वेदान्तसारः/तृतीयाध्यायः/तृतीयःपादः
"
तृतीयाध्याये तृतीयः पादः
सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययाधिकरणम् १
सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययं चोदनाधविशेषात्
सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययं दहराद्युपासनमेकमेव1, 'विद्यात्, उपासीत' इतेि कर्मविधिष्विव चोदनाफलसंयोगरूपाख्यानामविशेषात् |
ADHYAYA III, PADA III
SARVAVEDANTAPRATYAYADHIKARANA 1
1. Sarvavedantapratyayam codanadyavis'esat
What is understood from all Vedanta texts is one, on account of there being no difference in injunc- tions, etc.
Each of the Upasanas (meditations) Dahara etc., though taught in different texts. is one and the same; because the injunctions, such as 'should know, should meditate', the results, the forms and the names are common. This is similar to the case of the works ordained in Vedic texts.
1 एकैव विद्या A 1.
भेदान्नेतेि चेदेकस्यामपि
अविशेषपुनःश्रुतिर्भेदापादिकेति1 न विधेक्यमिति चेत्, विधैक्येपि शाखान्तरे प्रतिपत्तृभेदान्न भेदः |
स्वाध्यायस्य ; तथात्वे हि समाचारेऽधिकाराच्च
सववच्च तन्नियमः
2. Bhedanneticedekasyamapi
If it be said that the Vidyas are not one on account of different mentioning; we deny this, since it is even in one.
The Vidyas are not one; because the same matter repeated in the texts without difference, proves the object of injunction to be different. It is not so. No difference is apprehended in the object of injunctions; because the same Vidya could be repeated in different Sakhas for the benefit of different cognising agents.
3. Svadhyayasya; tathatvehi samacaredhikaracca
savavacca tanniyamah
Indeed, Sirovrata is a part of the mode of the study of the veda; because then only its unavoidability could be maintained; moreover this is so mentioned in the work called Samacara. The rule laid down for it, is similar to that in the case of the Sava homa.
1 श्रुतेर्भेदादिति M 3.
1अथर्ववेदे 'तेषामेवैतां ब्रह्मविद्यां वदेत ?' इतेि शिरोव्रतवतां नियमः शिरोव्रतस्य स्वाध्यायाङ्गवेन, 'नैतदचीर्णव्रतोधीयीत' इति तस्याध्ययनसंबन्घावगमात्; 2समाचाराख्यग्रन्थे' 3इदमपि वेदव्रतेन व्याख्यातम्' इतेि वेदव्रतत्वावगमाच्च । 'ब्रह्मविद्याम्' इत्यत्र ब्रह्मशब्दो वेदवेिषयः । यथा सवहोमास्तेषामेव, तथा 4शिरोव्रतमपीतिं तन्न विद्या-भेदलिङ्गम् |
दर्शयति च ॥ ४ ॥
श्रुतिरेव विधैक्यं दर्शयति । छान्दोग्ये दहरविद्योक्तं गुणाष्ठकं तैत्तिरीयके केवलं 'तस्मिन्यदन्तः' इति वदति |
The compulsory rule as regards those, who resort to S'irovrata (i.e., vow of the head) has been given in the Atharva-Veda thus-' To him alone the knowledge of the Brahman must be revealed'. That S'irovrata forms a part of the mode of the study of the Vedas, is revealed by the scriptural text that connects it with the study of the Vedas, 'This should not be studied by one, who has broken the vow'. In the work called, Samacara it has been stated thus- 'This has been commented upon by the Vedavrata ' (i.e., the vow of the study of Vedas). The word, Brahman, used in the expression Brahmavidya, refers to the Vedas. S'irovrata belongs to them only (Atharvanikas,) just as the Savahoma. Hence there is nothing to indicate that they are different Vidyas.
4. Darsayatica
And the scriptures reveal thus.
1 आथर्वण् Pr. 2 समाचाराख्ये A 1,M 2,
3इदमपि omitted M3 4 शिरोव्रतमिति A1 Pr
उपसंहारोर्थाभेदाद्विधिशेषवत्समाने च
एवं सर्वत्र विद्यैक्येन्यत्रोक्तानामन्यत्रोपसंहारः, तद्विद्योपकाररूपार्थै- क्यात्, यथैकवेिधिशेषतया 1वेिहिताङ्गानामिति |
अन्यथात्वाधिकरणम् २
पूर्वैकाण्डोक्तं 2स्वीक्रृत्यात्र वक्तव्यमाह–-
The scriptural statements, themselves reveal the oneness of the Vidyas. In the Daharavidya of Chandogayopanisad, eight qualities of the Brahman are mentioned. But in the Taittiriyopanisad they are merely referred to thus :-' That which is within the Brahman '. (Tait. II.10.23).
5. Upasamharothabhedad vidhis'esavat
sam'aneca
Meditations thus being one and the same, there is combination of qualities; on account of non- difference of the purpose as in the case of what subserves injunction.
Thus the Vidyas with the same titles being the same, the qualities mentioned in one text are to be combined with those mentioned in another, on account of non-difference of purpose. This is as in the case of those which subserve the object of a single injunction.
ANYATHATVADHIKARANA 2
Having accepted what is stated in Purvakanda (i.e., the Purvamimamsa) the Sutrakara proceeds.
1वेिहितानांमड्गानामितेि M 3. 2 स्थिरीक्रुत्य M 1, 2.
अन्यथात्वं शब्दादिति चेन्नाविशेषात
वाजिनां छ्न्दोगानां चोद्रीथे प्राणदृष्टयोपासनं शत्रुपरिभवफलं1 विहितम् | तत्र विधैक्यं पुर्वपक्षी2 ह्रुदि निधाय 3राद्धान्तिच्छायया चोदयति - वाजिनां प्राणदृष्टयोपासनमुद्गिथकतृविषयम्, इतरत्र कर्म विषयमिति शब्दादेव प्रतीयते | 'अथ हेममासन्यं प्राणमूच्रुस्त्वं न उद्रायेति | 4तथेति तेभ्य एष प्राण उदगायत्' इत्यादिनोद्रीथकर्तृविषयं
6. Anyathatvam Sadaditi cennvis'esat
If it be said that there is difference in the Vidyas on account of the statements; we say no, on account of non-difference.
The meditation on the Udgitha viewed as Prana, is ordained in the text of the Brhadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanisads resulting in the defeat of the enemy. Having re- tained in the heart, the view namely, The Udgithavidyas men- tioned in the two Upanisads are one and the same, the Purva- paksin (the objector) puts forth his view as if held by the Sidhantin. The meditation on the Udgitha viewed as Prana in the Brhadaranyakopanisad has as its object that which is the agent in the act of singing it out. In another text (i.e., Chandogyopanisad) , it has as its object, that which is the object of singing. This has been so understood in the following scriptural texts, 'Then they spoke to Prana of the mouth-Please sing that for us. Saying 'So be it' this Prana sang loudly.' (Brh. I-3-7). The statement in the Brhadaranyakopanisad shows that the Udgithavidya has as its object that which is the agent
1 हि added M 1. Pr. 2 पूर्वपक्षं Pr, 3 राद्धान्त् प्प्र्। 4 स तथेति A 1 M 2
वाजिनाम्1 | छन्दोगानां तु---' य एवायं मुख्यः प्राणस्तमुद्रीथमुपा
सांचक्रिरे2 ' इत्युद्रीथकर्मविषयमिति चेत् ] तदिदमाह-- अन्यथात्वं
शब्दादिति चेदिति | तन्न, उपक्रमाविशेषात् ' हन्तासुरान् यज्ञ उद्भी-
थेनात्ययाम ' इत्येकत्र : अन्यत्रापि ' तद्ध देवा उद्रीथमाजद्दुरनेनैनानभिभ-
विष्यामः:3 ' इति |
न वा प्रकरणभेदात्परोवरीयस्त्वादिवत् ॥ ७ ॥
नैवम् । प्रकरणं4 ह्राभयत्र भिध्यते । 'ओमित्येतदक्षरमुद्रीथमुपा-
in tbe act of singing it out. The Udgitha is considered as having as its object, that which is the object of action of singing and it is so stated in the Chandogyopanisad thus- They meditated upon Udgitha, that is viewed as Prana of the mouth' (Chand. I-2-7). Thus it is stated in the objection that the Vidyss mentioned in tbe two Upanisads are quite different from each other. The answer is-It is not so; because they have a common beginning. In one text it is stated thus-' Let us overcome the Asuras at the sacrifices by means of the Udgitha ' (Brh. I-3-1). In another text also this line occurs-' The gods took the Udgitha, thinking they would, with that, overcome the Asuras ' (Chand. I-2-1).
7. Na va prakaranabhedat parovariyastvadivat
Or on account of the difference of the contexts; as in the case of the attributes of being higher than the high etc.
This is not so. The contexts of the both, are different. In the Chandogyopaniad, the Pranava which is a part of
1 उद्रीथकर्तृविषय वाजिनाम् omitted A 1, M 1.
सीत" इत्युद्भीथावयवभूतप्रणवविषयं छंन्दोगानाम् ।" हन्तासुरान् यज्ञ उद्भीथेनात्ययाम इतेि तु वाजिनां कृत्स्नोद्भीथवेिषयमिति रूपभेदाद्विद्या- भेदः; यथैकस्यामपेि शारूायामुद्भीथीपासने' हिरण्मयपुरुषद्दष्टेः परोवरी- यस्त्वादिविशिष्टदृष्टिर्भिद्यते ॥
संज्ञात्तश्चेत्तदुक्ततमस्ति तु तदपि ॥ ८ ॥
उद्गीथविद्येति संज्ञैक्याद्विर्यैक्यमुक्तं चेत्, विधेयभेदेऽपि संज्ञैक्य- मस्त्येव ; यथा नैयमिकाग्निहोत्रे कुण्डपायेिनामयनाग्हिोत्रे चेत्येवमादिषु ॥|
the Udgitha is said to be the object of the meditation in the text-' Let him meditate on the syllable 'Om' as Udgitha' (Chand. 1-1-1). Brhadaranyakopanisad begins with the passage, ' Let us overcome the Asttras at the sacrifice by means of the Udgitha' (Brh. 1-3-1). Here the meditation refers to the whole of the Udgitha as the object. Hence these Vidyas are considered to be different from each other due the difference in their forms. As regards the meditation on the Udgitha. in the text of the same S'akha. the Highest Self is viewed as of golden colour and He is also viewed differently as possessing the attributes of being higher than the high.
