Self, we (the purvapakshin) ask:  How do you reach the decision that those specifications, although agreeing with both interpretations, must be assumed to refer to the highest Lord only, and not to the gastric fire?—­Or else we may assume that the passage speaks of the elemental fire which abides within and without; for that that fire is also connected with the heavenly world, and so on, we understand from the mantra, ’He who with his light has extended himself over earth and heaven, the two halves of the world, and the atmosphere’ (Rig-veda Sa/m/h.  X, 88, 3).—­Or else the attribute of having the heavenly world, and so on, for its members may, on account of its power, be attributed to that divinity which has the elemental fire for its body.—­Therefore Vai/s/vanara is not the highest Lord.

To all this we reply as follows.—­Your assertions are unfounded, ‘because there is taught the perception in this manner.’  The reasons (adduced in the former part of the Sutra), viz. the term, and so on, are not sufficient to make us abandon the interpretation according to which Vai/s/vanara is the highest Lord.—­Why?—­On account of perception being taught in this manner, i.e. without the gastric fire being set aside.  For the passages quoted teach the perception of the highest Lord in the gastric fire, analogously to such passages as ’Let a man meditate on the mind as Brahman’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 18, 1).—­Or else they teach that the object of perception is the highest Lord, in so far as he has the gastric fire called Vai/s/vanara for his limiting condition; analogously to such passages as ’He who consists of mind, whose body is breath, whose form is light’ (Ch.  Up.  III, 14, 2[158]).  If it were the aim of the passages about the Vai/s/vanara to make statements not concerning the highest Lord, but merely concerning the gastric fire, there would be no possibility of specifications such as contained in the passage ’His head is Sutejas,’ &c.  That also on the assumption of Vai/s/vanara being either the divinity of fire or the elemental fire no room is to be found for the said specifications, we shall show under the following Sutra.—­Moreover, if the mere gastric fire were meant, there would be room only for a declaration that it abides within man, not that it is man.  But, as a matter of fact, the Vajasaneyins speak of him—­in their sacred text—­as man, ’This Agni Vai/s/vanara is man; he who knows this Agni Vai/s/vanara as man-like, as abiding within man,’ &c. (Sat.  Bra.  X, 6, 1, 11).  The highest Lord, on the other hand, who is the Self of everything, may be spoken of as well as man, as abiding within man.—­Those who, in the latter part of the Sutra, read ‘man-like’ (puru-shavidham) instead of ‘man’ (purusham), wish to express the following meaning:  If Vai/s/vanara were assumed to be the gastric fire only, he might be spoken of as abiding within man indeed, but not as man-like.  But the Vajasaneyins do speak of him as man-like, ’He who knows him as man-like, as abiding within man.’—­The meaning of the term man-like is to be concluded from the context, whence it will be seen that, with reference to nature, it means that the highest Lord has the heaven for his head, &c., and is based on the earth; and with reference to man, that he forms the head, &c., and is based on the chin (of the devout worshipper[159]).