{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe38/sbe38162.htm","path":"hin/sbe38/sbe38162.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe38/sbe38162.htm","text":"The Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana, Commentary by Sankara (SBE38), tr. by George Thibaut [1896]\n19. In the same (S\u00e2kh\u00e2 also) it is thus (i.e. there is unity of vidy\u00e2), on account of the non-difference (of the object of meditation).\nIn the Agnirahasya forming part of the V\u00e2gasaneyi-s\u00e2kh\u00e2 there is a vidy\u00e2 called the S\u00e2ndilya-vidy\u00e2, in which we meet with the following statement of particulars, 'Let him meditate on the Self which consists of mind, which has the pr\u00e2na for its body and light for its form,' &c.--In the Brihad-\u00e2ranyaka again, which belongs to the same S\u00e2kh\u00e2, we read (V, 10,6), 'That person consisting of mind, whose being is light, is within the heart, small like a grain of rice or barley. He is the ruler of all, the Lord of all--he rules all this whatsoever exists.'--A doubt here presents itself whether these two passages are to be taken as one vidy\u00e2 in which the particulars mentioned in either text are to be combined or not.\nThe p\u00fbrvapakshin maintains that we have to do with two separate vidy\u00e2s whose particulars cannot be combined. For\notherwise, he argues, the text could not be cleared from the reproach of useless repetition. As long as we have to do with texts belonging to different S\u00e2kh\u00e2s we can rebut the charge of useless repetition by pointing to the fact that the texts are read and known by separate classes of men; we can then ascertain the unity of the vidy\u00e2s and combine the particulars mentioned in one text only with those mentioned in the others; so e.g. in the colloquy of the pr\u00e2nas. On the other hand, texts belonging to one and the same S\u00e2kh\u00e2 cannot be freed from the reproach of tautology as the same persons study and know them, and passages occurring in different places cannot therefore be combined into one vidy\u00e2. Nor can we make out a separate position for each of the texts of the latter kind by saying that it is the task of one text to enjoin the vidy\u00e2 and that of the other to enjoin the particulars of the vidy\u00e2. For in that case each of the two passages would mention only such particulars as are not mentioned in the other one; while as a matter of fact particulars common to both as well as not common to both are mentioned in each. Hence the particulars of the one passage are not to be combined with those of the other.\nTo this we make the following reply. Just as passages met with in different S\u00e2kh\u00e2s form one vidy\u00e2 in which the different particulars are to be combined, so the two passages under discussion also, although belonging to one and the same S\u00e2kh\u00e2, constitute one vidy\u00e2 only, since the object of meditation is the same in both. For as such we recognise Brahman possessing certain qualities such as consisting of mind and so on. Now we know that the object constitutes the character of a meditation; as long as there is no difference of character we cannot determine difference of vidy\u00e2; and if there is no difference of vidy\u00e2 the particulars mentioned in different places cannot be held apart.--But has it not been demonstrated above that the vidy\u00e2s have to be held apart, as otherwise tautology would arise?--Tautology does not result, we reply, because the two passages may be understood to have each its particular meaning, one of them enjoining the vidy\u00e2, and the other the particulars of the vidy\u00e2.--But in that case the Brihad-\u00e2ranyaka ought to\nmention only those points which are not mentioned in the Agnirahasya, as e.g. 'he is the Lord of all;' while it ought not to mention what is already mentioned in the Agnirahasya, as e.g. the Selfs consisting of mind!--Not so, we reply. Only the repetition, in one passage, of what is already mentioned in the other passage enables us to recognise the vidy\u00e2. The Brihad-\u00e2ranyaka-passage, by mentioning some common qualities, first enables us to recognise the S\u00e2ndilya-vidy\u00e2, and then teaches certain particulars with reference to the latter; how otherwise should we know that the Bri.--passage is meant to enjoin particulars for the S\u00e2ndilya-vidy\u00e2? Moreover, as in a passage which has a purpose of its own in so far as it teaches something not yet established, a reference to something already established is justified on the ground of its being a (so-called) nity\u00e2nuv\u00e2da, we cannot overlook the recognition (of the identity of the passage with another one) which is rendered possible through that anuv\u00e2da. Hence, although the two passages belong to one and the same S\u00e2kh\u00e2, they yet constitute one vidy\u00e2 only, and their particulars have to be combined into one whole.","title":"The Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana: Third Adhy\u00e2ya. Th...","type":"page"}