Śaṅkaraon Brahma Sūtra 3.3.59

The difference of the vidyas having been determined, we now enter on an inquiry whether, according to one’s liking, there should be cumulation of the different vidyas or option between them ; or else restriction to an optional proceed- ing (to the exclusion of cumulation). I'or restriction to cumulation (which might be mentioned as a third alterna- tive) there is no reason, because the separation of the vidyas has been established.— But we observe that in the case of the sacrifices, agnihotra, darjapur;^?amasa and so on, there is restriction to cumulation (i. e. that those sacrifices have all of them to be performed, not optionally one or the other) although they arc different from each other.—True ; but the reason for the obligatory cumulation of those sacrifices lies therein that scripture teaches them to be of absolute obligation. No scriptural passage, on the other hand, teaches the absolute obligatoriness of the vidyels, and it cannot therefore be a rule that they must be cumulated. —Nor can it be a rule that there must be option between them, because a person entitled to one vidya cannot be excluded from another vidyd. It therefore only remains to — — conclude that one may proceed as one likes. But an — objection is raised we must rather conclude that option between them is the rule, because their fruits are non- different. For vidyas such as ‘ He who consists of mind, whose body is ’ ‘ Brahman is Ka, Brahman is Kha;’ pra;/a ; ‘ He whose wishes are true, whose purposes are true,’ have all of them equally the obtaining of the Lord for their fruit. —This does not affect our conclusion ; for we see that it Is allowed to proceed as one likes also with regard to certain sacrificial acts which are the means of obtaining the heavenly world, and thus have all of them the same result. It therefore remains a settled conclusion that in the case of vidyas one may proceed as one likes. To this we reply as follows. There must be option between the vidyds, not cumulation, because they have the — same fruit. For the fruit of all of them is the intuition of the object meditated upon, and when this object, e.g. the Lord, has once been intuited through one meditation a second meditation would be purposeless. It would, more- over, be impossible even to effect an intuition through the cumulation of several meditations, since that would cause distraction of attention. And that the fruit of a vidyd is to be effected through intuition various scriptural passages declare; cp. Klu Up. Ill, H? 4j ‘ He who has this faith and no doubt ; ’ Br/. Up. IV, 1, 3, ‘ Having become a god he goes to the gods,’ and others. Also Smr/ti-passages such as Bha. Gita VIII, 6, and others. — One therefore has to select one of those vidyas the fruit of which is the same, and to remain intent on it until, through the intuition of the object to be meditated upon, the fruit of the vidya is obtained.