Section 2.1 (first khaṇḍa) (four texts)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

By means of the discourse (I) beginning with the words ‘One should meditate upon the syllable Om’ has been expounded the meditation of the component factors of Sāma, which leads to various results; after tlfat (towards the end of the Discourse) the meditation of the Stobha-syllables has been described; all this is connected only with parts of the Sāma. The Sruti-text now takes up the next discourse with a view to expounding the meditations of the entire Sāma, relating to the Sāma as a whole. It is only right that after the exposition of the meditation of the component parts, there should follow the meditation of the composite whole.

Upaniṣad text:

Om! Verily Meditation upon the whole Sāma is good; whatever is good that they call ‘Sāma’ (excellent); and what is not excellent that they call ‘Asāma’ (not-good).—(1)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

Of the whole Sāma,—i.e., of the Sāma as a whole composed of all its component parts, and divided into five or seven ‘divisions’ (cadences, stops),—verily,—this is only an ornament of speech.—The meditation of Sāma is good; what the term ‘good’ is meant to indicate is the injunction that ‘the whole Sāma should be looked upon as something good and it is not meant to deprecate the forms of meditation expounded in the preceding discourse.—“But the implication certainly is that the goodness or excellence which did not belong to the previous meditations, belongs to that of the whole Sāma”.—Not so; because the section ends with the words ‘who meditates

upon the Sāma as good (Text 4, below) etc. etc.’ The term ‘good’ connotes rightness.—“How do you know this?”—In ordinary experience, whatever is known to be right, good, free from defects,—that they—the cultured people—call ‘Sāma’ (good), and to the contrary, what is not right, that they call a-sāma (not good).—(1)

Upaniṣad text:

In this connection they declare thus—When they say ‘he approached him with Sāma’ what they mean is that he approached him in a good manner’; and when they say ‘he approached him with a-sāma,’ what they may mean is that ‘he approached him in an improper manner.’—(2)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

In this same connection,—in regard to the discrimination between right and wrong (good and bad)—they declare thus: When they say he has approached the King or his tributary chief ‘with Sāma’,—“Who is he?”—‘He’ stands for the person from whom they feared disrespect to the King,-—what they mean is that ‘he approached him in a good way’, which means that he approached him nicely. So say the people when they find that the man has not been arrested or imprisoned (on account of any disrespect shown to the King)—When the case is otherwise,—when for instance, they find such effects of improper behaviour as arrest or imprisonment, then, they say—‘He approached him with a-sāma’, meaning only that ‘he approached him in the wrong manner’.—(2)

Upaniṣad text:

Then again, they say ‘Verily it is Sāma for us’; when something is good they say it is good. They say ‘Verily there is a-sāma for us’; when they say something is not good, they say it is not good.—(3)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

When one says in regard to his own experience ‘Verily it is Sāma for us’,—when what they mean is that ‘It is good for us’, when something is really good for them. On the contrary, when something wrong, they say ‘it is a-sāma for us’; when‘anything has gone wrong has happend to them, they say ‘Verily it is not good with us.’—From all this it becomes established that the terms ‘Sāma’ and ‘Sādhu’ (good) are synonymous. -(3)

Upaniṣad text:

If anyone knowing thus meditate upon Sāma as good, all right duties would readily come to him and accrue to him.—(4)

Commentary (Śaṅkara Bhāṣya):

For the above reasons, if any one meditates upon the Sāma as ‘good’,—i.e. as endowed with the quality of goodness, knowing the entire Sāma as possessing goodness,—then to him comes the following reward:—Readily— quickly—the expression ‘Kṣipram hi yat’ being an adverb,—to such a meditator, the right duties—good acts, in accordance with the Śruti and the Smṛti—would come,—approach;—nor would they only come to him, they would also accrue to him; that is, they would present themselves before him as objects of his own experience and enjoyment.—(4)

End of Section (1) of Discourse II.