Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1— 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-dif- ference. So far it has been shown that the non-difference of in- Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 6. 633 junction, and so on, establishes the unity of meditations, and that owing to the latter the special features of medita- tion enjoined in different texts have to be combined. Next, an enquiry is entered upon whether in the case of certain particular meditations there actually exists, or not, that non-difference of injunction which is the cause of medita- tions being recognised as identical. A meditation on the Udgitha is enjoined in the text of the .A7zandogas, as well as in that of the Va^asaneyins (Kh. Up. I, 2; Brz. Up. I, 3); and the question arises whether the two are to be viewed as one meditation or not. The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he says, there is no difference of injunction, and so on, since both texts enjoin as the object of meditation the Udgitha viewed under the form of Pra/?a ; since there is the same reward promised in both places, viz. mastering of one's enemies ; since the form of meditation is the same, the Udgitha being in both cases viewed under the form of Pra/za ; since the injunction is the same, being conveyed in both cases by the same verbal root (vid, to know) ; and since both meditations have the same technical name, viz. udgitha-vidya. The Sutra states this view in the form of the refutation of an objec- tion raised by the advocate of the final view. We do not admit, the objector says, the unity maintained by you, since the texts clearly show a difference of form. The text of the Va^asaneyins represents as the object of meditation that which is the agent in the act of singing out the Udgitha ; while the text of the AT^andogas enjoins medita- tion on what is the object of the action of singing out (i. e. the Udgitha itself). This discrepancy establishes dif- ference in the character of the meditation, and as this implies difference of the object enjoined, the mere non- difference of injunction, and so on, is of no force, and hence the two meditations are separate ones. — This objection the Purvapakshin impugns, ' on account of non-difference.' For both texts, at the outset, declare that the Udgitha is the means to bring about the conquest of enemies (; Let us overcome the Asuras at the sacrifices by means of the Udgitha ' (Br/. Up.) ; ' The gods took the Udgitha, 634 VEDANTA-stjTRAS.
2Up.) ; ' The gods took the Udgitha, 634 VEDANTA-stjTRAS. thinking they would with that overcome the Asuras' — Kk. Up.). In order therefore not to stultify this common beginning, we must assume that in the clause i For them that breath sang out ' (Br/. Up.), the Udgitha, which really is the object of the action of singing, is spoken of as the agent. Otherwise the term udgitha in the intro- ductory passage (* by means of the Udgitha ') would have to be taken as by implication denoting the agent (while directly it indicates the instrument). — Hence there is one- ness of the two vidyas. — Of this view the next Sutra disposes. 7. Or not, on account of difference of subject- matter ; as in the case of the attribute of being higher than the high, and so on. There is no unity of the two vidyas, since the subject- matter of the two differs. For the tale in the AVzandogya- text, which begins * when the Devas and the Asuras struggled together/ connects itself with the pra/zava (the syllable Om) which is introduced as the object of medita- tion in KMnd. I, 1, 1, 'Let a man meditate on the syllable Om as the Udgitha' ; and the clause forming part of the tale, ' they meditated on that chief breath as Udgitha/ therefore refers to a meditation on the pra^ava which is a part only of the Udgitha. In the text of the Va^a- saneyins, on the other hand, there is nothing to correspond to the introductory passage which in the jOandogya-text determines the subject-matter, and the text clearly states that the meditation refers to the whole Udgitha (not only the pra/zava). And this difference of leading subject-matter implies difference of matter enjoined, and this again dif- ference of the character of meditation, and hence there is no unity of vidyas. Thus the object of meditatio'n for the jOandogas is the pra^ava viewed under the form of Pra^a ; while for the Va^asaneyins it is the Udgatrz (who sings the Udgitha), imaginatively identified with Pra/za. Nor does there arise, on this latter account, a contradiction between the later and the earlier part of the story of the Va^asaneyins. For as a meditation on the Udgatrz* neces- Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 9. 635
