Scripture also shows that (identical) meditation is what all the Vedânta-
texts intimate. The Chândogya (VIII, 1, 1 ff.) declares that that which
is within the small space in the heart is to be enquired into, and then
in reply to the question what the thing to be enquired into is, says
that it is the highest Self possessing the eight attributes, freedom
from all evil and the rest, which is to be meditated upon within the
heart. And then the Taittiriya-text, referring to this declaration in
the Chândogya, says, 'Therein is a small space, free from all grief;
what is within that is to be meditated upon' (Mahânâr. Up. X, 23), and
thus likewise enjoins meditation on the highest Self possessing the
eight qualities. And this is possible only if, owing to unity of vidya,
the qualities mentioned in the first text are included also in the
meditation enjoined in the second text.--Having thus established the
unity of meditations, the Sûtras proceed to state the practical effect
of such unity.
5. (Meditation) thus being equal, there is combination (of gunas); on
account of non-difference of purport in the case of what subserves
injunction.
The meditation in all Vedânta-texts thus being the same, the qualities
mentioned in one text are to be combined with those mentioned in another;
'on account of non-difference of purport in the case of what subserves
injunction.' We find that in connexion with certain injunctions of
meditation--such as the meditation on Vaisvânara, or the small ether
within the heart--the text of some individual Vedânta-book mentions
certain secondary matters (qualities, guna) which subserve that
meditation; and as these gunas are connected with the meditation they
are to be comprised in it, so that they may accomplish their aim, i.e.
of subserving the meditation. For the same reason therefore we have to
enclose in the meditation gunas mentioned in other Vedânta-texts; for
being also connected with the meditation they subserve it in the same
way.--Here terminates the adhikarana of 'what is intimated by all
Vedânta-texts.
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 Udgîtha is enjoined in the
text of the Chandogas, as well as in that of the Vâjasaneyins (Ch. Up. I,
2; Bri. Up. I, 3); and the question arises whether the two are to be
viewed as one meditation or not. The Pûrvapakshin 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 Udgîtha
viewed under the form of Prâna; 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 Udgîtha being in both cases viewed under the
form of Prâna; 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. udgîtha-vidyâ. The Sûtra 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 Vâjasaneyins represents as the object of
meditation that which is the agent in the act of singing out the Udgîtha;
while the text of the Chandogas enjoins meditation on what is the object
of the action of singing out (i. e. the Udgîtha 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 Pûrvapakshin impugns,
'on account of non-difference.' For both texts, at the outset, declare
that the Udgîtha is the means to bring about the conquest of enemies
(Let us overcome the Asuras at the sacrifices by means of the Udgîtha'
(Bri. Up.); 'The gods took the Udgîtha, thinking they would with that
overcome the Asuras'--Ch. 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 Udgîtha, which really is the object of
the action of singing, is spoken of as the agent. Otherwise the term
udgîtha in the introductory passage ('by means of the Udgîtha') would
have to be taken as by implication denoting the agent (while directly it
indicates the instrument).--Hence there is oneness of the two vidyâs.--
Of this view the next Sûtra disposes.
7. Or not, on account of difference of subject-matter; as in the case of
the attribute of being higher than the high, and so on.
There is no unity of the two vidyâs, since the subject-matter of the two
differs. For the tale in the Chândogya-text, which begins 'when the
Devas and the Asuras struggled together,' connects itself with the
pranava (the syllable Om) which is introduced as the object of
meditation in Chánd. I, 1, 1, 'Let a man meditate on the syllable Om as
the Udgîtha'; and the clause forming part of the tale,'they meditated on
that chief breath as Udgîtha.' therefore refers to a meditation on the
pranava which is a part only of the Udgîtha. In the text of the Vâja-
saneyins; on the other hand, there is nothing to correspond to the
introductory passage which in the Chândogya-text determines the subject-
matter, and the text clearly states that the meditation refers to the
whole Udgîtha (not only the pranava). And this difference of leading
subject-matter implies difference of matter enjoined, and this again
difference of the character of meditation, and hence there is no unity
of vidyâs. Thus the object of meditation for the Chandogas is the
pranava viewed under the form of Prâna; while for the Vâjasaneyins it is
the Udgâtri (who sings the Udgîtha), imaginatively identified with Prâna.
Nor does there arise, on this latter account, a contradiction between
the later and the earlier part of the story of the Vâjasaneyins. For as
a meditation on the Udgâtri necessarily extends to the Udgîtha, which is
the object of the activity of singing, the latter also helps to bring
about the result, viz. the mastering of enemies.--There is thus no unity
of vidyâ, although there may be non-difference of injunction, and so on.--
'As in the case of the attribute of being higher than the high,' &c. In
one and the same sâkhâ there are two meditations, in each of which the
highest Self is enjoined to be viewed under the form of the pranava (Ch.
Up. I, 6; I, 9), and in so far the two vidyâs are alike. But while the
former text enjoins that the pranava has to be viewed under the form of
a golden man, in the latter he has to be viewed as possessing the
attributes of being higher than the high, and owing to this difference
of attributes the two meditations must be held separate (a_ fortiori_,
then, those meditations are separate which have different objects of
meditation).
8. If that be declared on account of name; (we object, since) that is
also (where the objects of injunction differ).
If the oneness of the vidyâs be maintained on the ground that both have
the same name, viz. udgîtha-vidyâ, we point out that oneness is found
also where the objects enjoined are different. The term agnihotra is
applied equally to the permanent agnihotra and to that agnihotra which
forms part of the sacrifice called 'Kundapâyinâm ayanam'; and the term
udgîtha is applied equally to the many different meditations described
in the first prapâthaka of the Chândogya.