8. SamjnataS'cet taduktamasti tu tadapi
If it be said so on account of the common term; that also is there. If the Vidyas mentioned in the two texts are held only one, as they possess the common term of Udgitha, the common term persists, even where the object of injunction differs. Take for instance the term 'Agnihotra', which applies to
1 उपासनं A I, M 2;व्याप्तेश्च समञ्जसम् ॥ ९ ॥
प्रथमप्रपाठकं उपक्रमवदुत्तरास्वपि प्रणवस्योपास्यत्वव्याप्तेर्मध्ये च "उद्गीथथमुपासांचक्रिरे इति प्रणवविषयत्वमेव समञ्जसम् |
सर्वाभेदाधिकरणम् ३
सवमेदादन्यत्रेमे ॥ १° ॥
"यो हृ वै ज्येष्ठं च श्रेष्ठं च वेद् ज्येष्ठश्च ह वै श्रेष्ठश्च भवति ।
प्राणो वाव ज्येष्ठश्च श्रेष्ठश्च ' इति वाजिनां छन्दोगानां कैौषीतकेिनां
the permanent Agnihotra as well as to the occasional Agni- hotra, that belongs to the sacrifice, called, C Kundapayinam Ayanam' and is to be performed only for a mouth.
9. Vyंंaptesca samanjasam
This is appropriate, on account of extension. Just as in the beginning of the first chapter of the Chandogyo- panisad, in further portions also there is the mention of the Pra 1;la va. Therefore in the middle a]so the meditation mentioned in the text-' They meditated upon the Udgitha t (Chand. 1-2.2) should be the meditation on the Pranava.
SARVABHEDIDHIKARNA 3
10. Sarvabhedadanyatreme
Because of the non-difference of everything, these attributes are apprehended even in other places. , He, who knows the oldest and the best, becomes himself the oldest and the best, The Prilt)a is the oldest and best t (Chand. V-I-1; Brh. VI-I-1 and Kaus.). In all these three
texts. it is stated unanimously that Prana is the oldest;च प्राणश्द्यिायां वागादिकरणग्रामस्थितेस्तत्कार्यस्य च प्राणहेतुकत्वेन तिसृष्वप्येकरूपेण प्राणज्यैष्ठग्रमुपपादितम्। वागादेिगतवसिष्ठस्वादिसंबन्धित्व- मपि प्राणस्योभयत्रोक्तम् t कौर्षीीतकिनां तु तन्नोक्तम् । 'तथापेि सर्वत्र ज्यैष्ठयोपपादनप्रकारस्य सर्वस्याभेदाद्विद्यैक्यमेिति कौषीतकिप्राणविद्यायामपि बसिष्ठत्वादय उपसंहार्याः ॥
आनन्दाद्यधिकरणम् ४
आनन्दादयः प्रधानस्य ll ११ ॥
अभेदादेिति वर्तते | ब्रह्मस्वरूपनिरूपणान्तर्गतामत्वज्ञानानन्दा-
because it is the cause for the existence of the sense-organs, such as speech, etc., and for their functions. In the two texts, namely Chandogya and Brhadaranyaka it is stated that the quality of being the richest is mentioned as belonging to Prana, though it really pertains to the speech. But this is not stated in Kausitaki text. However there is no difference between . the Pranavidyiis taught in all the three texts, because the Prana. is said to possess the quality of being the oldest in all these texts with the same reasonings. Therefore the quality of being the richest also must be included in the Pranavidya mentioned in the Kausitaki text.
ANANDADYADHIKARANA 4
11. Ananadadayah pradhanasya
Bliss, etc. have to be included; on account of the non-difference of the chief object. The word' non-difference t is supplied from the last Sutra. The attributes, such as stainlessness knowledge and bliss, etc.
I अथापि A i. अनुवर्तते M 1.दयो गुणाः सर्वासु परविद्यासूपसंहार्याः,' गुणिनो ब्रह्मणः सर्वत्राभेदात् ॥ प्रियशिरस्त्वाद्यप्राप्तिः; उपचयापचयौ हेि भेदे ॥ १२ ॥}} "तस्य प्रियमेव शिरः इति प्रियशिरस्त्वादीनामप्राप्तिः, ब्रह्म- गुणत्वाभावात्तेषाम् । शिरःपक्षादिभेदे ब्रह्मगुणे सति, 'ब्रह्मण उपचयापचय प्रसक्तिः ॥
इतरे त्वर्थसामान्यात् १३ ॥
which are among the essential characteristics of the Brahman and which help in proving Him, have to be included in all the Vidyas relating to the Highest Self. Because the Brahman remains as the common object to be meditated in all the Vidyas.
12. Priyasirastvadyapraptih; upacayapacayau hi bhede
The qualities, such as, having joy for His head, are not to be included; for if the difference in head, sides etc. accepted as qualifying attributes of the Brahman, there would be increase and decrease in the Brahman. Here the qualities, such as, having joy for His head as per the text ' Verily Joy is His head' (Tait. 111-5.2) are not to be included; because these cannot be the qualities, that could determine the nature of the Brahman. Suppose the differences in head, etc. are the attributes of the Brahman. Then it happens that there would be the increase and the decrease in the Brahman.
13. Itare tvarthasamanyat
But the other qualities have to be included as they are common to the Brahman.
1 उपास्या A1. ब्रह्मणेि M 1,ब्रह्मोपचया. etc. M 3.आनन्दादयः स्वरूपनिरूपणान्तर्गततया ब्रह्मसमाना इत्युपसंहार्या एव ॥
आध्यानाय प्रयोजनाभावात् ॥ १४ ॥
प्रियशिरस्त्वाद्युपदेशो ब्रह्मणोऽनुञ्चिन्तनार्थः, प्रयोजनान्तराभावात् ॥]
आत्मशब्दाच्च ॥ १९ II
" अन्योऽन्तर आत्मानन्दमयः इत्यात्मशब्दाच्च शिर:पक्षादयो न ब्रह्मगुणाः॥
Here the conclusion arrived at is this-Bliss, etc. are included in those qualities, that help in proving and specifying the Brahman. Hence they are common with the Brahman.
14. Adhyanaya prayojanabhavat
Those qualities are intended for meditation; on account of the absence of any other purpose. The teachings, such as, 'having joy for His head' are intended for meditation only; because there is no any other purpose for them.
15. Atmasabdacca
And on account of the use of the term Atman in the scriptural texts. The word, Atman (Self) occurs in the scriptural text, 'There is the Inner Self who is different and full of Bliss' (Tait. I, 11-5-2). Therefore the head, sides etc. are not the
essential qualities of the Brahman.आत्मगृहीतिरितरवदुतरात् ॥ १६ ॥
परमात्मन एवात्मश्शब्देन ग्रहणमेिति "सोऽकामयत बहु स्यां प्रजायेय इत्युत्तरात् बहुभवनसंकल्याभिधायेिनो वाक्यादवगम्यते ; "आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत् इत्यात्मशब्दवत्' ॥
अन्वयादिति चेत्, स्यादवधारणात् ॥ १७ ॥
पूर्वेत्रं प्राणभयादिष्वात्मशब्दान्वयात् कथमुत्तरान्निर्णय इति चेत्,
16. Atmagrhitiritaravaduttarat
The Highest Self is referred to by the term Atman as in other places; on account of the subsequent reference. By the word, 'Self' is apprehended the Highest Self. This is understood in this way, because there are subseqnent passages, such as, 'It thought. Let me become many' (Tait. I, 11-6-2) that reveal the Lord's will to become many. It is like in the case of the word Atman (Self) found in the text , This world was before, only one Atman ' (Self).
17. Anvyaditi cet syadavadharanai
If it be said, the word, Atman (Self) is used in connection with other objects also, we say, it is deter- mined that He alone is referred to in other contexts also. The word, Atman (Self) used in the preceding occasions, refers to Pranamaya. How then can it be determined that He is meant there, with the help of the subsequent passage?
1 शब्दादिवत् A 1, M 2, Pr," आत्मन आकाशः संभूतः इत्यवगतस्यात्मन एव प्राणमयादिष्वव- धारणात् स्यादेव परमात्मैवेतेि निर्णयः !
कार्याख्यानाधिकरणम् ५
कार्याख्यानादपूर्वम् ॥ १८ ॥
"यो ह वै ज्येष्ठं च श्रेष्ठं च वेद इति प्राणविद्यां विधायापां प्राणवासस्त्वमुक्त्वा " तस्मादेवंवेिदशिष्यन्नाचामेदशित्वा चाचामेदेतदेव तदनमनग्नम् कुरुते इत्याचमनस्य सदाचारप्राप्तत्वादाचमनमनूद्याचमनी
To this objection the answer is this. It has been ascertained
from the scriptural text, 'From the Highest Self originates
the spatial ether t (Tait. 1.2.1.2) that Prnamaya refers to
the Highest Self. Thus the Highest Self alone is determined
to have been meant here.
KARYAKHYANADHIKARANA 5
18. Karyakhyanadapurvam
The new thing is enjoined in the text, on account of the statement of what is to be effected.
In describing the Pranavidya it is stated' He, who knows the eldest and best' (Br. VI. I-I). Then it is stated that 'water constitutes a dress for Prana. The Acamana (sipping of water) has been stated thus-' Therefore, having known this in this manner, one should sip water before and after the meals. This makes Prana. not naked'. Here it is right to hold that the .meditation upon water, that is used for Acamana, as being
I एतमेव M 2, Pr, स्याप्याचार A1
.यानामपां प्राणवासस्त्वानुसंवानमप्राप्तं विधीयत इतेि युक्तम् 1 अपाप्तस्यैव विधेयतया ख्यापनादत्रानुवादसरूपो विधिः कल्प्यत इत्यर्थः |h
समानाधिकरणंम् ६
समान एवं चाभेदात् ॥ १९ ॥
अग्निरहस्ये बृहदारण्यके चान्माता शाण्डिल्यविद्या । एकत्र "स आत्मान्मुपासीत मनोमयं प्राणशरीरं भारूपं सत्यसंकल्पमाकाशात्मानम्' इतेि | इतरत्र "मनोमयोऽयं पुरुषो भाः सत्यं तस्मिन्नन्तर्हृदये यथा व्री लहिर्वा
the dress for Prana is enjoined; because this is not established otherwise. Acamana of water could not be enjoined because it is already established by good custom; but it is mentioned for enjoining the dress of Prana. I t is an accepted rules that that alone should be enjoined which is not established otherwise
SAMANADHIKARANA 6
19. Samana evam cabhedat
When some thing is common, there is no difference in other qualities also. In the Agnirahasya, and the Brhadaranyakopanisad there are statements on the S'andilyavidya. In one text it is stated thus-' He should meditate on the Self, who is conceivable. in mind, who is in the form of Prana and light, who has a true will and who is in the form of the spatial ether' (Vaja. S'at. P. Br. 10-4-6-2). In the other text (Brhadaranyakopanisad) it is stated thus-' This person who is conceivable in the mind is in the form of light and truth, shines forth in the
१ अनुवादत्वरूपः M 2.यवो वा स एष सर्वस्य वशी सर्वस्येशानः सर्वस्याधिपतिः सर्वमेिदं प्रशास्ति इतेि | उभयत्र मनोमयत्यादिके समाने सति वशित्त्वादे सत्यसंकल्पत्ववित्ततिंरूपेणाभेदाद्विधैक्यम्' ॥!
