|
Page1
6. If it be said that there is difference on account of the text; we say no; on account of non-difference.
So far it has been shown that the non-difference of injunction, and so on, establishes the unity of meditations, and that owing to the latter the special features of meditation enjoined in different texts have to be combined. Next, an enquiry is entered upon whether in the case of certain particular meditations there actually exists, or not, that non-difference of injunction which is the cause of meditations being recognised as identical. A meditation on the Udgitha is enjoined in the text of the Khandogas, as well as in that of the Vagasaneyins (Kh. Up. I, 2; Bri. Up. I, 3); and the question arises whether the two are to be viewed as one meditation or not. The Purvapakshin maintains the former alternative. For, he says, there is no difference of injunction, and so on, since both texts enjoin as the object of meditation the Udgitha viewed under the form of Prana; since there is the same reward promised in both places, viz. mastering of one's enemies; since the form of meditation is the same, the Udgitha being in both cases viewed under the form of Prana; since the injunction is the same, being conveyed in both cases by the same verbal root (vid, to know); and since both meditations have the same technical name, viz. udgitha-vidya.
The Sutra states this view in the form of the refutation of an objection raised by the advocate of the final view. We do not admit, the objector says, the unity maintained by you, since the texts clearly show a difference of form. The text of the Vagasaneyins represents as the object of meditation that which is the agent in the act of singing out the Udgitha; while the text of the Khandogas enjoins meditation on what is the object of the action of singing out (i. e. the Udgitha itself). This discrepancy establishes difference in the character of the meditation, and as this implies difference of the object enjoined, the mere non-difference of injunction, and so on, is of no force, and hence the two meditations are separate ones.--This objection the Purvapakshin impugns, 'on account of non-difference.' For both texts, at the outset, declare that the Udgitha is the means to bring about the conquest of enemies (Let us overcome the Asuras at the sacrifices by means of the Udgitha' (Bri. Up.); 'The gods took the Udgitha, thinking they would with that overcome the Asuras'--Kh. Up.). In order therefore not to stultify this common beginning, we must assume that in the clause 'For them that breath sang out' (Bri. Up.), the Udgitha, which really is the object of the action of singing, is spoken of as the agent. Otherwise the term udgitha in the introductory passage ('by means of the Udgitha') would have to be taken as by implication denoting the agent (while directly it indicates the instrument).--Hence there is oneness of the two vidyas.--Of this view the next Sutra disposes.
|
