Printable version
Related Pages
Font Size    

Chapter III, Section 3


In the previous Section (Pada 2) it has been shown that the Jiva (Tvam Pada of the Tat-Tvam-Asi Mahavakya) is identical with Brahman (Tat Pada of Tat-Tvam-Asi Mahavakya). Brahman has been shown to be Ekarasa (of homogeneous or unchanging nature). We have explained the nature of the object of cognition, i.e., Brahman.

The author of the Brahma Sutras now sets himself to ascertain the end and aim of the Vidyas (meditations of Upasanas) as prescribed in the Srutis.

The Srutis prescribe various kinds of Vidyas or meditations to enable the aspirant to attain the knowledge of identity. It is extremely difficult or rather impossible for the ordinary man to have a comprehensive understanding of the Infinite, which is transcendent, extremely subtle and beyond the reach of the senses and gross undisciplined intellect. Therefore the Srutis or the sacred scriptures prescribe easy methods of Saguna meditation for approaching the Infinite or the Absolute. They present various symbols of Brahman (Pratikas) such as Vaisvanara or Virat, Sun, Akasa, Food, Prana and mind for the neophyte or the beginner to contemplate on. These symbols are props for the mind to lean upon in the beginning. The gross mind is rendered subtle, sharp and one-pointed by such Saguna forms of meditation.

These different methods of approaching the Impersonal Absolute are known as Vidyas or Upasanas.

This Section discusses these various Vidyas by means of which the Jiva or the individual soul attains Brahman or the Supreme Soul. Similar Vidyas are described differently in different recensions of the Vedas. Now the question arises naturally whether these similar Vidyas are one and the same or different, whether similar Vidyas have to be combined into a single Upasana or meditation or to be taken separately. It is decided here which Vidyas are the same and have to be combined into one and which Vidyas are different despite certain similar features.

The aim and object of all Vidyas is the attainment of Brah man or the Imperishable. Brahman alone is the only living Reality. Brahman alone is Truth. Brahman is Sat or Existence Absolute. Hence it may be advantageous and helpful to combine the particulars of the same Vidya mentioned in different recensions or Sakhas as they have been found highly efficacious and immensely beneficial by the followers of those Sakhas.

He who meditates on Brahman as mind as is taught in the Taittiriya Upanishad, Bhrigu Valli, must collate all the attributes of the mind not only from his own particular Vedic Sakha, but from other Sakhas also where meditation on Brahman in the form of mind is taught. In meditating on Brahman as mind, he must not bring together attributes not belonging to mind such as those of food, though Brahman is taught to be meditat ed upon as food also. In fact only those attributes are to be supplied from other Sakhas which are taught about the parti cular object of meditation, and not any attribute in general.

In this Section Sri Vyasa the framer of the Brahma Sutras concludes that most of the Vidyas prescribed in the Srutis have for their object the knowledge of Brahman or Brahma-Jnana. They differ only in form but not in substance. Their final goal is the attainment of everlasting peace, eternal bliss and immor tality. One meditation or Upasana or Vidya is as good as another for attaining the final emancipation.

Sruti teaches us to meditate on Brahman either directly or through the medium of some Pratikas or symbols, such as the sun, Akasa, food, mind, Prana, the Purusha residing in the eye, the empty space (Daharakasa) within the heart, Om or Pranava and the like.

You will have to search Brahman and adore Him in and through the symbols, but these symbols must not usurp His place. You must concentrate and fix the mind on these symbols and think of His attributes such as Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Sat-Chit-Ananda, purity, perfection, freedom, etc.

The Vidyas appear to be different only from the view-point of difference in the symbols but the goal everywhere is the same. Remember this point always. Bear this in mind constantly.

Some attributes of Brahman are found common in some of the Vidyas. You should not consider yourself as a distinct entity from Brahman. This is a fundamental or vital point.

In all the Vidyas three things are common. The final goal is the attainment of eternal bliss and immortality, through the realisation of Brahman with or without the aid of the symbols or Pratikas. The attributes which are found in common in all the Vidyas such as blissfulness, purity, perfection, knowledge, immortality, Absolute Freedom or Kaivalya, Absolute Independence, eternal satisfaction and the like must be invariably asso ciated with the conception of Brahman. The meditator must think himself identical with Brahman and must worship Brahman as his Immortal Atman.


Adhikaranas I and II: (Sutras 1-4; 5) are concerned with the question whether those Vidyas which are met with in identical or similar form in more than one sacred text, are to be considered as constituting several Vidyas or one Vidya only. The Vidyas with identical or similar form met with in the scriptures or in different recensions of the scriptures, are one Vidya. Particulars of identical Vidyas mentioned in different places or Sakhas are to be combined with one meditation.

Adhikarana III: (Sutras 6-8) discusses the case of Vidyas which are separate on account of different subject-matter, al though in other respects there are similarities. The examples selected are the Udgitha Vidyas of the Chhandogya Upanishad (I.1.3) and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (I.3.1). Although they indicate certain similarities such as bearing the same name and the Udgitha being in both identified with Pranayet they are to be held apart, because the subject of the Chhandogya Vidya is not the whole Udgitha but only the sacred syllable OM while Brihadaranyaka Upanishad represents the whole Udgitha as the object of meditation.

Adhikarana IV: (Sutra 9). In the passage, Let one meditate on the syllable `OM' (of) the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.1.1), the Omkara and the Udgitha stand in the relation of one specifying the other. The meaning is Let one meditate on that Omkara which etc.

Adhikarana V: (Sutra 10) intimates that there should be no mistake in the identity of the Prana Vidya as taught in Chhandogya, Brihadaranyaka and Kaushitaki. It determines the unity of the Prana-Vidyas and the consequent comprehension of the different qualities of the Prana, which are mentioned in the different texts within one meditation.

Adhikarana VI: (Sutras 11-13) intimates that the essential and unalterable attributes of Brahman such as Bliss and knowledge are to be taken into account everywhere while those which admit of increase and decrease as for instance the attribute of having joy for its head, mentioned in the Taittiriya Upanishad are confined to special meditations.

Adhikarana VII: (Sutras 14-15) teaches that the object of Katha Upanishad (III.10, 11) is one only, viz., to indicate that the Supreme Self is higher than everything, so that the passage forms one Vidya only.

Adhikarana VIII: (Sutras 16-17) intimates that the Self refer red to in Aitareya Aranyaka (II.4.1.1) is not a lower form of the self (Sutratman or Hiranyagarbha), but the Supreme Self.

Adhikarana IX: (Sutra 18) discusses a minor point connected with the Prana-samvada. Rinsing the mouth is not enjoined in the Prana-Vidya, but only thinking the water as the dress of Prana.

Adhikarana X: (Sutra 19) declares that the Vidyas in the same Sakha which are identical or similar have to be combined, for they are one.

Adhikarana XI: (Sutras 20-22). In Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (V.5), Brahman is represented first as abiding in the sphere of the sun and then as abiding within the right eye. The names Ahar and Aham of the Supreme Brahman abiding in the sun and in the right eye respectively cannot be combined, as these are two separate Vidyas.

Adhikarana XII: (Sutra 23). Attributes of Brahman mention ed in Ranayaniya-Khila are not to be taken into consideration in other Brahma-Vidyas, e.g., the Sandilya Vidya, as the former is an independent Vidya owing to the difference of Brahman's abode.

Adhikarana XIII: (Sutra 24) points out that the Purusha-Vidya of Chhandogya is quite different from the Purusha-Vidya of Tait tiriya though they pass by the same name.

Adhikarana XIV: (Sutra 25) decides that certain detached Mantras like Pierce the whole body of the enemy etc., and sacrifices mentioned at the beginning of certain Upanishadsas for instance, a Brahmana about the Mahavrata ceremony at the beginning of the Aitareya-Aranyaka, do, notwithstanding their position which seems to connect them with the Brahma-Vidya, not belong to the latter, as they show unmistakable signs of being connected with sacrificial acts.

Adhikarana XV: (Sutra 26) treats of the passage stating that the man dying in the possession of true knowledge shakes off all his good and evil deeds and affirms that a statement made in some of those passages, only to the effect that the good and evil deeds pass over to the friends and enemies of the deceased, is valid for all the passages.

Adhikarana XVI: (Sutras 27-28) decides that the shaking of the good and evil deeds takes place not as the Kaushitaki Upanishad states on the road to Brahmaloka or the world of Brah man but at the moment of the soul's departure from the body.

Adhikarana XVII: (Sutras 29-30) intimates that the knower of the Saguna Brahman alone goes by the path of the gods after death and not the knower of the Nirguna Brahman. The soul of him who knows the Nirguna Brahman becomes one with it without moving to any other place.

Adhikarana XVIII: (Sutra 31) decides that the road of the gods is followed not only by those who know the Vidyas which specially mention the going on that road but all who are acquainted with the Saguna Vidyas of Brahman.

Adhikarana XIX: (Sutra 32) decides that, although the gene ral effect of true knowledge is release from all forms of body, yet even perfected souls may be reborn for the fulfilment of some divine mission.

Adhikarana XX: (Sutra 33) teaches that the negative attri butes of Brahman mentioned in some Vidyas such as its being not gross, not subtle, etc., are to be combined in all medi tations on Brahman.

Adhikarana XXI: (Sutra 34) determines that Kathopanishad (III.1), and Mundaka (III.1), constitute one Vidya only, because both passages refer to the highest Brahman.

Adhikarana XXII: (Sutras 35-36) maintains that the two passages (Bri. Up. III.4 and III.5), constitute one Vidya only, the object of knowledge being in both cases Brahman viewed as the Inner Self of all.

Adhikarana XXIII: (Sutra 37) decides that the passage in Aitareya Aranyaka (II.2.4.6) constitutes not one but two meditations. The Sruti enjoins reciprocal meditation and not merely one way.

Adhikarana XXIV: (Sutra 38) determines that the Vidyas of the True (Satya Brahman) contained in Bri. Up. (V.4.1 and V.5.2) is one only.

Adhikarana XXV: (Sutra 39) decides that the attributes mentioned in Chh. Up. (VIII.1.1) and Bri. Up. (IV.4.32) are to be combined on account of a number of common features in both the texts.

Adhikarana XXVI: (Sutras 40-41) maintains that Pranagnihotra need not be observed on days of fast.

Adhikarana XXVII: (Sutra 42) decides that those meditations which are connected with certain sacrifices are not parts of them and therefore not inseparably connected with them.

Adhikarana XXVIII: (Sutra 43) teaches that in a Bri. Up. passage and a similar Chh. Up. passage, meditations on Vayu and Prana are to be kept separate in spite of the essential oneness of these two.

Adhikarana XXIX: (Sutras 44-52) decides that the fire-altars made of mind etc., which are mentioned in the Agnirahasya of the Brihadaranyaka are not part of the sacrificial act, but constitute a separate Vidya.

Adhikarana XXX: (Sutras 53-54) determines that the self is a separate entity distinct from the body.

Adhikarana XXXI: (Sutras 55-56) decides that Upasanas or meditations connected with sacrificial acts, e.g., the Udgitha Upasana, are valid for all Sakhas.

Adhikarana XXXII: (Sutra 57) decides that the Vaisvanara Upasana of Chh. Up. (V.11) is one entire Upasana. Vaisvanara Agni is to be meditated upon as a whole, not in his single parts.

Adhikarana XXXIII: (Sutra 58) decides that various Vidyas like the Sandilya-Vidya, Dahara-Vidya and so on, are to be kept separate and not combined into one entire Upasana.

Adhikarana XXXIV: (Sutra 59) teaches that those medita tions on Brahman for which the texts assign one and the same fruit, are optional, there being no reason for their being cumulated.

Any one Vidya should be selected according to one's choice.

Adhikarana XXXV: (Sutra 60) decides that those meditations on the other hand which refer to special desires may or may not be combined according to choice or liking.

Adhikarana XXXVI: (Sutras 61-66) decides that meditations connected with members of sacrificial acts, such as the Udgitha may or may not be combined according to liking.


The Vidyas having identical or the same form

found in scriptures constitute one Vidya

Sarvavedantapratyayam chodanadyaviseshat III.3.1 (360)

(The Vidyas or the Upasanas) described in the various Vedanta texts (are not different, are identical) on account of the non-difference of injunction, etc., (i.e., connection, form and name).

Sarvavedantapratyayam: exposition of Brahman in all the Vedanta texts; Chodanadyaviseshat: as there is no difference in the injunctions, etc., (i.e., con nection, form and name). (Sarva: all; Veda: the Vedas; Anta: the settled conclusion; Pratyayam: the knowledge, realisation; Chodanadi: or the injunction and others; Aviseshat: as there is no difference.)

Can Srutis declare different Upasanas in respect of one entity? If we say that one Sruti is correct and others are incorrect, disbelief in Srutis as a whole will follow. The Srutis which declare the nature of Brahman are not commands. They only state solid facts.

The author of the Sutras now proceeds to discuss whether the Upasana (devotional) Srutis are divergent and separate or not. Scriptures teach that like Karma, Upasanas have various results. Some of them have visible results, others unseen results. Some Upasanas create true knowledge and lead to Krama mukti or gradual liberation or release by successive steps. With a view to those meditations, therefore, we may raise the question whether the individual Vedanta-texts teach different Upasanas of Brahman or not.

There are many expositions of Brahman in Sruti. In some Sruti He is described as Vaisvanara, in another He is described as Prana and so forth. Now a doubt may arise as to whether these expositions are different or they all aim at one and the same thing.

This Sutra removes the doubt. The expositions in all the Srutis are the same. They all point to one and the same purpose of worship of Brahman, though in different forms fitted to the capacity of the meditator, because there is no difference in the injunctions about meditation. All the injunctions inti mate that Brahman is to be meditated upon. Hence the object of those expositions and of meditation is one and the same.

The Upasanas of Prana are described in one way in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and in a different way in the Chhandogya Upanishad. Now a doubt arises whether such Upasanas described differently in different Sakhas of the Vedas are different or the same.

The Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that they are different owing to the difference in form. This Sutra refutes it and declares that such meditations are one and the same owing to the non-difference as regards injunctions, connection, name and form of these in different Sakhas.

Thus, as the Agnihotra though described in different Sakhas is yet one, the same kind of human activity being enjoined in all by means of the words He is to offer, so the injunction met with in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (VI.1.1.). He who knows the oldest and the best, etc., is the same as that which occurs in the text of Chhandogya He who knows the first and the best (Chh. Up. V.1.1). The Prana-Vidya in all the Sakhas is one and the same. There is non-difference as regards the fruit of the Upasana in both texts. He who knows it to be such becomes the first and best among his people (Bri. Up. VI.1.1). Prana is the object of meditation in both texts. The name of the meditation in both texts is Prana-Vidya. Prana is described in both texts as the oldest and the greatest. Therefore the two Vidyas are not different, as there is no difference in all respects. The two Vidyas are one and the same. The same is true of Dahara-Vidya, Panchagni-Vidya or the knowledge of the five fires, Vaisvanara-Vidya or the knowledge of the Vaisvanara, Sandilya-Vidya, etc., described in various Sakhas.

Bhedanneti chennaikasyamapi III.3.2 (361)

If it be said that the Vidyas are separate on account of difference (in minor points), we deny that, since even in the same Vidyas (there may be such minor differences).

Bhedat: on account of difference; Na: not; Iti: as, so, this; Chet: if; Na: no, not; Ekasyam: in the one and the same (Vidya); Api: also, even.

An objection to the preceding Sutra is raised and refuted.

The Sutra consists of two parts namely an objection and its reply. The objection is Bhedanneti chet. The reply is Naikasyamapi.

If you say that difference exists, we say that it is not so, because such differences can exist even in the same Upasana or Vidya.

