{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe38/sbe38150.htm","path":"hin/sbe38/sbe38150.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe38/sbe38150.htm","text":"The Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana, Commentary by Sankara (SBE38), tr. by George Thibaut [1896]\n7. Or rather there is no (unity of the vidy\u00e2s), owing to the difference of subject-matter.\nSetting aside the view maintained by the p\u00fbrvapakshin, we have rather to say that, owing to the difference \"of subject-matter, the two vidy\u00e2s are separate.--In the Kh\u00e2ndogya the introductory sentence (I, 1, 1), 'Let a man meditate on the syllable Om (as) the udg\u00eetha,' represents as the object of meditation the syllable Om which is a part of the udg\u00eetha; 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 udg\u00eetha, a story about the Gods and Asuras in which there occurs the statement,' They meditated on the udg\u00eetha\nas that breath 1.' If now we should assume 2 that the term 'udg\u00eetha' denotes here the whole act of worship (not only the syllable Om which is a part of the udg\u00eetha), and that (in the passage, 'they meditated on the udg\u00eetha as that breath') the performer of that worship, i.e. the Udg\u00e2tri-priest, is said to be meditated upon as breath; our interpretation would be open to two objections: in the first place it would be opposed to the introductory sentence (which directly declares the syllable Om to be the object of devotion); and in the second place it would oblige us to take the word udg\u00eetha (in 'they meditated on the udg\u00eetha'), not in its direct sense, but as denoting by implication the udg\u00e2tri. But the rule is that in one and the same connected passage the interpretation of later passages has to adapt itself to the earlier passages. We therefore conclude the passage last quoted to teach that the syllable Om which is a part of the udg\u00eetha is to be meditated upon as pr\u00e2na.--In the V\u00e2gasaneyaka on the other hand there is no reason for taking the word udg\u00eetha to denote a part of the udg\u00eetha only, and we therefore must interpret it to denote the whole; and in the passage, 'Do thou sing out for us,' the performer of the worship, i.e. the Udg\u00e2tri-priest, is described as pr\u00e2na. In reply to the p\u00fbrvapakshin's remark that in the V\u00e2gasaneyaka also the udg\u00eetha and the pr\u00e2na occur in co-ordination (in the passage, 'He is udg\u00eetha'), we point out that that statement merely aims at showing that the Self of all is that pr\u00e2na which the text wishes to represent as udg\u00e2tri. The statement, therefore, docs not imply the unity of the two vidy\u00e2s. Moreover, there also the term udg\u00eetha denotes the whole act of worship (while in the Kh\u00e2ndogya it denotes the omk\u00e2ra only). Nor must it be said that the pr\u00e2na can\nimpossibly be an udg\u00e2tri, and that on that account our interpretation of the Brihad-\u00e2ranyaka passage is erroneous; for with a view to pious meditation scripture may represent the pr\u00e2na as udg\u00e2tri as well as udg\u00eetha. And, moreover, the Udg\u00e2tri actually performs his work by the strength of his breath; hence the pr\u00e2na may be called udg\u00e2tri. In accordance with this the text says (I, 3, 24). 'He sang it indeed as speech and breath.'--And if we understand that the text clearly intends to convey a difference of matter we have no right to conclude from merely apparent similarities of expression that only one matter is intended to be expressed. To quote an analogous instance from the karma-k\u00e2nda: In the section relative to the unexpected rising of the moon during the darsa-sacrifice, as well as in the section about the offering to be made by him who is desirous of cattle, we meet with identical injunctions such as the following one, 'He is to divide, the grains into three portions, and to make those of medium size into a cake offered on eight potsherds to Agni the Giver,' &c.; nevertheless it follows from the difference of the introductory passages of the two sections that the offerings to be made on account of the moon's rising are indeed not connected with the divinities of the darsa-sacrifice (but do not constitute a new sacrifice separate from the darsa), while the section about him who is desirous of cattle enjoins a separate sacrificial performance 1.--Analogously a difference in the nature of the introductory clauses effects a difference of the vidy\u00e2s, 'As in the case of that which is greater than great.' That means: Just as the meditation on the udg\u00eetha enjoined in the passage, 'Ether is greater than these, ether is their rest; he is indeed the udg\u00eetha, greater than great, he is without end' (Kh. Up. I, 9, 1), and the other meditation on the udg\u00eetha as possessing the qualities of abiding within the eye and the sun, &c. (Kh. Up. I, 6), are separate meditations, although in both the udg\u00eetha is identified with the highest Self; so it is with vidy\u00e2s in general. The special features of different vidy\u00e2s are not to be combined even when the\nvidy\u00e2s belong to one and the same S\u00e2kh\u00e2; much less then when they belong to different S\u00e2kh\u00e2s.\n194:1 From which it appears that the Kh\u00e2ndogya enjoins throughout a meditation on the syllable Om which is only a part of the udg\u00eetha; while the object of meditation enjoined in the Brihad-\u00e2ranyaka is the whole udg\u00eetha.\n194:2 Viz. for the purpose of making out that the object of meditation is the same in the Kh\u00e2ndogya and the Brihad-\u00e2ranyaka.\n195:1 Cp. Taitt. Samh. II, 5, 5, 2; P\u00fb. M\u00ee. S\u00fb. VI, 5, 1.","title":"The Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana: Third Adhy\u00e2ya. Th...","type":"page"}