That the qualities of that which abides within the sun and that which
abides in the eye are not to be combined, the text itself moreover shows
by specially stating that the characteristics of the one are those of
the other. For such a special transfer of qualities is needed only where
the qualities are not of themselves established, i.e. where the two
things are naturally different.--Here terminates the adhikarana of
'connexion,'
23. And for the same reason the holding together and the pervading the
sky.
In the Taittiriyaka and in the khilas of the Rânâyanîyas we have the
following passage: 'Gathered together are the powers among which Brahman
is the oldest; Brahman as the oldest in the beginning stretched out the
sky. Brahman was born as the first of all beings; who may rival that
Brahman?' which declares that Brahman gathered together all the most
ancient powers, that it pervades the sky, and so on. And as these
attributes are not stated in connexion with any special meditation, we
must infer that they are to be included in all meditations whatever on
Brahman.--This primâ facie view is controverted by the Sûtra. The
holding together of all powers, &c., although not mentioned in connexion
with any special meditation, is not to be included in all meditations
whatever, but to be connected with particular meditations 'on the same
ground,' i.e. according to difference of place. _Where_ those qualities
have to be included must be decided on the ground of feasibility. The
attribute of pervading the whole heaven cannot be included in a
meditation on Brahman as abiding within a small place such as the heart,
and hence the other attributes also which are stated together with the
attribute mentioned cannot be included in those meditations. And when we
find that in meditations on Brahman as abiding within a small place it
is said that Brahman is greater than the earth, or that the ether within
the heart is as great as the universal ether, these attributes cannot be
taken in their literal sense and hence included in those meditations,
but must be viewed as merely meant to glorify the object proposed for
meditation.--Herewith terminates the adhikarana of 'holding together.'
24. And although (they both be) meditations on man; on account of others
not being recorded.
In the Taittiriyaka as well as the Chândogya we meet with a meditation
on man (purusha-vidyâ), in which parts of the sacrifice are fancifully
identified with the parts of the human body.--Here the Pûrvapakshin
maintains that these two meditations are identical; for, he says, both
meditations have the same name (purusha-vidyâ), and the same character
as stated above; and as the Taittirîyaka mentions no fruit of the
meditation, the fruit declared in the Chândogya holds good for the
Taittirîyaka also, and thus there is no difference of fruit.--This view
the Sûtra negatives. Although both meditations are meditations on man,
yet they are separate 'on account of the others not being recorded,' i.e.
on account of the qualities recorded in one sâkhâ not being recorded in
the other. For the Taittirîyaka mentions the three libations, while the
Chândogya does not, and so on. The character of the two meditations thus
differs. And there is a difference of result also. For an examination of
the context in the Taittirîyaka shows that the purusha-vidyâ is merely a
subordinate part of a meditation on Brahman, the fruit of which the text
declares to be that the devotee reaches the greatness of Brahman; while
the Chândogya meditation is an independent one, and has for its reward
the attainment of long life. The two meditations are thus separate, and
hence the details of one must not be included in the other.--Here
terminates the adhikarana of 'the meditation on man.'