Doubtless the Vajasaneyins refer to a sixth Agni when referring to Panchagni Vidya or the doctrine of five fires The fire becomes his fire (Bri. Up. VI.2.24), but the Chhandogyas do not. But he who knows these five fires (Chh. Up. V.10.10). But this will not make them separate. The Chhandogyas also can add it if they like. Thus the Vidya as stated in the two Srutis Brihadaranyaka and Chhandogya, is identical.

The presence or absence of a sixth fire cannot make a difference as regards form, because the Shodasi vessel may or may not be taken in the same Atiratra sacrifice. The name five fires is no objection against this increase of number, because the number five is not a fundamental part of the injunction. Differences like this are found in different chapters even in the same Sakha and in the same Vidya, and yet the Vidya described in these different chapters is recognised by all as one.

The Chhandogya Upanishad also actually mentions a sixth fire, viz., in the passage V.9.2 When he has departed his friends carry him, as appointed, to the fire.

Therefore it is quite clear that the Vidyas of the same class are one and not different notwithstanding these differences in different Sakhas.

The Purvapakshin says: Then again in the conversation between the Pranas, the Chhandogyas mention in addition to the most important Prana four other Pranas viz., speech, the eye, the ear and the mind, while the Vajasaneyins mention a fifth one also. Seed indeed is generation. He who knows that becomes rich in offspring and cattle (Bri. Up. VI.1.6).

We reply: nothing stands in the way of some additional qualification being included in the Vidya concerning the colloquy of the Pranas. The addition or omission of some particular qualification is not able to create difference in the object of knowledge and thereby in the knowledge itself, because the objects of knowledge may differ partly, yet their greater part and at the same time the knowing person are understood to be the same.

Therefore the Vidya also remains the same.

Svadhyayasya tathatvena hi samachare'dhikaraccha

savavaccha tanniyamah III.3.3 (362)

(The rite of carrying fire on the head is connected) with the study of the Veda (of the Atharvanikas), because in the Samachara (it is mentioned) as being such. And (this also follows) from its being a qualification (for the students of the Atharva Veda) as in the case with the (seven) oblations (viz., Saurya etc.).

Svadhyayasya: of the study of the Vedas; Tathatvena: on account of being such; Hi: because; Samachare: in the book named Samachara containing the rules for the performance of Vedic rites; Adhikarat: on account of the qualification; Cha: and; Savavat: as in the case of the seven oblations (viz., Saurya, etc.); Cha: and, also; Tanniyamah: that rule.

An objection based on a statement of the Mundaka Upanishad is explained and refuted.

A further objection is raised. In the Mundaka Upanishad which deals with the knowledge of Brahman, the carrying of fire on the head by the student (Sirovrata) is mentioned. The Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that the Vidyas of the Atharvanikas are different from all other Vidyas on account of this particular ceremony which is practised by the followers of the Atharva Veda.

This Sutra refutes this and says that the rite of carrying fire on the head is an attribute not of the Vidya, but merely of the study of the Veda on the part of the Atharvanikas. So it is described in the book Samachara which treats of Vedic observances.

At the close of the Upanishad moreover we have the following sentence, A man who has not performed the rite (carrying fire on the head) does not read this (Mun. Up. III.2.11). This clearly intimates that it is connected with the study of the Upanishad and not with the Vidya.

The Sutra adds another illustrative instance in the words as in the case of the libations there is limitation of that. The rite of carrying the fire is associated only with the study of that particular Veda and not others, like the seven oblations from the Saurya libation up to the Sataudana libation, which are not connected with the fires taught in the other Vedas, but only with those of Atharva Veda. The command is to those studying the Mundaka Upanishad just as the command to per form the seven Savas is to them. The carrying of a fire-pot on their head will not make the Vidya different.

Therefore there is unity of Vidya in all cases. The doctrine of the unity of the Vidyas thus remains unshaken.

Darsayati cha III.3.4 (363)

(The scripture) also instructs (thus).

Darsayati: (Sruti) shows, instructs; Cha: also.

An argument in support of Sutra 1 is given.

The Veda also declares the identity of the Vidyas, because all Vedanta texts represent the object of knowledge, as one, e.g., Katha Upanishad (I.2.15), That word which all the Vedas declare; Aitareya Aranyaka (III.2.3.12) Him only the Bahvrichas consider in the great hymn, the Adhvaryus in the sacrificial fire, the Chhandogyas in the Mahavrata ceremony.

To prove the unity of the Vidyas some other instances may be quoted. Kathopanishad (I.6.2) mentions as one of the Lord's qualities that He causes fear. Now this very same quality is referred to in the Tait. Up. II.7: For if he makes but the smallest distinction in the Self, there is fear for him. But that fear is only for him who knows a difference and does not know oneness.

The Impersonal Absolute is the one purport of all the Vedanta texts. Hence all Vidyas which pertain to It must also be one. The meditation on the Saguna Brahman as Vaisvanara, who is represented as extending from heaven to the earth in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is referred to in the Chhandogya Upanishad, But he who adores that Vaisvanara Self as extend ing from heaven to the earth (Chh. Up. V.18.1). This clearly indicates that all Vaisvanara Vidyas are one.

Nirguna Brahman is one and not many. Saguna Brahman also is one and not many. Hence particular Vidyas which pertain to either Saguna Brahman or Nirguna Brahman are also one and not many. This also follows from the same hymns and the like enjoined in the one place being employed in other places for the purpose of devout meditation or Upasana.

The same rule applies to other Vidyas also besides the Vaisvanara Vidya. Therefore, Vidyas are not many, though they are differently described in different Sakhas. All Vedantic texts intimate identical devout meditations. Thus the unity of Vidyas is established.


Particulars of identical Vidyas mentioned in different Sakhas or places are to be combined into one meditation

Upasamharo'rthabhedadvidhiseshavatsamane cha III.3.5 (364)

And in the Upasanas of the same class (mentioned in differ ent Sakhas) a combination (of all the particulars mentioned in all Sakhas is to be made) as there is no difference in the object of meditation, just as (a combination of) all subsidiary rites of a main sacrifice (mentioned in different Sakhas is made).

Upasamharah: combination; Arthabhedat: as there is no difference in the object of meditation; Vidhiseshavat: like the subsidiary rites of a main sacrifice; Samane: in the Upasanas of the same class, in the case of equality, the forms of meditation being the same in effect; Cha: also, and. (Artha: purpose; Abheda: non-difference; Vidhi: injunctions, of the duties enjoined by the scriptures.)

A deduction is made from the four preceding Sutras. This Sutra states the practical outcome of the discussion carried on in the first four Sutras.

The Vidyas described in different Sakhas will have to be combined in the Upasana, because their object is one and the fruit also is the same, just as in the case of Vidhiseshas.

The particulars that are mentioned in other Sakhas than one's own are also efficacious. Therefore one will have to combine all these, just as one does in the case of subsidiary rites like Agnihotra connected with a main sacrifice, mentioned in several Sakhas.


Those Vidyas with different subject-matter are separate,

even if there may be some similarities

Anyathatvam sabdaditi chennaviseshat III.3.6 (365)

If it be said (that the Udgitha Vidya of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and that of the Chhandogya Upanishad) are different on account of (difference in) texts; we deny this on the ground of their non-difference (as regards essentials).

Anyathatvam: there is difference; Sabdat: on account of (difference in) texts; Iti: so; Chet: if; Na: not; Aviseshat: on account of non-difference (as regards essentials).

This Sutra represents the view of the Purvapakshin or the opponent. The opponent tries to establish that the two Vidyas are one.

The Sutra consists of two parts namely, a supposed objection to the objector's view and its refutation by the objector to strengthen his case. The supposed objection is Anyathatvam sabdaditi chet and the reply is Naviseshat.

It is said in the Vajasaneyaka (I.3.1), The Devas said, `Well, let us defeat the Asuras at the sacrifices by means of the Udgitha!' They said to speech: `sing for us.' The speech said `yes'.

The speech and the other Pranas were pierced by the Asuras with evil. They were not able to do what was expected from them. Thereupon the Devas appointed the Chief Prana, and said to the breath in the mouth `sing for us'. The breath said `yes' and sang.

There is a similar story in Chhandogya Upanishad I.2. The Devas took the Udgitha. They thought they would overcome the Asuras with it. The other Pranas were pierced with evil and thus vanquished by the Asuras. Thereupon the Devas went to the Chief Prana. Then comes the Chief Prana. On that they meditated as Udgitha.

Both these passages glorify the chief Prana. Hence it foll ows that they both are injunctions of a meditation on the Prana. A doubt arises now whether the two Vidyas are separate Vidyas or one Vidya only.

The Purvapakshin holds that the two Vidyas have to be considered as one. It may be objected that they cannot be one on account of the difference in texts. The Vajasaneyins represent the chief vital air as the producer of the Udgitha, Do thou sing out for us; while the Chhandogyas speak of it as itself being the Udgitha, On that they meditated as Udgitha. How can this divergence be reconciled with the assumption of the unity of the Vidyas?

But this is not acceptable because there is unity as regards a great many points. Both texts relate that the Devas and the Asuras were fighting; both at first glorify speech and the other Pranas in their relation to the Udgitha and thereupon finding fault with them pass on to the chief Prana; both tell how through the strength of the latter, the Asuras were vanquished.

The difference pointed out, is not important enough to bring about a separation of the two Vidyas.

The text of the Vajasaneyaka also coordinates the chief Prana and the Udgitha in the clause, He is Udgitha (Bri. Up. I.3.23). We therefore have to assume that in the Chhandogya also the chief Prana has secondarily to be looked upon as the producer of the Udgitha.

The two texts thus constitute one Vidya only. There is unity of Vidyas on the grounds given in Sutra III.3.1.

Na va prakaranabhedatparovariyastvadivat III.3.7 (366)

Or rather there is no (unity of the Vidyas) owing to the difference of subject matter even as (the meditation on the Udgitha) as the highest and greatest (i.e., Brahman) (is different from the meditation on the Udgitha as abiding in the eye etc.).

Na: not; Va: certainly; Prakaranabhedat: on account of difference in subject matter; Parovariyastvadivat: even as (the meditation on the Udgitha) as the highest and great (Brahman) (is different).

The objection raised in the preceding Sutra is refuted.

The Sutra refutes the former view and establishes that the two Vidyas, in spite of similarity in many points, are different owing to difference in subject matter.

In the Chhandogya, Omkara is said to be a limit of Udgitha and so such Omkara has to be regarded as Prana. In the other the singer of Udgitha, the Udgatri is called Prana. Therefore the two Vidyas are different just as the Upasana of Udgitha as the Infinite and Supreme (Parovariya) (Chh. Up. I.9.2). This is indeed the highest and greatest is different from the Upasana of Udgitha as golden in form and as being in the eye and in the sun (Chh. Up. I.6).

In the Chhandogya only a part of the Udgitha (hymn), the syllable OM is meditated upon as Prana Let one meditate on the syllable OM of the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.1.1). But in the Brihadaranyaka the whole Udgitha hymn is meditated upon as Prana (I.3.2). Hence the two Vidyas cannot be one owing to this difference in the object of meditation.

The special features of different Vidyas are not to be combined even when the Vidyas belong to one and the same Sakha; much less then when they belong to different Sakhas.

Samjnataschet taduktamasti tu tadapi III.3.8 (367)

If it be said (that the Vidyas are one) on account of (the identity of) name; (we reply that) that is explained (already); moreover that (identity of name) is (found in the case of admittedly separate Vidyas).

Samjnatah: on account of the name (being same); Chet: if; Tat: that; Uktam: has already been answered; Asti: is, exists; Tu: but; Tat: that; Api: even, also.

An argument against the preceding Sutra is refuted.

The word `tu' (but), removes the doubt raised above.

You cannot call them identical merely because they have the same name. The subject matter differs. This has already been established in the last Sutra. For instance Agnihotra and Darsapurnamasa are separate and yet have the same name, viz., Kathaka as they are described in the book called Kathaka. Even the Udgitha Vidya of Chh. Up. I.6 and Chh. Up. I.9.2 are different Vidyas.


It is appropriate to specialise OM by the term `Udgitha'

Vyaptescha samanjasam III.3.9 (368)

And because (OM) extends (over the whole of the Vedas), (to specialise it by the term 'Udgitha') is appropriate.

Vyapteh: because (OM) extends (over the whole of the Vedas); Cha: and; Samanjasam: is appropriate, consistent, justifiable.

Sutra 7 is elaborated here.

In the Sruti `Omityetadaksharamudgithamupasita', the use of the word Udgitha as Viseshana, i.e., adjective of OM is appropriate, because OM by itself is pervasive in all Srutis and should not be understood here in its general sense.

In the passage Let a man meditate on the syllable OM as the Udgitha, the two words `Omkara' and `Udgitha', are placed in coordination. The question then arises whether the relation in which the ideas conveyed by these two words stand to each other is the relation of superimposition (Adhyasa) or sublation (Apavada) or unity (Ekatva) or speci fication (Viseshana) .

The word `and' stands here in place of `but' and is meant to discard the three other alternatives. The fourth is to be adopted. The fourth and correct view is that the one is Viseshana (an adjective) to the other as in the words Nila-Utpala (blue lotus). The passage means that Udgitha is the Viseshana of Omkara. The appropriate view of the Chhandogya passage is to take the word Udgitha as specialising the term `Omkara'.


Unity of the Prana-Vidya

Sarvabhedadanyatreme III.3.10 (369)

On account of the non-difference (of the Vidya) everywhere (i.e., in all the texts of the different Sakhas where the Prana-Vidya occurs) these qualities (mentioned in two of them are to be inserted) in the other places (e.g., the Kaushitaki Upanishad).

Sarvabhedat: on account of non-difference everywhere; Anyatra: in the other places; Ime: these (qualities are to be inserted).

A concrete instance on the general principle of Sutra 5 is cited.

In the colloquy of the Pranas recorded by the Vajasaneyins and the Chhandogyas, the Prana which is endowed with various qualities such as being the best and so on, is represented as the object of meditation. Various qualities such as being the richest and the like are ascribed to speech and the other organs. These latter qualities are in the end attributed to the Prana also. If I am the richest thou art the richest.

Now in other Sakhas also, as e.g., that of the Kaushitakins the set of qualities such as being the best and so on is attributed to the Prana (Katha Up. II.14). But the set of attributes, viz., being the richest and so on is not mentioned.

The question is whether they are to be inserted in the Kaushitaki also, where they are not mentioned.

This Sutra declares that they have to be inserted, as the Vidya is the same in all the three Upanishads. Attributes belonging to one and the same Vidya or subject have to be combined wherever that Vidya occurs although they may not be expressly stated.


Attributes like Bliss, etc., of Brahman have to be

combined into one meditation

Anandadayah pradhanasya III.3.11 (370)

Bliss and other attributes (which depict the true nature) of the Principal or the Supreme Self, i.e., Brahman (have to be combined from all places in the meditation on Brahman).

Anandadayah: Bliss and other attributes; Pradhanasya: of the Principal i.e., the Supreme Self or Brahman.

Brahman is described as Bliss, Knowledge, all-pervading, the Self of all, true, etc., in different texts of different Sakhas. All the attributes are not mentioned in all places.

Now the question arises whether they have to be combined in the meditation on Brahman or not. This Sutra says that they have to be combined, as the object of meditation (Brahman) is one and the same in all Sakhas and therefore the Vidya is one. The reason for this conclusion is the one given in Sutra 10.

The qualities attributed to Brahman in any one place have to be combined whenever Brahman is spoken of.


hi bhede III.3.12 (371)

(Qualities like) joy being His head, etc., are not to be taken everywhere, (being subject to) increase and decrease (are possible only) if there is difference (and not in Brahman in which there is non-difference).

