sribhashya-adhyaya3-padha3-adhikarana1and2

[Guest guest]

sribhashya

 

 

 

aDHyaya-3-pAdha-3

 

 

 

sarvavEdhAnthaprathyayADHikaraNam-

 

3-3-1

 

 

 

suhtra-1-sarvavEdhAnthaprathyayam

 

chOdhanAdhyavisEshAth-3-3-1

 

 

 

What is understood from the vedanta texts is one as there is no

difference in injunctions etc.

 

 

 

The previous suthras has served the purpose of kindling the desire of

meditation on Brahman by showing that the fruit of all karma is from

Brahman only. Now the various kinds of meditation are taken up for

consideration. First it is to be examined whether the same meditations

such as vaisvAnara-vidhyA etc.whcih are mentioned separately in

different texts are the same or different.The opponent is of the

opinion that they are not the same because the same matter is repeated

in different shAkhAs under a different topic

 

 

 

This suthra refutes this view and says that the meditation taught in

different vedantha texts is one and the same because the injunctions are

the same, namely such as vidhyAth,'he should know,' upAseetha, 'he

should meditate,' etc. In ChandhOgya and Vajasaneeya there is one and

the meditation prescribes is of the same nature, namely 'vaisvAnaram

upAsthE,he should meditate on vaisvAnara. The object of meditation,

vaisvAnara, the name,the knowledge of vaisvAnara (vaisvAnaravidhyA) and

the fruit, attainment of Brahman is the same in both cases. Therefore

the vidhyas in different sAkhAs are identical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-2-bhEdhAth na ithi cheth EkasyAm api-3-3-2

 

 

 

It is refuted that the vidhyas are several because they come under

different topics since even in one there may be difference.

 

 

 

The difference is in the knower and not the known,that is, the subject

matter, and hence the same meditation is enjoined under diferrent topics

to impart cogntion for different knowers. The repetition of same matter

under different topics could be of different object only if the knower

is the same.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-3-svAdhyAyasaya thaTHAthvE hi samAchArE aDHikArAccha savavaccha

thanniyamah-3-3-3

 

 

 

.. For (the sirovrata, the rite of carrying fire on the head) relates to

the study of the Veda; also because(that rite) being a heading in the

samâkâra; and the restriction is like that of the libations.

 

 

 

This suthra refutes an argument based on a rite enjoined in Mundaka

upanishad. The text 'thEshAm Eva EthAM brahmavidhyAm vadhEtha

sirovratham vidDHivath yaisthu cheerNam,(Mund.10-2-10) communicate this

knowledge of Brahman only to those who perform sirovratha.' This rite is

an observance mentioned in aTHarva veda and means carrying fire on the

head. (It could mean a vratha regarding the head, and some take it to

mean renunciation by taking sannyasa which involves shaving of the

head.) This restriction of imparting the knowledge of Brahman only to

those observing the sirovratha does not indicate difference in

meditation but only prescribes certain qualification for the study of

veda that too only for ATharvaNikas. This is made clear by the

subsequent text 'naithah acheerNa vrathO aDHeethE,(Mund.10-2-11)

Moreover in the text of ATHarvaNikas called samAchAra it is said

'idhamapi vEdhavrathEna vyAkhyAtham, this has been alreadu explained by

the vow of the the study of the vedas. This restriction relates to the

folowers of aTHarva veda only just as the the restriction regarding the

libations offered in one fire used by AtharvaNikas instead of the usual

three fires.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-4-dharsayathi cha-3-3-4

 

 

 

It is shown by sruthi also.

 

 

 

The meditation enjoined by the vedantha texts is shown to be identical

in the sruthi texts also. In ChandhOgya the declaration 'thasmin

yadhanthah thadhanvEshtavyam,'(Chan.8-1-1-) that what is inside(the

heart) is to be enquired into and in answer to the question as to what

is that, it is said that the supreme self possessing the qualities such

as freedom from evil etc. is to be enquired into. This is also confirmed

in Taittiriya which refers to the being within the small space(the

heart) who is to be meditated upon.This establishes that meditations in

both the texts are the same.

 

 

 

 

 

suthra-5-upasamhArO arTHAbhEdhAth viDHiseshavathsamAnEcha-3-3-5

 

Meditation thus being equal, the attribute are to be combined as they

are common like the viDhisesha (that which subserves injunction.)

 

The meditation enjoined in all the vedanta texts are thus shown to be

equal and of the same purport and hence the attributes that are

subservient to the meditation in various texts are to be combined.

 

This is the end of sarvavedhAntha prathyayaDHikaraNam.

