Śaṅkaraon Brahma Sūtra 3.3.42

We meet in the Vedanta-texts with certain vidyds which are founded on matters subordinate to sacrificial acts. To this class belongs, e. g. the first vid}4 of the AT/zandogya — Upanishad, ‘ Let a man meditate on the syllable Om as udgitha.’ We now enter on an inquiry whether those vidyas are permanently connected with the acts in the same way as the circumstance of being made of par«a-wood is permanently connected with all sacrifices in which the ^uhu (the sacrificial ladle) is used; or if they are non- permanent like the vessel called godohana The purva- pakshin maintains that the meditations arc permanently connected with the sacrificial acts, because they also arc comprised within the scriptural enouncements concerning performances. For they also do not stand under some special heading and as they are connected with the sacrifice through the udgitha and so on, they combine themselves, like other subordinate members, with the scriptural state- ments as to the performance of the sacrifice. If against the doctrine of the meditations forming per- manent parts of the sacrificial performances it should be urged, that in the chapters containing them special results are mentioned (which seem to constitute the meditations into independent acts), as. e. g. in the passage, ‘he indeed becomes a fulfillcr of desires’ {Kh. Up. I, i, 7); we reply that those statements of results being given in the text in the present form only (not in an injunctional form), are mere ^ The question is raised whether the meditations, enjoined in the Upanisbads, on certain parts or elements of sacrificial acts, are per- — manently connected with the latter, i.e. arc to be undertaken when- ever the sacrificial act is performed, or not. In the former case they would stand to the sacrifice in the same relation as the par/zamayitva, i.e. the quality of being made of par;/a-wood, does. Just as the latter is connected with the sacrifice by means of the — ^j^uhfi the sacrificial — ladle, so the meditation on the syllable Om, —e.g. would be connected with the sacrifice by means of that syllabic. In the latter case, i.e. in the case of being connected with the sacrifice on certain occasions only, the upasana is analogous to the godohana-vessel which is used in the darjapurwamasa-sacrifice instead of the usual X’amasa, only if the sacrifice!* specially wishes for cattle.-~Sce Pfi. Mi. Sfi, III, 6, i ; IV, i, 2 . ® Like the statement about the parwamayitva of the ^jrmhfi which the sacred text does not exhibit under some particular prakara«a, but ex abrupto as it were ; on which account it is to be connected with the sacrifice in general. — arthavada-passages like the statement about him whose — is made of pama-wood hearing no evil sound and — thus do not aim at enjoining certain results. Hence, just — as the statement about being made of par;5?a-wood —which does not occur under a definite prakara;/a connects itself, by means of the sacrificial ladle, with the sacrifice, and thus forms a permanent element of the latter no less than if it were actually made under the heading of the sacrifice ; so the meditations on the udgitha, &c., also form permanent parts of the sacrifices. ‘ There is non- To this we make the following reply. restriction of the assertions concerning them.’ That means : the assertions which the text makes concerning the nature of certain subordinate members of sacrificial acts such as the udgitha and so on —as e. g. that the udgitha is the best of all essences {K/l Up. I, i, 3), the fulfiller of desires — (I, 1, 7), a gratifier of desires (I, i, 8), the chief prd;/a (I, 7), Aditya (I, 3, 1) cannot be permanently connected with the sacrificial acts in the same way as other permanent members are, ‘because that is seen,’ i. e. because scripture shows that they are not so permanently connected. For scripture allows also such as are not acquainted with the details mentioned above to perform the sacrificial actions (cp. the passage I, i, 10, ‘Therefore both he who knows this, and he who does not, perform the sacrifice’), and declares that even those priests, Prastot/7 and so on, who are devoid of the knowledge of the divinities of the prasteiva and the like, do perform the sacrifices • Prastot;'/, if you without knowing the deity which belongs to the prastava are going to sing it,’ &c. (I, TO, 9 and — ff.). The sacred text moreover declares that the vidyAs founded on certain elements of sacrificial acts have results of their own, apart from those acts, viz. ‘ non-obstruction ’ in the accomplishment of the fruit of the sacrifice, i. c. a certain additional success of the sacrifice, cp. the passage I, i, 10, ‘Therefore he who knows this and he who docs not perform the sacrifice. But knowledge and ignorance are separate. The sacrifice which a man performs with knowledge, faith, and the Upanishad is more powerful.’ The declaration made, in this passage — that the performances of him who knows and of him who does not know are separate, and the employment of the comparative form (^more powerful’) show that even the sacrifice destitute of the vidyi is powerful. But how would that be possible if the vidyd formed a permanent necessary part of the sacrifice ? In the latter case a sacrifice devoid of that vidyd could never be admitted to be powerful ; for it is an established principle that only those sacrifices are effective which comprise all subordinate members. Thus the text also teaches definite results for each meditation, in the section treating of the meditation on the Saman as the worlds and others ; ‘ The worlds in an ascending and in a descending line belong to him,* &c. {KJu Up. II, 'i, 3). Nor must we understand those declarations of results to be mere arthavadas ; for in that case they would liave to be taken as stating a secondary matter only, while if under- stood to teach certain results they may be taken in their principal (i. e. direct, literal) sense k The case of the results which scripture declares to be connected with the pray^as e. g. is of a different nature. For the praya^as are en- joined with reference to a sacrifice (viz. the dar.yapur;/amasa) which requires certain definite modes of procedure (such as the offering of the praya^s and the like), and hence sub- serve that sacrifice ; so that the passage stating a fruit for the praya^'-as has to be considered as a mere arthavada-pas- sage 2. In the case again of the quality of consisting of — par;/a-wood which quality is stated cx abrupto, not under — a definite heading no special result can be assumed ; for as a quality is not an act it cannot be connected with any result unless it be joined to something to abide in. The use of the godohana indeed may have its own injunction of ^ The statement as to the result of an action is a ‘statement of a principal matter* if it is really meant to inform us that a certain result will attend a certain action. It is a statement of a ‘secondary matter’ if it is only meant to glorify the action. ^ Not as a passage enjoining a special result for the praya^^'as ; for the latter merely help to bring about the general result of the dar^apfirwamasa and have no special result of their own. — result, for it does possess such an abode viz. the act of — water being carried (in it) with reference to which it is enjoined. So again a special fruit may be enjoined for the case of the sacrificial post being made of bilva-wood ; for this latter quality likewise has an abode, viz. the sacrificial post with reference to which it is enjoined. But in the case of the quality of consisting of par//a-wood there is no such established abode under the heading of which that quality is enjoined ; and if we assumed that the sentence (‘ He whose ^uhii is made of par«a-wood hears no evil sound ’) after intimating that the quality of consisting of panva-wood resides in tbe^uhu is also meant to enjoin the fruit thereof, we should impute to the text the imperfection called ‘ split of the — sentence.’ The meditations on the other hand arc themselves acts, and as such capable of a special injunc- tion ; hence there is no reason why a special result should not be enjoined for those meditations which are based on sacrificial acts. The conclusion therefore is that the medi- tations on the udgitha, &c., although based on sacrifices, are yet not necessary members of the latter, because they have results of their own like the use of the godohana-vessel. For this reason the authors of the Kalpa-sutras have not represented such meditations as belonging to the sacrificial performances.