3Nor does there arise, on this latter account, a contradiction between the later and the earlier part of the story of the Va^asaneyins. For as a meditation on the Udgatrz* neces- Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 9. 635 sarily extends to the Udgitha, which is the object of the activity of singing, the latter also helps to bring about the result, viz. the mastering of enemies. — There is thus no unity of vidya, although there may be non-difference of injunction, and so on. — 'As in the case of the attribute of being higher than the high/ &c. In one and the same ^akha there are two meditations, in each of which the highest Self is enjoined to be viewed under the form of the pra/zava (Kh. Up. I, 6 ; I, 9), and in so far the two vidyas are alike. But while the former text enjoins that the pra^ava has to be viewed under the form of a golden man, in the latter he has to be viewed as possessing the attributes of being higher than the high,, and owing to this difference of attributes the two meditations must be held separate (a fortiori, then, those meditations are separate which have different objects of meditation). 8. If that be declared on account of name ; (we object, since) that is also (where the objects of in- junction differ). If the oneness of the vidyas be maintained on the ground that both have the same name, viz. udgitha-vidya, we point out that oneness is found also where the objects enjoined are different. The term agnihotra is applied equally to the permanent agnihotra and to that agnihotra which forms part of the sacrifice called * Ku^apayinam ayanam'; and the term udgitha is applied equally to the many different meditations described in the first prapa- Maka of the ATMndogya. 9. And (this is) appropriate, on account of the extension. Since the pra;/ava, which is a part of the udgitha, is intro- duced as the subject of meditation in the first prapa^aka of the ATMndogya, and extends over the later vidyas also, it is appropriate to assume that also in the clause ' the gods took the udgitha ' — which stands in the middle — the term udgitha denotes the pra/zava. Expressions such as 'the cloth is burned' show that frequently the whole denotes 636 vedanta-sOtras. the part. — The conclusion from all this is that in the A7zandogya the object of meditation is constituted by the pra/zava — there termed udgitha — viewed under the form of pra/za ; while in the Va^asaneyaka the term udgitha de- notes the whole udgitha, and the object of meditation is he who produces the udgitha, i. e. the udga.tr i} viewed under the form of pra/za. And this proves that the two vidyas are separate. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of * dif- ference.1 10. On account of non-difference of everything, those elsewhere.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1— 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-dif- ference. So far it has been shown that the non-difference of in- Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 6. 633 junction, and so on, establishes the unity of meditations, and that owing to the latter the special features of medita- tion enjoined in different texts have to be combined. Next, an enquiry is entered upon whether in the case of certain particular meditations there actually exists, or not, that non-difference of injunction which is the cause of medita- tions being recognised as identical. A meditation on the Udgitha is enjoined in the text of the .A7zandogas, as well as in that of the Va^asaneyins (Kh. Up. I, 2; Brz. Up. I, 3); and the question arises whether the two are to be viewed as one meditation or not. The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he says, there is no difference of injunction, and so on, since both texts enjoin as the object of meditation the Udgitha viewed under the form of Pra/?a ; since there is the same reward promised in both places, viz. mastering of one's enemies ; since the form of meditation is the same, the Udgitha being in both cases viewed under the form of Pra/za ; since the injunction is the same, being conveyed in both cases by the same verbal root (vid, to know) ; and since both meditations have the same technical name, viz. udgitha-vidya. The Sutra states this view in the form of the refutation of an objec- tion raised by the advocate of the final view. We do not admit, the objector says, the unity maintained by you, since the texts clearly show a difference of form. The text of the Va^asaneyins represents as the object of meditation that which is the agent in the act of singing out the Udgitha ; while the text of the AT^andogas enjoins medita- tion on what is the object of the action of singing out (i. e. the Udgitha itself). This discrepancy establishes dif- ference in the character of the meditation, and as this implies difference of the object enjoined, the mere non- difference of injunction, and so on, is of no force, and hence the two meditations are separate ones. — This objection the Purvapakshin impugns, ' on account of non-difference.' For both texts, at the outset, declare that the Udgitha is the means to bring about the conquest of enemies (; Let us overcome the Asuras at the sacrifices by means of the Udgitha ' (Br/. Up.) ; ' The gods took the Udgitha, 634 VEDANTA-stjTRAS.
