sribhashya-adhyaya3-padha3-adhkaranas21 to 24

[Guest guest]

sarirEbhAvADhikaraNam-3-3-21

 

suthra-51-Eka Athmanah sarirE bhAvAth-

 

3-3-51

 

Some say that the individual self is to be meditated upon as the knower

experiencer and doer, because of its existence inside the body.

 

It is essential to ascertain the nature of the upasaka, the meditating

self as it was done so regarding the nature of meditation and the object

of meditation.

 

The question now is whether the meditating self is the

knower-doer-experiencer or the self as described in ChandhOgya in the

section of PrajApathy (Chan.8-7) as free from imperfections etc.

 

The poorvapaksha view is that it is the individual self in the form of

knower-doer-experiencer, who is the meditating self because he reides

in the body. The result of the meditation can also be applied to him

only.It cannot be argued on the basis of thathkrathu nyaya that the

individual self is to be viewed as free fron sin etc. by quoting the

text 'yaTHA krathurasmin lOkE purushah bhavathi thaTHEtha prEthya

bhavathi,(chan.3-14-1) just as his thoughts are in this wolrd a man

becomes so in the next world after death,' because that refers to the

object of meditation and not the meditating self. The next suthra

replies to this.

 

 

 

suthra-52-vyathirEkathadhbhAvabhAvithvAth na thu upalabDhivath-3-3-52

 

But it is not so; rather different from it as in the case of

brahman-knowledge.

 

the meditating self should be thought of as the one possessing the

characterestics of freedom from evil etc. This alone is proved by the

text quoted from ChahdhOgya,'yaTHAkrathu' etc.(Chan.3-14-1) and the text

'thatTHEthah prethya bhavathi tham thaTHA yaTHOpAsathE thaTHaiva

bhavathi, (Mudgal up.3) however one meditate on him he cecomes the

same.' These texts cannot be taken to refer only to the supreme self and

hence does not apply to the mediating self because the individual self

,being the body of Brahman , is included in the realm of Brahman.So the

individual self forming the body of Brahman, characterised by the

qualities such as freedom from evil, in other words, the pure self which

is the mode of Brahman, is the object of meditation.This is the meanng

in the passage in the section of Prajapathi in ChandhOgya.

 

Just as the essential nature of Brahman is the object of meditation on

Brahman so also the individual self in the state of release is the

object of meditation. Just as in the case of 'svargakAmo yajetha' which

prescribes the qualification for the sacrificer here also the

knower-doer-experiencer is the qualification of the meditator to enable

him to obtain the result of release.Thus ends the sarirEbhAvADhikaraNam.

 

 

 

 

 

angAvabaddhADHikaraNam-3-3-22

 

suthra-53-angAvabaddhAsthu na sAkhAsu hi prathivedham-3-3-53

 

Meditations connected with limbs of sacrifice are not restricted to the

particular branches but to all branches of the veda.

 

There are texts such as 'OmithyEthadhaksharam udhgeeTHam upAseetha,

(Chan.1-1-1) let one meditate on the syllable OM as udhgeetha,' and

'lOkEshu panchaviDham sAma upAseetha, (Chan.2-2-1) let one meditate on

the fivefold sAman as the five worlds,' etc. mentioned in connection

with the acts of sacrifice. The question is whether they relate only to

the branch in which they occur or to all branches of the veda in

connection with udhgeetha etc. Even though all vedanta texts are in

agreement, the udhgeetha differs in each veda because of the difference

in accent.So this legitimate doubt is raised by the poorvapakshin who

holds the view that the meditations mentioned are restricted to the

particular sAkha to which they are connected.

 

This suthra refutes the above view saying that the meditations of this

kind is common to all sAkhas since the text explicitly mention them in

connection with udhgeetha in general. Even thoughthere is difference in

accent the sacrifice enjoined is one only.therefore the udhgeetha being

a part of the sacrifice is the same.

 

 

 

suthra-54manthrAdhuvath vA avirODhah -

 

3-3-54

 

Or there is no contradiction as in the case of manthras and the rest.

 

As the manthras and the rest, (meaning-

jAthiguNasankhyAsAdhrsyakramadravyakarmANi- the generic characterestics,

quality,substance,number, similarity,order of succession and action)

though they are mentioned in one branch apply to all branches,based on

valid texts, there is no contradiction here as the principal sacrifice

is one and the same.Thus ends angAvabaddhADHikaraNam.

 

 

 

bhoomajyAyasthvADHikaraNam-3-3-23

 

suthra-55-bhoomnah krathuvath jyAyasthvam-

 

3-3-55

 

Meditation on bhooman(abundance) is superior as in the case of the

sacrifice, the scripture thus declares.

 

In ChandhOgya a meditation on vaisvanara is enjoined, the objject of

meditation being the supreme self, having the threefold world as its

body and the heaven, the sun the wind etc. as limbs.(Chan.5-12) Now

there is a doubt whether the whole cosmic form, or its limbs or both

together is to be meditated. As in the bhoomavidhya (Chan.7-23) where

the meditation on name etc. with separate results for each and in the

end the meditation is enjoined on the bhooman with a result of its own

..And hence says the opponents, the meditation is to be done on the

separate parts.

 

This view is refuted by the suthra.The meditation is on the cosmic form

only, considering the unity of the entire section. In the context five

sages approach Asvapathi, the king of Kekaya, to know the self of

Vaisvanra. He teaches them the self of Vaisvanara, who is having the

universe as the body.The meditation on the limbs is to emphasise this

fact.The separate meditations on the parts and their results are only in

the nature of explanation of the whole, as in the case of the sacrifice

performed for the sake of progeny,in which the oblations are to be

offered in twelve potsherds and later the oblations are said to be

offered in eight, which is a part of the whole sacrifice. Moreover it

is denoted that the meditation is enjoined on the whole cosmic form by

sruthi itself as Asvapathi says to the rshis who were meditating upon

the limbs of the cosmic self 'your head would have fallen off if you

had not come to me' etc. which does not forbid meditating on the parts

instead of the whole but only emphasises the eminence of the meditation

on the whole.Thus ends BhoomajyAyathvAdhikaraNam.

 

 

 

sabdhAdhibEdhADhikaranam-3-3-24

 

suthra-56-nAnAsabdhAdhibhEdhAth.-3-3-56

 

The meditations are separate because of the difference in words etc.

 

The meditations which are done for the sake of attaining Brahman, the

result of which is mentioned as final release, are the meditations such

as sadvidhya,bhoomavidhya,dhaharavidhya,upakOsalavidhya,sandilyavidhya

vaisvanaravidhya etc.whether they belong to one sakha or different

sakhas. Those which have their object as praNa with special result are

of different category. Regarding the former category a doubt arises as

to whether they are all identical or separate. the poorvapkshin holds

the former view since the object of meditation Brahman, and the result,

the final release, are the same in all.

 

This view is refuted by the suthra by saying that they are several on

account of the difference in the words etc., which means the difference

due to abhyAsa,repetition, sankhya,number,guNa,quality, prakriya,

context and nAmaDhEya,name.The differences are due to those in the

subsidiaries. Though the object of all of them is Brahman, they are

distinct in as as much as they have Brahman qualified with different

attributes as their object, like being the sole cause of the

world,being free from evil etc.So all these meditations are different

and separate.Thus ends the sabdhAdhibhEdhaDHikaraNam.