Śaṅkaraon Brahma Sūtra 3.3.57

In the legend beginning ‘ Pra/l’inaj‘dla Aupamanyava,’ the text speaks of meditations on Vaijv^nara in his dis- ^ As this passage stales the number of the praya^as (viz. five, which is the number of the seasons) and other secondary points, w^e conclude that the injunclion of the offering of the praya^»‘as, which is given in other Vakhas, is valid also for the .Sakha referred to in the text (the Maitr^yamyas, according to the commentators). ® But only says ‘they offer an animal to Agnishomau.' ® Wherefrom wc infer that not any animal may be offered to Agnishomau, but only a he-goat. —; tributed as well as his aggregate condition. References to him in his distributed state are made in the passage, ‘ Aupamanyava, whom do you meditate on as the Self? He replied : Heaven only, venerable king. He said : The Self which you meditate on is the Vaijvanara Self called Sute^as ; ’ and in the following passages {Kh. Up. V, 12-17). A meditation on him in his aggregate state, on the other hand, is referred to in the passage (V, 18), ‘Of that Vaijvanara Self the head is Sutq^as, the eye Vuva- rupa, the breath Pr/thagvartman, the trunk Bahula, the bladder Rayi, the feet the earth/ &c.—A doubt here arises whether the text intimates a meditation on Vaiwanara in both his forms or only in his aggregate form. The purvapakshin maintains that we have to do with meditations on Vai.fvdnara in his distributed form, firstly because the text exhibits a special verb, viz. ‘ you meditate on,’ with reference to each of the limbs, Sutc^as and so on and secondly because the text states special fruits (con- nected with each special meditation) in the passage, ‘Therefore every kind of Soma libation is seen in your house/ and the later similar passages. We must sup- To this we make the following reply. pose that the entire section aims at intimating ‘ the pre- eminence/ i.e. at intimating as its pre-eminent subject, a meditation on ‘ plenitude,’ i. e. on Vaijrvanara in his aggre- gate state, who comprises within himself a plurality of things ; not a number of special meditations on the limbs of Vai.yvanara. ‘ As in the case of sacrifices.* In the same way as the Vedic texts referring to sacrifices such as the darjapiir;/amdsa aim at enjoining the performance of the entire sacrifice only, i. c. of the chief sacrificial action to- gether with its members—and not in addition the perform- ance of single subordinate members such as the praya^as, nor again the performance of the chief action together with some of its subordinate members; so it is here also. But whence do you know that ‘plenitude’ is the pre- eminent topic of the passage?—It is shown by scripture, we reply, since we apprehend that the entire section forms a connected whole. For on examining the connexion of — 276 vedAnta-s<)tras. the parts we find that the entire section has for its subject the knowledge of Vaiivdnara. The text at first informs us that six — ^fshis PrAXnnaj^la, &c., up to Udddlaka being unable to reach a firm foundation in the knowledge of VaOTfmara, went to the king Ajrvapati Kaikeya ; goes on to mention the object of each Z^^shi s meditation, viz. the sky and so on ; determines that the sky and so on are only the head and so on of Vai.yv^nara — in the passage ‘ he said : that is but the head of the Self,” and the later similar passages ;— and thereupon rejects all meditations on VabvAnara in his distributed form, in the passage, ^Your head would have fallen if you had not come to me,* and so on. Finally having discarded all distributed meditation it turns to the meditation on the aggregate Vai.yvanara and declares that all results rest on him only, ‘ he eats food in all worlds, in all beings, in all — Selfs.* That the text mentions special fruits for the special meditations on Sutc^as and so on we have, in accordance with our view, to explain as meaning that the results of the subordinate meditations are to be connected in their aggregate with — the principal meditation. And that the text exhibits a special verb ‘ you do meditate ’— in connexion with each member is not meant to enjoin special meditations on those members, but merely to make additional remarks about something which has another purpose (i. e. about the medi- tation on the aggregate — Vai.yvanara). For all these reasons the view according to which the text enjoins a meditation on the aggregate Vaijvfinara only is preferable. Some commentators here establish the conclusion that the meditation on the aggregate Vauvanara is the prefer- able alternative, but assume, on the ground of the Sutra employing the term ‘ pre-eminence * only, that the Sutra- kara allows also the alternative of distributed meditation. But this is inadmissible, since it is improper to assume a ‘split of the sentence* (i.e. to ascribe to a passage a double meaning), as long as the passage may be under- stood as having one meaning only. Their interpretation, moreover, contradicts those passages which expressly blame distributed meditations; such as ‘Thy head would have 1 fallen.' And as the conclusion of the section clearly in- timates a meditation on the aggregate Vauvfinara, the negation of such meditation could not be maintained as pOrvapaksha The term ‘ pre-eminence ' which the Sutra employs may moreover be explained as meaning (not mere preferability, but exclusive) authoritativencss.