III-3 Śrī Bhāshya | Rāmānuja | 13-14

Topic 13 - The Purusha Vidyā in the Chāṇḍogya and the Taittirīya are not one

Sutra 3,3.24

पुरुषविद्यायामिव चेतरेषामनाम्नानात् ॥ २४ ॥

puruṣavidyāyāmiva cetareṣāmanāmnānāt || 24 ||

puruṣavidyāyām-iva—As in the Purusha Vidyā (of the Chāṇḍogya); ca—and; itareṣām—of the others; anāmnānāt—not being mentioned (in the Taittirīya).

24. And (since the qualities) as (mentioned) in the Purusha Vidyā (of the Chāṇḍogya) are not mentioned (in that) of the others (i.e. in the Taittirīya) (the two Purusha Vidyās are not one).

In the Taittirīya as well as the Chāṇḍogya we meet with a meditation on man (Purusha-vidyā), in which parts of the sacrifice are fancifully identified with the parts of the human body.--Here the Pūrvapakshin maintains that these two meditations are identical; for, he says, both meditations have the same name (Purusha-vidyā), and the same character as stated above; and as the Taittirīya mentions no fruit of the meditation, the fruit declared in the Chāṇḍogya holds good for the Taittirīya also, and thus there is no difference of fruit.--This view the Sūtra 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 śākhā not being recorded in the other. For the Taittirīya mentions the three libations, while the Chāṇḍogya 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 Taittirīya shows that the Purusha-vidyā 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 Chāṇḍogya 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 Adhikaraṇa of 'the meditation on man.'

Topic 14 - Detached Mantras like “Pierce the whole (body of the enemy)” etc. and sacrifices mentioned at the beginning of certain Upanishads do not form part of the Brahma Vidyā inculcated in the Upanishads

Sutra 3,3.25

वेधाद्यर्थभेदात् ॥ २५ ॥

vedhādyarthabhedāt || 25 ||

vedhādi—Piercing etc.; arthabhedātbecause they have a different meaning.

25. (Certain Mantras relating to) piercing etc. (are not part of the Vidyās though mentioned near by) because they have a different meaning.

The text of the Ātharvanikas exhibits at the beginning of their Upanishad some mantras, 'Pierce the sukra, pierce the heart.' The followers of the Sāma-veda read at the beginning of their rāhasya-Brāhmaṇa 'O God Savitri, promote the sacrifice.' The Kāṭhakas and the Taittirīya have 'May Mitra be propitious to us, may Varuṇa be propitious.' The Sātyāyanins have 'Thou art a white horse, a tawny and a black one!' The Kaushitaki have a Brāhmaṇa referring to the Mahāvrata-ceremony, 'Indra having slain Vritra became great.' The Kaushitaki also have a Mahāvrata-Brāhmaṇa. 'Prajāpati is the year; his Self is that Mahāvrata.' The Vājasaneyins have a Brāhmaṇa referring to the Pravargya, 'The gods sat down for a Sattra-celebration.' With reference to all this a doubt arises whether these mantras and the sacrificial works referred to in the Brāhmaṇa texts form parts of the meditations enjoined in the Upanishads or not.--The Pūrvapakshin affirms this, on the ground that as the mantras and works are mentioned in the immediate neighbourhood of the meditations the idea of their forming parts of the latter naturally presents itself. Such mantras as 'pierce the heart' and works such as the Pravargya may indeed--on the basis of direct statement (śruti), inferential mark (linga), and syntactical connexion (vākya), which are stronger than mere proximity--be understood to be connected with certain actions; but, on the other hand, mantras such as 'May Varuṇa be propitious' have no application elsewhere, and are suitable introductions to meditations. We therefore take them to be parts of the meditations, and hence hold that those mantras are to be included in all meditations.--This view the Sūtra sets aside 'on account of the difference of sense of piercing, and so on.' The inferential marks contained in texts such as 'pierce the sukra, pierce the heart'; 'I shall speak the right, I shall speak the true,' show that the mantras have an application in connexion with certain magical practices, or else the study of the Veda, and the like, and do not therefore form part of meditations. That is to say--in the same way as the mantra 'pierce the heart' enables us to infer that also the mantra 'pierce the sukra' belongs to some magical rite, so we infer from the special meaning of mantras such as 'I shall speak the right,' etc., that also mantras such as 'May Mitra be propitious' are connected with the study of the Veda, and do not therefore form part of meditations. That mantras of this kind and Brāhmaṇa passages relative to the Pravargya and the like are placed at the beginning of Upanishads is owing to their having, like the latter, to be studied in the forest.

--Herewith terminates the Adhikaraṇa of 'piercing and the like.'