Śaṅkaraon Brahma Sūtra 3.3.9

In the passage, ‘Let a man meditate on the syllable Om (as) the udgitha,’ the two words ‘ omkdra ' and ‘ udgitha * are placed in co-ordination^. The question then arises whether the relation in which the ideas conveyed by these two words stand to each other is the relation of super- imposition (adhydsa) or sublation (apavdda) or unity — (ekatva) or specification (vijeshawa) ; for prima facie each of these relations may present itself to the mind. Adhyasa takes place when the idea of one of two things not being dismissed from the mind, the idea of the second thing is superimposed on that of the first thing ; so that together with the superimposed idea the former idea remains attached to the thing on which the second idea is super- imposed. When e.g. the idea of (the entity) Brahman superimposes itself upon the idea of the name, the latter idea continues in the mind and is not driven out by the former. A similar instance is furnished by the superimposition of the idea of the god Vish;/u on a statue of Vish;/u. So, in the case under discussion also, the idea of the udgitha may be superimposed on the omkara or the idea of the omkdra on the udgitha.—We, in the second place, have apavada when an idea previously attached to some object is recognised as false and driven out by the true idea springing up after the false one. So e.g. when the false idea of the body, the senses, and so on being the — Self is driven out by the true idea springing up later and — expressed by judgments such as ‘Thou art that’ that the idea of the Self is to be attached to the Self only. Or, to quote another example, when a previous mistaken notion as to the direction of the points of the compass is replaced by the true notion. So here also the idea of the udgitha may drive out the idea of the omkara or vice versa.—The relation would, in the third place, be that of ‘unity ’ if the terms ‘ omkara ’ and ‘ udgitha ’ were co-extensive in mean- ing ; just as the terms, ‘ the Best of the Twice-born,’ ‘ the Brahma;/a,’ ‘ the god among men,’ all denote an individual of the noblest caste.—The relation will, finally, be that of specification if, there being a possibility of our understand- ing the omkfira in so far as co-extensive with all the Vedas, the term ‘ udgitha’ calls up the idea of the sphere of action of the udgktrL The passage would then mean, ‘Let a man meditate on that omkara which is the udgitha,* and would be analogous to an injunction such as ‘ Let him bring that lotus-flower which is blue.* All these alterations present themselves to the mind, and as there is no reason for deciding in favour of any one, the question must remain an unsettled one. To this pflrvapaksha-view the Sfltra replies, ‘And on account of extending over the whole, it is appropriate.* The word ‘ and * stands here in place of ‘ but,* and is meant to discard the three other alternatives. Three out of the four alternatives are to be set aside as objectionable ; the fourth, against which nothing can be urged, is to be adopted.—The objections lying against the first three alternatives are as follows. In the case of adhyasa we should have to admit that the word which expresses the idea superimposed is not to be taken in its direct sense, but in an implied sense ^ ; and we should moreover have to imagine some fruit for a meditation of that kind Nor can it be said that we need not imagine such a fruit, as scripture itself mentions it in the passage, ‘He becomes indeed a fulfiller of desires * (I, i, 7) > passage indicates the fruit, not of the ideal superimposition of the — udgitha on the omkdra, but of the meditation in which the omkara is viewed as the fulfilment of desires. Against the hypothesis of an apavada there likewise lies the objection that no fruit is to be seen. The cessation of wrong know- ledge can certainly not be alleged as such ; for we see no reason why the cessation of the idea that the omkara is udgitha and not omkara or vice versii should be bene- ficial to man. Sublation of the one idea by the other is moreover not even possible in our case; for to the omkara the idea of the omkdra remains always attached, and so to the udgitha the idea of the udgitha.' The passage, moreover, does not aim at teaching the true nature of something, but at enjoining a meditation of a certain kind.—The hypothesis of unity again is precluded ^ by the consideration that as in that case one term would suffice to convey the intended meaning, the employment of two terms would be purposeless. And moreover the term ‘udgitha’ is never used to denote the omk^ra in its connexion with the J?/g-veda and Ya^ur-veda ; nor is the word ‘omkira’ used to denote that entire second sub- division of a sdman which is denoted by the word ‘ udgitha.* Hence it cannot be said that we have to do with different words only denoting one and the same — thing. There thus remains the fourth alternative, ^On account of its compris- ing all the Vedas.* That means : In order that the omkara may not be understood here as that one which comprises all the Veda.s, it is specified by means of the word ‘ udgitha,* in order that that omkdra which constitutes a part of the udgitha may be apprehended.—But docs not this inter- pretation also involve the admission of implication, as according to it the word ‘ udgitha ’ denotes not the whole udgitha but only a part of it, viz. the omkara?—True, but we have to distinguish those cases in which the implied meaning is not far remote from the direct meaning and those in which it is remote. If, in the present case, we embrace the alternative of adhy&sa, we have to assume an altogether remote implication, the idea of one matter being superimposed on the idea of an altogether different matter. If, on the other hand, w^e adopt the alternative of specification, the implication connected there- with is an easy one, the word which in its direct sense denotes the whole being understood to denote the part. And that words denoting the whole do duty for words denoting the part is a matter of common occurrence ; the words ‘cloth,* ‘village,’ and many others are used in this fashion — For all these reasons we declare that the appro- priate view of the i^/zandogya-passage is to take the word ‘ udgitha* as specialising the term ‘ omkdra.