United States or Slovenia ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !


The next Sutra refers to the reasons set forth for his view by the Purvapakshin and refutes them. 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. The next Sutra refutes the argument founded on a rite enjoined in the Mundaka.

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 conclusion therefore is that the Upakosalavidya and similar texts merely refer to that going of the soul which is common to all vidyas. Here terminates the adhikarana of 'non-restriction. This has been explained. It is neither coarse nor fine, and so on. Up. That which cannot be seen nor seized, &c.

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.

The conclusion from all this is that in the Chandogya the object of meditation is constituted by the pranava there termed udgitha viewed under the form of prana; while in the Vajasaneyaka the term udgitha denotes the whole udgitha, and the object of meditation is he who produces the udgitha, i.e. the udgatri, viewed under the form of prana. And this proves that the two vidyas are separate.

This is expressed in the earlier part of the Sutra: 'The former reply refers to the Self to which there belongs the aggregate of material things, i.e. the individual soul as being the inner Self of all; otherwise we could not account for the difference of the two replies. The last words of the Sutra negative this 'not so, i.e. there is no difference of vidyas, since both assertions and replies refer to the highest Self.

Lordship and the rest, which are stated in the Vajasaneyaka, are special aspects of the quality of being capable to realise all one's purposes, which is one of the eight qualities declared in the Chandogya, and as such prove that all the attributes going together with that quality in the Chandogya are valid for the Vajasaneyaka also. The character of the two vidyas therefore does not differ.

The proof certainly cannot be said to lie in the fact of the vidyas being one; for this would imply reasoning in a circle, viz. as follows it being settled that the vidyas are one, it follows that the fruit of the former meditation only is the main one, while the fruits of the two later meditations are subordinate ones; and it being settled that those two later fruits are subordinate ones, it follows that, as thus there is no difference depending on connexion with fruits, the two later meditations are one with the preceding one.

Nor can you account for the difference of statement on the ground of difference of vidyas; for you yourself maintain that the meditations in question form part of all meditations. This view the Sutra impugns, 'but where the getting rid of is mentioned, &c.

And this difference of leading subject-matter implies difference of matter enjoined, and this again difference of the character of meditation, and hence there is no unity of vidyas. Nor does there arise, on this latter account, a contradiction between the later and the earlier part of the story of the Vajasaneyins.