शब्दादिभ्योऽन्तः प्रतिष्ठानाच्च नेति चेत्, न, तथा दृष्ट्युपदेशात्, असंभवात्, पुरुषमपि चैनमधीयते ॥ २६ ॥
śabdādibhyo’ntaḥ pratiṣṭhānācca neti cet, na, tathā dṛṣṭyupadeśāt, asaṃbhavāt, puruṣamapi cainamadhīyate || 26 ||
śabdādibhyaḥ—Because of the word and other reasons; antaḥ—inside; pratiṣṭhānāt—on account of (its) existing; ca—and; na—not; iti cet—if it be said; na—not so; tathā—as such; dṛṣṭyupadeśāt—on account of the instruction to conceive it; asaṃbhavāt—being impossible; puruṣam—as person; api—also; ca—also; enam—him; adhīyate—(they) describe.
26. If it be said that (Vaisvanara) is not (Brahman) because of the word (‘Vaisvanara’, which has a definite meaning, viz. gastric fire) and other reasons, and on account of its existing inside (which is true of gastric fire), (we say) not so, because there is the instruction to conceive (Brahman) as such (as the gastric fire), because it is impossible (for the gastric fire to have the heaven etc. for its head and other limbs) and also because (the Vajasaneyins) describe him (Vaisvanara) as a person (which the gastric fire is not).
Objection: The ordinary meaning of ‘Vaisvanara’ is fire and the Sruti also says that it is seated inside: “He who knows this Vaisvanara abiding within man” (Sat. Br. 10. 6. 1. 11), which applies to the gastric fire only. Hence it alone, and not Brahman, is referred to in the text under discussion.
The Sutra refutes this objection firstly because the scripture here teaches the worship of Brahman in the gastric fire by way of meditation (Upasana), even as in the passage, “Let a man meditate on the mind as Brahman” (Chh. 3. 18. 1), Secondly because the gastric fire cannot have heaven for its head, and so on. Thirdly because Vaisvanara is conceived as a person by the Vajasaneyins : “This Agni Vaisvanara is a person” etc. (Sat, Br. 10. 6. 1. 11). Hence ‘Vaisvanara’ here refers to Brahman, which is all-pervading and can also be conceived of as a person.