|
THIRD ADHYAYA
THIRD PADA.
Page1
1. What is understood from all the Vedanta-texts (is one), on account of the non-difference of injunction and the rest.
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. Next the question is introduced whether the vidyas (i.e. the different forms of meditation on Brahman which the Vedanta-texts enjoin) are different or non-different, on the decision of which question it will depend whether the qualities attributed to Brahman in those vidyas are to be comprised in one act of meditation or not.--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.--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.
It is for this reason only that a restrictive injunction, such as the one conveyed in the text, 'Let a man tell this science of Brahman to those only who have performed the rite of carrying fire on their head' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 10)--which restricts the impaiting of knowledge to the Âtharvanikas, to whom that rite is peculiar--has any sense; for if the vidyas were one, then the rite mentioned, which is a part of the vidya, would be valid for the members of other sakhas also, and then the restriction enjoined by the text would have no meaning.--This view is set aside by the Sutra, 'What is understood from all the Vedanta-texts' is one and the same meditation, 'because there is non-difference of injunction and the rest.' By injunction is meant the injunction of special activities denoted by different verbal roots--such as upasita 'he should meditate,' vidyat 'he should know.' The and the rest' of the Sutra is meant to comprise as additional reasons the circumstances mentioned in the Purva Mimamsa-sutras (II, 4, 9). Owing to all these circumstances, non-difference of injunction and the rest, the same vidya is recognised in other sakhas also. In the Khaandogya (V, 12, 2) as well as in the Vagasaneyaka we meet with one and the same injunction (viz. 'He should meditate on Vaisvanara'). The form (character, rupa) of the meditations also is the same, for the form of a cognition solely depends on its object; and the object is in both cases the same, viz. 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 next Sutra refers to the reasons set forth for his view by the Purvapakshin and refutes them.
|