संबन्धाधिंकरणम् ७
संश्बन्धादेवमन्थश्त्रापि ॥ २० ॥
" य एषं एतमिन्मण्ङ्ले पुरुषो यश्चायं द्रंक्षिणेोऽक्षन् इत्युपक्रभ्य सत्यस्य ब्रह्मण आदित्यमण्ड्रलेऽक्षिणेि चोपास्यत्यमुक्त्वा " तस्योपनेि-
interior of the heart, like the grain of rice and the grain of wheat. He is the Controller of all. He is the :"L'ord of all. He is the Chief of all. He rules everything (Brh . V -6-]). In both the texts, He is mentioned as Manomaya {conceivable in mind}. Hence the statement of His controllership, does not contradict the statement of His possession of true will which is the expansion of the former. Therefore the S'andilyavidya of the two texts is one and the same, as there is no difference in their characteristics.
SAMBANDHADHIKARANA 7
20. Sambandhadevamanyatrpi
On account of the connection (of the same in both) the qualities are common to both. The passage begins with, 'This person, who is seen inside the orb of the sun and also within the right eye' (Brh . V-5.2). Then the passage states that the true Brahman,an is to be meditated upon as present in the orb of the sun and in the right eye. Then two secret names of the Brahman are mentioned in the scriptural texts, 'His secret name is Ahar,
1 ऐक्यम् M I, Pr.हरित्यधिदैवंतम् "तस्योपनिषदहभित्यध्यात्मम् इति द्वे रहस्यनामन्या- म्नायेते । उभयत्रैकस्यैवोपास्यस्य संबन्घाद्विद्यैक्यमित्युभयत्रोमे नामनी ॥
न वा विशेषात् ॥ २१ ॥
नैतत्; आदित्याक्षिस्थानसंबन्धभेदादुपास्यस्य, विद्यामेद इति तत्र' नियते नामनी ॥
दर्शयति च २२ ॥
दर्शयति च श्रुतिर्विद्याभेदं " तस्यैतस्य तदेव रूपं यदमुष्य रूपम् इति रूपातिदेशं ब्रुवती ॥
He is above all gods.' (Brh . V -5-3), 'His secret name is Aham, He is above all selves' (Brh. V -5-4). In both the texts, is mentioned only one object, to be meditated upon. Therefore the two texts mention the same Vidya and both the names have to be meditated upon.
21. Na va vis'esat
This is not so; on account of the difference. This is not correct. The Vidyas are different; because there is difference in the places with which the Brahman is said to be connected, the places being the orb of the sun and the right eye. Therefore each name is restricted in regard to each place.
22. Darsayati ca
The text also declares this. The Vidyas mentioned in the two texts are distinct from each other. This is because the text 'His form mentioned
1 तत्र omitted A 1.संभूत्यधिक्ररणम् ८
संभृतिद्युव्याप्स्यपि चातः ॥ २३ ॥
ब्रह्म ज्येष्ठा वीर्या संभृतानि । ब्रह्माग्रे ज्येष्ठं दिवमाततान इत्यादि ज्येष्ठानां वीर्याणां ब्रह्मणि संभृतिर्द्युव्याप्तिश्च ब्रश्वाण इत्येतदना रभ्याधीतमपि म सर्वोपासनशेषभूतम् ! अतो द्युव्याप्तिः सामथ्याँदल्पस्थान- व्यतिरिक्तेषूपासनेषु प्राप्नोतेि । संभृयाद्यपि द्युव्याप्तिसहपठितं तत्रैव ॥
here is the same as that mentioned in the other context' (Chand. 1.7.5), mentions the application of the form described in one place, to the other place also.
SAMBHRTYADHIKARANA 8
23. Sambhrtidyvyaptyapi catah
And for the same reason the two virtues namely the holding together the powers and pervading the spatial ether, do not apply to all Vidyas.
Gathered together are these greatest powers, in the Brahman. The Greatest Brahman in the beginning pervaded the sky (Tait. Br. 11-4-7-10). In the Greatest Brahman are seen together all these powers. The Brahman pervaded the sky. These attributes are not stated with reference to any special meditation, However they cannot be included in all meditations. Therefore the quality of pervading the sky is connected with such meditation in which the place other than small is mentioned. In this text His holding of the powers is mentioned along with the pervasion of the spatial ether. Hence this quality also is applicable only in that
case.पुरुषविद्याधेिकरणम् ९
पुरुषविद्यायामपि चेतरेषामनाम्नानात् ॥ २४ ॥
छान्दोग्ये तैतिरीयके चाम्नाता पुरुषविद्या भिन्ना; यजमानपत्न्या- दीनां यज्ञावयवानामितरेषां सवनत्रयादीनां चैकत्राम्नातानामन्यत्रानाम्नानात्, फलभेदाच्च । तैत्तिरीयके आत्मादीनां यजमानत्वादिकल्पनम्' । "सायं- प्रातर्मध्यंदिनानां 'सवनत्रयत्वकल्पनम् । ब्रह्ममहिमप्राप्तिः फलम् ! "अत्र
PURUSAVIDYADHIKARANA 9
24. Purusavidyayamapi cetaresamanamnanat
There is difference among the Purusavidyas also; because what is stated in one, is not stated in the other. The Purusavidyas described in the Taittiryaka and the Chandogya Upanisads are different from each other. In one of them are stated the agent of the sacrifice and his wife as the limbs of the sacrifice and the three libations. These have not been recorded in the other text. There is also difference in respect of the fruits. In the Taittiriyaka text the self of the meditator is mentioned as Yajamana (the agent of the sacrifice). The evenings, mornings and middays are mentioned as the three Savanas (libations). The fruit is the attainment of the greatness of the Brahman. In this आदि omitted M 1, Pr.
सायंप्रातर्मध्यदिनसवनतवकल्पनं M 1, Pr.A 1, सवनत्वकल्पनं A 1, M 1,Pr. अत्रेत्यं श्रीभाष्यश्रुतप्रकाशिका- कथं फलाश्रवणम् । पुरुषविद्याया उपरिष्यत्
- ब्रह्मणेो महिमानमाप्नोति ' इतेि हि फलं श्रूयते । तन्न । केवलपुरुषविद्याया ब्रह्मविद्या-
त्वाभावात् ब्रह्मप्राप्तिरूपं फलमयोग्यत्वात् पुरूषविद्यासंबन्धमनवाप्य पूर्वानुवाकोक्तब्रह्म- विद्ययान्वितं भवति । यथा द्वादशाहीनस्येति वाक्यं सत्रप्रकरणेडधीतमपि तत्र संबन्धु
मयोग्यत्वात् तत् उत्कृष्याहीनप्रकरणे संबन्ध्यते तद्वत् ॥* इति । 1.फलस्याश्रवणात् पूर्वप्रस्तुतफलब्रह्मविद्याङ्गम् | छान्दोग्ये चाशिशेिषादीनां दीक्षादित्वकल्पनम्' । त्रेधा विभक्तपुरुषायुषस्य च सवनत्रयकत्वकल्पनम्' | "वर्षशतं जीवति' इति च फलम् |
देधाद्यधिकरणम् १८
वेधाद्यर्थभेवात् ॥ २५ ॥
उपनिषदारम्भेष्वधीत " शुकं प्रविध्य हृदयं प्रवविद्य" इत्यादिमन्त्रवत् महाव्रतादिमन्त्रवच्च " शं नो मित्रः" सह नाववतु इतेि मन्त्रा-
text the fruit is not mentioned and hence this Purusavidya is held as Angavidya (subordinate One) to the Brahmavidya which is mentioned together with the fruit in the previous portion. In the Chandogya text it is stated thus- The hunger etc. are Diksa (consecration). The life divided into three parts assumes the forms of the three Savanas (libations). The fruit is stated I He lives for hundred years' (Chand. 111-16-7).
VEDHADYADHIKARANA 10
25. Vedhdyarthabhedat
On account of the difference of purpose, such as piercing etc. In the beginning of the Upanisad (of the Atharvanikas) are recited the Mantras 'pierce the S'ukra, pierce the heart'. In the beginning of the Upanisad (of the Aitareyins) are recited the Mantras dealing with the Mahavrata. Simi1arly the Mantras recited by the Taittiriyakas-' May Mitra be propitious to us I (Tait. 1.1.1). 'May He protect us together ' (Tait.
1 दीक्षात्वकल्पनम् Pr, *पुरुषायुषसवनत्रयकल्पनं A 1.वपि मन्त्रसामथ्र्येन प्रयीजनभेदारावगमादध्ययनशेषभूताविति न विद्याङ्गभूतौ॥ हान्यधिकरणम् ११ हानौ तूपायनशब्दशेषत्वात् कुशाच्छन्दःस्तुत्यु- पगानवतदुक्तम् ॥ २६ ॥ विदुषो ब्रह्म प्राप्नुवतः' पुण्यपापयोर्वेिमोचनमेकस्यां शाखायां विदुषस्तच्चिन्तनार्थमधीतम् | विमुक्तयोः प्रवेशस्थानमेकस्यां शाखायां पुण्यस्य प्रवेशस्थानं सुहृदो दुष्कृतस्य शत्रव इति । एकस्यां शाखायां विमोचनं प्रवेशस्थानं चेत्युभयमाम्नातम् । सर्वै तच्चिन्तनार्थम् ! हानावेिति प्रदर्श-
1-2-1). These Mantras of the Taittiriyakas have certain power and lead to different results. Thus they form parts of the study of the Vedas. They are not parts of the Vidya. 26. Hanau tupayanas'abdaS'esat'vat kusacchandah. stutyupaganavat taduktam The statement of getting rid of something has another supplementary statement regarding its reaching another, as in the case of Kustas, metres, praise and singing. This has been stated. In one S'akha it is stated that the wise, who attain the Brahman, get rid of the Punya and Papa. This is said to be meditated upon. In another S'akha are mentioned the places of entry of them. The Punyakarmans attach themselves to his friends and Papakarmans enter his enemies. In one Sakha, are mentioned both the release from them and the places of entry of them. All these are
I प्राप्तवतः A 1.नार्थम्, हानावुपायने चेत्यर्थ: । हानिर्विमोचनम् ! उपायनं 'प्रवेशः । केवलंहानावाम्नातायां केवले चोपायन आम्नाते, इतरेतरसमुच्चयी न्याय्यः । न विकल्पः, उपायनशब्दस्य हानिवाक्यशेषत्वात् |! तच्छेषत्वं च त्यक्तयोः प्रवेशस्थानवाचित्वेन' तदपेक्षत्वात् !| यथा ** वानस्पत्याः कुशाः इत्येत- द्वाक्यशेषभूतम् ** औदुम्बर्यः कुशाः इतेि तद्विशेषकं प्रदेशन्तरस्थम्; यथा च ‘* देवासुराणां छन्दोभिः इत्येतद्वाक्यशेषभूतम् **देवच्छंन्दांसेि पूर्वम् इति प्रदेशान्तरस्थम्; यथ! य ** हिरण्र्येन* षोडशिनः स्तोत्र- मुपाकरोति इत्येतद्वाक्यशेषभूतम्' * समयावेिषिते सूर्ये षोडशिनंः स्तोत्रम्
intended for the meditation by the wise. The statement getting rid of them means both the getting rid of them and also their reaching other places. The word, · getting rid of' means I leaving' and the word, 'reaching' means , entry'. It is right to hold that when the leaving alone or the entry alone is mentioned, both of them are intended. It is not right to hold the alternative course of them. The statement of the entry is only supplement to what is stated in the words I getting rid of '. This is because it declares the places to which the good and evil works, got rid of by the wise, are transferred. Hence it follows that one should be the supplement to the other. In one place this statement occurs-' The Kus'as relating to the tree'. This is supplemented by another statement occurring in a different place, namely, 'The Kus'as relating to the Udambara tree '. The statement, 'The metres of the gods and Asuras' has the supplementary text, 'The metres of the gods are prior.' The clause, 'He begins with gold the Stotra of the sodasin · I प्रवेशनम् M2,Pr.. * वाचकत्वेन M 2. " हिरण्येन omitted M 2, 3. * वाक्य M 2.
