Śaṅkaraon Brahma Sūtra 3.3.10

In the colloquy of the pra/^as recorded by the Vc\fasane- yins and the iif/jandogas the pra«a, endowed with various qualities such as being the best and so on, is represented as the object of meditation, and various qualities such as being the richest and the like are ascribed to speech and the other organs. And these latter qualities are in the end attributed to the praA/a also, ‘ If I am the richest thou art the richest,’ &c. Now in other 5akhiis also, as e.g. that of the Kaushi- takins, the former set of qualities such as being the best and so on is ascribed to the pra;/a (cp. Kau. Up. II, 14, ‘Now follows the Ni//.frcyasddana,’ &c.), but at the same time the latter set of attributes, viz. being the richest and so on, is not mentioned.—The question then is whether those quali- ties which arc mentioned in some places only are, for the purposes of meditation, to be inserted there also where nothing is said about them. They are not so to be inserted, the purvapakshin main- tains, on account of the employment of the word ‘ thus.* In the Kaushitakin-text we meet with the clause, ‘ He who knows thus, having recognised the pre-eminence in prawa.’ Now the word ‘thus’ which here indicates the object of knowledge always refers to something mentioned not far off, and cannot therefore denote a set of qualities mentioned in other 5akhas only. We therefore maintain that each of the colloquies of the pra;/as must be considered complete with the qualities stated in itself. To this we make the following reply. The qualities mentioned in one text are to be inserted in the other cor- responding texts also, ‘ Since on the whole they are non- different,* i.e. because the prana-vidyas are recognised to be the same in all essential points. And if they are the same, under discussion as follows, ‘ Let a man meditate on the syllable Cm which is (i.e. which is a part of) the udgitha.’ — why should the qualities stated in one not be inserted in the others also ?— But how about the objection founded by the pfirvapakshin on the employment of the word ‘ thus ? ’ Although it is true, we reply, that the word ‘ thus ’ in the Kaushitakin-brahma;^a does not denote the set of qualities mentioned in the Va^asancyin-brahmawa, yet that set of qualities is denoted by the ‘thus' met with in the Va^- saneyin-brahmawa, while the vidyd is, as proved by us, one and the same ; hence no difference has to be made between qualities mentioned in one’s own .Sdkha and qualities men- tioned in another 5'dkhd, as long as the vidyd is one and the same. Nor does this by any means imply a disregard of the text of scripture, and the assumption of things not warranted by the text. The qualities declared in one 5Akhji are valid for all scripture as long as the thing to which the qualities belong is the same. Devadatta, who in his own country is known to possess valour and certain other qualities, docs not lose those qualities by going to a foreign land, although the inhabitants of that land may know nothing about them. And through better acquaintance his qualities will become manifest to the people of the foreign country also. Similarly the qualities stated in one 5akhd may, through special application, be inserted in another ^akhd.— Hence the attri- butes belonging to one and the same subject have to be combined wherever that subject is referred to, although they may be expres.sly stated in one place only.