Śaṅkaraon Brahma Sūtra 3.3.43

The section of the Va^saneyaka which begins, ‘Voice held, I shall speak’ (Bri. Up. I, 5, zi), determines Pra;/a to be the best among the organs of the body, viz, speech and so on, and Vayu to be the best among the Devas, viz. Agni and so on. —Similarly in the AV/andogya, Vayu is affirmed to be the general absorber of the Devas, ‘ Vfiyu in- deed is the absorber ’ (IV, 3, 1), while Pra/^a is said to be the general absorber of the organs of the body, ‘ Breath indeed is the absorber’ (IV, 3, 3).—The doubt here arises whether V^yu and Pra;/a are to be conceived as separate or not. As non-separate, the purvapaksliin maintains ; because in their true nature they do not differ. And as their true nature does not differ they niust not be meditated upon separately. Another scriptural passage also declares that the organs of the body and the divinities are non-different in their true nature, ‘ Agni having become speech entered the mouth,* &c. (Ait. Ar. II, 4, 2, 4). Moreover, the passage Bri. Up. I, 5, 13, ‘ These are all alike, all endless,’ declares that the powers of the Devas constitute the Self of the organs of the body. And various other passages also testify to the fundamental non-difference of the two. In some places w^e have even a direct identification of the two, ‘What Pra«a is, that is Vdyu.* And in the ^ioka concluding the Va^asaneyaka-chapter to w^hich the passage under discussion belongs, the text refers to pra;/a only (‘ lie verily rises from the breath and sets in the breath *), and thus shows the breath to be one with the previously men- tioned Vciyu. This conclusion is moreover confirmed by the fact that the observance enjoined in the end refers to pra;/a only, ‘Therefore let a man perform one observance only, let him breathe up and let him breathe down* (Br/. Up. I, 5, 23). Similarly, the 7v7/dndogya- passage, IV, 3, 6, ‘ One god swallowed the four great ones,* intimates that there is one absorber only, and docs not say that one god is the absorber of the one set of four, and another the absorber of the other set of four. —From all this it follow\s that Vayu and Pril;/a are to be conceived as one. To this we make the following reply. Vayu and Pra;/a are to be conceived separately, because the text teaches them in separation. The separate instruction given by the text with reference to the organs and the Devas for the purposes of meditation would be meaningless if the medi- tations were not held apart.— But the purvapakshin main- — tains that owing to the essential non-difference of Vayu and Prawa the meditations are not to be separated ! Although, we reply, there may be non-difference of true nature, yet there may be difference of condition giving rise to dif- ference of instruction, and, through the latter, to difference of meditation. And although the introduction of the con- cluding jloka may be accounted for on the ground of its [38J S 258 vkdAnta-s6tras. showing the fundamental non-difference of the two, it yet has no power to sublate the previously declared dif- ference of the objects of meditation. Moreover, the text institutes a comparison between Vdyu and Pra/^a, which again shows that the two are different, ‘And as it was with — the central breath among the breaths, so it was with VAyu, the wind among those deities’ (Br/. Up. I, 5, zz). This explains also the mention made of the observance (1, 5, 23), The word ‘only ’ (in ‘Let a man perform one observance only ’) has the purpose of establishing the observance with regard to Pra;^a, by sublating the observances with regard to speech and so on, regarding which the text had re- marked previously that they were disturbed by Death (‘ Death having become weariness took them ’), and does not by any means aim at sublating the observance with regard to Vayu ; for the section beginning ‘ Next follows the consideration of the observances’ distinctly asserts that the observances of Vayu and Pra;/a were equally unbroken.—Moreover, the text, after having said, ‘ Let a man perform one observance only,* declares in the end that the fruit of that observance is the obtaining of (union with) Vayu (‘ Then he obtains through it union and one- ness with that deity ^), and thus shows that the observance with regard to Vayu is not to be considered as sublated. That by that ‘ deity ’ we have to understand Vayu, we conclude from the circumstance that what the worshipper wishes to obtain is non-limitation of his Self^, and that previously the term ‘deity’ had been applied to Vayu, ‘Vayu is the deity that never sets.’ — Analogously in the AT/zandogya-passage the text represents Vayu and Prdwa as different, ‘ These arc the two absorbers, Viiyu among the Devas, Pra//a among the pranas,* and in the concluding para- — graph also (IV, 3, 8) refers to them as distinct, ‘ These five and the other five make ten, and that is the Kr/ta./ For these reasons Vdyu and Pra;^a are to be conceived as different. The Sfitra compares the case under discussion to a ^ Agnyadin apekshydnava^y^^ino devo vayus te tu tenaivdva- ^Minnd iti sa;;2vargagu«o vayur anava^X’^inna devata. An. Gi. Ill ADTIyAyA, 3 PADA, 44. 259 parallel one from the karmaka;/^a, by means of the clause, ‘ as in the case of the offerings.* With regard to the ish/i comprising three sacrificial cakes, which is enjoined in the passage, Taitt. Samh. II, 3, 6, ‘A purorfa.ya on eleven potsherds to Indra the ruler, to Indra the over-ruler, to Indra the self-ruler,* it might be supposed that the three cakes are to be offered together because they are offered to one and the same Indra, and because the concluding sentence says, ‘ conveying to all (gods) he cuts off to pre- clude purposelessness.* But as the attributes (viz. ‘ruler’ and so on) differ, and as scripture enjoins that the ya^fi and anuvakyamantras are to exchange places with regard to the different cakes the divinity is each time a different one according to the address, and from this it follows that the three offerings also are — separate. Thus, in the case under discussion, Vayu and Pra;/a, although fundamentally non-different, arc to be held apart as objects of meditation, — and we have therefore to do with two separate medita- tions. This is explained in the Sankarsha-k^;?^/a, ‘The divinities are sepanite on account of their being cognized thus.’ But while in the case of the three puro^a.ras the dif- ference of material and divinity involves a difference on the part of the oblations, we have in the case under discussion to do with one vidya only ; for that the text enjoins one vidya only we conclude from the introductory and con- cluding statements. There is contained, however, in this one vidya a double meditative activity with regard to the bodily organs and the divinities, just as the agnihotra which is offered in the morning as well as in the evening requires a double activity. In this sense the Sutra says, ‘as in the case of the offerings,’