Śaṅkaraon Brahma Sūtra 3.3.38

The text of the Va^asaneyaka, after having enjoined the knowledge of the True, together with a meditation on the syllables of its name (‘ Whosoever knows this great glorious first-born as the true Brahman,^ &c., Br/. Up. V, 4, i), con- tinues, ^ Now what is the True, that is the Aditya, the person ^ that dwells in yonder orb, and the person in the right eye (V, 5, 2).—The doubt here arises whether the text enjoins two vidyas of the True or one only. Two, the purvapakshin maintains. For the text declares two different results, one in the earlier passage, ‘ He con- quers these \vorlds’ (V, 4, i) ; the other one later on, ‘He destroys evil and leaves it ’ (V, 5, 3). And what our oppo- nent may call a reference to the subject-matter under dis- cussion S is merely due to the circumstance of the object of meditation being the same (in the two vidyas). To this we make the following reply. —There is only one vidyfi of the True, because the clause, ‘That which is the True,’ &c., refers back to that True which is treated — — ^ Viz. the clause in V, 5, 2, ‘That which is the true,* which apparently or really connects the vidya of V, 5 with that of V, 4. 246 vedanta-siOtras. of in V, 4.—But has not the piirvapakshin shown that the clause alluded to can be accounted for even on the sup- position of there being two vidyas ?—The reasoning of the phrvapakshin, we reply, would be admissible only if the separateness of the two vidyds were established by some other clear and undoubted reason ; in our case, how- ever, there is a general possibility of both (viz. of the vidySs being separate or not), and the very circumstance that the mentioned clause contains a back reference to the — True spoken ‘of in V, 4, determines us to conclude that there is only one vidyd of the True. To the remark that there must be two vidyas because the text states two different results, we reply that the statement of a second result merely has the purpose of glorifying the new in- struction given about the True, viz. that its secret names are ahar and aham. Moreover, as in the case under dis- cussion, the fruit of the vidya has really to be supplied from its arthavada part and as there is unity of vidya, all those fruits which the text states in connexion with the single parts of the vidya are to be combined and put in connexion with the vidya taken as a whole.—The con- clusion therefore is that the text records only one vidya of the True, distinguished by such and such details, and that hence all the cpialitics mentioned, such as Truth and so on, are to be comprehended in one act of meditation. Some commentators are of opinion that the above Sutra refers (not to the question whether lin\ Up. V, 4 and V, 5 constitute one vidya but) to the question whether the VA^asaneyaka-passage about the persons in the sun and in the eye, and the similar ^//andogya-passage (I, 6, 6, ‘ Now that golden person who is seen within the sun,’ &c.) form one vidya or not. They conclude that they do so, and that hence truth and the other qualities mentioned in ^ For the vidya contains no explicit statement that a man — desirous of such and such a fruit is to meditate on the True in such and such a way. That in cases where the fruit is not stated in a vidhi-passage it must be supplied from the arthavada-passages, is taught in the Pfl. Mi. Su. IV, 3, eighth adhikarawa. Ill ADHYAvA, 3 PADA, 39. 247 the Vft^saneyaka are to be combined with the ATMn- dogya-text also. — But this interpretation of the Siltra appears objectionable. For the ATAandogya-vidyS. refers to the udgitha and is thus connected with sacrificial acts, marks of which connexion are exhibited in the besjinnincr, the middle, and the end of the vidya. Thus vve 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 udgitha ; ’ and in the end, ‘ He who knowing this sings a Sdman’ {Kh, Up. I, 6, i ; 8 ; I, 7, 7). In the Va^^asaneyaka, on the other hand, there is nothing to connect the vidya with sacrificial acts. As therefore the subject-matter is different, the vidyas are separate and the details of the two are to be held apart.