Priyasirastvadi: qualities like joy being His head, etc.; Apraptih: are not to be taken everywhere; Upachayapachayau: increase and decrease; Hi: be cause; Bhede: (are possible) in difference. (Upachaya: increase; Apachaya: decrease.)

The discussion commenced in Sutra 11 is continued, stating here as to which of the attributes are not to be culled and combined together in every form of meditation.

More and less will apply only if there is differentia tion. Hence the descriptions of Priyasiras, etc., will not apply to Brahman. The description of Priyasiras (attributes like joy being His head, etc.) in the Taittiriya Upanishad are not Dharmas of Brahman but the Dharmas of the Ananda maya-kosa or the blissful sheath. The descriptions are given to turn the mind towards Brahman. Differences of higher and lower in Gunas can come in Upasanas of Saguna Brahman but have no application to Nirguna Brahman.

The attributes of having joy for His head and such other attributes are not acceptable in every form of meditation on Brahman because attributing limbs to Brahman would render Him liable to fluctuation.

Attributes like joy being His head and so on mentioned in the Taittiriya Upanishad are not to be taken and combined in other places where the Upasana of Brahman is enjoined because the successive terms, Joy is Its head, satisfaction is its right arm, great satisfaction is its left arm, bliss is His trunk, Brahman is His tail, His support (II.5), indicate qualities which have increase and decrease with regard to each other and to other enjoyers (individual souls or Jivas) and therefore can exist where there is difference.

Now for higher and lower degrees there is room only where there is plurality or difference but Brahman is without all plurality or difference, as we know from many scriptu ral passages. (One only, without a second). Therefore these attributes cannot constitute the nature of Brahman. They are to be confined to the texts which prescribe them and not taken to other places.

Moreover, these qualities are attributed to the Supreme Brahman merely as means of fixing one's mind, not as themselves being objects of meditation. From this it follows that they are not valid everywhere. The attributes mentioned in any one are not valid for others.

The case is similar to that of two wives ministering to one king; one with a fan, the other with an umbrella. Here also the object of their ministrations is one, but the acts of ministration themselves are distinct. They have each their own particular attributes. Similar is the case under discussion also.

Qualities in which lower and higher degrees can be distinguished belong to the qualified Brahman only in which there is plurality, not to the Supreme Nirguna Brahman which is above all qualifications. Such attributes as having true desires (Sat-Kama) and the like which are mentioned in some parti cular place have no validity for other meditations on Brahman.

Itare tvarthasamanyat III.3.13 (372)

But other attributes (like Bliss, etc., are to be combined) on account of identity of purport.

Itare: other attributes; Tu: but; Arthasamanyat: because of common purport, on account of identity of purport. (Artha: result, object, purport; Samanyat: on account of the equality or sameness.)

The previous discussion is continued.

But attributes like Bliss, knowledge, all-pervadingness, etc., which describe the nature of Brahman, are to be combined as the object of such descriptions is the same, as they directly relate to Brahman and as they are inherent attributes of Brahman, as their purport is the one indivisible, unconditioned Brahman.

These attributes which scripture sets for the purpose of teaching the true nature of Brahman are to be viewed as valid for all passages which refer to Brahman, because their purport, i.e., the Brahman whose nature is to be taught is one. These attributes are mentioned with a view to knowledge of Brahman only, and not for Upasana.


Katha Up. I.3.10-11 teaches merely that the Self is

higher than everything else

Adhyanaya prayojanabhavat III.3.14 (373)

(The passage in Katha Upanishad I.3.10 tells about the Self only as the highest) for the sake of pious meditation, as there is no use (of the knowledge of the objects being higher than the senses and so on).

Adhyanaya: for the sake of meditation; Prayojanabhavat: as there is no use, as there is no other necessity. (Prayojana: of any other purpose; Abhavat: on account of the absence.)

The previous discussion is continued.

We read in the Kathaka (I.3.10-11), Higher than the senses are the objects, higher than the objects there is the mind, etc., higher than the Atman there is nothing, this is the goal, the highest road.

Here the doubt arises whether the purport of the passage is to intimate that each of the things successively enumerated is higher than the preceding one, or only that the Atman is higher than all of them.

The Purvapakshin or the opponent holds the former alternative because the text expressly declares the objects to be higher than the senses, the mind higher than the objects and so on. He maintains that these sentences are separate and not one as referring to the Atman alone. Therefore the purpose of the text is to teach that the objects are superior to the senses and so on.

This Sutra refutes it and declares that it is one sentence and means that the Atman is superior to all these.

The object of the Sruti is not to say that each later category is higher than the former, because there is no spiritual gain or any useful purpose in such a declaration. The aim is to declare that Brahman is higher than all, as such knowledge leads to Moksha.

The Atman alone is to be known, because the Knowledge gives freedom or the final release. The scripture also says He who has perceived that, is freed from the jaws of death (Katha Up. I.3.15).

Further, the text intimates highest reverence for the Atman by declaring that nothing is higher than the Atman and that He is the highest goal and thereby shows that the whole series of objects is enumerated only for the purpose of giving information about the Atman. This information is given for the sake of meditation on the Atman which results in the knowledge of it.

Atmasabdaccha III.3.15 (374)

And on account of the word Atman.

Atmasabdat: on account of the word `Atma'; Cha: and.

An argument in support of Sutra 14 is given.

The above conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the subject of discussion is called the Self or Atman. That Self is hidden in all beings and does not shine forth, but it is seen by subtle seers through their sharp and subtle intellect (Katha Up. I.3.2). From this we conclude that the text wishes to represent the other things enumerated as the non-Self.

A wise man should keep down speech and mind (Katha Up. I.3.13). This passage enjoins pious meditation as a means of the Knowledge of the Supreme Self. It thus follows that the Sruti indicates various excellences in the case of the Atman only and not in that of the other things enumerated.

The text He reaches the end of his journey and that is the highest place of Vishnu suggests the question as to who is the end of the journey and we therefore conclude that the enumeration of the senses, objects, etc., has merely the purpose of teaching the highest place of Vishnu and not of teaching anything about the relation of the senses, objects and so on.

But the enumeration of the senses is not altogether useless. It enables the aspirant to turn the outgoing mind towards the Inner Self or the Atman. This subtle Atman cannot be attained without abstraction, introspection and profound meditation.


The Self mentioned in Ait. Up. I.1. is the Supreme Self

and the attributes of the Self given elsewhere

should be combined with this meditation

Atmagrihitiritaravaduttarat III.3.16 (375)

(In the Aitareya Upanishad I.1.) the Supreme Self is meant, as in other texts (dealing with creation) because of the subsequent qualification.

Atmagrihitih: the Supreme Self is meant; Itaravat: as in other texts (dealing with creation); Uttarat: because of the subsequent qualification.

We read in the Aitareya Upanishad Verily in the begin ning all this was the Self, one only; there was nothing else whatsoever (I.1). Here the doubt arises whether the term Self denotes the Supreme Self or some other being such as Hiranyagarbha.

It refers to the Supreme Self, even as the word Self in other texts which treat of creation refers to It, and not to Hiranyagarbha. From the Self ether was produced (Tait. Up. II.1). Why? Because in the subsequent text of the Aitareya we have It thought shall I send forth worlds? It sent forth these worlds (Ait. Up. I.1.2). This qualification, viz., that It thought before creation is applied to Brahman in the primary sense in other Sruti passages. Hence we con clude from this that the Self refers to the Supreme Self or Para Brahman and not to Hiranyagarbha, or any other Being.

Anvayaditi chet syadavadharanat III.3.17 (376)

If it be said that because of the context (the Supreme Self is not meant) (we reply that) it is so (i.e., the Supreme Self is meant) on account of the definite statement (that the Atman alone existed in the beginning).

Anvayat: because of connection, because of the context; Iti: this, so; Chet: if; Syat: it might be so; Avadharanat: on account of the definite state ment.

An objection to Sutra 16 is raised and refuted.

The Sutra consists of two parts namely an objection and its reply. The objection is `Anvayaditi chet' the reply is `Syad-avadharanat'.

The reference is to Para Brahman or the Highest Self. The word Asit shows that the reference is to Para Brahman alone, because He alone existed before all creation. The Lokasrishti or creation of the world is only after the Mahabhutasrishti or creation of the five great elements.

The Purvapakshin says: In the Aitareya Upanishad (I.1), it is stated that Brahman created the four worlds. But it is said in the Taittiriya and other texts that Brahman created ether, air, fire, water and earth, the five elements. It is only Hiranyagarbha that creates the world with the aid of the elements created by the Highest Self. Hence the Self in the Aitareya Upanishad cannot mean the Supreme Self but only Hiranyagarbha or the Karya-Brahman.

This Sutra refutes it and declares that on account of the statement Verily, in the beginning all this was the Self, one only (Ait. Up. I.1.) which intimates that there was one only without a second, it can only refer to the Highest Self or Para Brahman and not to Hiranyagarbha, the Karya-Brahman. The Highest Self created the four worlds after creating the elements as described in other Sakhas. The attributes of Para Brahman or the Highest Self which are mentioned in other places are to be combined in the Aitareyaka meditation.


Only thinking water to be the dress of Prana is

enjoined in the Prana-Vidya

Karyakhyanadapurvam III.3.18 (377)

On account of (the rinsing of the mouth with water refer red to in the Prana Vidya) being a reiteration of an act (already ordained by the Smriti), what has not been so ordained elsewhere (is here enjoined by the Sruti).

Karyakhyanat: on account of being a statement of an act (already enjoined by the Smriti); Apurvam: which has not been so enjoined elsewhere.

In regard to Prana Upasana, Achamana is ordained only as reiteration of what is stated elsewhere. What is ordained is only meditation on water as covering food. What is enjoined in Prana Vidya Upasana of Chhandogya Upanishad is not the Achamana, as such. Achamana is enjoined by the Smritis and is common to all. What is ordained is Anagnatatchintana i.e., meditating that the food is covered by water.

In the Chhandogya Upanishad (V.2.2) and the Brihadaranyaka (VI.1.14) there is a reference to the rinsing of the mouth with water before and after meal, thinking that thereby that Prana is dressed.

These texts intimate two things, rinsing of the mouth and meditation on the breath as dressed. A doubt arises whether the texts enjoin both these matters or only the rinsing of the mouth, or only the meditation on breath as dressed.

This Sutra states that the act of rinsing the mouth is already ordained on every one by the Smriti and the act of thinking the water as the dress of Prana is alone enjoined by the Sruti. The act of rinsing the mouth is not a new one and there for requires no Vedic injunction.


Vidyas of the same Sakha which are identical

should be combined, in meditation

Samana evam chabhedat III.3.19 (378)

In the same (Sakha also) it is thus (i.e., there is unity of Vidya,) owing to non-difference (of the object of meditation).

Samana: in the same Sakha; Evam: every, (it is) like this; Cha: and, also; Abhedat: owing to non-difference.

A corollary to Sutra 5 is proved.

In the Agnirahasya in the Vajasaneyi Sakha there is a Vidya called Sandilya Vidya, in which occurs the passage Let him meditate on the Self which consists of mind, which has the Prana for its body, and light for its form (Sat. Br. Madhy. Again, in the Brihadaranyaka (V.10.6) which belongs to the same Sakha we have That person consist ing of mind, whose being is light, is within the heart, small like a grain of rice or barley. He is the ruler of all, the Lord of allHe rules all this whatsoever exists.

A doubt here presents itself whether these two passages are to be taken as one Vidya in which the particulars mentioned in either text are to be combined or not. Are they one Vidya or different Vidyas?

This Sutra declares that, they are one Vidya, as the object of meditation (Upasya) is the same in both. The object of meditation in both is the Self consisting of mind. The combining of the particulars of a similar Vidya in the same Sakha is the same as in the case of such Vidyas which occur in different Sakhas. Although the two passages belong to one and the same Sakha, they yet constitute the Vidya only and their particulars have to be combined into one whole. The former directs worship, by means of such Vidya. The latter gives its Gunas (features).

Though there is some difference in minor details, the two descriptions of the Sandilya Vidya in the two Srutis are practically the same. So, a particular point mentioned in one Sruti in connection with the Sandilya Vidya has to be incorporated with the other, if it be not mentioned in the latter.

Therefore the Sandilya Vidya is one.


The names `Ahar' and `Aham' of Brahman occurring in

Bri. Up. V.5.1-2 cannot be combined

Sambandhadevamanyatrapi III.3.20 (379)

Thus in other cases also, on account of the connection (of particulars with one and the same Vidya).

Sambandhat: on account of the connection; Evam: thus, like this; Anyatra: in other cases; Api: also.

An inference on the analogy of the preceding Sutra is drawn by way of objection.

This Sutra is a Purvapaksha Sutra. It sets forth the view of the opponent.

We read in the Brihadaranyaka (V.5.1-2), Satya (the truth) is Brahman. That which is Satya is that Sunthe being who is in that orb and the being who is in the right eye. This gives the abode of the Satya Brahman with respect to the gods and the body. The text teaches the two secret names of the Satya Brahman in connection with these abodes. Its secret name is `Ahar' with reference to the gods, and its secret name is `Aham' with reference to the body.

A doubt here arises whether these two secret names are both to be applied to the Deva-abode of Brahman as well as to its bodily abode, or only one name to each.

Now on the analogy of the Sandilya Vidya, the particulars must be combined as the object of meditation, viz., the Satya Brahman is one. Therefore both the names `Ahar' and `Aham' have to be combined with respect to Satya Brahman.

Both the secret names equally belong to the Aditya as well as to the person within the eye.

Na va viseshat III.3.21 (380)

Rather not (so) on account of the difference (of place).

Na: not, not so; Va: or, but; Viseshat: because of difference. (Na va: rather not.)

The conclusion arrived at in the preceding Sutra is set aside. This is the Siddhanta Sutra.

This Sutra refutes the view of the previous Sutra. As the solar orb and the eye-ball are too distant and distant abodes for the worship of Brahman, the two significant names `Ahar' and `Aham' referred to in the previous Sutra, should not both be employed in the same form of meditation. Each name refers to a different locus of Upasana.

Though the Vidya is one, still on account of difference in places the object of meditation becomes different. Therefore there are different names. Hence these cannot be exchanged or combined.

The Purvapakshin or the opponent raises an objection. He says: The person within the orb of the sun and the person within the eye are one only, because the text teaches that both are abodes of the one true Brahman.

True, we reply, but as each secret name is taught only with reference to the one Brahman and conditioned by a particular state, the name applies to Brahman only in so far as it is in that state. Here is an analogy. The teacher always remains the teacher; yet those kinds of services which the pupil has to do to the teacher when sitting have not to be done when he stands and vice versa.

The comparison given by the opponent is not well chosen as the duties of the disciple towards his teacher depend on the latter's character as teacher and that is not changed by his being either in the village or in the forest.

Therefore, the two secret names `Ahar' and `Aham' have to be held apart. They cannot be combined.

Darsayati cha III.3.22 (381)

(The scripture) also declares (that).

Darsayati: (Sruti) shows, indicates, declares; Cha: also, and.

An additional argument is given to refute Sutra 20.

The scripture distinctly states that the attributes are not to be combined, but kept apart; because it compares the two persons, the person in the sun and the person within the eye. If it wanted the particulars to be combined, it would not make such a comparison.

The conclusion, therefore, is that the two secret names are to be kept apart.


Attributes of Brahman occurring in the Ranayaniya Khila

constitute an independent Vidya

Sambhritidyuvyaptyapi chatah III.3.23 (382)

For the same reason (as in the previous Sutra) the support ing (of the world) and pervading the sky (attributed to Brahman in the Ranayaniya Khila) also (are not to be included in other Vidyas or Upasanas of Brahman).

Sambhriti: supporting the world; Dyuvyapti: pervading the sky; Api: also; Cha: and; Atah: for the same reason (as in the previous Sutra). (Dyu: the sky, all the space, heaven).

