27.  For the same reasons (the Vai/s/vanara) cannot be the divinity (of fire), or the element (of fire).

The averment that the fanciful attribution of members contained in the passage ‘His head is Sutejas,’ &c. may apply to the elemental fire also which from the mantras is seen to be connected with the heavenly world, &c., or else to the divinity whose body is fire, on account of its power, is refuted by the following remark:  For the reasons already stated Vai/s/vanara is neither the divinity nor the element.  For to the elemental fire which is mere heat and light the heavenly world and so on cannot properly be ascribed as head and so on, because an effect cannot be the Self of another effect.—­Again, the heavenly world cannot be ascribed as head, &c. to the divinity of fire, in spite of the power of the latter; for, on the one hand, it is not a cause (but a mere effect), and on the other hand its power depends on the highest Lord.  Against all these interpretations there lies moreover the objection founded on the inapplicability of the term ‘Self.’

28.  Jaimini (declares that there is) no contradiction even on the assumption of a direct (worship of the highest Lord as Vai/s/vanara).

Above (Sutra 26) it has been said that Vai/s/vanara is the highest Lord, to be meditated upon as having the gastric fire either for his outward manifestation or for his limiting condition; which interpretation was accepted in deference to the circumstance that he is spoken of as abiding within—­and so on.—­The teacher Jaimini however is of opinion that it is not necessary to have recourse to the assumption of an outward manifestation or limiting condition, and that there is no objection to refer the passage about Vai/s/vanara to the direct worship of the highest Lord.—­But, if you reject the interpretation based on the gastric fire, you place yourself in opposition to the statement that Vai/s/vanara abides within, and to the reasons founded on the term, &c.  (Su. 26).—­To this we reply that we in no way place ourselves in opposition to the statement that Vai/s/vanara abides within.  For the passage, ‘He knows him as man-like, as abiding within man,’ does not by any means refer to the gastric fire, the latter being neither the general topic of discussion nor having been mentioned by name before.—­What then does it refer to?—­It refers to that which forms the subject of discussion, viz. that similarity to man (of the highest Self) which is fancifully found in the members of man from the upper part of the head down to the chin; the text therefore says, ’He knows him as man-like, as abiding within man,’ just as we say of a branch that it abides within the tree[160].—­Or else we may adopt another interpretation and say that after the highest Self has been represented as having the likeness to man as a limiting condition, with regard to nature as well as to man, the passage last quoted (’He knows him as abiding within man’) speaks of