III, 3, 8

8. If it be said (that the vidyās are one) on account of (the identity of) name; (we reply that) that is explained (already); moreover that (identity of name) is (found in the case of admittedly separate vidyās).

Here it might be said that after all the unity of the two vidyās discussed must be admitted, since they are called by one and the same name, viz. 'the science of the udgītha.'--But this argument is of no avail against what has been said under the preceding Sūtra. The decision there advocated has the advantage of following the letter of the revealed text; the name 'udgītha-vidyā' on the other hand is not a part of the revealed text, but given to the vidyās for convenience sake by ordinary men for the reason that the word 'udgītha' is met with in the text.--Moreover, we observe that admittedly separate meditations such as the two mentioned under the last Sūtra have one and the same name. Similarly altogether separate sacrificial performances, such as the agnihotra, the darśapūrṇamāsa, and so on, are all comprised under the one name Kāṭhaka, merely because they are recorded in the one book called Kāṭhaka.--Where, on the other hand, there is no special reason for assuming the difference of vidyās, their unity may be declared on the ground of identity of name; as, e.g. in the case of the Saṃvargavidyās.