A restriction to Sutra 5 is made.

In a supplementary text of the Ranayaniyas we meet with a passage, The powers, which were collected together, were preceded by Brahman; the pre-existent Brahman in the beginning pervaded the whole sky.

Now these two qualities `Sambhriti' and `Dyuvyapti' are not to be inserted or included in the Sandilya Vidya and other Vidyas for the same reason as is given in the last Sutra, viz., difference of abode. In the Sandilya Vidya, Brahman is said to have its abode in the heart He is the Self within the heart (Chh. Up. III.14.3). The same statement is made in the Dahara-Vidya There is the palace, the small lotus of the heart, and in it that small ether (VIII.1.1). In the Upakosala-Vidya, again, Brahman is said to abide within the eye That person that is seen in the eye (IV.15.1).

Further these qualities and those mentioned in other Vidyas like the Sandilya Vidya are of such a nature as to exclude each other and are not suggestive of each other. The mere fact of certain Vidyas being connected with Brahman does not constitute their unity. It is an established fact that Brahman, although one only, is owing to the plurality of its powers meditated upon in many ways, as shown under Sutra 7.

The conclusion, therefore, is that the attributes of holding together its powers (Sambhriti and Dyuvyapti) are not to be inserted in the Sandilya and similar Vidyas, and that the Upasana referred to in this Sutra is an independent Vidya by itself. The Sandilya Vidya refers to the worship of Atman in the heart and the Upakosala-Vidya refers to the worship of the Atman in the eye, whereas the above attributes relate to the macrocosm.


The Purusha Vidya in the Chhandogya and the Taittiriya

are not to be combined

Purushavidyayamiva chetareshamanamnanat III.3.24 (383)

And (as the qualities) as (mentioned) in the Purusha-Vidya (of the Chhandogya) are not mentioned (in that) of the others (i.e., in the Taittiriya) (the two Purusha-Vidyas are not one; are not to be combined).

Parushavidyayamiva: as in the Purusha-Vidya (of the Chhandogya); Cha: and; Itaresham: of the others; Anamnanat: because of not being mentioned (in the Taittiriya).

The Purusha Vidya of the Chhandogya Upanishad and that of the Taittiriya Upanishad are now examined.

In the Rahasya-Brahmana of the Tandins and the Paingins (the Chhandogya) there is a Vidya treating of man in which man is identified with the sacrifice, the three periods of his life with the three libations Man is the sacrifice.

In the Taittiriya Aranyaka (X.64) also occurs a similar Vidya For him who knows thus the self of the sacrifice is the sacrificer, faith (Sraddha) is the wife of the sacrificer, etc.

The doubt here arises whether the two Vidyas are one, whether the particulars of the man-sacrifice given in the Chhandogya are to be inserted in the Taittiriya or not.

The fundamental attribute referred to is that man is identi fied with sacrifice in both. This Sutra declares that in spite of this, the two Vidyas are not one, because the details differ. The characteristics of the Purusha-Yajna of the Chhandogyas are not recognised in the Taittiriya text. The Taittiriya exhibits an identification of man with the sacrifice in which the wife, the sacrificer, the Veda, the Vedi, the sacrificial grass, the post, the butter, the sacrificial animal, the priest etc., are mentioned in succession. These particulars are not mention ed in the Chhandogya.

The two texts agree in identification of the Avabhritha ceremony with death. There are greater number of dissimilarities. The Taittiriya does not represent man as the sacrifice as the Chhandogya does.

Moreover the result of the Vidya in the Taittiriya is the attainment of the greatness of Brahman: He obtains the greatness of Brahman. The result of the Vidya in Chhandogya is long life, He who knows this lives on to a hundred and sixteen years.

Therefore, the two Vidyas are separate. The particulars cannot be combined in the two places. The particulars mentioned in the Purusha-Vidya of Chhandogya, such as formulas of prayer, Mantras and so on are not to be combined with the Taittiriya text of the Vidya.


Unconnected Mantras and sacrifices mentioned in certain Upanishads do not belong to Brahma-Vidya

Vedhadyarthabhedat III.3.25 (384)

Because the matter (of certain Mantras) such as piercing and so on is different (from the matter of the approximate Vidyas), (the former are not to be combined with the latter).

Vedhadi: piercing etc.; Arthabhedat: because they have a different meaning.

Certain expressions occurring at the beginning of an Upanishad of the Atharva-Veda are taken up for discussion.

At the beginning of the Upanishad of the Atharvanikas we have Pierce the whole (body of the enemy), pierce his heart, crush his veins, crush his head etc. At the beginning of the Upanishad of the Tandins we have the Mantra O God Savita! produce the sacrifice. At the beginning of Kathas and the Taittiriyaka we have May Mitra be propitious to us and Varuna etc. At the beginning of that of the Kaushitakins we have Brahman indeed is the Agnistoma, Brahman is that day; through Brahman they pass into Brahman, Immortality, those reach who observe that day.

The question is whether these Mantras and the sacrifices referred to in the Brahmanas in close proximity to the Upanishads are to be combined with the Vidyas prescribed by these Upanishads.

The opponent holds that they are to be combined, because the text exhibits them in proximity to the Upanishad-portions of the Brahmanas whose chief contents are formed by the Vidyas. In the case of Mantras we can always imagine some meaning which connects them with the Vidyas. The first Mantra quoted glorifies the heart, because the heart is often represented in the Vidyas as abode of meditation. Therefore Mantras which glorify the heart may constitute subordinate members of those Vidyas.

This Sutra declares that they are not to be combined because their meaning is different, as they indicate acts of a sacrifice and so have no association or relationship with the Vidyas.

The Mantras might be so employed if their whole contents were glorification of the heart, but this is not the case. The Mantra first quoted clearly expresses enmity to somebody and is therefore not to be connected with the Vidyas of the Upanishads, but with some ceremony meant to destroy one's enemy.

Other Mantras are subordinate to certain sacrificial actions. They cannot, because they occur in the Upanishads, be connect ed with the Vidyas on the ground of mere proximity.

For this reason the mentioned Mantras and acts are not on the ground of mere textual collocation to be viewed as supplementary to the Vidyas of the Upanishads.


The statement that the good and evil deeds of a person go respectively to his friends and enemies is true for texts

that mention discarding of such actions by him

Hanau tupayanasabdaseshatvat

kusacchandastutyupaganavattaduktam III.3.26 (385)

But where only the getting rid (of the good and evil) is mentioned (the obtaining of this good and evil by others has to be added) because the statement about acceptance is supplementary (to the statement about the getting rid of) as in the case of the Kusas, metres, praise and hymns or recitations. This (i.e., the reason for this) has been stated (by Jaimini in Purvamimamsa).

Hanau: where only the getting rid (of good and evil) is mentioned; Tu: but; Upayanasabdaseshatvat: on account of the word `acceptance' being supplementary to the word `getting rid'; Kusacchandastutyupaganavat: like Kusa-sticks, metres, praises and hymns; Tat: that; Uktam: has been stated (by Jaimini). (Upayana: acceptance; Sabda: on account of the statement of the word; Seshatvat: on account of being supplementary to.)

Here is a discussion on the shaking off of virtues and vices by the released soul at death and their acceptance by his friends and enemies.

Jaimini has said that statements with respect to Kusas, metres, praises and hymns have to be completed from other texts. It is said in the Kaushitaki Sruti that Kusa sticks are to be collected from trees without any specification as to what sort of tree; but in the Satyayana branch it is said that the Kusas are of the Udumbara tree. This latter expression is to be accepted as complementary to the former expression of the Kaushitaki Sruti. The first Sruti will have to be com pleted in the light of the other.

There is in a Sruti an injunction to say a prayer composed in metre without any specification of the kind of metre, but in another place there is mention of the Deva-metre to be employed in such a case. Therefore the Deva-metre is to be understood in the previous case also.

There is instruction in one Sruti to utter praises for the sacrificial vessel `Shodasi' without specifying the time as to when it should be performed; but in another Sruti it is taught to be performed when the sun has risen. Here the latter instruction is to be accepted as supplementary to the former.

As regards the hymn it is not definitely stated which of the four priests is to join in the singing of the prayer in a sacrifice; but this doubt has been cleared up by a particular text which says that the Adhvaryu will not join in the singing. Putting the two statements together, the conclusion is that all the priests except the Adhvaryu will join.

This principle is here applied to the effects of the actions of a liberated sage in connection with the Vidyas mentioned in the Upanishads. In the text of the Tandins we find shakes off all evil as a horse shakes his hair, and shaking off the body as the moon frees herself from the mouth of Rahu, I obtain the uncreated world of Brahman (Chh. Up. VIII.13). Again in Mundaka Upanishad (III.1.3) we read Then knowing shaking off good and evil, he reaches the highest oneness, free from passion. These Srutis are silent on the point as to who accepts his good and evil deeds.

In the Satyayana branch of Sruti it is said His sons obtain his inheritance, his friends the good, his enemies the evil he has done. In the Kaushitaki Upanishad (I.4) we find He shakes off his good and his bad deeds. His beloved relations obtain the good, his unbeloved relatives the evil he has done.

This Sutra declares that the obtaining of the good and evil by his friends and enemies has to be inserted or necessarily added in the Chhandogya text and Mundaka text according to Jaimini's principle explained above.

The Purvapakshin raises another objection. He argues that the verb `Dhu' in the text of the Chhandogya and Kaushitaki may be interpreted as `trembling' and not as `getting rid of'. It would mean therefore that good and evil still cling to a person who attains Knowledge, although their effects are retarded on account of the Knowledge.

This Sutra declares that such a meaning is incorrect, because the subsequent portion of the text indicates that others obtain the good and evil. This is certainly not possible unless the person who attains Knowledge abandons them.

Good and evil deeds cannot be said to `tremble' in the literal sense of the word like flags in the wind, as they are not of a substantial nature. Though `Dhu' in `Vidhuya' may be said to signify `shaking' and not `casting off', yet as others are described as taking the liberated sage's merits and sins, it means `casting off'.


The shaking off of good and evil by the man of Knowledge

occurs only at the time of his death

Samparaye tarttavyabhavattathahyanye III.3.27 (386)

(He who attains knowledge gets rid of his good and evil deeds) at the time of death, there being nothing to be attained (by him on the way to Brahmaloka through those works); for thus others (declare in their sacred texts).

Samparaye: at the time of death; Tarttavyabhavat: there being nothing to be attained; Tatha: in this way, so; Hi: because, for; Anye: others.

This Sutra decides when the individual soul shakes off his good and evil deeds.

The question now arises as to when the individual soul gets rid of his good and evil deeds. In the Kaushitaki Upanishad (I.4) we find He comes to the river Viraja and crosses it by the mind alone, and there he shakes off good and evil. On the strength of this text the Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that the good and evil deeds are discarded on his way to Brahmaloka and not at the time of departing from the body.

This Sutra refutes it and declares that the liberated sage frees himself from the effects of good and evil works at the time of death through the strength of his knowledge.

Though the Kaushitaki Sruti refers to the discarding of good and evil on the Devayana way or the way to Brahmaloka, after crossing the Viraja river, the good and evil deeds are cast off at death, because there is nothing to be attained through them after death, there remaining nothing to be enjoyed by him through his good and evil works. The good and evil works are no longer of any use to him and not fit to be retained by him thereafter.

The Sanchita Karma or accumulated works are destroyed as soon as one attains knowledge of Brahman. Prarabdha is destroyed at death. So he is freed from the effects of all his merits and sins at the time of death.

As the results of his good and evil deeds are contrary to the result of knowledge, they are destroyed by the power of the latter. The moment of their destruction is that moment in which he sets out towards the fruit of his knowledge, i.e., the world of Brahman.

Moreover it is not possible to cast off the effects of good and evil deeds on the way to Brahmaloka because the soul has no gross body and so it cannot take recourse to any practice that can destroy them.

Further one cannot cross the river Viraja unless he is freed from all good and evil.

The Sruti declares shaking off all evil as a horse shakes off his hairs (Chh. Up. VIII.13.1).

Therefore the settled conclusion is that all good and evil works are cast off at the time of death.

Chhandata ubhayavirodhat III.3.28 (387)

(The interpretation that the individual soul practising Yama-Niyama) according to his liking (discards good and evil works while living is reasonable) on account of there being harmony in that case between the two (viz., cause and effect, as well as between the Chhandogya and another Sruti).

Chhandatah: according to his liking; Ubhayanirodhat: on account of there being harmony between the two. (Ubhaya: of either; there being no contradiction.)

The view is correct because voluntary performance of Yama, Niyma, etc., to get rid of Karma is possible only before death, and because it is opposed to all texts. The above view is in agreement or unison with all Srutis.

If the soul frees himself from his good and evil deeds on the way after having departed from the body and having entered on the way of the gods (Devayana), we land ourselves in impossibilities, because after the body has been left behind, he cannot practise according to his liking self-restraint and pur suit of knowledge which can effect destruction of his good and evil deeds. Therefore there cannot be annihilation of his good and evil works.

It does not certainly stand to reason that the effect is delayed till some time after death when the cause is there already. When there is a body it is not possible to attain Brahmaloka. There is no difficulty in discarding good and evil.


The knower of Saguna Brahman alone goes along Devayana,

and not the knower of Nirguna Brahman

Gaterarthavattvamubhayathanyatha hi virodhah III.3.29 (388)

(The soul's) journey (along the path of the gods, Devayana) is applicable in a two-fold manner, otherwise there would be contradiction (of scripture).

Gateh: of the journey of the soul (after death), along the path of the gods; Arthavatvam: utility; Ubhayatha: in two ways; Anyatha: otherwise; Hi: for, certainly; Virodhah: contradiction.

Here is a side issue of Sutra 27.

In some scriptural texts the dead man's going on the path of the gods is mentioned in connection with his freeing himself from good and evil. In other texts it is not mentioned. The doubt now arises whether the two things go together in all cases or only in certain cases.

The Purvapakshin holds that the two are to be connected in all cases, just as the man's freeing himself from his good and evil works is always followed by their passing over to his friends and enemies.

This Sutra declares that the worshipper of Saguna Brahman only takes journey after death along the Devayana. The going on that path has a sense in the case of Saguna Upasana only and not in worshippers of Nirguna Brahman. Brahmaloka is located elsewhere in space. The Saguna Upasaka has to move and attain that abode. There is actual going through which another place is reached. Therefore, the journey has a meaning in his case only. The Prana of Nirguna Upasaka is absorbed in Brahman. He is one with the Infinite or the Absolute. Where will he move? The liberated sage who is free from all desires and egoism does not go to another place. He does not move. The Supreme Brahman is not to be reached by the liberated sage. He need not transport himself to another locality. There is no meaning at all in journey for such a sage who is absorbed in Nirguna Brahman. His ignorance is destroyed by the dawn of knowledge of Brahman. He becomes identical with the Supreme Self. If there is journey for him also, then it would contradict Sruti texts like Shaking off good and evil, free from passions, he reaches the Highest Self, or Para-Brahman (Mun. Up. III.1.3).

How can the liberated sage who has become one with the Supreme Brahman who is secondless, who is all-pervading, who is Infinite, who is without motion, go to another place by Devayana? He has already attained his goal or union with Brahman. The journey along the Devayana is meaningless for him.

Therefore, he who has realised the Saguna Brahman, he who worships Saguna Brahman alone goes by the Devayana.

Upapannastallakshanarthopalabdherlokavat III.3.30 (389)

(The two-fold view taken above) is justified because we observe a purpose characterised thereby (i.e., a purpose of the going) as in ordinary life.

Upapannah: is reasonable; Tallakshanarthopalabdheh: for the characteristics which render such journey possible are seen; Lokavat: as is seen in the world, as is the ordinary experience. (Tat: that; Lakshana: mark, characteristic features; Artha: object; Upalabdheh: being known, on account of the obtaining.)

