Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1We read in the Va^asaneyaka I, 3, i, 'The Devas said, well, let us overcome the Asuras at the sacrifices by means of the Udgitha. They said to speech : Do thou sing out for us. — Yes, said speech,' &c. The text thereupon relates how speech and the other pra;/as were pierced by the Asuras with evil, and therefore unable to effect what was expected from them, and how in the end recourse was had to the chief vital air, ' Then they said to the breath in the mouth : Do thou sing for u^. — Yes, said the breath, and sang.' — A similar story is met with in the K/ia.ndogya. I, 2. There we read at first that ' the devas took the udgitha, thinking they would vanquish the Asuras with it ; ' the text then relates how the other pra;/as were pierced with evil and thus foiled by the Asuras, and how the Devas in the end had recourse to the chief vital air, ' Then comes this chief vital air ; on that they meditated as udgitha.' — As both these passages glorify the chief vital air, it follows that they both are injunctions of a meditation on the vital air. A doubt, however, arises whether the two vidyas are separate vidyds or one vidya only. Here the purvapakshin maintains that for the reasons specified in the first adhikarawa of the present pada the two ^ The Purva Mimawsa teaches that all subordinate things which the Veda prescribes for some typical sacrifice are eo ipso prescribed for the modified forms of the sacrifice also. Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 7. 1 93
2vidyds have to be considered as one. — But, an objection is raised, there is a difference of procedure which contradicts the assumption of unity. The Va^asaneyins represent the chief vital air as the producer of the udgitha (' Do thou sing out for us'), while the K/ia.ndoga.s speak of it as itself being the udgitha (' on that they meditated as udgitha '). How can this divergence be reconciled with the assumption of the unity of the vidy^s ? — The difference pointed out, the purvapakshin replies, is not important enough to bring about a separation of the two vidyas, since we observe that the two both agree in a plurality of points. Both texts relate that the Devas and the Asuras were fighting ; both at first glorify speech and the other pra«as in their relation to the udgitha, and thereupon, finding fault with them, pass on to the chief vital air ; both tell how through the strength of the latter the Asuras were scattered as a ball of earth is scattered when hitting a solid stone. And, moreover, the text of the Va^asaneyaka also coordinates the chief vital air and the udgitha in the clause, ' He is udgitha ' (Brz. Up. I, 3, 23). We therefore have to assume that in the K/ia.ndogya. also the chief prawa has secondarily to be looked upon as the producer of the udgitha. — The two texts thus constitute one vidya only. 7. Or rather there is no (unity of the vidyas), owing to the difference of subject-matter.
3Setting aside the view maintained by the purvapakshin, we have rather to say that, owing to the difference of subject-matter, the two vidyas are separate. — In the KMndogya. 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 [38] O 194 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
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.
1We read in the Va^asaneyaka I, 3, i, 'The Devas said, well, let us overcome the Asuras at the sacrifices by means of the Udgitha. They said to speech : Do thou sing out for us. — Yes, said speech,' &c. The text thereupon relates how speech and the other pra;/as were pierced by the Asuras with evil, and therefore unable to effect what was expected from them, and how in the end recourse was had to the chief vital air, ' Then they said to the breath in the mouth : Do thou sing for u^. — Yes, said the breath, and sang.' — A similar story is met with in the K/ia.ndogya. I, 2. There we read at first that ' the devas took the udgitha, thinking they would vanquish the Asuras with it ; ' the text then relates how the other pra;/as were pierced with evil and thus foiled by the Asuras, and how the Devas in the end had recourse to the chief vital air, ' Then comes this chief vital air ; on that they meditated as udgitha.' — As both these passages glorify the chief vital air, it follows that they both are injunctions of a meditation on the vital air. A doubt, however, arises whether the two vidyas are separate vidyds or one vidya only. Here the purvapakshin maintains that for the reasons specified in the first adhikarawa of the present pada the two ^ The Purva Mimawsa teaches that all subordinate things which the Veda prescribes for some typical sacrifice are eo ipso prescribed for the modified forms of the sacrifice also. Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 7. 1 93
2vidyds have to be considered as one. — But, an objection is raised, there is a difference of procedure which contradicts the assumption of unity. The Va^asaneyins represent the chief vital air as the producer of the udgitha (' Do thou sing out for us'), while the K/ia.ndoga.s speak of it as itself being the udgitha (' on that they meditated as udgitha '). How can this divergence be reconciled with the assumption of the unity of the vidy^s ? — The difference pointed out, the purvapakshin replies, is not important enough to bring about a separation of the two vidyas, since we observe that the two both agree in a plurality of points. Both texts relate that the Devas and the Asuras were fighting ; both at first glorify speech and the other pra«as in their relation to the udgitha, and thereupon, finding fault with them, pass on to the chief vital air ; both tell how through the strength of the latter the Asuras were scattered as a ball of earth is scattered when hitting a solid stone. And, moreover, the text of the Va^asaneyaka also coordinates the chief vital air and the udgitha in the clause, ' He is udgitha ' (Brz. Up. I, 3, 23). We therefore have to assume that in the K/ia.ndogya. also the chief prawa has secondarily to be looked upon as the producer of the udgitha. — The two texts thus constitute one vidya only. 7. Or rather there is no (unity of the vidyas), owing to the difference of subject-matter.
3Setting aside the view maintained by the purvapakshin, we have rather to say that, owing to the difference of subject-matter, the two vidyas are separate. — In the KMndogya. 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 [38] O 194 VEDANTA-S^TRAS.
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.