United States or Iraq ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
The instances coming under this head of discussion are all those meditations on Brahman which have for their only result final Release, which consists in attaining to Brahman such as the meditation on that which is, the meditation on the bhuman, the meditation on the small space within the heart, the Upakosala meditation, the Sandilya meditation, the meditation on Vaisvanara, the meditation on the Self of bliss, the meditation on the Imperishable, and others whether they be recorded in one sakha only or in several sakhas.
Owing to all these circumstances, non-difference of injunction and the rest, the same vidya is recognised in other sakhas also. Vaisvanara. The name of the two vidyas also is the same, viz. the knowledge of Vaisvanara. 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 sakhas.
The Padakalpataru, to keep up the metaphor of its name throughout, is divided into 4 sakhas or 'branches, and each of these into 8 or 10 pallabas or smaller branches, 'boughs. It should be explained that the kirtans are celebrated with considerable ceremony. There is first a consecration both of the performers and instruments with flowers, incense, and sweetmeats. This is called the adhibas.
The Sutra sets this opinion aside. The injunction of meditations of this type is valid for all sakhas, since the text expressly connects them with the Udgitha in general. They therefore hold good wherever there is an Udgitha.
The vidyas are separate, the Purvapakshin maintains; for the fact that the same matter is, without difference, imparted for a second time, and moreover stands under a different heading both which circumstances necessarily attend the text's being met with in different sakhas proves the difference of the two meditations. Up.
You in this case make just the wrong use of the principle of all the Sakhas containing the same doctrine; what this principle demands is that the qualities attributed in all Sakhas to Brahman as cause should be taken over into the passage under discussion also.
The meditations are not therefore limited to particular sakhas. 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.
Here terminates the adhikarana of 'reward. The Sutras have stated whatever has to be stated to the end of rousing the desire of meditation-concluding with the fact that Brahman bestows rewards. The first subordinate question arising here is whether one and the same meditation as e.g. the vidya of Vaisvanara which is met with in the text of several sakhas, constitutes one vidya or several.
In agreement with the principle that all sakhas teach the same doctrine we have to understand that, in all the texts which speak of Brahman as cause, Brahman must be taken as being 'without a second', i.e. without any other being of the same or a different kind; and the text which aims at defining Brahman has then to be interpreted in accordance with this characteristic of Brahman, viz. its being without a second.
Nor must this conclusion be controverted on the ground that declarations of the same matter, made in different places, are made with reference to the difference of students severally reading the several texts; for this holds good in those cases only where identical statements are made in different texts; while in the case under discussion two sakhas mention the abandonment of works, and one their passing over to other persons.
Word Of The Day