The previous discussion is continued.

The meditations on Saguna or qualified Brahman, such as the Paryankavidya of the Kaushitaki Upanishad, there is a reason for the man's proceeding on the path of the gods (Devayana); because the text mentions certain results which can be attained only by the man going to different places, such as his mounting a couch, his holding conversation with Brahman seated on a couch, his experiencing various odours and so on.

On the contrary going on the path of the gods has nothing to do with perfect knowledge. No purpose is served by such a journey in the case of a liberated sage or Nirguna Upasaka in whom ignorance has been destroyed by the dawn of knowledge of Brahman or the Imperishable. He has attained oneness or unity with the Supreme Self. All his desires have been fulfilled. All his Karmas have been destroyed. He is only waiting for the dissolution of the body.

The destruction is similar to what is observed in ordinary life. If we wish to reach some village we have to proceed on a path leading there, but no moving on a path is needed when we want to attain freedom from a disease.


The passage of the soul by Devayana applies equally

to all Vidyas of Saguna Brahman

Aniyamah sarvasamavirodhah sabdanumanabhyam III.3.31 (390)

There is no restriction (as to the going on the path of the gods for any Vidya). There is no contradiction as is seen from the Sruti and Smriti.

Aniyamah: (there is) no restriction; Sarvasam: of all; Avirodhah: there is no contradiction; Sabdanumanabhyam: as is seen from Sruti and Smriti. (Sabdah: the word, i.e., the revealed scripture or Sruti; Anumana: inference or Smriti.)

The journey of the soul who knows Brahman is continued.

We have shown that the going on the path of the gods is valid only for the Vidyas of Saguna Brahman, not for the knowledge of Nirguna Brahman which is devoid of all qualities.

Now we observe that the going on the path of the gods to Brahmaloka is mentioned only in some of the qualified Vidyas such as the Paryanka Vidya, the Panchagni Vidya, the Upakosala Vidya, the Dahara Vidya, but it is not mentioned or expressly stated in others such as the Madhu Vidya, the Sandilya Vidya, the Shodasakala Vidya, the Vaisvanara Vidya.

The doubt now arises whether the going on the path of the gods is to be connected with those Vidyas in which it is actually mentioned or generally with all Vidyas of that kind.

This Sutra declares that all worshippers of the Saguna Brahman, whatever their Vidyas may be, go after death by this path. This is seen from the Sruti and Smriti. Those who meditate thus through Panchagni Vidya and also those who understand other Vidyas and also those who meditate in the forest with faith and austerities, on Saguna Brahman through any other Vidya proceed on the path of the gods (Chh. Up. V.10.1.); (Bri. Up. VI.2.15).

Bhagavad Gita also declares, Light and darkness, these are thought to be the world's everlasting paths; by the one he goes who does not return, by the other he returns again (VIII.26).

The term The True in the passage Those who in the forest, with faith, worship the True, i.e., Brahman, is often employed to denote Brahman.

Thus it is quite clear that the going on the path of gods is not confined to those Vidyas in which it is actually mentioned or expressly stated.


Perfected souls may take a corporeal existence for divine mission

Yavadadhikaramavasthitiradhikarikanam III.3.32 (391)

Of those who have a mission to fulfil (there is corporeal) existence, so long as the mission is not fulfilled.

Yavadadhikaram: so long as the mission is not fulfilled; Avasthitih: (there is corporeal) existence; Adhikarikanam: of those who have a mission in life to fulfil. (Yavad: as long as; Adhikaram: mission, purpose to be fulfilled.)

A plausible objection to Sutra 31 is refuted.

The Purvapakshin says Rishi Apantaratamas, a teacher of the Vedas was by the order of Vishnu, born on this earth as Vyasa or Krishna Dvaipayana. Similarly Vasishtha, the son of Brahma's mind having parted from former body in consequence of the curse of Nimi, was on the order of Brahma, again procreated by Mitra and Varuna. Bhrigu and other sons of Brahma's mind were again born at the sacrifice of Varuna. Sanatkumara also, who likewise was a son of Brahma's mind, was in consequence of a boon being granted to Rudra, born again as Skanda. Daksha, Narada and other Rishis were born again. It is stated that some assumed a new body after the old body had perished, some assumed through their supernatural powers various new bodies while the old body remained intact all the while.

Now these Rishis had knowledge of Brahman or the Absolute and yet they had to be reborn. If this is the case what is the use of such knowledge of Brahman? The knowledge of Brahman may either be or not be the cause of final emancipation or freedom.

The Sutra refutes it and declares that ordinarily a person is not reborn after attaining knowledge of the Absolute. But the case of those who have a divine mission to fulfil is different. They may have one or more births till their mission is fulfilled, after which they are not born again. They are entrusted with the offices conducive to the subsistence of the world such as the promulgation of the Vedas and the like. They assume new bodies of their own free will and not as the result of Karma. They pass from one body to another, as if from one house into another in order to accomplish the duties of their offices. They preserve all the true memory of their identity. They create for themselves, through their power over the material of the body and the sense organs, new bodies and occupy them either all at once or in succession.

Smriti tells us that Sulabha, a woman who had knowledge of Brahman, wanted to enter into discussion with Janaka. She left her own body, entered into that of Janaka, carried on a discussion with him and again returned into her own body.

Tat Tvam Asi (That thou art) does not mean Tat Tvam Mrito Bhavishyasi (they will become That after death). It can not be interpreted to mean Thou wilt be that after thou hast dead. Another text declares that the fruit of Knowledge viz., union with Brahman springs up at the moment when the com plete knowledge of Brahman is attained. The Rishi Vamadeva saw and understood it singing, I was Manu, I was the sun.

But they never come under the sway of Avidya or nescience even though they may be born. The case is similar to that of a liberated sage. A Jivanmukta continues his physical existence even after attaining Brahma Jnana or Knowledge of the Absolute as long as the Prarabdha Karma lasts. The divine mission of these Rishis like Sri Vyasa, Vasishtha, Apantaratamas, can be compared to the Prarabdha Karma of Jivanmuktas.

For all these reasons it is established that those who are endowed with true and perfect knowledge attain in all cases final emancipation.


The negative attributes of Brahman mentioned in various texts

are to be combined in all meditations on Brahman

Aksharadhiyam tvavarodhah

samanyatadbhavabhyamaupasadavattaduktam III.3.33 (392)

But the conceptions of the (negative) attributes of the Imperishable (Brahman) are to be combined (from different texts where the Imperishable Brahman is dealt with, as they form one Vidya), because of the similarity (of defining the Imperishable Brahman through denials) and the object (the Imperishable Brahman) being the same, as in the case of the Upasad (offerings). This has been explained (by Jaimini in the Purvamimamsa).

Aksharadhiyam: of the meditation of negative attributes belonging to the Imperishable; Tu: but, indeed; Avarodhah: combination; Samanyatadbhavabhyam: because of the similarity (of denying Brahman through denials) and the object (viz., Imperishable Brahman) being the same; Aupasadavat: as in the case of the Upasad (offering) like the hymn or the Mantra in connection with the Upasada rite; Tat: that; Uktam: has been explained (by Jaimini in the Purvamimamsa).

The negative attributes of the Imperishable are now examin ed, as the positive attributes were examined in Sutra 11 of this section.

We read in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, O Gargi! The Brahmanas or the knowers of Brahman call this Akshara or the Imperishable. It is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long (Bri. Up. III.8.8). Again the Mundaka says, The Supreme Knowledge is that by which the Imperishable (Akshara) is attained. That which is imperceivable, ungraspable, which has no family and no caste etc. (Mun. Up. I.1.5-6). In other places also the highest Brahman, under the name of Akshara is described as that of which all qualities are to be denied.

A doubt arises now as to whether the negative qualities in the above two texts are to be combined so as to form one Vidya or they are to be treated as two separate Vidyas.

The Purvapakshin maintains that each denial is valid only for that passage in which the text actually exhibits it, and not for other places. These negative attributes do not directly indicate or specify the nature of Brahman like the positive attributes, Bliss, Peace, Knowledge, Truth, Purity, Perfection, Eternity, etc. Hence the principle stated in Sutra III.3.11 does not apply here, because no purpose is really served or gained by such a combination.

This Sutra refutes this and declares that such denials are to be combined because the method of teaching Brahman through denial is the same and the object of instruction is also the same, viz., the Imperishable Brahman (Akshara). The rule of Sutra III.3.11 applies here also. In Sutra III.3.11 positive attributes of Brahman were discussed. Here we are concerned with negative attributes which teach Brahman by an indirect method. The case is similar to the Upasad offerings. The Mantras for giving these offerings are found only in the Sama Veda. But the priests of the Yajur Veda use this Mantra given in the other Veda. The hymns which occur in the Sama Veda are recited by the Adhvaryu after the time of the Yajur Veda. This prin ciple has been established by Jaimini in Purvamimamsa (III.3. 9).

Similarly the negative attributes have to be combined here also in the meditation on the Imperishable Brahman (Akshara).

The conception of the negative attributes of the Indestruc tible (Akshara) as stated in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is to be retained in the meditations on the Indestructible everywhere (i.e., in every Akshara Vidya) because the same Akshara is recog nised in every Akshara Vidya and also because those negative attributes are presupposed to be included among His essential attributes.


Mundaka III.1.1 and Katha I.3.1 constitute one Vidya

Iyadamananat III.3 34 (393)

Because (the same thing) is described as such and such.

Iyat: so much only, this much; Amananat: on account of being men tioned in the scripture.

We read in the Mundaka Upanishad Two birds of beautiful plumage, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet and bitter fruits there of, the other looks on without eating (Mun. Up. III.1.1). The same Mantra is found in the text of Svetasvatara Upanishad (IV.6).

Again we have, There are the two enjoying the fruits of their good deeds, entered into the cave, dwelling on the highest summit. Those who know Brahman call them shade and light, likewise those householders who perform the Trinachiketa sacri fice (Katha Up. I.3.1).

The doubt here arises, do we have in these two texts two different Vidyas or one only?

The Purvapakshin or the opponent maintains that these are two Vidyas, because there are different objects of meditation. The Mundaka text declares that only one eats the fruit, while the other does not. Katha text says that both of them enjoy the fruits of their good actions. So the object of meditation is not the same. As the objects of knowledge differ in character, the Vidyas themselves must be looked upon as separate.

This Sutra refutes it and declares that they form one Vidya, because both describe the same Lord as existing thus and thus, i.e. in the form of the individual soul. The purpose or aim of the two Sruti passages is to teach about the Highest Self or Para Brahman and show the identity of the Jiva and Para Brahman.

As the word Dvau, i.e., two is used in the two Srutis we must realise that they refer to the same Vidya. Though the Mundaka text says that one bird (the individual soul) eats the fruits of actions and the other bird looks on without eating and though the latter passage refers to the two as eating fruits, the Vidyas are the same as they refer to the same entity. Just as when in a group one carries an umbrella we say umbrella-holders go, even so the Para Brahman also is described as eating fruits. The context refers clearly to the eternal and Supreme Brahman (Aksharam brahma yat param).

The Katha Upanishad text intimates the same highest Brahman which is above all desires. As it is mentioned together with the enjoying individual soul, it is itself metaphorically spoken of as enjoying, just as we speak of the `men with the umbrella' although only one out of several carries an umbrella. All this has been explained at length under I.2.11.

Therefore, the Vidyas are one only, as the object of medita tion or Knowledge is one.


Brihadaranyaka III.4.1 and III.5.1 constitute one Vidya

Antara bhutagramavatsvatmanah III.3.35 (394)

As the Self is within all, as in the case of the aggregate of the elements, (there is oneness of Vidya).

Antara: as being innermost of all, inside, the status of being the inmost; Bhutagramavat: as in the case of the aggregate of the elements; Svatmanah: of one's own self.

Two passages from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad are taken up for discussion to show that they relate to the same Vidya.

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Ushasta questions Yajnavalkya, Explain to me the Brahman which is present to intui tion, not hiddenthis Atman or Self which is within all (Bri. Up. III.4.1). Yajnavalkya replies, That which breathes through Prana is your self, that is within all.

In the same Upanishad Yajnavalkya gives an answer to the same question put by Kahola, That which transcends hunger and thirst, grief and delusion, decay and death, knowing this very self etc. (Bri. Up. III.5.1).

The Purvapakshin maintains that these two are separate Vidyas, because the replies given being different, the objects referred to must also be different.

This Sutra refutes this and declares that the object is one, the Highest Self or Para Brahman, because it is impossible to conceive two selves being simultaneously innermost of all in the same body.

Atman alone is taught in the two texts as being ultimately immanent just as Atman is also taught as being immanent in the elements. The two passages refer only to one Vidya, because there could be only one Atman, who is Sarvantara, i.e., ultimately immanent. Among the elements water is immanent in earth, fire in water and so on. But none has ultimate imma nency. Even so there is only one ultimate immanent entity.

Relatively one element can be inside the other. But none of the five elements which constitute this physical body can be truly the innermost of all. Similarly two selves cannot be simultaneously the innermost of all in the same body. Even so one self alone can be the innermost of all.

Therefore, the same self is taught in both the replies of Yajnavalkya.

In both the cases the subject-matter of the question and the answer is Brahman. This is emphasised by the sage Yajnavalkya himself, when he repeats That soul of thine is the innermost soul of individuals. The different expositions of Yajnavalkya refer to the one and the same object of worship, viz., Brahman.

As both texts equally declare the self to be within all, they must be taken as constituting one Vidya only. In both passages question and answer equally refer to a Self which is within everything. For in one body, there cannot be two selves, each of which is inside everything else. One Self only may be within everything. We read in the Svetasvatara Upanishad He is the one God, hidden in all beings, all-pervading, the Self within all beings. As this Mantra records that one Self lives within the aggregate of all beings, the same holds good with regard to the two passages of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

As the object of Knowledge or the object of worship is one, the Vidya also is one only.

Anyatha bhedanupapattiriti chennopadesantaravat III.3.36 (395)

If it be said (that the two Vidyas are separate, for) other wise the repetition cannot be accounted for, we reply not so; (it is) like (the repetition) in another instruction (in the Chhandogya).

Anyatha: otherwise; Bhedanupapattih: the repetition cannot be account ed for, no justification for the variety in the wording of the two replies; Iti: so, this; Chet: if; Na: no, not so; Upadesantaravat: as will be seen from other teachings, as in the teaching of another Vidya, mode of meditation, namely the Satya Vidya in the Chhandogya. (Bheda: difference; Anupapattih: not obtaining.)

The opponent says that unless the separateness of the two Vidyas be admitted, the separation of the two statements cannot be accounted for. He remarks that unless the two texts refer to two different selves the repetition of the same subject would be meaningless.

This Sutra says that it is not so. The repetition has a definite purpose or aim. It helps the aspirant to comprehend the subjects more clearly and deeply from different view points. The repetition does not justify us to take that two different selves are taught here. In Chhandogya Upanishad the instruction con veyed in the words That is the Self, Thou art That (Tat Tvam Asi), O Svetaketu, is repeated nine times, and yet the one Vidya is not thereby split into many. Similarly is this case also.

The introductory and concluding clauses indicate that all those passages have the same sense. There also the Upakrama (beginning) is the same. So is the conclusion (Upasamhara). It says, Everything else is perishable, Everything else is of evil.

In the earlier Brahmana, Atman is taught as being sepa rate from the body and the senses. In the later Brahmana, Atman is taught as not having hunger, etc. But the Vidya is the same.

The former section declares the existence of the Supreme Self which is neither cause nor effect, while the latter qualifies it as that which transcends all the relative attributes of the Samsara state, such as hunger, thirst and so on. The second answer tells something special about the Self.

