III, 3, 24

24. And as the record of others (viz. the Taittirīyaka) is not such as in the puruṣa-vidyā (of the Chāndogya), (the two puruṣa-vidyās are not to be combined).

In the Rahasya-brāhmaṇa of the Tāṇḍins and the Paiṅgins (the Chāndogya) there is a vidyā treating of man, in which man is fancifully identified with the sacrifice, the three periods of his life with the three libations, his hunger and so on, with the dīkṣā, &c. And other particulars also are mentioned there, such as formulas of prayer, use of mantras and so on.--A similar fanciful assimilation of the sacrifice and man the Taittirīyakas exhibit, 'For him who knows thus the Self of the sacrifice is the sacrificer, Faith is the wife of the sacrificer,' and so on (Taitt. Ār. X, 64).--The doubt here arises whether the particulars of the man-sacrifice given in the Chāndogya are to be inserted in the Taittirīyaka or not.

Against the view of the pūrvapakṣin that they are so to be inserted because in both places we have a puruṣa-yajña, we maintain that they are not to be inserted because the characteristics of the puruṣa-yajña of the Chandogas are not recognised in the Taittirīya-text. This the Sūtra-kāra expresses by saying, 'As (the record of the followers of some Śākhās, viz. the Tāṇḍins and Paiṅgins, is) in the puruṣa-vidyā, not such is the record of others,' viz. the Taittirīyakas. For the latter exhibit an identification of man with the sacrifice, in which the wife, the sacrificer, the Veda, the vedi, the sacrificial grass, the post, the butter, the sacrificial animal, the priest, &c., are mentioned in succession; none of which particulars are mentioned in the Chāndogya. The use also to which the Taittirīyaka turns the three libations is different from the Chāndogya, And the few points in which the two texts agree, such as the identification of the Avabṛtha-ceremony with death, lose their significance side by side with the greater number of dissimilarities, and are therefore not able to effect the recognition of the vidyā.--Moreover the Taittirīyaka does not represent man as the sacrifice (as the Chāndogya does); for the two genitives ('of him who thus knows' and 'of the sacrifice') are not co-ordinate, and the passage therefore cannot be construed to mean, 'The knowing one who is the sacrifice, of him the Self is,' &c. For it cannot be said that man is the sacrifice, in the literal sense of the word.^[1] The two genitives are rather to be taken in that way, that one qualifies the other, 'The sacrifice of him who thus knows, of that sacrifice,' &c. For the connexion of the sacrifice with man (which is expressed by the genitive, 'the sacrifice of him') is really and literally true; and to take a passage in its literal meaning, if possible at all, is always preferable to having recourse to a secondary metaphorical meaning.^[2] Moreover the words next following in the Taittirīyaka-passage, 'the Self is the sacrificer,' declare that man (man's Self) is the sacrificer, and this again shows that man's relation to the sacrifice is not that of co-ordination.^[3] Moreover as the section beginning with 'Of him who thus knows' forms an anuvāda of something previously established (and as such forms one vākya to which one sense only must be ascribed), we must not bring about 'a split of the sentence' by interpreting it as teaching in the first place that man is the sacrifice, and in the second place that the Self and the other beings enumerated are the sacrificer and so on. And as we see that the passage, 'Of him who thus knows,' &c., follows upon some instruction about the knowledge of the Self coupled with saṃnyāsa, we apprehend that the Taittirīyaka-chapter is not an independent vidyā but merely supplementary to the instruction previously given. In agreement with this conclusion we observe that the Taittirīyaka promises only one result for both chapters, viz. the one stated in the passage, 'He obtains the greatness of Brahman.'--On the other hand the text embodying the puruṣa-vidyā in the Chāndogya is an independent text; for we see that an independent result is attached to it, viz. an increase of length of life, 'He who knows this lives on to a hundred and sixteen years.'--Hence the particulars mentioned in the puruṣa-vidyā of another Śākhā, such as formulas of prayer, mantras and so on, are not to be combined with the Taittirīya-text of the vidyā.