III, 3, 7

7. Or rather there is no (unity of the vidyās), owing to the difference of subject-matter.

Setting aside the view maintained by the pūrvapakṣin, we have rather to say that, owing to the difference "of subject-matter, the two vidyās are separate.--In the Chāndogya the introductory sentence (I, 1, 1), 'Let a man meditate on the syllable Om (as) the udgītha,' represents as the object of meditation the syllable Om which is a part of the udgītha; thereupon proceeds to give an account of its qualities such as being the inmost essence of all ('The full account, however, of Om is this,' &c.); and later on tells, with reference to the same syllable Om which is a part of the udgītha, a story about the Gods and Asuras in which there occurs the statement,' They meditated on the udgītha as that breath^[1].' If now we should assume^[2] that the term 'udgītha' denotes here the whole act of worship (not only the syllable Om which is a part of the udgītha), and that (in the passage, 'they meditated on the udgītha as that breath') the performer of that worship, i.e. the Udgātṛ-priest, is said to be meditated upon as breath; our interpretation would be open to two objections: in the first place it would be opposed to the introductory sentence (which directly declares the syllable Om to be the object of devotion); and in the second place it would oblige us to take the word udgītha (in 'they meditated on the udgītha'), not in its direct sense, but as denoting by implication the udgātṛ. But the rule is that in one and the same connected passage the interpretation of later passages has to adapt itself to the earlier passages. We therefore conclude the passage last quoted to teach that the syllable Om which is a part of the udgītha is to be meditated upon as prāṇa.--In the Vājasaneyaka on the other hand there is no reason for taking the word udgītha to denote a part of the udgītha only, and we therefore must interpret it to denote the whole; and in the passage, 'Do thou sing out for us,' the performer of the worship, i.e. the Udgātṛ-priest, is described as prāṇa. In reply to the pūrvapakṣin's remark that in the Vājasaneyaka also the udgītha and the prāṇa occur in co-ordination (in the passage, 'He is udgītha'), we point out that that statement merely aims at showing that the Self of all is that prāṇa which the text wishes to represent as udgātṛ. The statement, therefore, docs not imply the unity of the two vidyās. Moreover, there also the term udgītha denotes the whole act of worship (while in the Chāndogya it denotes the omkāra only). Nor must it be said that the prāṇa can impossibly be an udgātṛ, and that on that account our interpretation of the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka passage is erroneous; for with a view to pious meditation scripture may represent the prāṇa as udgātṛ as well as udgītha. And, moreover, the Udgātṛ actually performs his work by the strength of his breath; hence the prāṇa may be called udgātṛ. In accordance with this the text says (I, 3, 24). 'He sang it indeed as speech and breath.'--And if we understand that the text clearly intends to convey a difference of matter we have no right to conclude from merely apparent similarities of expression that only one matter is intended to be expressed. To quote an analogous instance from the karma-kāṇḍa: In the section relative to the unexpected rising of the moon during the darśa-sacrifice, as well as in the section about the offering to be made by him who is desirous of cattle, we meet with identical injunctions such as the following one, 'He is to divide, the grains into three portions, and to make those of medium size into a cake offered on eight potsherds to Agni the Giver,' &c.; nevertheless it follows from the difference of the introductory passages of the two sections that the offerings to be made on account of the moon's rising are indeed not connected with the divinities of the darśa-sacrifice (but do not constitute a new sacrifice separate from the darśa), while the section about him who is desirous of cattle enjoins a separate sacrificial performance^[3].--Analogously a difference in the nature of the introductory clauses effects a difference of the vidyās, 'As in the case of that which is greater than great.' That means: Just as the meditation on the udgītha enjoined in the passage, 'Ether is greater than these, ether is their rest; he is indeed the udgītha, greater than great, he is without end' (Ch. Up. I, 9, 1), and the other meditation on the udgītha as possessing the qualities of abiding within the eye and the sun, &c. (Ch. Up. I, 6), are separate meditations, although in both the udgītha is identified with the highest Self; so it is with vidyās in general. The special features of different vidyās are not to be combined even when the vidyās belong to one and the same Śākhā; much less then when they belong to different Śākhās.