Śaṅkaraon Brahma Sūtra 3.3.6

We read in the V^^asaneyaka I, 3, i, ‘The Devas said, well, let us overcome the Asuras at the sacrifices by means of the Udgltha. They said to speech : Do thou sing out for us. —Yes, said speech,' &c. The text thereupon relates how speech and the other prdwas were pierced by the Asuras with evil, and therefore unable to effect what was expected from them, and how in the end recourse was had to the — — chief vital air, ‘ Then they said to the breath in the mouth : Do thou sing for us. Yes, said the breath, and sang.' similar story is met with in the iSTMndogya I, 2. There we read at first that ‘ the devas took the udgitha, thinking they ; would vanquish the Asuras with it the text then relates how the other pra;/as were pierced with evil and thus foiled by the Asuras, and how the Devas in the end had recourse — to the chief vital air, ‘ Then comes this chief vital air ; on that they meditated as udgitha.’ As both these passages glorify the chief vital air, it follows that they both are in- junctions of a meditation on the vital air. A doubt, how- ever, arises whether the two vidyas are separate vidyds or one vidyi only. Here the pfirvapakshin maintains that for the reasons specified in the first adhikarawa of the present pdda the two * The Pfirva Mimawsa teaches that all subordinate things which the Veda prescribes for some typical sacrifice are eo ipso prescribed for the modified forms of the sacrifice also. ; vidyfts have to be considered as — one. But, an objection is raised, there is a difference of procedure which contradicts the assumption of unity. The Va^asaneyins represent the chief vital air as the producer of the udgitha (‘ Do thou sing out for us’), while the AV/andogas speak of it as itself being the udgitha (‘on that they meditated as udgitha’). How — can this divergence be reconciled with the assumption of the unity of the vidyAs ? ^The difference pointed out, the pQrva- pakshin replies, is not important enough to bring about a separation of the two vidyds, since we observe that the two both agree in a plurality of points. Both texts rebate that the Devas and the Asuras were fighting both at first glorify speech and the other pra«as in their reflation to the udgitha. and thereupon, finding fault with them, pass on to the chief vital air ; both tell how through the strength of the latter the Asuras w^ere scattered as a ball of earth is scattered when hitting a solid stone. And, moreover, the text of the V^^asarieyaka also co- ordinates the chief vital air and the udgitha in the clause, ‘He is udgitha’ (Bri Up. I, 3, We therefore have to assume that in the AT/dndogya also the chief pr&;/a has secondarily to be looked upon as the producer of the udgitha. —The two texts thus constitute one vidya only,