precludes the possibility of our understanding by the term ’the small ether,’ the elemental ether.  For, although the ordinary use of language gives to the word ‘ether’ the sense of elemental ether, here the elemental ether cannot be thought of, because it cannot possibly be compared with itself.—­But, has it not been stated above, that the ether, although one only, may be compared with itself, in consequence of an assumed difference between the outer and the inner ether?—­That explanation, we reply, is impossible; for we cannot admit that a comparison of a thing with itself may be based upon a merely imaginary difference.  And even if we admitted the possibility of such a comparison, the extent of the outer ether could never be ascribed to the limited inner ether.  Should it be said that to the highest Lord also the extent of the (outer) ether cannot be ascribed, since another scriptural passage declares that he is greater than ether (Sa.  Bra, X, 6, 3, 2), we invalidate this objection by the remark, that the passage (comparing the inner ether with the outer ether) has the purport of discarding the idea of smallness (of the inner ether), which is prima facie established by the smallness of the lotus of the heart in which it is contained, and has not the purport of establishing a certain extent (of the inner ether).  If the passage aimed at both, a split of the sentence[182] would result.—­Nor, if we allowed the assumptive difference of the inner and the outer ether, would it be possible to represent that limited portion of the ether which is enclosed in the lotus of the heart, as containing within itself heaven, earth, and so on.  Nor can we reconcile with the nature of the elemental ether the qualities of Self-hood, freeness from sin, and so on, (which are ascribed to the ‘small’ ether) in the following passage, ’It is the Self free from sin, free from old age, from death and grief, from hunger and thirst, of true desires, of true purposes.’—­Although the term ‘Self’ (occurring in the passage quoted) may apply to the individual soul, yet other reasons exclude all idea of the individual soul being meant (by the small ether).  For it would be impossible to dissociate from the individual soul, which is restricted by limiting conditions and elsewhere compared to the point of a goad, the attribute of smallness attaching to it, on account of its being enclosed in the lotus of the heart.—­Let it then be assumed—­our opponent remarks—­that the qualities of all-pervadingness, &c. are ascribed to the individual soul with the intention of intimating its non-difference from Brahman.—­Well, we reply, if you suppose that the small ether is called all-pervading because it is one with Brahman, our own supposition, viz. that the all-pervadingness spoken of is directly predicated of Brahman itself, is the much more simple one.—­Concerning the assertion that the term ‘city of Brahman’ can only be understood, on the assumption that the individual soul dwells, like a king, in one particular