Chapter III, Section III, Adhikarana I

Adhikarana summary: The Vidyas with identical or similar form met with in the scriptures, or in different recensions of the scriptures are one Vidya

Brahma-Sutra 3.3.1: Sanskrit text and English translation.

सर्ववेदान्तप्रत्ययम्, चोदनाद्यविशेषात् ॥ १ ॥

sarvavedāntapratyayam, codanādyaviśeṣāt || 1 ||

sarva-vedānta-pratyayam—Described in the various Vedanta texts; codanādi-aviśeṣāt—on account of non-difference as regards injunction etc. (i.e. connection, form and name).

1 (The Upasanas) described in the various Vedanta texts (are not different), on account of the non-difference as regards injunction etc. (i.e. connection, form, and name).

There are Upasanas described variously in different Vedanta texts. For example, the Upasana of Prana is described in one way in the Briliadaran-yaka Upanishad and in a different way in the Chhandogya. Are such Upasanas, described differently in different Sakhas of the Vedas, different or same? The opponent holds that they are different, on account of the difference in form. This Sutra refutes it and says that such meditations are one and the same, on account of the non-difference as regards injunction, connection, name, and form of these in different Sakhas. Just as on account of the injunction in all Sakhas, “One should perform the Agni-hotra” etc. (Mai. 6. 36) the daily Agnihotra sacrifice is one only, and as Jyotishtoma and Vajapeya sacrifices described in different Sakhas are one only, so also on account of nön-difference as regards injunction such as, “He who knows the oldest and greatest” (Brih. 6. 1. 1.) in both the Brihadaranyaka and the Chhandogya Upanishads, the Prana Vidya in all the Sakhas is one and the same. Similarly as regards the fruit or result of the Upasana there is non-difference. “He who knows it to be such becomes the oldest and greatest” (Brih. 6. 1. 1). Prana, which is the object of the meditation, is described in both as the oldest and greatest, and both the meditations are named Prana Vidya. Therefore there being non-difference in all respects, the two Vidyas are not different, but one. The same is true of Dahara Vidya, Vaisvanara Upasana, Sandilya Vidya, etc. described in various Sakhas.

 

Brahma-Sutra 3.3.2: Sanskrit text and English translation.

भेदान्नेति चेत्, न, एकस्यामपि ॥ २ ॥

bhedānneti cet, na, ekasyāmapi || 2 ||

bhedāt—On account of difference na—not; iti cet—if it be said; na—not so; ekasyāmapi—even in the same (Vidya).

2. If it be said (that the Vidyas are) not (one) on account of difference (in minor points), (we reply) not so, since even in the same Vidya (there might be such minor differences).

A further objection is raised that since certain differences are seen to exist with respect to the Vidyas described in different Sakhas, they cannot be one. For example, in the Brhadaranyaka in the Panehagni Vidya a sixth fire is mentioned as an object of worship: “The fire becomes his fire” (Brih. 3. 2. 14); whereas in the Chhandogya we have, “But he who knows these ñve fires” (Chh. 5. 10. 10). Therefore on account of difference in form the two Vidyas cannot be one. This Sutra refutes it and says that they are one, since even in the same Vidya there may be differences of form. The five fires like heaven etc. mentioned in the Chhandogya are identified in the Brihadaranyaka. Therefore there can be no difference in Vidya. Nor can the presence or absence of a sixth fire create a difference as regards form, for in the same Atiratra sacrifice the Shodasi vessel may or may not be taken. On the other hand, on account of the majority of fires being recognized in both, it is reasonable that we should add the sixth fire to the Vidya in the Chhandogya. The name ‘five fires’ is also no objection against this increase of number, for the number five is not an essential part of the injunction. Moreover, even in the same Sakha and in the same Vidya differences like this are seen in different chapters; yet the Vidya described in these different chapters is taken on all hands as one. Therefore in spite of these differences in different Sakhas it is reasonable that Vidyas of the same class are one and not different.

 

Brahma-Sutra 3.3.3: Sanskrit text and English translation.

स्वाध्यायस्य तथात्वेन हि समाचारेऽधिकाराच्च सववच्च तन्नियमः ॥ ३ ॥

svādhyāyasya tathātvena hi samācāre’dhikārācca savavacca tanniyamaḥ || 3 ||

svādhyāyasya—Of the study of the Vedas; tathātvena—as being such; iti—because; samācāre—in the Samachara (a book of that name); adhikārāt—on account of the qualification; ca—and; savavat—like that of the (seven) oblations (viz. Saurya etc.); ca—and; tanniyamaḥ—that rule.

3. (The rite of carrying fire on the head is connected) with the study of the Vedas, because in the Samachara (it is described) as being such. And (this also follows) from its being a qualification (for the students of the Atharva Veda), as is the case with tlie (seven) oblations (viz. Saurya etc.).

A further objection is raised. In the Mundaka Upanishad, which deals with the knowledge of Brahman, the carrying of fire on the head by the student is mentioned. The opponent holds that on account of this particular ceremony, which obtains among the followers of the Atharva Veda, the Vidya of the Atharvanikas is different from all other Vidyas. The Sutra refutes this saying that the rite of carrying fire on the head is not an attribute of the Vidya, but of the study of the Vedas of the Atharvanikas. So it is described in the book Samachara, which deals with Vedic observances. From the following text, “A man who has not performed the rite (viz. carrying fire) does not read this” (Mu. 3. 2. 11) also we find it is connected with the reading or study of the Upa-nishad and not with th? Vidya. The rite of carrying the fire is connected only with the study of that particular Veda and not others, like the seven oblations, which are not connected with the fires taught in the other Vedas, but only with those of the Atharva Veda. So the unity of Vidyas stands in all cases.

 

Brahma-Sutra 3.3.4: Sanskrit text and English translation.

दर्शयति च ॥ ४ ॥

darśayati ca || 4 ||

darśayati—Instructs; ca—also.

4. (The scripture) also instructs thus.

“That which all the Vedas declare” (Kath. 1. 2. 15) shows that the Nirguna Brahman is the one purport of all the Vedanta texts. Therefore all Vidyas relating to It must also be one. Thus the meditation on the Saguna Brahman as Vaisvanara, who is represented as extending from heaven to the earth in the Brihadaranyaka, is referred to in the Chhandogya as something well known: “But he who worships that Vaisvanara self as extending from heaven to the earth” (Chh. 5. 18. 1), thereby showing that all Vaisvanara Vidyas are one. Thus since the Nirguna or the Saguna Brahman is one and not many, therefore particular Vidyas which relate to either of them are also one and not many. This also follows from the same hymns and the like enjoined in one place being employed in other places for the sake of Upasana. The same rule applies to other Vidyas also besides the Vaisvanara, and in consequence they are not many, though differently described in different Sakhas.

The unity of Vidyas, having been established, their results are taken up for discussion.