{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe38/sbe38186.htm","path":"hin/sbe38/sbe38186.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe38/sbe38186.htm","text":"The Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana, Commentary by Sankara (SBE38), tr. by George Thibaut [1896]\n43. As in the case of the offerings, (V\u00e2yu and Pr\u00e2na. must be held apart). This has been explained (in the P\u00fbrva M\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2-s\u00fbtra).\nThe section of the V\u00e2gasaneyaka which begins, 'Voice held, I shall speak' (Bri. Up. I. 5, 21). determines Pr\u00e2na to be the best among the organs of the body, viz. speech and so on, and V\u00e2yu to be the best among the Devas, viz. Agni and so on.--Similarly in the Kh\u00e2ndogya, V\u00e2yu is affirmed to be the general absorber of the Devas, 'V\u00e2yu indeed is the absorber' (IV, 3, 1), while Pr\u00e2na is said to be the general absorber of the organs of the body, 'Breath indeed is the absorber' (IV, 3, 3).--The doubt here arises whether V\u00e2yu and Pr\u00e2na are to be conceived as separate or not.\nAs non-separate, the p\u00fbrvapakshin maintains; because in\ntheir true nature they do not differ. And as their true nature does not differ they must not be meditated upon separately. Another scriptural passage also declares that the organs of the body and the divinities are non-different in their true nature, 'Agni having become speech entered the mouth,' &c. (Ait. \u00c2r. II, 4, 2, 4). Moreover, the passage Bri. Up. I, 5, 13, 'These are all alike, all endless,' declares that the powers of the Devas constitute the Self of the organs of the body. And various other passages also testify to the fundamental non-difference of the two. In some places we have even a direct identification of the two, 'What Pr\u00e2na is, that is V\u00e2yu.' And in the sloka concluding the V\u00e2gasaneyaka-chapter to which the passage under discussion belongs, the text refers to pr\u00e2na only ('He verily rises from the breath and sets in the breath'), and thus shows the breath to be one with the previously mentioned V\u00e2yu. This conclusion is moreover confirmed by the fact that the observance enjoined in the end refers to pr\u00e2na only, 'Therefore let a man perform one observance only, let him breathe up and let him breathe down' (Bri. Up. I, 5, 23). Similarly, the Kh\u00e2ndogya-passage, IV, 3, 6, 'One god swallowed the four great ones,' intimates that there is one absorber only, and does not say that one god is the absorber of the one set of four, and another the absorber of the other set of four.--From all this it follows that V\u00e2yu and Pr\u00e2na are to be conceived as one.\nTo this we make the following reply. V\u00e2yu and Pr\u00e2na are to be conceived separately, because the text teaches them in separation. The separate instruction given by the text with reference to the organs and the Devas for the purposes of meditation would be meaningless if the meditations were not held apart.--But the p\u00fbrvapakshin maintains that owing to the essential non-difference of V\u00e2yu and Pr\u00e2na the meditations are not to be separated!--Although, we reply, there may be non-difference of true nature, yet there may be difference of condition giving rise to difference of instruction, and, through the latter, to difference of meditation. And although the introduction of the concluding sloka. may be accounted for on the ground of its\nshowing the fundamental non-difference of the two, it yet has no power to sublate the previously declared difference of the objects of meditation. Moreover, the text institutes a comparison between V\u00e2yu and Pr\u00e2na, which again shows that the two are different, 'And as it was with the central breath among the breaths, so it was with V\u00e2yu, the wind among those deities' (Bri. Up. I, 5, 22).--This explains also the mention made of the observance (I, 5, 23). The word 'only' (in 'Let a man perform one observance only') has the purpose of establishing the observance with regard to Pr\u00e2na, by sublating the observances with regard to speech and so on, regarding which the text had remarked previously that they were disturbed by Death ('Death having become weariness took them'), and does not by any means aim at sublating the observance with regard to V\u00e2yu; for the section beginning 'Next follows the consideration of the observances' distinctly asserts that the observances of V\u00e2yu and Pr\u00e2na were equally unbroken.--Moreover, the text, after having said, 'Let a man perform one observance only,' declares in the end that the fruit of that observance is the obtaining of (union with) V\u00e2yu ('Then he obtains through it union and oneness with that deity'), and thus shows that the observance with regard to V\u00e2yu is not to be considered as sublated. That by that 'deity' we have to understand V\u00e2yu, we conclude from the circumstance that what the worshipper wishes to obtain is non-limitation of his Self 1, and that previously the term 'deity' had been applied to V\u00e2yu, 'V\u00e2yu is the deity that never sets.'--Analogously in the Kh\u00e2ndogya-passage the text represents V\u00e2yu and Pr\u00e2na as different, 'These are the two absorbers, V\u00e2yu among the Devas, Pr\u00e2na among the pr\u00e2nas,' and in the concluding paragraph also (IV, 3,8) refers to them as distinct, 'These five and the other five make ten, and that is the Krita.'--For these reasons V\u00e2yu and Pr\u00e2na are to be conceived as different.\nThe S\u00fbtra compares the case under discussion to a\nparallel one from the karmak\u00e2nda, by means of the clause, 'as in the case of the offerings.' With regard to the ishti comprising three sacrificial cakes, which is enjoined in the passage, Taitt. Samh. II, 3, 6, 'A purod\u00e2sa on eleven potsherds to Indra the ruler, to Indra the over-ruler, to Indra the self-ruler,' it might be supposed that the three cakes are to be offered together because they are offered to one and the same Indra, and because the concluding sentence says, 'conveying to all (gods) he cuts off to preclude purposelessness.' But as the attributes (viz. 'ruler' and so on) differ, and as scripture enjoins that the y\u00e2gy\u00e2 and anuv\u00e2ky\u00e2mantras are to exchange places with regard to the different cakes 1, the divinity is each time a different one according to the address, and from this it follows that the three offerings also are separate.--Thus, in the case under discussion, V\u00e2yu and Pr\u00e2na, although fundamentally non-different, are to be held apart as objects of meditation, and we have therefore to do with two separate meditations.--This is explained in the Sa\u1e45karsha-k\u00e2nda, 'The divinities are separate on account of their being cognized thus.'\nBut while in the case of the three purod\u00e2sas the difference of material and divinity involves a difference on the part of the oblations, we have in the case under discussion to do with one vidy\u00e2 only; for that the text enjoins one vidy\u00e2 only we conclude from the introductory and concluding statements. There is contained, however, in this one vidy\u00e2 a double meditative activity with regard to the bodily organs and the divinities, just as the agnihotra which is offered in the morning as well as in the evening requires a double activity. In this sense the S\u00fbtra says, 'as in the case of the offerings.'\n258:1 Agny\u00e2d\u00een apekshy\u00e2navakkhino devo v\u00e2yus te tu tenaiv\u00e2vakkhinn\u00e2 iti samvargaguno v\u00e2yur anavakkhinn\u00e2 devat\u00e2. \u00c2n. Gi.\n239:1 The y\u00e2gy\u00e2-mantra of the first offering being used as anuv\u00e2ky\u00e2 in the second one and so on.","title":"The Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana: Third Adhy\u00e2ya. Third P\u00e2da.: III, 3, 43","type":"page"}