III, 3, 10

10. Those (qualities which are attributed to the subject of a vidyā in one Śākhā only) (are to be inserted) in other places (also), since (the vidyās) are non-different on the whole.

In the colloquy of the prāṇas recorded by the Vājasaneyins and the Chandogas the prāṇa, endowed with various qualities such as being the best and so on, is represented as the object of meditation, and various qualities such as being the richest and the like are ascribed to speech and the other organs. And these latter qualities are in the end attributed to the prāṇa also, 'If I am the richest thou art the richest,' &c. Now in other Śākhās also, as e.g. that of the Kauṣītakins, the former set of qualities such as being the best and so on is ascribed to the prāṇa (cp. Kau. Up. II, 14, 'Now follows the Niḥśreyasādāna,' &c.), but at the same time the latter set of attributes, viz. being the richest and so on, is not mentioned.--The question then is whether those qualities which are mentioned in some places only are, for the purposes of meditation, to be inserted there also where nothing is said about them.

They are not so to be inserted, the pūrvapakṣin maintains, on account of the employment of the word 'thus.' In the Kauṣītakin-text we meet with the clause, 'He who knows thus, having recognised the pre-eminence in prāṇa.' Now the word 'thus' which here indicates the object of knowledge always refers to something mentioned not far off, and cannot therefore denote a set of qualities mentioned in other Śākhās only. We therefore maintain that each of the colloquies of the prāṇas must be considered complete with the qualities stated in itself.

To this we make the following reply. The qualities mentioned in one text are to be inserted in the other corresponding texts also, 'Since on the whole they are non-different,' i.e. because the prāṇa-vidyās are recognised to be the same in all essential points. And if they are the same, why should the qualities stated in one not be inserted in the others also?--But how about the objection founded by the pūrvapakṣin on the employment of the word 'thus?'--Although it is true, we reply, that the word 'thus' in the Kaushtīakin-brāhmaṇa does not denote the set of qualities mentioned in the Vājasaneyin-brāhmaṇa, yet that set of qualities is denoted by the 'thus' met within the Vājasaneyin-brāhmaṇa, while the vidyā is, as proved by us, one and the same; hence no difference has to be made between qualities mentioned in one's own Śākhā and qualities mentioned in another Śākhā, as long as the vidyā is one and the same. Nor does this by any means imply a disregard of the text of scripture, and the assumption of things not warranted by the text. The qualities declared in one Śākhā are valid for all scripture as long as the thing to which the qualities belong is the same. Devadatta, who in his own country is known to possess valour and certain other qualities, does not lose those qualities by going to a foreign land, although the inhabitants of that land may know nothing about them. And through better acquaintance his qualities will become manifest to the people of the foreign country also. Similarly the qualities stated in one Śākhā may, through special application, be inserted in another Śākhā.--Hence the attributes belonging to one and the same subject have to be combined wherever that subject is referred to, although they may be expressly stated in one place only.