उपदेशभेदान्नेति, चेन् नोभयस्मिन्न् अप्य् अविरोधात् ॥ २६ ॥
upadeśabhedānneti, cet, na, ubhayasminnapyavirodhāt || 27 ||
upadeśabhedāt—On account of the difference in specificaton; na—not; iti cet—if it be said; na—no; ubhayasmin api—in either (description); avirodhāt—because there is no contradiction.
27. If it be said (that Brahman of the Gayatri passage cannot be recognized in the passage dealing with ‘light’), on account of difference in specification, (we reply) no, there being no contradiction in either (description to such a recognition).
In the Gayatri passage heaven is specified as the abode of Brahman, while in the other, Brahman is described as existing above heaven. How then -can it be said that one and the same Brahman is referred to in both the passages? It can; there is no contradiction here, even as when we say, with reference to a bird perching on the top of a tree, that it is perching on the tree, or that it is above the tree. The difference in the case-ending of the word div is no contradiction, since the locative case is often used in scriptural passages to express, secondarily, the meaning of the ablative.
Therefore the word ‘light’ has to be understood as Brahman.