The two sections, therefore, form one Vidya only.


The Sruti prescribes reciprocal meditation in Ait. Ar. II.2.4.6

Vyatiharo vishimsanti hitaravat III.3.37 (396)

There is exchange (of meditation), because the texts distin guish (two meditations); as in other cases.

Vyatiharah: exchange; reciprocity (of meditation); Visimshanti: (the scriptures) explain clearly, distinguish; Hi: because, for; Itaravat: as in other cases.

The Aitareya Aranyaka says with reference to the person in the sun, What I am, that He is; what He is, that am I (Ait. Ar. II.2.4.6).

A doubt arises here whether the meditation is to be of a reciprocal nature, a double one by means of exchange, i.e., identifying the worshipper with the being in the sun, and then inversely, identifying the being in the sun with the worshipper; or only in the former manner.

The Purvapakshin maintains that the meditation is to be practised in the former manner only and not in the reverse way also. He argues that the soul would be exalted by the former meditation and the Lord be lowered by the latter one! There is a meaning in the first kind of meditation but the second kind of meditation is meaningless.

The present Sutra refutes this view and declares that the meditation is to be practised in both ways because such a state ment would be purportless. Exchange, or reverse meditation is expressly recorded in the Sruti for the purpose of meditation, just as other qualities of the Self such as its being the self of all, Satyasankalpa, etc., are recorded for the same purpose. For both texts make the distinctive double enunciation I am Thou and Thou art I. Now the double enunciation has a sense only if a twofold meditation is to be based upon it; other wise it would be devoid of meaning; since one statement would be all that is needed.

This will not in any way lower Brahman. Even in that way, only the unity of the Self is meditated upon. Brahman who is bodiless can be adored or meditated even as having a form. The double statement is merely meant to confirm the oneness of the Self. It gives force or emphasis to the identity.

Therefore, a twofold meditation has to be admitted, not a single one. This confirms the unity of the Self. The double relation enounced in the Sruti text has to be meditated upon, and is to be transformed to other Vidyas also which treat of the same subject.


Brihadaranyaka V.4.1 and V.5.3 treat of one Vidya

about Satya Brahman

Saiva hi satyadayah III.3.38 (397)

The same (Satya Vidya is taught in both places), because (attributes like) Satya etc., (are seen in both places).

Sa eva: the same (Satya Vidya); Hi: because; Satyadayah: (attributes like) Satya etc.

We read in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad He who knows this great, glorious, first born (Being) as the Satya Brahman, conquers these worlds (V.4.1). Again we read That which is Satya is that Sun the being who is in that orb and the being who is in the right eye... he destroys evils (V.5.3).

Now a doubt arises whether these two Satya Vidyas are one or different.

The Purvapakshin holds that the Vidyas are two; because the text declares two different results, one in the earlier passage He conquers these worlds(V.4.1), the other one later on He destroys evil and leaves it (V.5.3).

The Sutra declares that they are one, because the second text refers to the Satya of the earlier text, That which is Satya, etc.

In reality there is only one result in both cases. The state ment of a second result merely has the purpose of glorifying the new instruction given about Satya or the True, viz., that its secret names are `Ahar' and `Aham'.

Therefore, the conclusion is that the text records only one Vidya of the True (Satyam), distinguished by such and such details and that hence all the qualities mentioned such as Truth and so on are to be comprehended in one act of meditation.

Some commentators think that the above Sutra refers not to the question whether Bri. Up. V.4,1 and V.5.3 form one Vidya or one meditation but to the question whether the Brihadaranyaka text about the persons in the sun and in the eye and the similar Chhandogya text (I.6.6), Now that golden person who is seen within the sun etc. constitute one Vidya or not.

They come to the conclusion that they constitute one Vidya and that hence truth and the other qualities mentioned in the Brihadaranyaka are to be combined with the Chhandogya text also.

But this interpretation of the Sutra is objectionable, because the Chhandogya Vidya refers to the Udgitha and is thus connected with sacrificial rites. The marks of this association are seen in the beginning, the middle and the end of the Vidya. We read at the beginning, The Rik is the earth, the Saman is fire, in the middle, Rik and Saman are his joints, and there fore he is the Udgitha, and in the end, He who knows this sings as a Saman (Chh. Up. I.6.1).

In the Brihadaranyaka, on the contrary, there is verily, nothing to connect the Vidya with the sacrificial rites. As the subject matter is different, the Vidyas are separate and the details of the two Vidyas are to be held separate.


Attributes mentioned in Chh. Up. VIII.1.1 and

Bri. Up. IV.4.22 are to be combined on account of

several common features in both texts

Kamaditaratra tatra chayatanadibhyah III.3.39 (398)

(Qualities like true) desire etc., (mentioned in the Chhandogya Upanishad are to be inserted) in the other (i.e., in the Brihadaranyaka) and (those mentioned) in the other (i.e., in the Brihadaranyaka are also to be inserted in the Chhandogya) on account of the abode, etc., (being the same in both).

Kamadi: (Satyasankalpadi) (True) desire etc.; Itaratra: in the other, elsewhere, in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad; Tatra: there, in the Chhandogya Upanishad; Cha: also; Ayatanadibhyah: on account of the abode etc.

Dahara Vidya of the Chhandogya and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishads is now discussed.

In the Chhandogya Upanishad (VIII.1.1) we read, There is this city of Brahman and in it the palace, the small lotus and in it the small ether; that is the Self. We read in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (IV.4.22) That great unborn self who con sists of Knowledge, who is surrounded by the Pranas lies in the ether that is within the heart.

A doubt here arises whether the two constitute one Vidya and therefore the particulars are to be combined or not.

The present Sutra declares that they form one Vidya and the qualities mentioned in each are to be combined in the other, because many points are common in both.

Wishes and so on, i.e., The quality of having true wishes and so on. The word `Kama' stands for `Satyakama' just as people occasionally say Datta for Devadatta and Bhama for Satyabhama. This quality and the other qualities which the Chhandogya attributes to the ether within the heart, have to be combined with the Brihadaranyaka passage, and vice versa, i.e., the qualities mentioned in the Brihadaranyaka such as being the ruler of all, have also to be ascribed to the Self free from sin, described in the Chhandogya.

The reason for this is that the two passages exhibit a number of common features. Common to both is the heart regarded as abode. Common again is the Lord as object of knowledge or meditation. Common also is the Lord being regarded as a bank preventing these worlds from being confounded. And there are several other points also.

But an objection is raised. There are also differences. In the Chhandogya the attributes are ascribed to the ether within the heart, while in the Brihadaranyaka they are attributed to Brah man abiding in the ether. This objection has no force. It can not certainly stand. We have shown under I.3.14 that the term ether in the Chhandogya designates Brahman.

There is, however, one difference between the two texts. The Chhandogya treats of Saguna Brahman while the Brihadaranyaka treats of Nirguna Brahman or the Supreme Brahman destitute of all qualities. Yajnavalkya says to Janaka For that person is not attached to anything. That Self is to be described by No, No,neti, neti (Bri. Up. IV.3.14).

But as the qualified Brahman is fundamentally one with the unqualified Brahman we must conclude that the Sutra teaches the combination of the qualities for glorifying Brahman and not for the purpose of devout meditation or Upasana.


Pranagnihotra need not be observed on days of fast

Adaradalopah III.3.40 (399)

On account of the respect shown (to the Pranagnihotra by the Sruti) there can be no omission (of this act) (even when the eating of food is omitted).

Adarat: on account of the respect shown; Alopah: there can be no omission.

This Sutra gives the view of the Purvapakshin or the opponent.

Because there is loving emphasis on Pranagnihotra in Jabala Sruti, such Pranagnihotra should not be omitted.

In the Vaisvanara Vidya of the Chhandogya Upanishad, the worshipper is asked first before he takes his meals to offer food to each of the Pranas, saying To Prana I offer this. The Sruti attaches much importance to this Pranagnihotra. The Sruti enjoins that food must be offered to the Pranas even before entertaining guests.

Now the question is whether the Pranagnihotra is to be observed even on days of fasting.

The Sutra declares that there should be no omission of it even on days of fasting, as the Sruti attaches much importance to it. The Jabala Sruti says it must be observed even on days of fasting by sipping at least a few drops of water.

To this Purvapaksha the next Sutra gives a reply.

Upasthite'tastadvachanat III.3.41 (400)

When eating is taking place (the Pranagnihotra has to be performed) from that (i.e., the food first eaten), for so (the Sruti) declares.

Upasthite: being present, being near, when food is served; Atah: from that, on that account; Tadvachanat: for so (the Sruti) declares.

This Sutra refutes the view expressed in the last Sutra, and declares that Pranagnihotra, need not be performed on fasting days, because the Sruti expressly declares, Therefore the first food which comes is meant for Homa. And he who offers that first oblation should offer it to Prana, saying Svaha (Chh. Up. 19.1).

The first portion of the food should be offered to the Pranas on those days when it is taken. The Sruti gives importance to this only and not that it should be observed even on days of fasting.


Upasanas mentioned in connection with sacrifices

are not their parts, but separate


prithagghyapratibandhah phalam III.3.42 (401)

There is no rule about the inviolability of that (i.e., Upasa nas connected with certain sacrifices) that is seen (from the Sruti itself); for a separate fruit (belongs to the Upasanas), viz., non-obstruction (of the results of the sacrifice).

Tannirdharananiyamah: no rule, about the inviolability of that; Taddrishtih: that being seen (from the Sruti); Prithak: separate; Hi: because; Apratibandhah: non-obstruction; Phalam: fruit, reward, result.

This Sutra states that a meditation or Upasana prescribed in connection with a ceremonial rite is not compulsory.

We have the direction to make a certain Upasana as an Anga (element or limit) of Karma (Karmangavabaddhopasti). Is it an indispensable element? No. If it is performed there will be greater fruit. Even if it is not done the Karma will be complete. This is clear from the Chhandogya Upanishad.

We now enter into an enquiry whether certain Upasanas mentioned with some sacrifices are part of those sacrifices and therefore inseparable and permanently connected with them.

The present Sutra declares that Upasanas do not constitute a part of the sacrifice, because there is no rule as to their inseparability. The Sruti expressly declares that the sacrifice can be done with or without the Upasanas. The ignorant man, as well as the wise man may both engage in the Udgitha worship; both perform the sacrifice (Chh. Up. I.1.10). This shows that the Udgitha worship may be performed, the meditation or Upasana part being left out. That which is performed with meditation, faith and knowledge becomes all the more effective.

There is no fixed rule for compulsory performance of Udgitha meditation and the like in ceremonials, because performance of the meditation on `OM' is left optional to the performer and also because the fruit in each case is quite distinct, if the performance of the rite is not in any way obstructed, because it is clear that the meditation is sure to produce its own effect independently of the rite but the rite is liable to interruption and obstruction. If, however, the meditation and the rite be conjoined, fruit becomes doubly effective.

The Chhandogya Sruti (I.1.10) indicates that the rite can be done even without meditation or Upasana and that to perform the rite with meditation is to make it more effective. Hence the Udgitha meditation and all others performed in connec tion with ceremonial rite (Karmanga Upasana), are not com pulsory and are to be done by those only who wish to attain greater fruits.

The original sacrifice brings its own rewards but the Upasana increases its results. Therefore, the Upasana does not constitute a part of the sacrifice. Therefore, it may or may not be done according to the sweet will of the sacrificer.

The Upasana prevents any obstruction to the results of the sacrifice. This does not make it a part of the ceremonial rite. The rewards of the sacrifice may be delayed on account of the intervention of an evil Karma of the sacrificer. The Upasana annihilates the effect of this evil deed and hastens the attainment of the fruits of the sacrifice. That is all. The sacrifice does not rely upon the Upasana for its rewards.

Therefore, the Upasana does not form a part of the sacrifice and is, therefore, optional.


Meditations on Vayu and Prana are to be kept separate

notwithstanding the essential oneness of these two

Pradanavadeva taduktam III.3.43 (402)

As in the case of the offerings (Vayu and Prana must be held apart). This has been explained (in the Purvamimamsa Sutra).

Pradanavat: as in the case of the offerings of the `Pradana, oblation'; Eva: exactly; Tat: that; Uktam: has been stated.

The section of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which begins Voice held, I shall speak (Bri. Up. I.5.21) determines Prana to be the best amomg the organs of the body and Vayu to be the best among the Devas.

In the Chhandogya Upanishad Vayu is said to be the general absorber of the Devas, Vayu indeed is the absorber (IV.3.1); Prana is said to be the general absorber of the organs of the body, Breath indeed is the absorber (IV.3.3).

In the Samvarga Vidya of the Chhandogya Upanishad, meditation on Prana with reference to the body and on Vayu with reference to the gods is prescribed.

Many Sruti texts say that Prana and Vavu are one in essence. Therefore, the Purvapakshin main tains that the two meditations can be combined and that Vayu and Prana are non-separate because in their true nature they do not differ. And as their true nature does not differ they must not be meditated upon separately. In some places we have even a direct identification of the two, What Prana is that is VayuYah pranah sa vayuh.

The present Sutra refutes the above view and declares that they are to be kept apart despite the non-difference in nature of Prana and Vayu, because their functions on account of their different abodes are different. Although there may be non-difference of true nature, yet there may be difference of condition giving rise to difference of instruction, and through the latter to difference of meditation.

The Sutra compares the case under discussion to a parallel one from the Karmakanda by means of the clause as in the case of the offerings.

As an illustration we may take Pradhana where Purodasa (oblations) is given separately to Raja Indra (the Ruler), Adhiraja Indra (the monarch or the over-ruler), and Svaraja Indra (the sovereign or the self-ruler) according to his different capacities, though Indra is essentially one, though he is one god.

Hence, though the Vidya is one from the Adhyatmic point of view, there is separateness from the Adhidaivata point of view. So the meditations on Prana and Vayu have to be kept apart. This principle is established by Jaimini, in Purva mimamsa (Sankarsha alias Devata Kanda).


The fires in Agnirahasya of the Brihadaranyaka are not part

of the sacrificial act, but form an independent Vidya

Lingabhuyastvat taddhi baliyastadapi III.3.44 (403)

On account of the majority of indicatory marks (the fires of the mind, speech, etc., in the Agnirahasya of the Vajasaneyins do not form part of the sacrifice), for it (the indicatory mark) is stronger (than the context or the general subject matter). This also (has been explained in the Purvamimamsa Sutras by Jaimini).

Lingabhuyastvat: because of an abundance of distinguishing marks; Tat: that, the distinguishing mark; Hi: because; Baliyah: is stronger; Tat: that; Api: also.

In the Agnirahasya of the Vajasaneyins (Satapatha Brahmana) certain fires named after mind, speech, eyes, etc., are mentioned.

A doubt arises whether these form part of the sacrifice mentioned therein or form an independent Vidya.

The present Sutra declares that in spite of the prima facie view which arises from the context, these form a separate Vidya because there are many indicatory marks to show that these fires form an independent Vidya.

The indicatory marks are of greater force than the context or the leading subject matter (Prakarana). This has been explained in the Purvamimamsa (III.3.14).

The reference in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad takes a man's age to be one hundred years, i.e., 36,000 days and describes each day's mentality as an Agnichayana or fire sacrifice. The passage occurs in a portion relating to Karma or ceremonial action. If you say that such a meditation is an Anga or element in the ceremonial because it occurs in a passage relating to Karma, we say that the majority of indicatory marks is otherwise, e.g., the Sruti says that such Chayana goes on even in sleep. A specific reason given in a passage has a greater weight or force than mere context.

Purvavikalpah prakaranat syat kriyamanasavat III.3.45 (404)

(The fires spoken of in the previous Sutra are) alternative forms of the one mentioned first, (i.e., the actual sacrificial fire) on account of the context; (they) ought to be part of the sacrifice like the imaginary drink or the Manasa-cup.

