sribhashya-adhyaya3-padha3-adhikaranas 5,6and 7

[Guest guest]

kAryAkhyAnADHikaraNam-3-3-5

 

suthra-18-kAryAkhyAnAth apoorvam-3-3-18

 

A new thing is enjoined in the meditation of the prANa due to statement

of what is to be done.

 

In the ChandhOgya and BrhadhAraNyaka texts about the meditation on prANa

water is mentioned as the clothing of prANa. ChandhOgya text says 'sa

hOvAcha kim mE vAsO bhavishyathi ithi, Apa ithi hOchuh.'That is,prANa

asked what will be my clothing and the senses replied that it is

water.Similar text is found in BrhadhAraNyaka passage also. Subsequent

text 'thadhvidhvAmsah srOthriyA asiahyantha AchAmanthi asithvA cha

AchAmanthi;EthmEva thadhanam anagnam kurvanthO manyanthE, the sages

well-versed in the vedas sip a little water(Achamanam) before and after

taking food. Then they think that they are clothing the prANa.' (Brhd

6-1-14)

 

The doubt here is that whether the injunction is about Achamana or

meditation on prANa having water as its clothing.The poorvapakshin says

that it is the former as there is no injunction referring to meditation.

The Achamana being said to clothe the prANa is only in the form of

eulogy of the rite.

 

To this the suthra replies that since in the beginning and at the end of

the passage clearly enjoins the meditation on water being the clothing

of prANA and also because it is something not mentioned before, the text

enjoins meditation on prANa having water as clothing.The Achamana is

already established by smrithi and tradition.This is why in ChandhOgya

there is no mention of Achamana but only of clothing the prANa with

water.'thasmAth vA Ethadh asishyanthah purasthAth cha uparishTAth cha

adhbhih paridhaDHathi lambukO ha vAsO bhavathi anagnOha

bhavathi,(Chan.5-2-2) therefore indeed those who are about to eat,cover

it,both before and after with water.Thus ends the kAryAkhyAnADHikaraNam.

 

samAnAdhikaraNam-3-3-6

 

suthra-19-samAna Evam cha abhEdhAth-3-3-19

 

Attributes being the same there is nondifference of meditations.

 

The meditation on Brahman called sAndilya vidhya occurs both in

sathpathbrAhmNa and BrhadhAraNyaka. The former text begins as 'sathyam

brahma ithi upAseetha, meditate on Brahman as truth,' and concludes as

'sa AthmAnam upAseetha, manOmayam prANasariram bhArupam,(sa.10-6-3) he

should meditate on the Self who consists of mind,prANA as the body, and

is the form of light .' In BrhadhAraNyaka text it is said 'manO

mayOayam purushah bhAh sathyah,this person who consists of mind , who is

in the form of light.'

 

Here a doubt is raised that whether the two are the same or different.

The view that they are different because of the mention of qualities

such as vasithvam, having everything in control etc are not mentioned in

the former text, is refuted by the suthra.

 

They are the same as both mention the same qualities, namely,manOmaya,

consisting of the mind, sathyasankalpa, True will bhArupa, having the

form of light, prAnasarira,having prANa as the body.the Extra qualities

like vasithvam are not really different from those already mentioned

like sathyasankalpathvam which are all inclusive.Thus ends

samAnADHikaraNam.

 

 

 

sambanDHADHikaraNam-3-3-7

 

sambanDHAdhEvam anyathrApi-3-3-20

 

Because of connection as in other cases also.

 

In BrhadhAraNyaka passage beginning with 'sathyam brahma,' the place of

Brahman in the orb of the Sun and in the right eye is mentioned and the

meditation on Brahman is enjoined as 'thasya upanihad ahar ithi' with

respect to Brahman as adhidhaivatham ruler of all and as 'thasya

upanishadhaham ithi,with respect to Brahman as aDhyathmam, the inner

self, the terms ahar and aham being the secret names given to Brahman.

Here the poorvapakshin holds the view that both are the same Brahman,

mentioned as being in different places and hence the meditation is one

and not different.The next suthra refutes this.

 

 

 

suthra-21-na vA viseshaAth-3-3-21

 

Not so because of different abodes.

 

Since Brahman is to be meditated in two different places, the orb of

the sun and the right eye, the meditations are different. But in

sandilya vidhya Brahman is meditated in the same place, namely, the

lotus of the heart. Hence the case is not akin to sandilyavidhya where

the meditations are explained as being the same.

 

 

 

suthra-22-dharsayathi cha-3-3-22

 

The text also show this as such.

 

The person in the eye is separately mentioned from the person in the sun

in the subsequent passages while maintaining that both are one, ie.

Brahman. (Brhad-1-7-5) So the separate entities mentioned is for

meditation and hence thuey are different.Thus ends sambanDHADHikaraNam.