Śaṅkaraon Brahma Sūtra 3.3.7

Setting aside the view maintained by the purvapakshin, we have rather to say that, owing to the difference of sub- ject-matter, the two vidy4s are — separate. In the A"//andogya the introductory sentence (I, i, i), ‘ Let a man meditate on the syllable Om (as) the udgitha,’ represents as the object of meditation the syllable Om which is a part of the udgitha ; thereupon proceeds to give an account of its qualities such as being the inmost essence of all (‘ The full account, however, of Om is this,* &c.) ; and later on tells, with reference to the same syllable Om which is a part of the udgitha, a story about the Gods and Asuras in which there occurs the statement, ‘ They meditated on the udgitha as that breath If now we should assume ^ that the term * udgitha ’ denotes here the whole act of worship (not only the syllable Om which is a part of the udgitha), and that (in the passage, ‘they meditated on the udgitha as that breath’) the performer of that worship, i.e. the Udg^tr/- priest, is said to be meditated upon as breath ; our inter-: pretation would be open to two objections : in the first place it would be opposed to the introductory sentence (which directly declares the syllable Om to be the object of devotion) ; and in the second place it would oblige us to take the word udgitha (in ‘ they meditated on the ud- githa ’), not in its direct sense, but as denoting by impli- cation the udgatn. But the rule is that in one and the same connected passage the interpretation of later pas- sages has to adapt itself to the earlier passages. We therefore conclude the passage last quoted to teach that — the syllable Om which is a part of the udgitha is to be meditated upon as prawa. In the Va^asaneyaka on the other hand there is no reason for taking the word udgitha to denote a part of the udgitha only, and we therefore must interpret it to denote the whole; and in the passage, ‘Do thou sing out for us,’ the performer of the worship, i.e. the Udgdtr/-priest, is described as prawa. In reply to the purvapakshin s remark that in the V^j^asa- neyaka also the udgitha and the pra«a occur in co-ordi- nation (in the passage, ‘ He is udgitha ’), we point out that that statement merely aims at showing that the Self of all is that pra;/a which the text \vishes to represent as udgatr/. The .statement, therefore, does not imply the unity of the two vidyas.' Moreover, there also the term udgitha denotes the whole act of worship (while in the Kk^ndogy^i it denotes the omkara only). Nor must it be said that the prdwa can ’ From which it appears that the A'/^andogya enjoins throughout a meditation on the syllable Om which is only a part of the udgitha ; while the object of meditation enjoined in the Br/had- Sra«yaka is the whole udgitha. ® Viz. for the purpose of making out that the object of medita- tion is the same in the AV^andogya and the Bnhad-arawyaka. : ; impossibly be an udgkirz, and that on that account our inter- pretation of the Br/had-Ara^/yaka passage is erroneous ; for with a view to pious meditation scripture may represent the pra//a as nAgktri as well as udgitha. And, moreover, the Udgcltn actually performs his work by the strength of his breath ; hence the pr&;/a may be called udgatr/. In — accordance with this the text says (I, 3, 2,4), ‘He sang it indeed as speech and breath.’ And if we understand that the text clearly intends to convey a difference of matter we have no right to conclude from merely apparent similarities of expression that only one matter is intended to be ex- pressed. To quote an analogous instance from the karma- kkm/a In the section relative to the unexpected rising of the moon during the dar^a-sacrificc, as well as in the section about the offering to be made by him who is desirous of cattle, we meet with identical injunctions such as the follow-^ ing one, ‘ He is to divide the grains into three portions, and to make those of medium size into a cake offered on eight potsherds to Agni the Giver,’ &c. ; nevertheless it follows from the difference of the introductory passages of the two sections that the offerings to be made on account of the moon’s rising are indeed not connected with the divinities of the dar.ya-sacrifice (but do not constitute a new sacrifice separate from the darj’a), while the section about him who is desirous of cattle enjoins a separate sacrificial performance —Analogously a difference in the nature of the introductory clauses effects a difference of the vidyas, ‘ As in the case of that which is greater than great.’ That means: Just as the meditation on the udgitha enjoined in the passage, ‘ Ether is greater than these, ether is their rest he is indeed the udgitha, greater than great, he is without end’ (jftT/f.Up. 1,9, i), and the other meditation on the ud- githa as possessing the qualities of abiding within the eye and the sun, &:c. {K/i, Up. I, 6), are separate meditations, although in both the udgitha is identified with the highest Self; so it is with vidyds in general. The special features of different vidyas are not to be combined even when the vidyis belong to one and the same 54kha ; much less then when they belong to different 5dkhds.