Purvavikalpah: an alternative form of the already mentioned first; Prakaranat: on account of the context, as can be understood from the subject matter of the chapter; Syat: there may be, ought to be; Kriyamana savat: ceremonial act, like the act of meditation, like the imaginary drink, as in the case of mental operation in the soma-sacrifice.

An objection is raised to the preceding Sutra.

The Purvapakshin raises a fresh objection. On the tenth day of the Soma sacrifice a Soma drink is offered to Prajapati wherein the earth is regarded as the cup and the sea as the Soma. This is a mental act only, and yet it forms a part of the sacrifice.

The same then holds good with regard to the quasi-agnis made of mind and so on though these fires are mental, i.e., imaginary, yet they form part of the sacrifice and not an independent Vidya, because of the context. They are an alternate form of the actual fire mentioned first.

You may say that it is only Arthavada and that a mere Arthavada cannot override the context and that such meditation is part of the Karma as is the case in the Dasaratra Karma.

Atidesascha III.3.46 (405)

And on account of the extension (of the attributes of the actual fire to these imaginary fires).

Atidesat: on account of the extension (of the attributes of' the first to these fires); Cha: and.

Objection to Sutra 44 is continued by presenting another argument in support of Sutra 45.

The Purvapakshin gives another reason to support his view. The Sruti in that passage ascribes all the attributes of the actual fire to these imaginary fires. Therefore, they are part of the sacrifice.

Vidyaiva tu nirdharanat III.3.47 (406)

But (the fires) rather constitute the Vidya, because (the Sruti) asserts it.

Vidya: Vidya, form of meditation or worship, Knowledge; Eva: alone, indeed; Tu: verily, undoubtedly, but; Nirdharanat: because the Sruti asserts it.

Objections raised in Sutras 45 and 46 are now refuted.

The word `Tu' (but) sets aside the Purvapaksha. It refutes the opponent.

The present Sutra declares that the fires form an indepen dent Vidya, because the text asserts that They are built of knowledge (Vidya) only, and that By knowledge they are built for him who thus knows.

Darsanaccha III.3 48 (407)

And because (in the text indicatory marks of that are) seen.

Darsanat: it being seen in the scriptures, because it is clearly stated in Sruti, because (of the indicatory marks) seen; Cha: and.

The indicatory marks are those referred to in Sutra 44. In fact the internal indications show that it is a Vidya and not a Karmanga.

Srutyadibaliyastvaccha na badhah III.3.49 (408)

(The view that the Agnis or fires constitute an independent Vidya) cannot be refuted, owing to the greater force of the Sruti etc.

Srutyadibaliyastvat: on account of the greater force of the Sruti etc.; Cha: and; Na: no, cannot; Badhah: refutation.

Objections raised in Sutras 45 and 46 are further refuted.

There is no negation of this view on the basis of the context, because of the greater strength of Sruti, etc.

Our opponent has no right to determine on the ground of Prakarana that the Agnis are subordinate to the sacrificial action and so to set aside our view according to which they are independent. For we know from the Purvamimamsa that direct enunciation (Sruti), indicatory mark (Linga) and syntactical connection (Vakya) are of greater force than leading subject matter (Prakarana) and all those three means of proof are seen to confirm our view of the Agnis being independent.

Mere context is of no force against express Sruti, Linga, etc. The Sruti used the word `Eva' where there is an imperative tense, etc., used, a mere Upadesa can be treated as an Arthavada, because there is also an express command. Where there is no such indication, an Upadesa must be treated as a Vidhi. Therefore what we have here is an independent Vidya and not a Karmanga.

The Sruti directly says, All these fires are kindled with knowledge alone. The indicatory mark is this. All beings kindle these fires for him, even when he is asleep. This continuity of the fire shows that they are mental ones. An actual sacrifice is not continued during sleep. The syntactical connections Through meditation alone these fires of the worshipper are kindled. These three are more forcible than mere context.

Anubandhadibhyah prajnantaraprithaktvavat

drishtascha taduktam III.3.50 (409)

On account of the connection and so on (the fires built of mind, etc., form an independent Vidya), in the same way as other Vidyas (like Sandilya Vidya) are separate; and it is seen (that in spite of the context a sacrifice is treated as independent). This has been explained (in the Purvamimamsa Sutras by Jaimini).

Anubandhadibhyah: from the connection and so on; Prajnantaraprithaktvavat: even as the other Vidyas are separate; Drishtah: (it is) seen; Cha: and; Tat: that; Uktam: is stated (in the Purvamimamsa by Jaimini).

The argument in refutation of Sutras 45 and 46 is continued.

This Sutra gives additional reasons in support of the view set forth in Sutra 47.

Independence has, against the general subject matter, to be assumed for the fire-altars built of mind and so on, because the text connects the constituent members of the sacrificial action with activities of the mind. The text connects for the purpose of Sampad Upasana (meditations based on resemblance) parts of a sacrifice with mental activities, e.g., These fires are started mentally, the altars are set up mentally, the cups are taken mentally, the Udgatris are praised men tally, the Hotris are recited mentally, everything connected with this sacrifice is done mentally. This is possible only if there is a sharp difference between things which resemble each other.

The Sruti mentions in regard to such mental worship all the greatness of a Karmanga. Therefore Atidesa (similarity) applies even on the footing of the context referring to an inde pendent Vidya which is separate from a Karmanga.

The fires constitute an independent Vidya, just as the Sandilya Vidya, Dahara Vidya, form separate Vidyas, although mentioned along with sacrificial acts.

A similar thing is seen in Aveshti being done as an independent ceremony in the Rajasuya sacrifice. It is observed in the sacrificial portion of the Vedas, that though the sacrifice Aveshti is mentioned along with the Rajasuya sacrifice, it is yet considered as an independent sacrifice by Jaimini in the Purva mimamsa Sutras.

Na samanyadapyupalabdhermrityuvanna hi

lokapattih III.3.51 (410)

In spite of the resemblance (of the fires to the imaginary drink, they do) not (constitute part of the sacrificial act) because it is seen (from the reasons given, and on the ground of Sruti that they form an independent Vidya) as in the case of death; for the world does not become (fire, because it resembles fire in some points).

Na: not; Samanyadapi: in spite of the resemblance, because of common ness, on the ground of their resemblance to sacrificial fire; Upalabdheh: for it is seen; Mrityuvat: just as in the case of death; Na hi lokapattih: for the world does not become (fire on account of certain resemblances).

The argument in refutation of Sutras 45 and 46 is continued.

Though being a mental act, there is an element of similarity, it is not a Karmanga because it is stated to have a separate fruit. This is clear from the illustrations relating to Mrityu and describing the earth as fire.

The resemblance cited by the Purvapakshin has no force. It cannot certainly stand because on account of the reasons already given, viz., the Sruti, indicatory mark, etc., the fires in question subserve the purpose of man only, and not the purpose of some sacrificial action.

Mere resemblance can hardly justify the contrary view. Anything indeed may resemble anything in some point or other; but in spite of that there remains the individual dissimilarity of each thing from all other things.

The case is analogous to that of `death'. The resemblance cited is like the common epithet `death' applied to fire and the being in the sun. The being in that orb is death indeed (Sat. Br. X.5.2.3). Fire indeed is death (Tait. Samh. V.1.10.3). This resemblance cannot make fire and the being in the same one.

Again we have This world is a fire indeed, O Gautama, the sun is its fuel etc., (Chh. Up. V.4.1). Here it does not follow from the similarity of fuel and so on that the world does not actually become fire.

Thus also in our case. Hence from the fact that the Manaschita Agni (fire) is a mental act like the Manasagraha which is a Karmanga, you cannot on that ground of such similarity alone argue that it also is a Karmanga.

Parena cha sabdasya tadvidhyam

bhuyastvattvanubandhah III.3.52 (411)

And from the subsequent (Brahmana) the fact of the text (under discussion) being such (i.e., enjoining an independent Vidya) (is known). But the connection (of the fanciful Agnis or imaginary fires with the actual fire is) on account of the abundance (of the attributes of the latter that are imagined in these fires).

Parena: from the subsequent (Brahmana), by the subsequent expression, by the statements immediately following; Cha: and; Sabdasya: of Sruti, of the text, of the word; Tadvidhyam: the fact of being such; Bhuyastvat: because of abundance; Tu: but; Anubandhah: connection.

In a subsequent Brahmana we have By knowledge they ascend there where all wishes are attained. Those skilled in words do not go there, nor those who destitute of knowledge do penance. This verse depreciates mere works and praises Vidya or knowledge. A former Brahmana also viz., the one beginning Where that orb leads (Sat. Br. X.5.2.23) concludes with a state ment of the fruit of knowledge Immortal becomes he whose self is death and thereby shows that works are not the chief thing. Hence we conclude that the injunction of the Sruti is that the fires constitute an independent Vidya.

The connection of the fires with the actual fire is not because they constitute part of the sacrifice but because many of the attributes of the real fire are imagined in the fires of the Vidya, in the Agnis built of mind. The statement of the fires built of mind along with the ordinary sacrificial fire is due to an abundance of common matters with the latter.

All this establishes the conclusion that the fire-altars built of mind and so on constitute an independent Vidya.


Atman is an entity distinct from the body

Eka atmanah sarire bhavat III.3.53 (412)

Some (maintain the non-existence) of a separate self (besi des the body) on account of the existence (of the self) where a body is (only).

Eka: some (maintain the non-existence); Atmanah: of a separate self (besides the body); Sarire: in the body; Bhavat: because of existence.

In this topic the existence of an Atman apart from the body is taken up for discussion. Unless there is a soul apart from the body there is no use of the scripture teaching liberation. Nor can there be any scope for ethical commands which are the means of attainment of heaven or for the teaching that the soul is Brahman.

There must be a soul apart from the body who can enjoy the fruits of the Upasana or Vidyas, otherwise of what avail is Upasana? If there is no soul all Upasanas become useless.

At present we will prove the existence of a soul different from the body in order to establish thereby the qualification of the self for bondage and release. For if there were no selves different from the body, there would be no room for injunction that have the other world for their result, nor could it be taught of anybody that Brahman is his Self.

This Sutra gives the view of the Charvakas or Lokayatikas (materialists) who deny the existence of an Atman different from the body. They say that consciousness is a mere material product and that the body is the soul. They declare that consciousness is seen to exist only when there is a body and that it is nowhere experienced independent of the body. Therefore consciousness is only an attribute or quality of the body. There is no separate self or soul in this body.

They say man is only a body. Consciousness is the quality of the body. Consciousness is like the intoxicating quality which arises when certain materials are mixed in certain proportions. No single material has the intoxicating effect.

Although consciousness is not observed in earth, and the other external elements, either single or combined, yet it may appear in them when transformed into the shape of a body. Consciousness springs from them. No soul is found after the body dies and that hence as both are present or absent together, consciousness is only an attribute of the body just as light and heat are attributes of fire.

As life, movements, consciousness, remembrances and so on, which are regarded as qualities of the Atman by those who maintain that there is an independent Atman apart from the body, are observed only within the bodies and not outside the bodies, and as an abode of those attributes different from the body cannot be proved, it follows that they must be attributes of the body only.

Therefore, the Self is not different from the body.

The next Sutra gives a reply to this conclusion of the Charvakas or Lokayatikas (materialists).

Vyatirekastadbhavabhavitvanna tupalabdhivat III.3.54 (413)

But not (so); a self or soul separate (from the body does exist), because (Consciousness) does not exist even when there is the body (after death), as in the case of cognition or per ceptive consciousness.

Vyatirekah: separation; Tadbhavabhavitvat: for (consciousness) does not exist even when there is the body; Na: not (so); Tu: but; Upalabdhivat: as in the case of knowledge or cognition.

The statement in the preceding Sutra is refuted.

The soul is separate because even when the body exists the soul goes away. They are separate just as subject and object are separate.

The view expressed by the opponent in the previous Sutra is certainly wrong, because the Atma-Dharma such as Chaitanya (consciousness), etc., are not found after death, though the body exists. Consciousness cannot be an attribute of the body, because we do not find consciousness in a body after a person dies.

This consciousness is an attribute of something which is different from the body and which abides in the body.

The subject and the object cannot possibly be identical. Fire cannot burn itself. The acrobat cannot stand upon his own shoulder. Can form sense form? Can sound hear sound? No. Consciousness is eternal, as it is of the same identical quality always. Can you say that consciousness is a quality of the light, because light is necessary to see forms? Even so consciousness is not a quality of the body. Moreover consciousness functions in dreams even without the aid of the body.

The Charvakas accept that the cogniser is different from the thing cognised. So the experiencer of this body, he who cognises this body must be different from the body. He who cognises this body is the Self.

Therefore, consciousness is an attribute of this Self, rather its very essence of nature.

As consciousness constitutes the character of the Self, the Self must be distinct from the body. That consciousness is permanent follows from the uniformity of its character and we, therefore, may conclude that the conscious Self is permanent also. That consciousness is the nature of the Self, that it is permanent, follows from the fact that the Self, although connected with a different state, recognises itself as the conscious agent a recognition expressed in judgments such as I saw this and from the fact of remembrance and so on being possible.

Therefore, the view that the Self is something separate from the body is free from all objections.


Upasanas connected with sacrificial acts, i.e., Udgitha Upasana

are valid for all schools

Angavabaddhastu na sakhasu hi prativedam III.3.55 (414)

But (the Upasanas or meditations connected with parts) (of sacrificial acts are) not (restricted) to (particular) Sakhas, according to the Veda (to which they belong), (but to all its Sakhas because the same Upasana is described in all).

Angavabaddhah: (Upasanas) connected parts (of sacrificial acts); Tu: but; Na: not; Sakhasu: to (particular) Sakhas; Hi: because; Prativedam: in each Veda, according to the Veda.

There is no rule that the Angavabaddha (Karmanga) Upa sana in each Sruti Sakha is separate and should be confined to it alone.

The above said intervening or occasional discussion is over. Now we pursue the main theme. In Udgitha, etc., various Karmanga Upasanas are taught. From this you could not say that each Upasana in each Sruti Sakha is different, on account of the proximity of text and the difference in Svaras or sounds. All such Upasanas may be taken together, because the Udgitha Sruti is more powerful than mere proximity of context or diversity of Svara.

There are certain Upasanas mentioned in connection with sacrificial acts, as for example the meditation on `OM' which is connected with the Udgitha as Prana, or the meditation on the Udgitha as the earth and so on. Let a man meditate on the syllable `OM' as the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.1.1). Let a man meditate on the five-fold Saman as the five worlds (Chh. Up. II.2.1).

A doubt here arises whether the meditations or Vidyas are enjoined with reference to the Udgitha and so on as belonging to a certain Sakha only or as belonging to all Sakhas. The doubt arises because the Udgitha and so on are chanted differently in different Sakhas, because the accents, etc., differ. Therefore, they may be considered different.

Here the Purvapakshin holds that the Vidyas are enjoined only with reference to the Udgitha and so on which belong to the particular Sakha to which the Vidya belongs. Why? Because of proximity.

The present Sutra refutes the view that they are so restricted, because the text speaks of these Upasanas in general and so they are all one in all the branches.

The word `tu' (but) discards the prima facie view or the view of the Purvapakshin. The Upasanas are not restricted to their own Sakhas according to the Veda to which they belong but are valid for all Sakhas, because the direct statements of the text about the Udgitha and so on enounce no specification. Direct statement has greater force or weight than proximity.

There is no reason why the Vidya should not be of general reference. We, therefore, conclude that, although the Sakhas differ as to accents and the like, the Vidyas mentioned refer to the Udgitha and so on belonging to all Sakhas, because the text speaks only of the Udgitha and so on in general.

