III-3 Śrī Bhāshya | Rāmānuja | 9-10

Topic 9 - Rinsing the mouth is not enjoined in the Prāṇa Vidyā, but only thinking the water as the dress of Prāṇa

Sutra 3,3.18

कार्याख्यानादपूर्वम् ॥ १८ ॥

kāryākhyānādapūrvam || 18 ||

kāryākhyānāt—On account, of being a restatement of an act (already enjoined by the Smriti); apūrvam—what has not been so enjoined elsewhere.

18. On account of (the rinsing of the mouth with water referred to in the Prāṇa Vidyā) being a restatement of an act (already enjoined by the Smriti), what has not been so enjoined elsewhere (is here enjoined by the Śruti).

The Sūtra discusses an additional question connected with the meditation on breath. Both texts--the Chāṇḍogya as well as the Vājasaneyi-declare that water constitutes a dress for prana, and refer to the rinsing of the mouth with water. The doubt here arises whether what the texts mean to enjoin is the rinsing of the mouth, or a meditation on Prāṇa as having water for its dress.--The Pūrvapakshin maintains the former view; for, he says, the Vājasaneyi uses the injunctive form 'he is to rinse,' while there is no injunctive form referring to the meditation; and what the text says in praise of the breath thus not being allowed to remain naked may be taken as a mere glorification of the act of rinsing. And as ordinary rinsing of the mouth, subsequent to eating, is already established by Smriti and custom, we must conclude that the text means to enjoin rinsing of the mouth of a different kind, viz. as auxiliary to the meditation on Prāṇa.--To this the Sūtra replies that what the text enjoins is the new' thing, i.e. the previously non-established meditation on water as forming the dress of Prāṇa. 'On account of the statement of what has to be done,' i. e. on account of the statement of what is not established--for only on the latter condition Scripture has a meaning. The beginning as well as the end of the Vājasaneyi-text clearly refers to a meditation on the water used for rinsing as forming a dress for Prāṇa; and as rinsing is already established by Smriti and custom, we naturally infer that what the text enjoins is a meditation on breath as having the water used in rinsing for its dress. This also explains why the Chāṇḍogya-text does not mention the rinsing at all, but merely the clothing of breath with water.--Here terminates the Adhikaraṇa of 'the statement of what has to be done."

Topic 10 - Vidyās in the same Śākhā which are identical or similar have to be combined, for they are one

Sutra 3,3.19

समान एवञ्च, अभेदात् ॥ १९ ॥

samāna evañca, abhedāt || 19 ||

samāne—In the same Śākhā; evam—(it is) like this; ca—also; abhedāt—on account of non-difference.

19. In the same Śākhā also (it is) like this (i.e. there is unity of Vidyā), on account of the non-difference (of the object of meditation).

In the book of the Vājasaneyi, called Agnirahasya, we meet with a meditation on Brahman called Śāṇḍilya-vidyā; and there is also a Śāṇḍilya-vidyā in the Brihadāraṇyaka. The Pūrvapakshin holds that these two meditations are different since the latter text mentions qualities--such as Brahman being the lord of all--which are not mentioned in the former; the objects of meditation thus being different, the meditations themselves are different. --This the Sūtra negatives. The object of meditation is 'equal,' for both texts state the same qualities, such as 'consisting of mind,' and so on; and the additional qualities stated in the Brihadāraṇyaka, such as the rulership of Brahman, ‘do not differ' from those equally stated by both texts, such as Brahman realising all its purposes, and so on. Thus the objects of meditation do not differ in character.

--Here terminates the Adhikaraṇa of 'what is equal.'