2Up.) ; ' The gods took the Udgitha, 634 VEDANTA-stjTRAS. thinking they would with that overcome the Asuras' — Kk. Up.). In order therefore not to stultify this common beginning, we must assume that in the clause i For them that breath sang out ' (Br/. Up.), the Udgitha, which really is the object of the action of singing, is spoken of as the agent. Otherwise the term udgitha in the intro- ductory passage (* by means of the Udgitha ') would have to be taken as by implication denoting the agent (while directly it indicates the instrument). — Hence there is one- ness of the two vidyas. — Of this view the next Sutra disposes. 7. Or not, on account of difference of subject- matter ; as in the case of the attribute of being higher than the high, and so on. There is no unity of the two vidyas, since the subject- matter of the two differs. For the tale in the AVzandogya- text, which begins * when the Devas and the Asuras struggled together/ connects itself with the pra/zava (the syllable Om) which is introduced as the object of medita- tion in KMnd. I, 1, 1, 'Let a man meditate on the syllable Om as the Udgitha' ; and the clause forming part of the tale, ' they meditated on that chief breath as Udgitha/ therefore refers to a meditation on the pra^ava which is a part only of the Udgitha. In the text of the Va^a- saneyins, on the other hand, there is nothing to correspond to the introductory passage which in the jOandogya-text determines the subject-matter, and the text clearly states that the meditation refers to the whole Udgitha (not only the pra/zava). And this difference of leading subject-matter implies difference of matter enjoined, and this again dif- ference of the character of meditation, and hence there is no unity of vidyas. Thus the object of meditatio'n for the jOandogas is the pra^ava viewed under the form of Pra^a ; while for the Va^asaneyins it is the Udgatrz (who sings the Udgitha), imaginatively identified with Pra/za. Nor does there arise, on this latter account, a contradiction between the later and the earlier part of the story of the Va^asaneyins. For as a meditation on the Udgatrz* neces- Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 9. 635
3Nor does there arise, on this latter account, a contradiction between the later and the earlier part of the story of the Va^asaneyins. For as a meditation on the Udgatrz* neces- Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 9. 635 sarily extends to the Udgitha, which is the object of the activity of singing, the latter also helps to bring about the result, viz. the mastering of enemies. — There is thus no unity of vidya, although there may be non-difference of injunction, and so on. — 'As in the case of the attribute of being higher than the high/ &c. In one and the same ^akha there are two meditations, in each of which the highest Self is enjoined to be viewed under the form of the pra/zava (Kh. Up. I, 6 ; I, 9), and in so far the two vidyas are alike. But while the former text enjoins that the pra^ava has to be viewed under the form of a golden man, in the latter he has to be viewed as possessing the attributes of being higher than the high,, and owing to this difference of attributes the two meditations must be held separate (a fortiori, then, those meditations are separate which have different objects of meditation). 8. If that be declared on account of name ; (we object, since) that is also (where the objects of in- junction differ). If the oneness of the vidyas be maintained on the ground that both have the same name, viz. udgitha-vidya, we point out that oneness is found also where the objects enjoined are different. The term agnihotra is applied equally to the permanent agnihotra and to that agnihotra which forms part of the sacrifice called * Ku^apayinam ayanam'; and the term udgitha is applied equally to the many different meditations described in the first prapa- Maka of the ATMndogya. 9. And (this is) appropriate, on account of the extension. Since the pra;/ava, which is a part of the udgitha, is intro- duced as the subject of meditation in the first prapa^aka of the ATMndogya, and extends over the later vidyas also, it is appropriate to assume that also in the clause ' the gods took the udgitha ' — which stands in the middle — the term udgitha denotes the pra/zava. Expressions such as 'the cloth is burned' show that frequently the whole denotes 636 vedanta-sOtras. the part. — The conclusion from all this is that in the A7zandogya the object of meditation is constituted by the pra/zava — there termed udgitha — viewed under the form of pra/za ; while in the Va^asaneyaka the term udgitha de- notes the whole udgitha, and the object of meditation is he who produces the udgitha, i. e. the udga.tr i} viewed under the form of pra/za. And this proves that the two vidyas are separate. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of * dif- ference.1 10. On account of non-difference of everything, those elsewhere.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.