39 I qRi1 M 2.
4 "lf omitted. M 2.इतिं ; यथा च ** ऋत्विज उपगायन्ति इत्येतन्छेषभूतम् ** नाध्यर्युरुप- गायेत् इति । एवमुपायनवाक्यस्य हानिवाक्यशेषतया संभवन्त्यां गतौ न वेिकल्पो न्याय्र्यः | तदुक्तम्–-**अपितु वाक्यशेषः स्यादन्याय्यत्वा- द्विकल्पस्य* इत्यादिना ॥| सांपगयाधिकरणम् १२ सांपराये तर्तव्याभावात् ; तथा ह्यन्ये ॥ २७ ॥ सुकुतदुष्कृतयोर्हानेिः * अश्च इव रोमाणि विधूय पायं धूवा शरीरम्' इति देहदवियोगकाले श्रुता ! शाखान्तरे--** स आगच्छति विरजां नदीं
has for its supplementary clause, 'He begins the stotra of the $odas'in, when the sun has half risen' (Tait. Sam. VI.6.11). The statement, ' All the priests join in the singing' has for its supplementary statement, ' The Adhivaryu" priest does not sing.' (Tait. Sam. VI.3.l). Thus the statement as regards the getting rid of has the supplementary statement of reaching. Therefore it is proper that the alternative course should not arise here when the other one is available. Therefore it is stated thus-' One statement will supplement another as the alternative course is not proper' (Pur. Mi. X.-8-15). SAMPARAYADHIKARANA 12 27. Samparaye tartavyabhavat; tathahyanye At death the Puvya and papa Karmans leave the person: because there is nothing to be enjoyed there- after. For, thus certain texts declare. That there will be getting rid of the good and bad deeds at the time of death is stated in the text, 'Shaking off the sin as a horse his hairs, and shaking off the body' (Chand. VIii.13.1). I n a different Sakha. the giving up of the good
and the bad deeds on the way has been stated thus, · The self१३] सृर्तीयाध्याये तृतौयः पादुः ३ श्*४ तत्सुकृतदुष्कूते धूनुते 'इत्यध्यन्यपि श्रुतापि सांपराये चरमदेहवियोगकाल एव चिन्तनीया, देहवियोगादूर्ध्वं ब्रह्मप्राप्तिव्यतिरेकेण तरितव्यभोगाभावात् } तथा ह्यन्ये शाखिनः ** तस्य तावदेव चिरं यावन्न विमोक्ष्येऽथ संपत्स्ये इतेि देहवेियोगासमनन्तरं ब्रह्मप्राप्तिमधीयते ॥ छन्दत उभयाविरोधात् ॥ २८ ॥ द्वेहवियोगकाले पुण्यपापविमोचनश्रुतैर्देहवियोगादूर्ध्व ब्रह्मप्राप्ति- श्रुतेश्चेत्युभयश्रुत्यविरोधाद्वेतोः ** सुकृतदुष्कृंंते धूक्नुतं इत्ययं श्रुतिखण्ड-
reaches the river 'Viraja and shakes off his good and bad deeds (Kau. 37). Though it has been stated so differently, it should be meditated upon only at the time of death. After the separation from the body, the self ought not to enjoy pleasure or pain, without attaining the Brahman. Accordingly in another S'akha it is stated that the self reaches the Brahman immediately after the death. The relevant passage is this- · For him there is delay only so long as he is not freed from the body; then he will reach the Brahman' (Chand. VI.14-2). 28. Chandata Ubhayavirodhat As it is desired; on account of there being no contradiction of either. There are scriptural statements to prove that the good and evil deeds leave the self at the time of death. There are also statements to show that the Brahman ought to be attained immediately after death. There should be no contradiction between these two statements. Therefore the scriptural statement, ' He gives up good and evil deeds' (Kau. 1-37) has
1 इत्यन्यथापि M 2.श्छन्दतो नेतव्यः ; **एतं देवयानं पन्थानमापद्य' इति वाक्यखण्डात् प्रागनुगमयितव्य इत्यथैः ॥ चोदयति---- गतेरर्थवत्त्वमुभयथा; अन्यथा हि विरोधः ॥ २९ ॥ देवयानगतिश्रुतेरर्थवत्त्वमुभयत्र चिन्तायामेव 1 *अम्यथा देहवियोग- काल एव चिन्तायां तस्मिन्नेव सर्वकर्मक्षयात् देहाभावेन गतिर्नोपपद्यत इतेि हि गतिश्रुतिविरोधः ॥
to be considered so as to suit the convenience. This means tbat this passage must be taken as coming before the earlier passage 'Having reached that path of the gods' (Kau. 1-21). Then the following objection is put- 29. Gaterarthavatvamubhayatha; anyatha hi virodhah There is a meaning in the soul's going, only on the two.fold hypothesis; for otherwise there is contradic- tion. The scriptural text referring to the journey through the path of gods, will be sensible only when the leaving of the deeds is accepted to take place on two different occasions. Otherwise if it is considered to take place at the time of death, then all his deeds must perish at that time. Then as he has no body_ he cannot proceed by any path. Hence there will be contradic. tion regarding the journey, as stated in the scriptural texts. 1 अभिप्रपद्य M 2, 3. * अन्यत्र M 2, .
· 8fRl!l M 2.परिहरति- उपपन्नस्तल्लक्षणार्थोपलब्घेलॉकवत् ॥ ३० ॥ देहवियोगकाले सर्वकर्मक्षयेऽपेि मतिविधिरुपपन्नः, ब्रह्मोपासीनानाम- कर्मलभ्यार्थोपलब्धेः ** स स्वराड् भवति तस्य सर्वेषु लोकेषु कामचारो भवति इत्यादौ; यथा लोके राजानमुपासीनानामितरपुरुषासाधारण- सर्वार्थसिद्धिः !| यावदधिकारमवस्थितिराधिकारिकाणाम् ॥ ३१ ॥
This objection is refuted thus- 30. Upapannastallaksnarthopalabdherlokavat That assumption is justified; 0n account of per- ception of the things, that are caused by that. This' is as in ordinary experience. At the time of the separation from the body, all his deeds become destroyed. Yet it is possible for him to proceed through the path; because those, who meditate upon the Brahman, can achieve their objects even without deeds, as stated in the scriptural text. 'He becomes a self.ruler, he moves about in all worlds according to his will (Chand. VII-25.2). This is just as in the world, those, who serve the kings obtain all their desires, that could not be got by other persons. 31. Yavadadhikarama'vasthitiradhikarikanam Of those, who are entrusted with certain office, there is subsistence of their Karmans, as long as they
are in that office.वसिष्ठादीनां ज्ञानिनामपि देहपातादूध्र्वै फलान्तरानुभवः, प्रारब्धा- धिकारहेतुकर्मविनाशाभाबात् | यावदधिकारसमाप्ति तद्धेतुकर्मफलानुभवाय तेषां तत्रैव स्थितिः, नार्चिरादिप्राप्तिः { ज्ञानिनामपि प्रारब्धकर्मानुभवेनैव नश्यतीति वक्ष्यते' ] अनेियमाधिकरणम् १३ अनियमः सर्वेषामविरोधः शब्दानुमानाभ्याम् ॥ ई२ ॥ येषूपकोसलादिषूपासनेष्वर्चिरादिगतिराम्नाता, तन्निष्ठानामेव तया |प्राप्तिरितेि तच्चिन्तनमपि तेषामेवेति नियमाभावः ; अपितु सर्वोपासन-
Even the wise sages, Vasistha and others, enjoy the various fruits of their works, after giving up the body; because the Karmans, that lead to their holding a particular office, are not destroyed. As long as their office lasts, they remain there in order to enjoy the fruits of their deeds. They do not proceed by the path of light, etc. It will be stated that even of those who obtained the knowledge of Brahman, the deeds which actually began to yield the fruits, will perish only after their fruits have been fully enjoyed. ANIYAMADHIKARANA 13 32. Aniyama sarvesamavirodha sabdanuman'abhyam There is no restriction, in regard to the path since all have to go on that. Thus there is non-contradiction of scriptural texts and Smrti In the texts dealing with the meditations such as Upa. kosalat it has been stated that those who meditate upon the brahman as stated therein, proceed along the path of light, etc.
