Brahma-Sūtra 3.3.6 (prima facie view)

English of translation of Brahmasutra 3.3.6 by Roma Bose:

“If it be objected that (there is) difference (between the two udgītha-vidyās) on account of scriptural text, (we reply:) no, on account of non-difference.”

Nimbārka’s commentary (Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha):

It is stated in the Vājasaneyaka: “Then, verily, they said to this breath in the mouth: ‘Sing the udgītha for us’. ‘So be it’—that breath sang the udgītha for them” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.3.7^[1]). And it is stated in the Chāndogya too: “Then, verily, he who is this chief vital-breath him they worshipped as the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.2.7^[2]). On the doubt, viz. whether the vidyās are the same here, or different, the prima facie view is that the vidyās are the same. If it be objected that in the Vājasaneyaka text: ‘“Sing the udgītha for us”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1,3.7), breath is said to be a subject; while in the Chāndogya text: “Him as the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.2.7), it is said to be an object, Hence the vidyās are different,—(the prima facie objector replies:) “no”, “on account of non-difference” in the introductory part, i,e. because in the texts: “Let us overcome (the demons) by the udgītha” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.3.1^[3]), “They took the udgītha, (thinking:) with this we shall kill^[4] them” the udgītha alone appears to be the object to be meditated on (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1,2.1^[5]). Hence it is established that the meditations are the same.

Śrīnivāsa’s commentary (Vedānta-kaustubha)

It has been said above that the vidyās, though recorded in many places, are really identical as the injunctions and the rest are soṛ and it has been shown that their special features are to be mutually combined. Now, wishing to point out the difference of several vidyās, the author is first stating the prima facie view.

Having begun thus: “The gods and the demons were the offspring of Prajāpati” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.3.1), having mentioned the vow of the gods, viz.: “Those gods said: ‘Let us overcome the demons at the sacrifice with the udgītha’” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.3.1), and having shown how they failed to realise their purpose, i.e. to destroy the demons through speech and the rest, the Vājasaneyins record how they finally overcame the demons through the knowledge of the udgītha thus: “Then, verily, they said to the breath in the mouth: ‘Sing the udgītha for us’. ‘So be it,’ that breath sang the udgītha for them” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.3.7). They further state the fruit of the knowledge of the udgītha thus: “He becomes superior by himself, his hateful enemy (becomes inferior) who knows thus” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.3.7).

Having begun thus: “Then, verily, the gods took the udgītha, (thinking) ‘With this we shall kill^[6] them’” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.2.1), and having shown, as before, how they failed to realise their purpose though striving hard, the Chandogas too record how they finally overcame the demons through the knowledge of the udgītha thus: “Then, verily, he who is the chief vital-breath,—him they worshipped as the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.2.7). They, further, state the fruit of the knowledge thus: “So exactly he falls to pieces who wishes evil to one who knows thus” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.2.8^[7]).

On the doubt, viz. whether here the vidyās are identical or different,—we. (i.e. prima facie objectors) say: The vidyās are the same. Why? “On account of the non-difference” of injunctions and the rest. Thus, the injunction, expressed by the root ‘to know’, is the same; the fruit too, viz. the overcoming of the demons, is the same; the form, as well, is the same as the object to be meditated on, viz. the udgītha viewed as the vital-breath., is so; and the name, too, viz. ‘udgītha-meditation’ is the same.

If it be objected: There is “difference”, i.e. there is difference from the admitted sameness of the vidyās, i.e. the vidyās are not identical. Why? In the text: “‘Sing the udgītha for us.’ That breath sang the udgītha” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.3.7), the vital-breath is indicated as a subject by the Vājins by a word in the nominative case. But in the text: “Him, the udgītha” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.2.7), it is described as an object, having the form of the udgītha, by the Chandogas by a word in the accusative case,—on account of such scriptural texts,—

(We, i.e. the prima facie objectors, reply:) “no”, because in the texts: ‘“Let us overcome (the demons) by the udgītha”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1,31), “They took the udgītha, (thinking) ‘With this we shall kill them’” (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.2.1), the udgītha alone appears to be the object to be meditated on. Nor can it be said that this difference of case-endings would make them differ in major points.^[8] In the text: ‘“Sing the udgītha for us”’ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.3.7), the udgītha which is really an object is said to be a subject figuratively.

Comparative views of Baladeva:

This is sūtra 7 in his commentary. He does not take it to be setting forth a prima facie view, and does not begin a new adhikaraṇa here, but continues the topic of the coalescence of the different attributes of the Lord. Hence the sūtra: “If it he objected that the contrary is the case (i.e. all the attributes of the Lord are not to be combined while meditating on Him), (we reply:) no, on account of non-specification, (i.e. because there is no specific text to the effect)”.^[9]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Quoted by Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Bhāskara and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[2]:

Op. cit.

[3]:

Quoted by Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[4]:

Correct quotation: “abhibhaviṣyāmaḥ”, meaning “we shall overcome”. Vide Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.2.1, p. 20.

[5]:

Quoted by Rāmānuja and Śrīkaṇṭha.

[6]:

For correct quotation see footnote 2, above.

[7]:

Vide the udgītha-vidyā or the doctrine of the udgītha in Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Chāndogya:—

(a) Bṛh. 1.3.—The story begins: The gods and the demons, the offspring of Prajāpati fought with one another for the worlds. The gods, then resolved to overcome the demons at the sacrifice by the udgītha. So they asked speech to sing the udgītha for them. But the demons, coming to know of this, rushed upon it and pierced it with evil. Thereupon the gods successively approached the in-breath, the eye, the ear and the mind, each of which was however corrupted by the demons. Finally, they approached the chief vital-breath which sang the udgītha for them, and when the demons rushed upon it, trying to pierce it with evil, they themselves were scattered and perished (Bṛhadāraṇyaka-upaniṣad 1.3.1-1.3.7).

(b) Chānd. 1.2.—A very similar account given. The story begins: The gods and the demons, the offspring of Prajāpati fought with one another, and the gods took the udgītha, thinking that they would overcome the demons with it. Then they worshipped the breath in the nose as the udgītha, but the demons pierced it with evil. Thereupon, they successively worshipped as the udgītha speech, the eye, the ear and the mind, each of which were, however, corrupted by the demons. Finally, they worshipped the chief vital-breath as the udgītha, and when the demons tried to corrupt it, they themselves fell to pieces (Chāndogya-upaniṣad 1.2.1-1.2.7).

[8]:

E.g, the war between the gods and the demons; the approach of the gods to speech, eye, ear and mind; the successful attempt of the demons to corrupt them; their unsuccessful attempt to corrupt the chief vital-breath; the final overcoming of the demons by the chief vital-breath as the udgītha, etc.

[9]:

Govinda-bhāṣya 3.3.7, pp. 120-121, Chap. 3.