 

 

 

ANYAthaTHVadhIKARAnAM-3-3-2

 

suthra-6-anyTHAthvam sabdhAth iti cheth na avisEshATh-3-3-6

 

If it is said that there is difference because of the texts, it is not

so, as there is no difference.

 

So far it has been shown that there is unity in meditations such as

vaisvanaravidhya and dhaharavidhya. Now certain particular meditations

are examined to determine whether there is unity of injunction. This

suthra is of the nature of prima facie view.

 

 

 

The texts of ChandhOgya and that of BrhadhAraNyaka contain the

injunction regarding the meditation on udhgeethA. The BrhadhAraNyaka

text goes like this. 'thE ha dhEvA oochuh hantha asurAn

yajnEudhgeeyEnAthyayAma,(Brhd.1-1) the devas said that they will destroy

the asuras with sacrifice by means of udhgeetha.' the chAndhogya text

says, 'thadhha dhEvA udhgeetham Ajahruh anEna EnAm abhihanishyAmah'

(Chan.1-2-1)the devas took the udhgeetha saying that they will overcome

the asuras with this.'

 

The question that is raised is that whether these two meditations are

identical or different. The poorvapakshin holds the former view and says

that the two are the same because the object of meditation in both cases

is the same, namely the udhgeetha and the result also is the same, the

conquest of enemies and the name is the same etc

 

The argument that there is a difference in the texts and hence the two

are not the same is refuted by the poorvapakshin. The argument to show

the difference is as follows: 'rupabhEdhAth;rupAnyaTHAthvam hi

sabdhAdhEva pratheeyathE.' The text itself shows the difference in the

form of the two and because of that they are different. The

BrhadhAraNyaka text is 'aTHa ha prANam oochuh thvam nah udhgAya ithi;

thaTHethi thebhyah prAna udhagAyath,(Brhad.1-3) they said to prANa "you

sing the udhgeetha for us" and the praNa saying 'very well' sang for

them.' The ChandhOgya text is as follows: 'aTha ha ya EvAyam mukhyah

prANah tham udghgeetham upAsAmschakrirE,(Chan.!-2-7)then they meditated

on the principal prANa as udhgeetha.' In the first text the object of

meditation is the prANa as the singer of udhgeetha whereas in the second

it is prANa itself as udhgeetha. The opponent does not agree saying

that, in both it is the udhgeetha which is mentioned at the outset as

the means of conquering the enemies. the next suthra refutes this.

 

 

 

suthra-7-na va prakaraNabhEdhAth parovareeyasthvAdhivath-3-3-7

 

Not the same because of the difference in subject matter as in the case

of the attribute of being higher than the high.

 

The ChandhOgya passage which starts with the struggle between the devas

and asuras introduces praNava as the object of meditation.

'OmithyEthadhaksharam udhgeetham upAseetha,(Chan-1-1-1) let one meditate

on the OmkAra as udhgeetha.' therefore the text 'aTHa ha EvAyam mukhyah

prANah tham udhgeetham upAsAmschakrire,' (Chan1-2-7) refers to the

meditation on the praNava as apart of udhgeetha. In BrhadharaNyaka

passage the meditation on the whole of udhgeetha is mentioned. So there

is difference in context which indicates difference in subject matter

and hence in the form of meditation.

 

The words in the suthra parovareeyasthvAdhivath 'as in the case of

attribute being higher than the high,' refers to the meditation on

udhgeetha in one and the same sakha. In the first text (Chan.1-6-6) the

supreme self is mentioned as being of golden colour while in the second

(Chan.1-9-2) He is mentioned as being higher than the high. Therefore

these two meditations are taken as being different due to the difference

in attributes.

 

 

 

suthra-8-sajnAthascheth thadhuktham asthi thu thadhapi-3-3-8

 

If it is said to be the same on account of the names it also found in

different injunctions.

 

If it is argued that since the name is the same, namely,

udhgeethavidhya, there is no difference this suthra refutes this by

saying that identical names are found also in different injunctions.

for instance te word agihothra is applied to the injunction regarding

the regular agnihothra as well as to the occasional one which is apart

of the sacrifice kundapAyinAm.

 

 

 

suthra-9-vyApthEscha samanjasam-3-3-9

 

This is appropriate also because of extension.

 

In ChandhOgya passage the praNava as a part of ughgeetha is the object

of meditation in the first chapter and it extends to the other

meditations also. But in BrahadhAraNyaka text the term udhgeetha denotes

the whole udhgeetha. Hence the two are different.Thus ends the

anyaTHAthvADHikaraNam