1 वक्ष्यति A 1.निष्ठानाम् ! तथा सत्येव श्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यामविरोधः | श्रुतिस्तावत् पञ्चाग्नि- विद्यायाम् ** ये चामी अरण्ये श्रद्धां सत्यमुपासते तेऽर्चिषमभिसंभवन्ति ?' इत्यविशेषेण श्रुत। । स्मृतिरपि ** अग्निज्योंतिरहः शुक्लः इत्यादिका ॥ अक्षरध्यधिक्ररणम् १४ अक्षरधेियां त्ववरोधः सामान्यतद्भावाभ्यामौप- सदवत्तदुक्तम् ॥ ३३ ॥
But there is no restriction that those alone who meditate upon the Brahman as stated in those Vidyas attain the Brahman by that path and hence they alone should meditate on that path. But all the meditators engaged in various Vidyas also attain the Br.ahman, and go by that path. Then only the contradiction between the teachings of the scriptures and the Smrtis can be averted. The scriptural text mentioned in the Pancagnividya (i.e., the meditation on the five fires) is this-' Those, who in the forest meditate on faith and truth, they reach the path of light '. (Brh . VI.2-15). Smrti text is this-' Fire, light, day, the bright-fortnight etc.' (Bhag. Gi. VIII-24). AKSARADHYADHIKARANA 14 33. Akas'aradhiyam tvavarodhah samanyatad bhavabhyamaupasadavattaduktam
The conceptions of the Imperishable, have to be included in all the meditations; on account of the sameness of the object of meditation and of the possibility of the meditation, as in the case of those
belonging to the Upasad. This has been thus stated" एतद्वै तदक्षरम् "अथ परा यया तदक्षरम् इत्यारभ्य " अम्थूलमनण्वह्रस्वमदीर्घमलोहितम् " यत्तदद्रेश्यमग्राह्यम् " "इत्याद्य- स्थूलत्वाद्वेश्यत्वादिविषयाणामक्षरब्रझसंबन्धिनीनां धियां सर्वासु परविद्यासु संग्रहः, गुणिनो ब्रह्मणः सर्वत्रैकत्वात् ; एतैर्गुणैर्वेिना सकलेतरव्यावृत्त- ब्रह्मानुम॑धानानुपपतेश्च । हेयसंबन्धानहॉंनन्दादयो हि प्रत्यगात्मनी ब्रह्म. व्यावर्तकाः । प्रधानानुवर्तित्वं हि गुणस्वभाबः | यथा जामदग्न्यचतू. रात्रपुरोडाशोपसद्रुणभूतमन्त्रस्य प्रधानभूतोपसदनुवर्तित्वेनोपांशुगुणकत्वम् । तदुक्तम् ** गुणमुख्यव्यतिक्रमे ?' इत्यादिना ॥]
The scriptural texts begin with, 'This is indeed Imperi. shable' (वrh. 111-8.8), 'Then the higher knowledge is that whereby that Imperishable is apprehended' (Mund. 1-1-5) and end respectively with, 'It is neither gross nor minute, neither short nor long, it is not red' (Brh. 111-8-8), , That which is not visible and not knowable' (Mund. 1.1.6). Here in the Paravidyas (the higher meditations) all the attributes of the Imperishable Brahman (such as), neither gross nor visible etc. have to be included; because the Brahman, the possessor of these attributes, is apprehended to be a single object. And because without these attributes, it is not possible to meditate upon Him, as distinct from all other objects. The characteris- tics that distinguish the Brahman from the individual souls, are tbe bliss etc. that do not tolerate the connection with evils. In- deed it is natural that the Gunas (subordinates, are in harmony with the Pradhana (principal). Consider the following for in- stance-The Mantra that stands in a subordinate relation to tbe Upasad offerings in the Caturatra (the four days' function)
1 इत्याद्यस्थूलत्वाद्रश्यत्वादि A 1, M 1, * ब्रद्म omitted A t, M 1,
- अपि for हि M2,Pr. १९]३१३तृतीयाध्याये तृतीयः पादः
नैतावता सर्वत्र सर्वोपसंहारप्राप्तेिरित्याह'--– इयदामननात् {॥ ३४ ॥ आमननम्; आभिमुख्येन मननम् । ईयदेव गुणजातं सर्वत्रोप- संहार्य, येन गुणजातेन सकलेतरव्यावृत्तब्रह्ममननम् ॥ अन्तरत्वाधििकरणम् १५ अन्तरा भूतग्रामवत्खात्मनोऽन्यथा भेदानुपपत्तिरिति चेन्नोपदेशवत् । ३५ ॥ः
of the Jamadagnya sacrifice, is recited in a low voice (Upams'u) according to the rules prescribed for the Mantras of Yajurveda to which the principal thing Upasad belongs. This principle has been explained in the Pur. Mim Su., 111-3-9. That following this argument, it could not be objected that all the attributes stated in different Vidyas, have to be included in all the Vidyas, is proved in the following Sutra- 34. Iyadamananat Only so much qualities have to be included for the sake of meditation. The word' Amanana ' means' the consecrated meditation.' Only so much of the qualities have to be included in all meditations, as are useful in distinguishing the Brahman from other objects. ANTARATVADHIKARANA 15 35. Antara Bhutagramavats'Vatmanonyatha bhedanu- papattiriti cennopadesa'Vat Should it be said that the enquiry about the inner 1 व्याप्तिरित्याह Pr.
o
"य आत्मा इत्युषंस्तप्रश्नो भूतग्रामभवत्प्रत्यगात्मविषयः । अन्यथा " यः प्राणेन प्राणितेि स त आत्मा " इति प्रतिवचनस्य कहोलप्रश्नप्रतेिवचन- विषयादशनायाद्यतीतत्वादेर्भेदानुपपत्तिरिति चेत् ; न, **य आत्मा सर्वान्तरः इत्युभयत्र प्रश्नैकरूप्यात् परमात्मैवोभयत्र विषयः ! प्रतिवचनगतप्राणनादि- हेतुत्वमशनायाद्यतीतत्वं च परमात्मन्येवोपपद्यते | प्राणनादिहेतुत्वं हि परमात्मन् एवं, ** को ह्येवान्यात्कः प्राण्यात् इत्यादिश्रुतेः । सर्द्विद्योप. देशवत् पश्नप्रतेिवचनावृत्तिरेकविषया ॥
self, refers to that self to whom the aggregate form of material things belongs; since otherwise the difference of the two replies could not l)e accounted for; we say -no; as in the case of the instruction. The question put by Usasta about the self (in Brh. III.. 4.1) refers to the individual self to whom the aggregate form of material things belongs. Otherwise the object mentioned in the reply' The self is he, who breathes through the vital wind (i.e., Prana)' could not be differentiated from the one, mentioned in the reply given to the question of Kahola, as freed from hunger thirst etc. It is not so. In both the places the questions are in only one form, namely, 'The Self, who is tbe inner se]f of all ' (Brh.III-4-1). Hence in both the places the Highest Self is referred to. Causing the breath and the absence of thirst and hunger mentioned in the reply could be justified only in the Highest self. That the Highest self is the cause of breathing, has been mentioned in the text, , who could breathe and live if there were not this blissful Akas'a (Brahman) ?' (Tait. 1-2-7). As in the case of the Sadvidya, the repeated questions and
answers refer to the same object (Brahman),
प्रष्ट्टभेदोऽपि भेदक इत्याह--- व्यतिहारो विशिंषन्ति हीतरवत् ॥ ३६ अर्थैक्ये निश्चिते सति प्रष्ट्रोर्बुद्धिव्यतिहारः कार्यः । उषस्तेनाशना- याद्यतीतत्वधीः कार्या१ । कहोलेनापि प्राणनादिहेतुत्वधीः कार्या । २उभय प्रकरणसगतवाक्यानि हि परमात्मानमेव विर्शिषन्ति, यथेतरत्र सद्विद्यायाम्३ ॥
सद्विद्यायामपि प्रश्नाद्यावृत्तौ कथमैक्यमित्यत्राह---
Though there is a difference of persons putting the questions, yet that will not cause the difference in the Vidya. This fact is explained in the next Sutra-
36. Vyatiharo vis'imshanti hitaravat
There is the combination of ideas; for the attributes specify the same object, as in other cases.
When the subject matter is decided to be same, there should be the combination of ideas of those who put the questions. The combination should be thus-Usasta should know Him, also as free from hunger and thirst; Kahola also should bear the idea, that He causes the breath etc. because these two statements distinguish the Highest self. The same is the case in another context, namely, sadvidya also. How is it that the same thing is meant in the Sadvidya, even there is the repetition in question etc. ? The reply is this-
१कार्यााँ omitted M 1.
२अभयत्र M 1 Pr.
३सद्वेिद्यायाम् omitted M 1.
.
सैव हि सत्यादयः ॥ ३७ ॥
"सेयं देवतैक्षत इतेि प्रस्तुता देवतैव सर्वत्र प्रश्नगता । प्रतिवचनेषु च "तत्सत्यं स आत्मा" इत्यादय इत्यैक्यम् ॥
कामाद्याधेिकरणम् १६
कामादीतरत्र तत्र चायतनादिभ्यः ॥ ३८ ॥
"दहरोऽस्मिन्नन्तर आकाशस्तस्मिन्यदन्तस्तदन्वेष्टव्यम् इत्युक्त्वा "एष आत्मापहतपाप्मा " इत्यारभ्य "सत्यकामः सत्यसंकल्पः" ईति छान्दोग्ये । वाजिनां च "य एषोऽन्तर्हृदय अाकाशस्तस्मिञ्छेते सर्वस्य बशीं सर्वस्येशानः" इति । अभयत्र हृदयायतनत्वसत्यसंकल्पत्वतद्विशेषरूप-
37. Saiva hi satyaadayah
Indeed the same Highest God and The Truth etc.
The questions asked in different contexts are about the same Divinity mentioned in the text-' This Divinity thought' (Chand. VI..3-1). The replies also mean the same thing, namely, 'That is Reality. That is the Self etc ' (Chand. VI-8-7).
KAMAADYADHIKARANA 16
38. Kamaadaadidtaratra tatra caayatanaadibhyah
Desire, etc. are common here and there, as known from the abode etc. In the Chandoyopanishad occur the following passages :-
'In it there is the subtle Akas'a (Brahman) This and what is within that, both should be meditated upon. (Chaand. VIII-I-I). 'This is the Self devoid of evils' (Chaand. VIII-1-5). 'With true desire and true will' (Chaand. VIII-1-5). In the BrhadaaraNyakopanishad it is stated thus-' In the space within the
वशित्वादिभिर्दहरविद्याप्रत्यभिज्ञानात् १सत्यसंकल्पत्वसहचारिणोऽपहतपाप्मत्वादिसत्यकामत्वपर्यन्ता२ उभयत्रोपसंहार्याः ॥
आदरादलोपः ॥ ३९ ॥
" नेह नानास्ति किंचन् " " स एष नेति नेत्यात्मा " इति निषेधो न वशित्वादिगुणविषयः, ** सर्वस्य वशी सर्वैस्येशानः इति तेषामज्ञातानामादरेण विधानात् । अतो न लोपः । सर्वस्य ब्रह्र्मकार्य-
heart lies the Ruler of all and the Lord of all ' (Brh. IV -4-22). In both these texts, it is stated that He has heart as His abode, He has true will and He is the controller of all. These references indicate that the Daharavidya is meant in both the contexts. Therefore the qualities, beginning with being devoid of evil and ending with the possession of true desire along with the possession of true will have to be included in both the contexts.
