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

— Here terminates the adhikara^a of ' being in the body/

53. But those (meditations) which are connected with members (of sacrifices) are not (restricted) to (particular) sakhâs, but rather (belong) to all ^akhas.

x x 2

6 76 vedanta-sOtras.

There are certain meditations connected with certain constituent elements of sacrifices — as e. g. ' Let a man meditate on the syllable Om (as) the Udgitha ' {Kh. Up. I, i, i) ; ' Let a man meditate on the fivefold Saman as the five worlds' (Kh. Up. II, 2, i), &c. The question here arises whether those meditations are restricted to the members of those .rakhas in whose texts they are mentioned ; or to be connected with the Udgitha, and so on, in all jakhas. There is here a legitimate ground for doubt, in so far as, although the general agreement of all Vedanta-texts is established, the Udgitha, and so on, are different in each Veda since the accents differ in the different Vedas.- — The Purvapakshin declares that those meditations are limited each to its particular sakha. ; for, he says, the injunction * Let him meditate on the Udgitha ' does indeed, verbally, refer to the Udgitha in general ; but as what stands nearest to this injunction is the special Udgitha of the .sakha, in whose text this injunction occurs, and which shares the peculiarities of accent characteristic of that ^akha, we decide that the meditation is enjoined on members of that ^akha only. — The Sutra sets this opinion aside. The injunction of meditations of this type is valid for all j-akhas, since the text expressly connects them with the Udgitha in general. They therefore hold good wherever there is an Udgitha. The individual Udgithas of the several ^akhas are indeed distinguished by different accentuation ; but the general statement, * Let him meditate on the Udgitha/ suggests to the mind not any particular Udgitha, but the Udgitha in general, and hence there is no reason to restrict the meditation to a particular ^akha. From the principle moreover that all jakhas teach the same doctrine, it follows that the sacrifice enjoined in the different ^akhas is one only ; and hence there is no reason to hold that the Udgitha suggested by the injunction of the meditation is a particular one. For the Udgitha is only an element in the sacrifice, and the sacrifice is one and the same. The meditations are not therefore limited to particular jakhas.

Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 55. 677

54. Or there is no contradiction as in the case of mantras and the rest.

For the Udgitha is only an element in the sacrifice, and the sacrifice is one and the same. The meditations are not therefore limited to particular jakhas.

Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 55. 677

54. Or there is no contradiction as in the case of mantras and the rest.

The 'or' here has the sense of 'and.' The 'and the rest ' comprises generic characteristics, qualities, number, similarity, order of succession, substances, and actions. As there is nothing contrary to reason in mantras and the rest, although mentioned in the text of one ^akha only, finding, on the basis of such means of proof as direct statement, and so on, their application in all ^akhas, since the sacrifice to which they belong is one and the same in all i-akhas ; so there is likewise no contradiction in the meditations under discussion being undertaken by members of all ^akhas. — Here terminates the adhikara/za of ' what is connected with constituent elements of the sacrifice.'

55. There is pre-eminence of plenitude, as in the case of the sacrifice ; for thus Scripture shows.

The sacred text (K/t. Up. V, 12 ff.) enjoins a meditation on Vai^vanara, the object of which is the highest Self, as having for its body the entire* threefold world, and for its limbs the heavenly world, the sun, the wind, and so on. The doubt here arises whether separate meditations have to be performed on the highest Being in its separate aspects, or in its aggregate as well as in its distributed aspect, or in its aggregate aspect only. — In its separate aspects, the Purvapakshin maintains ; since at the outset a meditation of that kind is declared. For on the Rishis in succession telling A^vapati the objects of their meditation, viz. the sky, the sun, and so on, A^vapati explains to them that these meditations refer to the head, eye, and so on, of the highest Being, and mentions for each of these meditations a special fruit And the concluding explanation ' he who worships Vauvanara as a span long, &c.,' is merely meant to gather up into one, as it were, the preceding meditations on the parts of Vauvanara. — Another Purvapakshin holds that this very concluding passage enjoins a further meditation on VaLyvanara in his collective aspect, in addition to the previously enjoined meditations

p. 678

— Another Purvapakshin holds that this very concluding passage enjoins a further meditation on VaLyvanara in his collective aspect, in addition to the previously enjoined meditationsp. 678 on his limbs ; for that passage states a separate result, ' he eats food in all worlds,' &c. Nor does this destroy the unity of the whole section. The case is analogous to that of the meditation on ' plenitude ' (bhuman ; Kh. Up. VII, 23). There, in the beginning, separate meditations are enjoined on name, and so on, with special results of their own ; and after that a meditation is enjoined on bhuman, with a result of its own, ' He becomes a Self-ruler/ &c. The entire section really refers to the meditation on bhuman ; but all the same there are admitted subordinate meditations on name, and so on, and a special result for each. — These views are set aside by the Sutra, ' There is pre-eminence of plenitude,' i. e. there is reason to assume that Vai^vanara in his fulness, i. e. in his collective aspect, is meant ; since we apprehend unity of the entire section. From the beginning of the section it is manifest that what the i?/shis desire to know is the Vai^vanara Self ; it is that Self which A^vapati expounds to them as having the Universe for his body, and in agreement therewith the last clause of his teaching intimates that the intuition of Brahman (which is none other than the VaLsvanara Self) — which is there characterised as the food of all worlds, all beings, all Selfs — is the fruit of the meditation on Vauvanara. This summing up proves the whole section to deal with the same subject. And on the basis of this knowledge we determine that what the text says as to meditations on the separate members of the Vauvanara Self and their special results is merely of the nature of explanatory comment (anuvada) on parts of the meditation on the collective Self. — This decision is arrived at as in the case of the sacrifice. For to the injunction of certain sacrifices — such as ' Let a man, on the birth of a son, offer a cake on twelve potsherds to VaLsvanara' — the text similarly adds remarks on parts of the oblation, * there is an oblation on eight potsherds,' and so on. — The meditation therefore has to be performed on the entire Vauvanara Self only, not on its parts. This, moreover, Scripture itself intimates, in so far, namely, as declaring the evil consequences of meditation on parts of the Self only, 'your head would have

Ill ADHYAYA, 3 pAdA, 56. 6j<)