Śaṅkaraon Brahma Sūtra 3.3.25

At the beginning of an Upanishad of the Atharva;dkas the following mantra is recorded, ‘ Pierce him (the enemy) whole, pierce his heart : crush his veins, crush his head thrice crushed,’ &c. At the beginning of the Upanishad of the Ta;/^/ins we have the mantra, ^ O God Savitar, pro- duce the sacrifice.’ At the beginning of that of the 5ai^a- yanins, ‘ Thou hast a white horse and art green as grass,’ &c.; at the beginning of that of the Kat/ias and theTaitti- riyakas, ‘ May Mitra be propitious to us and Varu;^a,’ &c. At the beginning of the Upanishad of the Vii^saneyins we have a Brahma;/a-passage about the pravargya-ceremony, ‘ The gods indeed sat down to a sattra ; ’ and at the begin- ning of that of the Kaushitakins there is a Brahma;/a-pas.sage about the agnishroma, ‘Brahman indeed is the Agnish^oma, Brahman is that day ; through Brahman they pass into Brahman, immortality those reach who observe that day.* The point to be inquired into with reference to all these mantras and the sacrifices referred to in the Brahmawa-pas- sages is whether they are to be combined with the vidyas (contained in the Upanishads) or not. The purvapakshin maintains that they are so to be combined, because the text exhibits them in proximity to the Upanishad-portions of the Bnllima/zas whose chief contents are formed by the vidyas.— But we do not observe those mantras and sacrifices to be actually enjoined as sub- ordinate members of the vidyas —! True, but in spite of this we, on the ground of proximity, infer them to be connected with the vidyas. For we have no right to set aside the fact of proximity as irrelevant as long as an inference can be established on it. —But we arc unable to see that the mantras have anything to do with the vidyas, and how can it be assumed that ccrcmonicS; such as the pravargya which scripture enjoins with reference to other occasions, sacrifices, and so on, .stand in any relation to the vidyas !—Never mind, the pfirvapakshin replies. In the case of mantras we can always imagine some meaning which connects them with the vidyas; the first mantra quoted, e. g. may be viewed as glorifying the heart. For the heart and other parts of the body are often represented, in the vidyas, as abodes of meditation, and hence mantras glorifying the heart, &c., may appropriately form subordinate members of those vidyas. Some mantras, moreover, we clearly sec to be enjoined with reference to vidyas, so, e.g. the mantra, ‘I turn to Bhu// with such and such* (A7/. Up. Ill, 15, 3). Sacrificial acts again may indeed be enjoined in connexion with other occasions ; yet there is no reason why they should not also be applied to the vidyds, just as the offering called Bnhaspatisava is a subordinate part of the V^^apeya-sacrifice. To this we make the following reply. The mantras and ceremonies mentioned cannot be drawn into connexion with the vidyds, ‘ because their matter, such as piercing the heart, &c., is different (from the matter of the vidyas),’ and therefore cannot be connected with the — latter. But has it not been said above that the mantras may be connected with the meditations enjoined in the vidyas, on the ground of their coming of use in meditations on the heart, &c. ? The mantras, we reply, might be so employed, if their entire contents were glorification of the heart, and the like but this is by no means the case. The mantra first quoted, c.g. clearly expresses hostility to somebody, and is there- fore to be connected, not with the vidyas of the Upanishads, but with some ceremony meant to hurt an enemy. The mantra of the Ta//^ins again, ‘ O God Savitar, produce the sacrifice,’ indicates by its very words that it is connected with some sacrifice; with what particular sacrifice it is connected has to be established by other means of proof. Similarly other mantras — also which, either by ‘ indica- tion’ (linga), or ‘syntactical connexion* (vakya), or some other means of proof, are shown to be subordinate to certain sacrificial — actions cannot, because they occur in the Upanishads also, be connected with the vidyas on the ground of mere proximity. For that ‘ proximity,* as a means of proof regarding the connexion of subordinate matters with principal matters, is weaker than direct enun- ciation (.SVuti), and so on, is demonstrated in the former science (i.c. in the Purva Mima;;^sa) under III, 3, 14. Of sacrificial works also, such as the pravargya, which are pri- marily enjoined with reference to other occasions, it cannot be demonstrated that they are supplementary to vidyas with which they have nothing in common. The case of the Brdiaspatisava, quoted by the purvapakshin, is of an altogether different kind, as there we have an injunction' clearly showing that that oblation is a .subordinate member of the Va^apeya, viz. ‘ Having offered the Vagapeya he offers the Br/haspatisava.’ And, moreover, if the one pravargya-ceremony has once been enjoined for a definite purpose by a means of proof of superior strength, we must not, on the strength of an inferior means of proof, assume it to be enjoined for some different purpose. A proceeding of that kind would be possible only if the difference of the means of proof were not apprehended ; but in our case this latter possibility is excluded since the relative strength and weakness of the various means of proof is fully appre- hended (on the ground of the conclusions arrived at in the Piirva Mima/«sa).—For these reasons the mentioned man- tras and acts are not, on the ground of mere textual collo- cation, to be viewed as supplementary to the vidyas of the Upanishads. To account for the fact of their textual colloca- tion with the latterwe must keep in viewthat the mantras, &c. as well as the vidyas have to be studied, &c. in the woods.