39. Adaraadalopah
On account of the purposeful statement, there cannot be omission. 'There is not any diversity here' (Brh. IV -4-19). 'He is the Self, said 'not this, not this' (Brh.IV-4-22). These negative statements do not negate the attributes, namely, being the controller of all etc, because they are purposely taught in the following text, as they are not otherwise known. 'He is the controller of all, He is the Lord of all ' (Brh . IV-14-22). Hence there could not be any omission.
1 सत्यसंकल्पत्वसहचारेण M 1.
2. सत्यसंकल्पत्वपर्यन्ताः M2 Pr.
तयैक्यात् "नेह नानास्ति" इत्यब्राह्मात्मकनानात्वं प्रतिषेिध्यते । "स एष नेति नेत्यात्मा" १इतेि च प्राकृतवेिशेषवेिषयम् ॥
उपस्थितेऽतस्तद्वचनात् ॥ ४० ॥
उपस्थिते ; ब्रह्मोपसंपन्ने | अतः ; उपसंपत्तेरेय हेतोः । "जक्षत्क्रीइन् रममाणः इत्यादिना छन्दते ज्ञात्यादिप्राप्त्यभिधानात् साक्षान्मोक्षफलं तत्, न सांसारिकफलमेिति परविद्यैवैषा सगुणा ॥
All these worlds are one with the Brahman, as they are the production of him. The statement, namely, 'There is not any diversity here' means to deny the existence of the things separately without having the Brahman as their Self. The clause, 'not so, not so' declares that the Brahman is not of material nature.
40. Upasthitetastadvacanat
The self, who has reached the Brahman, on the very same account (moves about in all the worlds as he likes); for it is so declared by the text.
The word, Upasthita, means, 'one who has reached the Brahman! The word ' Atah ' means' on the very same account' namely 'reaching'. He approaches his relatives as and when he likes as stated in the text, 'He moves about there eating, playing and enjoying' (Chand. VIII.12.2). This is tbe fruit of his attainment of the final release. It is not the fruit connected with Samsara. Therefore the Vidyaa covering His qualities is also the Paravidyaa.
1इत्यादि M 1.
तन्निर्धारणानियमाधिकरणम् १७
तन्निर्धारणानियमस्तद्द्दृष्टेः; पृथग्घ्यप्रतिबन्धः फलम् ॥ ४१ ॥
उद्गीथाद्युपासनस्य क्रतुषु गोदोहनादिवदुपादानानियमः । "तेनोभौ कुरुतो यश्चैतदेवं वेद् यश्च न वेद" 1इत्युद्गीथोपासनरहितस्यापि 2क्रत्वनुष्ठानद्वर्शनात् । "यदेव वेिद्यया करोति तदेव वीर्यवत्तरम्" इति वर्तमाननिर्देशेऽर्पि क्रतुर्वीर्यवत्तरत्वसाधनतयोपासनविधिः कल्प्यते । र्वीर्यवत्तरत्वं3
TANNIRDHAARANAANIYAMAADHIKARANA 17
41.Tannirdhaaranaaniyamastaddrsteh ; prthagghya-
pratibandhah phalam
There is no necessity of undertaking of the medita- tion on the Udgitha; because it is so seen in the scriptures. The non-obstruction is the separate fruit for it. It is not necessary that the meditation on the Udgitha should be adopted in the sacrifices, as in the case of the Godohana (milk-pail), because even those, who do not meditate on the Udgitha are seen to perform the sacrifices. The scriptural text in support of this view is this. 'Therefore those who meditate on this and those who do not meditate on this both perform the sacrifices' (Chand. 1-1-10). The present tense is used in the text, 'That which is performed with the knowledge, will have powerful effect' (Chaand. 1-1-10). Even then, the meditation is assumed to be an object of the injunction, as it grants powerful effect to
1 उद्गीथ omitted M 1, 2 तदनुष्ठान M 1.
3 वीर्यवत्त्वं M 2
|नाम प्रबलकर्मान्तराप्रतिबन्धेनाविलम्बितफलत्वम् । अतः क्रतुफलात् प्र॒थक्- फलमुद्गीथोपासनमित्यनियमः ॥
प्रदानाधिकरणम् १८
प्रदानवदेव तदुक्तम् ॥ ४२ ॥
दहरविद्यायामपहतपाप्मत्वादिगुणविशिष्टोपासने तत्त्तद्रुणवेिशिष्टस्वरूपभेदात् प्रतिगुणं गुण्यावृत्तिः, "इन्द्राय राज्ञे" इत्यादिषु विशिष्टस्वरूप-
the sacrifice. 'The vigorous effect' means 'the power of granting the fruits without delay, as no obstruction is caused by other more powerful deeds'. Therefore the meditation on the Udgitha gives fruit, other than that which is obtained by the performance of sacrifice and hence there is no insistence on the meditation in this case.
PRADAANAADHIKARANA 18
42. Pradaanavadeva taduktam
Just as in the case of the offerings. This has been explained.
In the Daharavidya, there is the mention of the meditation on the Brahman, as possessed of attributes, such as ' being devoid of evil, etc.' There will be the repetition of the meditations on the Brahman when He is viewed to possess various qualities one after another; because in each case He is considered to be varied on account of the connection with each of the qualities. This case is analogous to that of the sacrificial offerings. There is the text, 'He is to offer a Purodaasato Indra the ruler, etc.' (Tait. Sam. 11-3-6). The essential
nature of Indra changes, as his attributes are mentioned one
भेदात् प्रदानावृत्तिवत् | तदुक्तम्---"नाना वा देवतापृथक्चात् इतेि ॥
लिङ्गभूयस्त्वाधिकरणम् १९
लिङ्गभूयस्तात्तद्धि बलीयस्तदपि ॥ ४३ ॥
"संहस्रशीर्षे देवम्" इत्यत्र नारायणशब्देन प्रकृतद्हृरविद्योपास्य मात्रं1 न विशेष्यते ; अपितु सर्वपरविद्यासूपास्यम्, तच्चिह्वभूतवाक्यभूयस्त्वादेव । अक्षरशिवशंभुपरब्रह्मादिशब्दैः सर्वोपास्याननूद्य नारायणत्वं हि
after another. At each time the oblation of the Purodaasa has to be repeated. This has been stated thus-' As the divinities are different, the oblations are different' (Sam.Kaanda. I- 13-15). {{C|LINGABHUYASTVAADHIRARANA 19
43. Lingabhuyastvaat taddhi baliyastadapi
On account of a good number of indicatory marks; because that proof is stronger. This is so stated elsewhere. The word, Naaraayanaa, occurs in tne text, 'The thousand headed God etc.' (Tait. II-11-1). This is not a specification of the object of the meditation of the Daharavidyaa alone mentioned therein. It has to be taken as a specification of the objects of all the Vidyas mentioned in different texts; because there are many statements containing particular significances in favour of this decision. Indeed, these statements while referring the objects of the meditations with the words Aksara S'ambhu, S'iva, Supreme Brahman etc. specify that these objects are nothing but Naaraayanaa. The sentences,
1मात्रं omitted A I, M 3.
विधीयते । प्रकरणाद्धि वाक्यं बलीयः । तदपि “श्रुतिलिङ्ग" इत्यादिनोक्तम् ॥
पूर्वविकल्पाधिकरणम् २०
पूर्वविकल्पः प्रकरणात्स्यात्क्रिया मानसवत् ॥ ४४ ॥
"1"मनश्चितो वाकूचितः प्राणचितः" इत्यादिसांपादिकाग्नीनाम्' "असद्वा इदमग्र आसीत् इत्यादेिना पूर्वप्रकृतेष्टकचिताग्निशेषिभूत-
which contain specific indications, have a greater proving power, than the context. This also has been stated in the Pur. Mim. Su. III-3-14).
PURVAVIKALPAADHIKARANA 20
44.Purvavikalpa prakaranaat yaatkriyaamaanasavat
There is option with regard to what precedes, on account of the context; and hence it is an action, as in the case of the Maanasagraha. In the text, 'Built of mind, built of speech, built of Praana (Agnirahasya of Vajasaneyins), are mentioned the metaphorical representations of the fire. These have to be connected with the sacrifices, which are of the nature
1मनश्र्श्वीयते इत्यर्थे ' कर्मण्यग्न्याख्यायाम् ' इति क्विपि नेिष्पन्नां मनश्चिदादय शब्दाः । अतो मनश्चित इत्यादयो बहुवचनान्ता इतेिं बोध्यम् ।
2सांपादिकाग्नीनामितेि ; संपादिताग्निनामित्यर्थः । संपादमर्हतीत्यर्थे तदर्हतीति ठकिः रूपमिति बोध्यम्
3 Agnirahasya is represented by the 10 th chapter of the Satapathabraahmana of the Vajasaneya school following
the Maadhyamdine recension (Printed and Published by Dr. A. Weber. Berlin 1855). The Agnirahasyopanisad
printed and published In Grantha character with Rangaraamaanujaa's commentary at Kumbakonam, is a summary of the 4 th section of the 10 th chapter, said above.
क्रियामयक्रत्वनुपवेशः स्यात् । एषामग्नित्वेनेष्टकचिताग्निना विकल्यः | द्वादशाहाङ्गभूतमानसग्रहृवदेषां मानसानामपि क्रिथामयक्रत्वङ्गत्वं न विरुद्भम् |
अतिदेशाञ्च ॥ ४५ ॥
"तेषामेकैक एव तावान् यावानसौ पूर्वः" इतीष्टकचिताग्निकार्यातिदेशाञ्च तदङ्गत्वम् ॥
विद्यैव तु निर्धारणाद्दर्शनाञ्च ॥ ४६ ॥
of the principal ones having the fire in the altar built with bricks as a subordinate; which fire is referred to in the text, 'Or non-existent (Asat) alone was in the beginning'. Here the doubt is that these are alternative ones to the fire seated in the altar made of bricks. This is similar to the case of the Soma cup imagined by mind in the sacrifice of 12 days. No contradiction arises; because they may conveniently be auxiliary elements in sacrificial performances though they are imagined by mind.
45. AtideS'acca
And on account of the transfer. The text 'Of these each one is as great as the previous one' (Maadh. S'. Br. 10-4-1-3) transfers the power of the fire seated in the altar of bricks, to the fire of mind. Therefore the fire of mind, etc. become auxiliaries to the sacrificial performances.