Mantradivadvavirodhah III.3.56 (415)

Or else, there is no contradiction (here), as in the case of Mantras and the like.

Mantradivat: like Mantras, etc.; Va: or else; Avirodhah: there is no contradiction.

The discussion commenced in Sutra 33 is continued.

Just as Mantras, etc., mentioned in only one Sakha, are used in another Sakha, with respect to that particular rite, so also the Upasanas connected with particular rites in one Sakha of the Veda can be applied to the other Sakhas.

As for example the Mantra Kutarurasi (thou art the grinding stone), prescribed in one Branch of the Vedas for taking stone to grind rice, is acceptable in that rite every where; even so the Upasana (meditation) prescribed in one Branch of the Vedas may be transferred or applied to other Sakhas or Branches without apprehending any impropriety.

We find that Mantra and Guna and Karma in one Sakha are taken into another Sakha, just as the members of sacrificial actions on which certain Vidyas rest are valid everywhere, so the Vidyas themselves also which rest on those members are valid for all Sakhas and Vedas.


Vaisvanara Upasana is one entire Upasana

Bhumnah kratuvajjyayastvam tatha hi darsayati III.3.57 (416)

Importance (is given to the meditation) on the entire form (of Vaisvanara) as in the case of sacrifice; for thus (the Sruti) shows.

Bhumnah: on the entire form; Kratuvat: as in the case of sacrifice; Jyayastvam: prominence, pre-eminence, importance; Tatha: so; Hi: be cause, for, as; Darsayati: (the Sruti) shows.

The Vaisvanara Vidya is discussed here.

In the Chhandogya Upanishad (V.11. 8) there is the Vaisvanara Vidya, the meditation on the cosmic form of the Lord. The meditator should think that His head is the heaven, His eye the sun and so on. Different fruits are mentioned for each part of the Upasana. For example, the fruit of meditat ing on His head as the heaven is He eats food, beholds his beloved ones and has Vedic glory in his house (Chh. Up. V.12.2).

Now a doubt arises whether the Sruti here speaks of one Upasana on the entire cosmic form or Upasana of each part of Vaisvanara.

The present Sutra says that the Sruti speaks of one Upasana on the whole form of Vaisvanara or the cosmic form of the Lord.

The Sruti gives superiority to the meditation on Vaisvanara as a whole, as in the case of Kratu or sacrifice. Though the Sruti declares fruits for Upasana or worship of each part of Vaisvanara, yet it emphasises the worship of the entire Vaisvanara with the universe as His body, just as in sacri fices like Darsa-Purnamasa all the Angas have to be combined.

The separate fruits mentioned for meditation on parts of Vaisvanara must be combined into one whole with meditation.

The text informs us that six Rishis, Prakinasala, Uddalaka, etc., being unable to reach a firm foundation in the Knowledge of Vaisvanara, went to the King Asvapati Kaikeya; goes on to mention the object of each Rishi's meditation, viz., the sky and so on; determines that the sky and so on are only the head and so on of Vaisvanara. Asvapati said That is but the head of the self, and rejects all meditations on Vaisva nara in his partial form. He said Your head would have fallen if you had not come to me (Chh. Up. V.12.2). As this text discourages partial worship of Vaisvanara, it is quite clear that it recommends the entire Upasana on the whole Vaisvanara.

Moreover the section begins thus: which is our own self, which is Brahman (Chh. Up. V.11.1). This indi cates that the entire Brahman is the object of meditation. It ends thus of that Vaisvanara Self Sutejas is the head etc. (Chh. Up. V.18.2). This clearly intimates that only the entire Upasana is intended.

For all these reasons, the view according to which the text enjoins a meditation on the entire Vaisvanara only is correct.

Sabdadibhedadhikaranam: Topic 33

Various Vidyas like the Sandilya Vidya, Dahara Vidya and so on are to be kept separate and not combined into one entire Upasana

Nana sabdadibhedat III.3.58 (417)

(The Vidyas are) separate, on account of the difference of words and the like.

Nana: different, various; Sabdadibhedat: on account of difference of names of words, etc. (Bhedat: due to variety.)

In the previous Sutra we have arrived at the conclusion that a meditation on Vaisvanara as a whole is the pre-eminent meaning of the text, although special fruits are stated for meditations on parts such as Sutejas and so on.

The Purvapakshin follows this line of argument and says that we must combine all the different Vidyas like Sandilya Vidya, Dahara Vidya, Satya Vidya, and so on into one composite meditation or more general meditation on the Lord, as the object of meditation is the one Lord.

The present Sutra refutes this and declares that the Vidyas are separate, although the object of meditation is on the one Lord, on account of the difference of words and the like. For the text exhibits a difference of words such as He knows.

Let him meditate, Let him form the idea (Chh. Up. III.14.1). This difference of terms is acknowledged as a reason or test of difference of acts, according to Purva mimamsa Sutras, II.2.1.

And the like or etc. refers to other reasons like the difference in qualities.

The Lord indeed is the only object of meditation, but according to its general purport each passage teaches different qualities of the Lord. Although one and the same Prana is the object of meditation in the other series of passages, yet one of his qualities has to be meditated upon in one place and another in another place. From difference of connection there thus follows difference of injunction and from the latter we apprehend the separateness of the Vidyas.

Though the object of meditation is the one Lord, yet He is different on account of the difference in qualities that are imagined in different Upasanas. Further it is not possible at all to combine all the various Vidyas into one.

Therefore, the different Vidyas are to be kept separate and not combined into one composite or general meditation.

Though the Vidya (what is to be known) is one, each Upasana which is described by such words as Upasita, etc., is different. In each Upasana certain special attributes of the Lord and certain special results are stated.

The forms of meditation such as the Sandilya Vidya, the Satya Vidya, the Dahara Vidya, the Vaisvanara Vidya, are different owing to difference of names and processes, the directory words and the attributes, yet, each of them teaches the worship of the same Lord; but under a particular aspect meditations have been prescribed in various names and forms so as to suit different meditators.

The Sutra, therefore, rightly declares the separateness of the Vidyas.


Any one of the Vidyas should be selected

according to one's own option or choice

Vikalpo'visishtaphalatvat III.3.59 (418)

There is option (with respect to the several Vidyas), because the result (of all the Vidyas) is the same.

Vikalpah: option; Visishtaphalatvat: on account of (all Vidyas) having the same result.

The most important Vidyas are: Sandilya Vidya, Bhuma Vidya, Sat Vidya, Dahara Vidya, Upakosala Vidya, Vaisva nara Vidya, Udgitha Vidya, Anandamaya Vidya, Akshara Vidya.

One may follow any Vidya according to his option, and stick to it till he reaches the goal, as the result of all Vidyas or the goal is the same, namely the realisation of Self or Brahman. If we adopt many, the mind will get distracted and the spiritual progress will be retarded. When the Brahman is realised through one meditation, a second meditation would be purposeless.

Therefore, one must select one particular Vidya and stick to it and remain intent on it till the fruit of the Vidya is attained through the intuition of the object of meditation.


Vidyas yielding particular desires may or may not be

combined according to one's liking

Kamyastu yathakamam samucchiyeranna va

purvahetvabhavat III.3.60 (419)

But Vidyas for particular desires may be combined or not according to one's desires on account of the absence of the previous reason (mentioned in the previous Sutra).

Kamyah: Vidyas adopted for some sensuous desires; Tu: but; Yatha kamam: according to one's desire or liking; Samucchiyeran: may be combin ed; Na: not; Va: or; Purva: the former; Hetu: reason; Abhavat: on account of the absence of.

This Sutra shows an exception to the previous Sutra that more Vidyas than one may be combined where the object is other than the realisation of Brahman.

In the previous Sutra it was stated that any one of the Vidyas about Brahman should be taken up, and that more than one at a time should not be taken up, because each Vidya was quite sufficient to take to the goal or Self-realisation and more than one Vidya would produce distraction of the mind.

We have on the other hand, Vidyas connected with parti cular desires, e.g., He who knows that the wind is the child of the regions never weeps for his sons (Chh. Up. III.15.2). He who meditates on name as Brahman, walks at will as far as name reaches (Chh. Up. VII.1.5).

The question arises whether one is to restrict oneself to only one of these Vidyas or can take up more than one at a time.

The present Sutra declares that one can practise more than one Vidya or not according to one's liking, as the results are different unlike that of the Brahma-Vidyas. He may practise more than one Vidya or not, on account of the absence of the former reason, i.e., because there is not the reason for option which was stated in the preceding Sutra.


Meditations connected with members of sacrificial acts

may or may not be combined according to one's liking

Angeshu yathasrayabhavah III.3.61 (420)

With regard (to meditations) connected with members (of sacrificial acts) it is as with (the members) with which they are connected.

Angeshu: with regard (to meditations) connected with members (of sacrificial acts); Yathasrayabhavah: it is as with (members) with which they are connected.

Of the six Sutras which are contained in this Adhikarana, the first four Sutras are Purvapaksha Sutras and the last two Sutras are Siddhanta Sutras.

Different instructions connected with a sacrifice are stated in the different Vedas. The scriptures say that all these members mentioned in the different Vedas are to be combined for the due performance of the principal one.

The question now is, which is the rule to be followed with regard to the meditations or Upasanas connected with these members.

The present Sutra declares that the same rule which applies to the members applies also to the Upasanas connected with them. It is according to the abodes. As the abiding places of those meditations, viz., the Stotra and so on are combined for the performance of the sacrifice, so those meditations or Upasanas also; for a meditation is subject to what it rests on. All these Upasanas are to be combined.

Just as the Stotras, etc., are combined when performing Karmas, so also the Upasanas which are Angas of Karma (Angavabaddha Upasana) should be combined.

Sishtescha III.3.62 (421)

And from the injunction of the Sruti.

Sishteh: from the injunction of the Sruti; Cha: and.

An argument in support of the objection raised in Sutra 61 is adduced.

That is because the Upasanas depend on the Stotras.

As the Stotra and the other members of the sacrifice on which the meditations under discussion rest are taught in the three Vedas, so also are the meditations resting on them. Just as the members are scattered in the different Vedas, so also are the meditations connected with them. There is no difference as regards the injunction of the Sruti with reference to these meditations.

There is no difference between the members of a sacrificial act and the meditations referring to them.

Samaharat III.3.63 (422)

On account of the rectification.

Samaharat: on account of the rectification.

A further reason is given by the opponent. Another argu ment in support of Sutra 61 is adduced.

There is also indication in the Sruti about such combination. Such combination is seen when the Udgatri performs the Hautra Karma described in another Veda for removing the effects of error in the discharge of his function.

Chhandogya Upanishad declares What is Udgitha is OM or Pranava and what is OM is Udgitha. This meditation on the oneness of the Udgitha and OM mends the Udgitha defiled by any mistake committed even on the part of the Hotri, the hymn-reciting priest in recitation of the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.5.5).

Here it is said that the mistakes committed by the Udgatri or chanting priest of the Sama Veda are rectified by the recitation of the Hotri or invoking priest of the Rigveda. This indicates that though the meditations are given in the different Vedas they are yet interlinked. Hence all of them have to be observed.

The passage From the seat of the Hotri, he sets right any mistake committed in the Udgitha (Chh. Up. I.5.5), declares that owing to the force of the meditation on the unity of Pranava and Udgitha, the Hotri rectifies any mistake he may commit in his work, by means of the work of the Hotri.

Now, as a meditation mentioned in one Veda is connected with what is mentioned in another Veda, in the same manner as a thing mentioned in another Veda, the above passage suggests the conclusion that all meditations on members of sacrificial acts, in whatever Veda they may be mentionedhave to be combined.

A thing belonging to the Rigveda, viz., Pranava is, accord ing to the Chhandogya text, connected with the Sama Veda meditation on the Udgitha. Hence meditations also which belong to different Vedas may be combined; because there is no difference between them and things as far as connection is concerned.

Gunasadharanyasrutescha III.3.64 (423)

And from the Sruti declaring `OM' which is a common feature (of the Udgitha Vidya) to be common to all the Vedas.

Gunasadharanyasruteh: from the Sruti declaring the feature of `OM' as being common to all the Vedas; Cha: and.

Another argument in support of Sutra 61 is adduced.

Further Pranava (Omkara) is common to all the Upasanas and links them up.

It is found in Sruti that OM is the common property of all the Vedas. Therefore, it is an inseparable concomitant of the sacrificial rites, prescribed in the Vedas. Hence the Vidyas also, being dependent on OM, are concomitants of the sacrificial rites. Chhandogya Upanishad declares Through this (`OM') the Vedic Vidya proceeds. With OM the Adhvaryu gives orders, with OM the Hotri recites, with OM the Udgatri sings (Chh. Up. I.1.9). This is stated with re ference to OM, which is common to all the Vedas and all the Upasanas in them. This indicates that as the abode of all Vidyas, viz., OM, is common, so the Vidyas that rest in it are common also. Therefore, all of them are to be observed.

Na va tatsahabhavasruteh III.3.65 (424)

(The meditations connected with members of the sacrificial acts are) rather not (to be combined) as the Sruti does not state their going together.

Na: not; Va: rather; Tatsahabhavasruteh: their correlation not being mentioned by the Sruti. (Tat: their; Sahabhava: about being together; Asruteh: because there is no such injunction in Sruti).

The words `Na va' `rather not' discard the Purvapaksha. This Sutra refutes the contention raised in Sutras 61-64.

This and the following Sutra give the conclusion.

There is no Sruti commanding such combination of the Karmanga Upasanas. No Sruti refers to such compulsory combination of the Upasanas. So they can be done singly or in combination as we like.

There is no binding rule that the Vidyas, depending on the Pranava or on any part of a sacrificial rite, is a necessary concomitant of the sacrifice. It may be dispensed with or retained at the option of the performer. But there is this difference. If Vidyas be associated with the rites greater good will accrue.

Though the utterance of the Pranava or the Udgitha hymn has been enjoined by the Sruti to be necessary for the sacrificial performance, yet Sruti does not insist that the Vidya (meditation) portion of the performance is a necessary adjunct to the mind. It is not absolutely necessary for the fulfilment of external sacrifices. A sacrifice may be per formed even without the Vidya (meditation) merely by utterance of Mantras, singing of the Udgitha hymns, pouring of the clarified butter into the sacred fire and the like external rites, in order to attain particular desired objects, but the Vidya or meditation on Brahman leads to realisation of Brahman.

The rule for combining the instructions regarding sacrifices that are scattered in all the Vedas cannot be applied with regard to the meditations (Upasanas) connected with them. If the instructions regarding the sacrifices are not combined, the sacrifice will itself fail. But it is not the case if the Upasanas are not practised, because Upasanas only increase the fruits of the sacrifice (Vide III.3.42). Upasanas are not inseparable from the sacrifice.

Therefore, Upasanas (Vidyas, meditations) may or may not be practised.

Darsanaccha III.3.66 (425)

And because the Sruti (scripture) says so (shows it).

Darsanat: because the Sruti says so, shows it from Sruti; Cha: and, also.

This Sutra is adduced in support of Sutra 65.

This may also be inferred from Sruti.

Chhandogya Upanishad declares The Brahmana (superintending chief priest) who possesses such knowledge saves the sacrifice, the sacrificer and all the priests, just as the horse saves the horseman (Chh. Up. IV.17.10).

This shows that the scriptures do not intend that all the meditations should go together. For, if all meditations were to be combined, all priests would know them all and the text could not specially announce that the Brahmana, chief superintending priest, possessing a certain knowledge thereby saves the others.

The meditations, therefore, according to one's liking may or may not be combined.

Thus ends the Third Pada (Section 3) of the Third Adhyaya (Chapter III) of the Brahma Sutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.

copyright © 2020 the divine life society. All rights reserved.