स होवाच, यदूर्ध्वं गार्गि दिवः, यदवाक् पृथिव्याः, यदन्तरा द्यावापृथिवी इमे, यद्भूतं च भवच्च भविष्यच्चेत्याचक्शते, आकाश एव तदोतं च प्रोतं चेति, कस्मिन्नु खल्वाकाश ओतश्च प्रोतश्चेति ॥ ७ ॥
sa hovāca, yadūrdhvaṃ gārgi divaḥ, yadavāk pṛthivyāḥ, yadantarā dyāvāpṛthivī ime, yadbhūtaṃ ca bhavacca bhaviṣyaccetyācakśate, ākāśa eva tadotaṃ ca protaṃ ceti, kasminnu khalvākāśa otaśca protaśceti || 7 ||
7. He said, ‘That, O Gārgī, which is above heaven and below the earth, which is this heaven and earth as well as between them, and which they say was, is and will be, is pervaded by the unmanifested ether.’ ‘By what is the unmanifested ether pervaded?’
Yājñavalkya repeated Gārgī’s question as it was. and emphasised what he had already stated by saying, ‘By the unmanifested ether.’ Gārgī said, ‘By what is the unmanifested ether pervaded?’ She considered the question unanswerable, for the unmanifested ether itself, being beyond time past, present and future, was difficult to explain; much more so was the Immutable (Brahman) by which the unmanifested ether was pervaded; hence It could not be explained. Now, if Yājñavalkya did not explain It for this reason, he would lay himself open to the charge of what is called in the system of logic ‘non-comprehension’, if, on the other hand, he tried to explain It, notwithstanding the fact that It was a thing that could not be explained, he would be guilty of what is called ‘a contradiction’; for the attempt to explain what cannot be explained is such a contradiction.