46. Vidyaiva tu nirdhaaanaad darSanaacca
But it is Vidya (meditation) only; on account of
determination and what is seen in the texts,
विद्यैवैते ; विद्यामयक्रत्वङ्गभूता इत्यर्थः । संपादेिकाग्नित्वेनैषां विद्यामयत्वे सिद्धेऽपि "ते हैते विद्याचित एव " इति निर्धारणं हि विद्यामयक्रत्वन्वयेन1 विद्यामयत्वख्यापनाय । दृश्यते चात्र विद्यामयः क्रतुः "2 "मनसैषु ग्रहा अगृह्मन्त" इत्यादौ ]
श्रुत्यादिबलीयस्त्वाच्च न बाधः ॥ ४७ ॥
" ते हैते विद्याचित एव ! वेिद्यया हैंवैत एव्ंविदश्चिता भवन्ति"
These fires of the mind etc. belong to the class of meditation only. The meaning is that these fires are auxiliaries to the sacrifices of meditation. They are determined to be of meditation. as there is in them the metaphorical representation of fires as stated in the text 'Indeed, they are verily made of thought' (Maadh. S'. Br. 10-4-1-12). They have been determined in that way in order to reveal that they belong to the class of meditatIon, as they are connected with the sacrifice of meditation. Here it is seen that there are scriptural texts to prove that the sacrifices could be of the mind. 'By the mind the cups were taken' (Maadh. S'. Br.10-4-1-3) and so on.
47.Srutyaadibaliyastvaacca na baadhah
And there cannot be annulment, on account of the scriptural text etc. being more powerful than other proofs. There cannot be refutation as regards the connection of these with the sacrifice of the meditation by the context that is weaker. Because this fact is understood by the statements
1 क्रत्वङ्गत्वे A 1 2 मनसैवैतेषु A 1
इति श्रुत्या वाक्येन1 चावगतत्वात्2 विद्यामयक्रत्वन्वयस्य दुर्बलप्रकरणेन न बाधः |॥
अनुबन्धादिभ्यः प्रज्ञान्तरपृथक्त्ववद् दृष्टश्च तदुक्तम् ॥ ४८ ॥
"3मनसैषु ग्रह अगृह्यन्त" इत्यादिक्रत्वनुबन्धैः "ते हैते विद्याचित एव" इति श्रुत्यादिभिश्चात्र वेिद्यामयक्रतुवेिधिः कल्प्यते । दहरविद्यादीनां क्रियामयात्पृथक्त्ववदस्यापेि विद्यामयक्रतोः सानुबन्धैस्तैः प्रुथक्त्वमव-
with the association of clear terms and also by the scriptural text, 'Indeed, they are made by the thought only. For thought alone they are made for him who knows this' (Maadh. S'. Br. 10-4.1-12).
48. Anubandhaadibhah prajnaantaraprthaktvavad
drstaS'ca taduktam
On account of the statement of the connected things, this is different as in the case of other meditations. This has been seen in other texts, and it has been so declared.
The statement of the things connected with the sacrifice is seen in the text, ' By the mind the sacrificial cups have been taken' (Maadh. S'. Br. 10.4-1-3). There are also scriptural texts to show that there are sacrifices of meditation-- 'By thought alone are they made' (Maadh. S'. B. 10-4-1-12). It is understood that the sacrifice of meditation is ordained in the above mentioned texts. This is known
1 सभभिव्याहृररूपवाक्यप्रमाणेनेत्यर्थः 2 अवगतविद्यामय etc. A 1, Pr.,
3.मनसैषु omitted A 1, M 2, 3.
गम्यते | दृष्टश्चानुवादसरूपेऽपि विधिः " यदेव विद्यया करोति " इत्यादौ। तदुक्तम्--" वचनानि त्वपूर्वत्वात्' इति ।
न सामान्पादप्युपलब्धेर्मृत्युवन्न हि लोकापत्तिः ॥ ४९ ॥
"तेषामेकैक एव तावान् यावानसौ" इतीष्टकचिताग्निफलसामान्येनातिदेशः ; इष्टकचिताग्नेः स्वक्रतुद्वारेण यत्फलं तदेवैषां विद्यामयक्रत्वनुप्रवेशेन फलमेिति; न पुनरिष्टकचिताग्निदेशत्वमप्येषामिति । केनापेि सामान्येनातिदेशोपलब्र्धेः ; थथा "स एष एव मृत्युर्य एष एतस्मिन्मण्डले
different from the sacrifice of action as in the case of meditations Daharavidyaa etc. It is seen that the injunctions are meant in the texts that are Anuvaada-'He, who does it through the knowledge' (Chaand.I..t.10). This has been stated in Pur.Mim.Su. 111-5-21.
49. Na saamaanyaadapyupalabdhermrtyuvannahi lokaatpattih
Not so. The transfer is only in respect of some common attributes; as in the case of God of death. It does not mean that the person reaches the region of the god of death.
The text ' Each of these fires has the same effect as seen in that' (Maadh. S'. Br. 10-4-1-3) says that whatever fruit is obtained by the means of the fire of the brick-made altar, the same can be obtained by the means of them. It means whatever fruit the fire of brick-made altar can give through the sacrificial action, the same fruit can be got by the means of each of these fires through the sacrifice of the
meditation. It does not mean that each of them occupies the
पुरुषः" इतेि सर्वहरत्वमात्रेण । न हि तत्र मण्डलपुरुषस्य मृत्युदेशत्वम्॥
परेण च शब्दस्य ताद्विध्यं भूयस्त्वात्त्वनुबन्धः ॥५०॥
परेण च ब्राह्मणेनास्य 1मनश्चिदादेिवाचिनः शब्दस्यं 2विधामयप्रति- पादकत्वमवगम्यते | "अयं वाव लोक एषोऽग्निश्चितस्तmdयाप Sएव" इत्यादिना पृथक्फला विद्यैव विधीयते | क्रियाप्रकरणेऽग्निरहस्ये 1मनश्चिदादीना मनुबन्धस्तु संपादनीयानामग्न्यङ्गानां भूयस्त्वात् ॥
place of the fire of the brick-altar; because the transfer is apprehended in regard to some common fact. Take for example the passage 'The person in the orb is the God of death, indeed' (Mddh. S'. Br. 10.3.6.23). Here it is meant that the person causes death to all objects and not that he occupies the world of God of death. 50. Parena ca S'abdasya tildvidhyam bhuyastvattva.. nubandhah . And by the subsequent text is proved that the . word is used in such a meaning. But on account of plurality of the auxiliaries it is found in that context. The subsequent Braahmana text also proves that the passages relating to the fire of mind, etc., refer to the sacrifice of the meditation only. The text reads thus, 'This fire is this world and the water around it is the sea (Maadh. S'. Br. 10.4.2.1). From this, it appears that what is enjoined here is the meditation with a special result of its own. In the Agnirahasya, under the section of 'sacrificial rites', is included the portion dealing with the fires of mind, etc., as many auxiliaries have to be applied to them from that context.
1मनश्चितादिं A l, Pr.
2विद्यामयप्रतिपादित्वम् Pr.
शरीरेभावाधिरग्रम् २१
एक आत्मनः शरीरे भावात् ॥ ५१ ॥
शरीरे बर्तमानत्वादुपासितुः, तस्य च कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वादिस्वरूपत्वात् तथावस्थितस्यात्मतया परविद्यासु परमात्मोपास्थ इत्येके मन्यन्ते ॥
व्यतिरेकस्तद्गाभावित्वान्न तूपलब्धिवत् ॥ ५२ ॥
नैवं यत् 1कर्तृत्वादिस्वरूपस्यैवोपासितुरात्मतया परमात्मानुसंधेय इति ; अपेितूपासितुंः सांसारिकस्वभावान्मुक्तस्वरूपस्य यो व्यति-
SAARIREBHAAVAADHIKARANA 21
51. Eka Atmanah s'arIre bhaavaat
. Some state that He has to be meditated upon as the Self of the meditator in his meditating stage, on account of the existence of the meditating soul within the body.
When meditating, the self remains within the body and has the character of being the doer and the enjoyer. Therefore some think that in all the meditations upon the Highest, the Highest Self has to be meditated upon as being the self of those embodied souls.
52. Vyatirekastadbhaavabhaavitvaannatupalabdivat
It is not so; but rather the difference; since it is of the being of that state; as in the case of intuition.
It is not correct to hold that the meditator should meditate upon the Highest as the self of him in the present state comprising the worldly actions etc, But in meditating the Highest as his self, he should realize his state
कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वादि A 1
रेकोऽपहतपाप्मत्वादेिगुणकत्वरूपः सोऽनुसंधेयः, तथानुसंधानभावभावित्वात्1 तत्स्वरूपोपलब्धेः। यथावस्थितस्वरूपब्रह्मानुसंधानभावेिनीं हि ब्रह्मोपलब्धिः तद्वत्; "यथाक्रतुरस्मिन् लोके पुरुषः ' इत्यादिश्रुतेः ॥
अङ्गावबद्धाधिकरणम् २२
अङ्गाववद्धास्तु न शाखासु हेि प्रतिवेदम् ॥ ९३ ॥
उद्गीथादिकत्वङ्गाश्रया उपासना यासु शारवासु श्रूयन्ते, तास्वेव कार्या इतेि 2न ह्यस्ति नेियामकम् । अत उद्भीथानुबन्धित्वात् प्रतिशाखं कार्याः ॥
of virtues comprising the freedom from evils etc., which virtues become manifest themselves when he is released from the bondage of Samsaara (wordly life). His essential nature could be apprehended in future, only if he is in such a meditation here. Indeed the meditation upon the Brahman in His true nature, has for its object the apprehension of the essential nature of the Brahman. Same is the case with the individual self also. The scriptural text is this-' According to the purpose which a person has in this world' (Chand. 111-14-1).
ANGAAVABADDHAADHIKARANA 22
53. Angaavabaddhastu na Saakhaasu hi prativedam
But those meditations, which are connected with the limbs of the sacrifices, are not restricted to particular Saakhaas only; but rather belong to all Saakhaas. The meditations, which are connected with the limbs of the sacrifices, such as, Udgitha, etc., are mentioned in certain Saakhaas. But there is no rule, that they should be restricted to those particular Saakhaas only. They belong to all the Saakhaas, as they are connected with the Udgitha.
1सद्भावभावित्वात् M 1, 3,
2नेहास्ति M 1
मन्त्रादोवद्वाविरोधः ॥ ६४ ॥
वाशब्दोऽवधारणे । यथा क्रत्वङ्गभूतानां मन्त्राणामेकैकशाखागतानामपेि सर्बशाखागतक्रत्वन्वये न विरोधः,1 तद्वदिहापेि ॥
भूमज्यायस्त्वाधिकरणम् २३
भूम्नः कतुवज्ज्यायस्त्वम्; तथाहेि दर्शयति ॥ ५९ ॥
वैश्वानरविद्यायां त्रैलेक्यशरीरतयोपास्यस्य वैश्वानरात्मनः स्वर्लोकादिपृथिव्यन्तानां मूर्घादिपादपर्यन्तावयवत्वमभिधाय " यस्त्वेतमेवं प्रादेशमात्र-
54. Mantraadivadvaavirodhah
Or surely there is no contradiction, as in the case of the Mantras, etc. The word, 'or' is used in the sense of emphasis. The Mantras, that are mentioned in each Saakhaa as being the limbs of the sacrifices, can be applied to all the Saakhaas. Just as there is no contradiction in the case of Mantras, here also there is no contradiction.
