also.  But it is an understood matter that the attributes of limitation of abode and of minuteness depend, in Brahman’s case, entirely on special forms of contemplation, and are not real.  The latter consideration disposes also of the objection, that if Brahman has its abode in the heart, which heart-abode is a different one in each body, it would follow that it is affected by all the imperfections which attach to beings having different abodes, such as parrots shut up in different cages, viz. want of unity, being made up of parts, non-permanency, and so on.

8.  If it is said that (from the circumstance of Brahman and the individual soul being one) there follows fruition (on the part of Brahman); we say, no; on account of the difference of nature (of the two).

But, it may be said, as Brahman is omnipresent like ether, and therefore connected with the hearts of all living beings, and as it is of the nature of intelligence and therefore not different from the individual soul, it follows that Brahman also has the same fruition of pleasure, pain, and so on (as the individual soul).  The same result follows from its unity.  For in reality there exists no transmigratory Self different from the highest Self; as appears from the text, ’There is no other knower but he’ (B/ri/.  Up.  III, 7, 23), and similar passages.  Hence the highest Self is subject to the fruition connected with transmigratory existence.

This is not so, we reply; because there is a difference of nature.  From the circumstance that Brahman is connected with the hearts of all living beings it does not follow that it is, like the embodied Self, subject to fruition.  For, between the embodied Self and the highest Self, there is the difference that the former acts and enjoys, acquires merit and demerit, and is affected by pleasure, pain, and so on; while the latter is of the opposite nature, i.e. characterised by being free from all evil and the like.  On account of this difference of the two, the fruition of the one does not extend to the other.  To assume merely on the ground of the mutual proximity of the two, without considering their essentially different powers, that a connexion with effects exists (in Brahman’s case also), would be no better than to suppose that space is on fire (when something