The Vedânta-Sûtras with the Commentary of Râmânuja, Part III — SBE Vol. 48 (trans. George Thibaut, 1904)

— This view is set aside by the Sutra, ( What is understood from all the Vedanta-texts ' is one and the same meditation, 'because there is non-difference of injunction and the rest.' By injunction is meant the

63O VEDANTA-stixRAS.

injunction of special activities denoted by different verbal roots — such as upasita'he should meditate/ vidyat 'he should know/ The ' and the rest ' of the Sutra is meant to comprise as additional reasons the circumstances mentioned in the Purva Mima^sa-sutras (II, 4, 9). Owing to all these circumstances, non-difference of injunction and the rest, the same vidya, is recognised in other .rakhas also. In the jOandogya (V, 1 2, 3) as well as in the Va^asaneyaka we meet with one and the same injunction (viz. ' He should meditate on Vaisvanara '). The form (character, r up a) of the meditations also is the same, for the form of a cognition solely depends on its object ; and the object is in both cases the same, viz. VaLsvanara. The name of the two vidyas also is the same, viz. the knowledge of Vaiivanara. And both vidyas are declared to have the same result, viz. attaining to Brahman. All these reasons establish the identity of vidyas even in different ^akhas. — The next Sutra refers to the reasons set forth for his view by the Purvapakshin and refutes them.

2. If it be said (that the vidyas are not one) on account of difference, we deny this, since even in one (vidyd there may be repetition).

If it be said that there is no oneness of vidya, because the fact of the same matter being stated again without difference, and being met with in a different chapter, proves the object of injunction to be different ; we reply that even in one and the same vidya some matter may be repeated without any change, and under a new heading (in a different chapter) ; if, namely, there is difference of cognising subjects. Where the cognising person is one only, repetition of the same matter under a new heading can only be explained as meaning difference of object enjoined, and hence separation of the two vidyas. But where the cognising persons are different (and this of course is eminently so in the case of different j-akhas), the double statement of one and the same matter explains itself as subserving the cognition of those different persons, and hence does not imply difference of matter enjoined. — The next SutraIll ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 4. 63 1 refutes the argument founded on a rite enjoined in the Mundaka.

3. For (the sirovrata) concerns the mode of the study of the Veda ; also on account of (that rite) being a heading in the sama/^ara ; and the restriction is like that of the libations.

— The next SutraIll ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 4. 63 1 refutes the argument founded on a rite enjoined in the Mundaka.

3. For (the sirovrata) concerns the mode of the study of the Veda ; also on account of (that rite) being a heading in the sama/^ara ; and the restriction is like that of the libations.

What the text says as to a restriction connected with the ' vow of the head,' does not intimate a difference of vidyas. For that vow does not form part of the vidya. The restriction refers only to a peculiarity of the study of the Veda on the part of the Atharvamkas, being meant to establish that they should possess that special qualification which the rite produces ; but it does not affect the vidya itself. This is proved by the subsequent clause, * a man who has not performed that rite may not read the text/ which directly connects the rite with the studying of the text. And it is further proved by the fact that in the book of the Atharvamkas, called 'sama^ara/ that rite is referred to as a rite connected with the Veda (not with the special vidya set forth in the Mxxndsks), viz. in the passage, ' this is explained already by the Veda-observance ' (which extends the details of the ^irovrata, there called veda-vrata, to other observances). By the knotvledge of Brahman (referred to in the Mu^aka-text Met a man tell this science of Brahman to those only,' &c), we have therefore to understand knowledge of the Veda in general. And that restriction is ' like that of the libations ' — i. e. it is analogous to the restriction under which the sava-libations, beginning with the Saptasurya-libation, and terminating with the 5ataudana-libation, are offered in the one fire which is used by the followers of the Atharvan, and not in the ordinary three fires.

4. Scripture also declares this.

Scripture also shows that (identical) meditation is what all the Vedanta-texts intimate. The AV/andogya (VIII, 1, 1 ff.) declares that that which is within the small space in the heart is to be enquired into, and then in reply to thep. 632 question what the thing to be enquired into is, says that it is the highest Self possessing the eight attributes, freedom from all evil and the rest, which is to be meditated upon within the heart. And then the Taittiriya-text, referring to this declaration in the iTMndogya, says, ' Therein is a small space, free from all grief; what is within that is to be meditated upon ' (Mahanar. Up. X, 23), and thus likewise enjoins meditation on the highest Self possessing the eight qualities. And this is possible only if, owing to unity of vidya, the qualities mentioned in the first text are included also in the meditation enjoined in the second text. — Having thus established the unity of meditations, the Sutras proceed to state the practical effect of such unity.

5. (Meditation) thus being equal, there is combination (of gu^as) ; on account of non-difference of purport in the case of what subserves injunction.

—
Having thus established the unity of meditations, the
Sutras proceed to state the practical effect of such unity.

5. (Meditation) thus being equal, there is combination (of gu^as) ; on account of non-difference of purport in the case of what subserves injunction.

The meditation in all Vedanta-texts thus being the same, the qualities mentioned in one text are to be combined with those mentioned in another ; ' on account of non-difference of purport in the case of what subserves injunction.' We find that in connexion with certain injunctions of meditation — such as the meditation on VaLsvanara, or the small ether within the heart — the text of some individual Vedanta-book mentions certain secondary matters (qualities, guna) which subserve that meditation ; and as these gu;zas are connected with the meditation they are to be comprised in it, so that they may accomplish their aim, i. e. of subserving the meditation. For the same reason therefore we have to enclose in the meditation gu/zas mentioned in other Vedanta-texts ; for being also connected with the meditation they subserve it in the same way. — Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' what is intimated by all Vedanta-texts.

6. If it be said that there is difference on account of the text ; we say no ; on account of non-difference.

So far it has been shown that the non-difference of in-

Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 6. 633