BHUMAJYAAYASTVAADHIKARANA 23
55. BhUmnah kratuvajjyaayastvam; tathaahi darS'ayati
There is the pre-eminence in the meditation of the Bhuman {the collective aspect of the Brahman} as in the case of the sacrifices; for, thus the scripture declares. In the Vaisvaanaravidyaa it is stated that there should be the meditation of Him, who has three worlds as His body. All the worlds beginning from the heavens and ending with the earth, constitute His limbs, from the head to the legs etc. The fruit derived from this Vidyda is the enjoyment of the
l क्रत्वन्वगेनाविरोध Pr. 2 मूर्घादिपादान्तानाम् A 1
मभिविमानमात्मानं वैश्वानरमुपास्ते स सर्वेषु लोकेषु" इत्यादिना ब्रह्मानुभवः फलं
चाभिहेितम्। तत्र मूर्धाद्यवयवोपासनात् भूम्नः समस्तोपासनस्य ज्यायस्त्वं प्रामाणिकत्वमस्ति, तत्रैव ब्रह्मानुभवफलाभिधानात् | तत्रावय वोपासनं तत्र तत्र फलकीर्तनं च क्रतावेिव
द्रष्टव्यम् । यथा "वैश्वानरं द्वाशकपालं निर्वपेत्पुत्रे जाते" इत्युक्त्वा "यदष्टाकपालो भवति " इत्यादौ | तथा समस्तोषासनस्यैव श्रैष्ठ्यं दर्शयति श्रुतिः "देिवमेव भगवो राजन्"
इत्यवयवोपासनेऽभिहिते "मूर्धा ते व्यपतिष्यद्यन्मां नागमिष्य:" इत्यादेिनानर्थे ब्रुवती ॥
Brahman as stated in the text, 'He, who meditates upon Him, Immeasurable, the leader of all men (Vais'vanara), as con- nected with these places, eats (enjoys) the food (namely the Brahman) in all the worlds, etc.' (Chand. V -18-1). Here is mentioned the meditation on Him with the aggregate form with the limbs, such as head etc. Suppose there is the meditation on Him with each of the limbs separately. Then there will be only the limited enjoyment. Therefore in order to have unlimited enjoyment, He should be meditated up on in the aggregate form, because this course only is reasonable and the enjoyment on the Brahman has been declared in that case only. But the statement of the fruit on the meditation on tbe limbs separately, is as in the case of the performance of the sacrifices as stated in the text-' When a son is born, one should offer on twelve potsherds to Vais'vanara', and again a separate fruit is stated thus 'There is an offering on eight potsherds,' (Tait. Sam. 11-2-5). The scriptural text points out the greatness of the meditation on the aggregate form of the Brahman. The meditation on the limbs has been mentioned in the text, Oh ! King ! the possessor of the auspicious qualities
(the Bhagavan) , I meditate upon Him as heavens' (Chand.
शब्दादिभेदाधिकरणम् २४
नाना शब्दादिभेदात् ॥ ५६ ॥
सद्विद्याभूमविद्यादीनां ब्रह्मण एकस्यैवोपास्यत्वे तत्प्राप्तेरेव फलत्वेऽप्युपास्यप्रकारभेदाद्विद्याभेद्ः| प्रकारभेदश्च शब्दान्तराद्यनुबन्धभेदादवगभ्यते । पूर्वकाण्डोदितमपि ज्ञानस्याविधेयत्वं ब्रुवतां निरासायेदं पुनरारब्धम् ॥
विकल्पाधिकणम् २५
विकल्पोऽविशिष्टफलत्वात् ॥ ५७ ॥
V -18-1). But it speaks of the evil consequences of that thus, 'Your head wou1d have fallen off, if you had not come to me' (Chand. V-12-2).
S'ABDAADIBHEDADHIKARANA 24
56. Naanaa sabdaadibhedaat
The meditations are different; because they are called by different names etc. In Sadvidyaa, Bhumavidyaa, etc., the Brahman alone is to be meditated upon and the fruit thereof is His attainment alone. But these Vidyaas are different from each other; because the modes of the chief object (Brahman) of meditations are distinct from each other. That the modes are different has been determined by their denotation by different words etc. This topic was once dealt with in the Purvakaanda of the Mimaamsaa with reference to the sacrifices, yet it is dealt with again here to dispel the mistaken idea of certain groups of philosophers namely, that the Vedaanta texts do not enjoin the knowledge (meditation).
VIKALPAADHIKARANA 25
57. Vikalpovisistaphalatvaat
एकस्मिन्नुपासके सर्वासां परवेिद्यानां वेिकल्पः, अपरिच्छिन्नानन्दरूपब्रह्मानुभवफलस्यावेिशिष्टत्वात् ॥
काम्यास्तु यथाकामं सभुञ्चीयेरन्न वा, पूर्वहेत्वभावात् ॥५८॥
ब्रह्मव्यतिरिक्तविद्याफलस्य परीमितत्वात् भूयस्त्वापेक्षया समुञ्चयः संभबतीतेि यथाकामं समुञ्चीथेरन्, विकल्पेरन् वा ॥
यथाश्रयभावाधिकरणम् २६
अङ्गेषु थथाश्रयभावः ॥ ५९ ॥
There is option; on account of there being no difference in fruits. There is option as regards the meditation, that is to be resorted to by the meditators; because there is no difference in the fruits, namely, the experience of the Brahman in the form of Bliss, without least diminution.
58. Kaamyaastu yathaakaamam samucciyeran navaa,
purvahetvabhaavaat
But meditations aiming other objects of desires, may, according to one's desire, be cumulated or not; on account of the absence of the former reason. The meditations on objects other than the Brahman, grant only limited fruits. They are cumulated, as there is the desire to acquire greater fruits. Hence the meditations are either to be cumulated or left to the option of such meditators.
YATHAA5RAYABHAAVAADHIKARANA 26
59. AngeSu yathaaSryabhaavah
They belong to the limbs, as the bases.
"उद्गीथमुपासीत" इत्युद्गीथाद्यङ्गेष्वाश्रितानामुद्गीथादिवत् क्रत्वङ्गभाव एव । गोदोहनादेित् स्ववाक्ये फलाम्तराश्रवणादुद्भीथादिसंबन्धितयां क्रत्वङ्गभावो न विरुध्यत इति |॥
शिष्टेश्च ॥ ६० ॥
"उद्गीथमुपासीत" इति विधेः " यदेव विद्यया करोति "इत्यत्र विध्यभावाच्चाङ्गभावो न विरुद्धः ॥
समाहारात् ॥ ६१ ॥
“ उद्गीथ॒मनुस॒माहरति " इति वेदनहानावन्येन1 समाधानं ब्रुवत् वेदनस्याङ्गतां द्योतयति ॥
'Meditate on the Udgitha' (Chand. 1-1-1). Here the meditations upon the Udgitha etc. that constitute the limbs of the sacrifices, form the part of the sacrifices; because different fruits have not been mentioned in the scriptural text, as in the case of the Godohana (milk-pail). Hence no contradiction arises, in holding the meditations as the parts of the sacrifices as they are connected with the Udgitha, etc.
60. S'isteS'ca
And on account of injunction. Because there is an injunction-' Meditate on the Udgitha (Chand. I-I-I). There is no injunction in the text, 'That which is acquired through meditation' (Chand. l-1.10). Hence no contradiction arises, if they are considered as parts of the sacrifices.
61. Samaahaaraart
On account of the rectification. 'He sets right the Udgitha (Chand. 1.4-5). Here it is
1अन्येन omitted M I, M 2, 3.
गुणसाधारण्यश्रुतेच्च ॥ ६२ ॥
प्रकृतोपासनस्यैव "ओमित्याश्रावयत्योमिति शंसत्योमित्युद्गायति" इति सर्वत्र संचरतः प्रणवस्य गुणत्वेनोपासनस्यापि संचारादुपासनोपादननियमो गम्यते | अतः पूर्वोक्तोपादानानेियमो न संभवतेि ॥
न वा तत्सहभावाश्रुतेः ॥ ६३ ॥
नैतत्, अङ्गभावाश्रुतेः । अङ्गभावो हि सहभावः । "यदेव विद्यया करोति तदेव वीर्यवतरम्" इति फलान्तरसाधनतयावगतस्योपासनस्याङ्ग-
stated that the Udgitha must be rectified by another priest if it is sung without the meditation. Therefore it proves that the meditation is a constituent element of the sacrificial performance.
62. GunasaadhaaranyasruteScha
And on account of there being the scriptural texts, in which the secondary thing is stated to be common in all the cases. 'With Om induces, with Om recites, with Om sings loudly' (Chand. 1-1-9). Thus the Pranava is used in the cases. Therefore the "Upasana" also must continue in all the cases invariably. Therefore it is not proper to hold that there is no necessity to connect the meditation with the sacrifices as state above.
63. Na vaa tatsahabhaavaaSruteh
It is not that; because the text does not declare their going together. This is not so; because there are no texts to show that
they constitute the limbs. Indeed the term 'going-together',means 'being the limbs'. From the following text it is understood that the meditation has a separate fruit--'What
भावासंभवात्; "उद्गीथमुपासीत" इत्युद्गीथाश्रयतामात्रप्रतिपादनात् ॥
दर्शनाच्च ॥ ६४ ॥
"एवंविद्ध वै ब्रह्मा यज्ञं यजमानं सर्वोश्चर्त्विजोऽभिरक्षति" इति ब्रह्मणो वेदनेन सर्वरक्षणं ब्रुवती श्रुतिरुद्गातृप्रभृतीनां वेदनस्यानङ्गतां दर्शयतीत्युपादानानियमः1 सिद्धः ॥
इतेि श्रीभगवद्रामानुजविरचिते वेदान्तसारे
तृतीयस्याध्यायस्य तृतीयः पाद: ॥
he does with the knowledge, that is more powerful' (Chand. 1-1-10). Therefore it cannot be a part. The text, 'Meditate on the Udgitha' (Chaand. 1-1-1) states merely that the meditation should be on Udgitha.
64. DarSanaacca
And because the scripture declares it. 1The Brahman-priest, who knows this, saves the sacrifice, the sacrificer, and all the officiating priests' (Chaand. IV.17-10). This text declares that all are saved through the knowledge of the Brahman-priest and that the knowledge on the part of the priests Udgatr etc. is not auxiliary of the sacrifice. Therefore there is no necessity to connect the meditations with the sacrifices.
THUS ENDS THE 3rd PADA OF THE 3rd ADHYAYA.
1 उपासनोपादानानियम: Pr
)"