IV, 1, 6

6. And the ideas of Āditya and so on (are to be superimposed) on the members (of the sacrificial action); owing to the effectuation (of the result of the sacrifice).

'He who burns up these, let a man meditate upon him as udgītha' (Ch. Up. I, 3, i); 'Let a man meditate on the fivefold Sāman in the worlds' (Ch. Up. II, 2, i); 'Let a man meditate on the sevenfold Sāman in speech' (Ch. Up. II, 8, i); 'This earth is the Ṛc, fire is Sāman' (Ch. Up. I, 6, i).--With regard to these and similar meditations limited to members of sacrificial action, there arises a doubt whether the text enjoins contemplations on the udgītha and so on superinduced on Āditya and so on, or else contemplations on Āditya, &c. superinduced on the udgītha and so on.

No definite rule can here be established, the pūrvapakṣin maintains, since there is no basis for such a rule. For in the present case we are unable to ascertain any special pre-eminence, while we were able to do so in the case of Brahman. Of Brahman, which is the cause of the whole world and free from all evil and so on, we can assert definitively that it is superior to Āditya and so on; the udgītha and so on, on the other hand, are equally mere effects, and we cannot therefore with certainty ascribe to any of them any pre-eminence.--Or else we may decide that the ideas of the udgītha and so on arc to be superinduced exclusively on Āditya and so on. For the udgītha and so on are of the nature of sacrificial work, and as it is known that the fruit is attained through the work, Āditya and so on if meditated upon as udgītha and so on will themselves become of the nature of work and thereby be causes of fruit.--Moreover, the text, 'This earth is the Ṛc, the fire is the Sāman,' is followed by the complementary passage, 'this Sāman is placed upon this Ṛc,' where the word 'Ṛc' denotes the earth and the word 'Sāman' the fire. Now this (viz. this calling the earth 'Ṛc' and calling the fire 'Sāman') is possible only if the meaning of the passage is that the earth and the fire have to be viewed as Ṛc and Sāman; not if the Ṛc and the Sāman were to be contemplated as earth and fire. For the term 'king' is metaphorically applied to the charioteer--and not the term 'charioteer' to the king--the reason being that the charioteer may be viewed as a king.--Again in the text, 'Let a man meditate upon the fivefold Sāman in the world,.' the use of the locative case 'in the worlds' intimates that the meditation on the Sāman is to be superimposed on the worlds as its locus. This is also proved by the analogous passage, 'This Gāyatra Sāman is woven on the vital airs' (Ch. Up. II, 11, 1).--Moreover (as proved before), in passages such as 'Āditya is Brahman, this is the instruction.' Brahman, which is mentioned last, is superimposed on Āditya, which is mentioned first. In the same way the earth, &c., are mentioned first, and the hiṅkāra, &c., mentioned last in passages such as 'The earth is the hiṅkāra' (Ch. Up. II. 2, i).--For all these reasons the idea of members of sacrificial action has to be transferred to Āditya and so on, which are not such members.

To this we make the following reply. The ideas of Āditya and so on are exclusively to be transferred to members of sacrificial action, such as the udgītha and so on. For what reason?--' On account of effectuation '--that means: Because thus, through their connexion with the supersensuous result (of the sacrificial work under discussion), when the udgītha and so on are ceremonially qualified by being viewed as Āditya and so on, the sacrificial work is successful^[1]. A scriptural passage--viz. Ch. Up. I, 1.10,

'Whatever one performs with knowledge, faith, and the Upaniṣad is more powerful'--moreover expressly declares that knowledge causes the success of sacrificial work.--Well then, an objection is raised, let this be admitted with regard to those meditations which have for their result the success of certain works; but how is it with meditations that have independent fruits of their own? Of this latter nature is e.g. the meditation referred to in Ch. Up. II, 2, 3, 'He who knowing this meditates on the fivefold Sāman in the worlds (to him belong the worlds in an ascending and a descending scale).'--In those cases also, we reply, the meditation falls within the sphere of a person entitled to the performance of a certain work, and therefore it is proper to assume that it has a fruit only through its connexion with the supersensuous result of the work under the heading of which it is mentioned; the case being analogous to that of the godohana-vessel^[2].--And as Āditya and so on are of the nature of fruits of action, they may be viewed as superior to the udgītha and so on which are of the nature of action only. Scriptural texts expressly teach that the reaching of Āditya (the sun) and so on constitutes the fruit of certain works.--Moreover the initial passages, 'Let a man meditate on the syllable Om as the udgītha,' and 'Of this syllable the full account is this' (Ch. Up. I, 1, 1), represent the udgītha only as the object of meditation, and only after that the text enjoins the contemplations on Āditya and so on.--Nor can we accept the remark that Āditya and so on being meditated upon as udgītha, &c., assume thereby the nature of work and thus will be productive of fruit. For pious meditation is in itself of the nature of work, and thus capable of producing a result. And if the udgītha and so on are meditated upon as Āditya, &c., they do not therefore cease to be of the nature of work.--In the passage, 'This Sāman is placed upon this Ṛc,' the words 'Ṛc' and 'Sāman' are employed to denote the earth and Agni by means of implication (lakṣaṇā), and implication may be based, according to opportunity, either on a less or more remote connexion of sense. Although, therefore, the intention of the passage is to enjoin the contemplation of the Ṛc and the Sāman as earth and Agni, yet--as the Ṛc and the Sāman are mentioned separately and as the earth and Agni are mentioned close by--we decide that, on the ground of their connexion with the Ṛc and Sāman, the words 'Ṛc' and 'Sāman' are employed to denote them (i.e. earth and Agni) only. For we also cannot altogether deny that the word 'charioteer' may, for some reason or other, metaphorically denote a king.--Moreover the position of the words in the clause, 'Just this (earth) is Ṛc,' declares that the Ṛc is of the nature of earth; while if the text wanted to declare that the earth is of the nature of Ṛc, the words would be arranged as follows, 'this earth is just Ṛc'--Moreover the concluding clause. 'He who knowing this sings the Sāman,' refers only to a cognition based on a subordinate member (of sacrificial action), not to one based on the earth and so on.--Analogously in the passage, 'Let a man meditate (on) the fivefold Sāman in the worlds,' the worlds--although enounced in the locative case--have to be superimposed on the Sāman, as the circumstance of the 'Sāman' being exhibited in the objective case indicates it to be the object of meditation. For if the worlds are superimposed on the Sāman, the Sāman is meditated upon as the Self of the worlds; while in the opposite case the worlds would be meditated upon as the Self of the Sāman.--The same remark applies to the passage, 'This Gāyatra Sāman is woven on the prāṇas' (Ch. Up. II, 11, 1).--Where again both members of the sentence are equally exhibited in the objective case, viz. in the passage, 'Let a man meditate on the sevenfold Sāman (as) the sun' (Ch. Up. II, 9, 1), we observe that the introductory passages--viz. 'Meditation on the whole Sāman is good;' 'Thus for the fivefold Sāman;' 'Next for the sevenfold Sāman' (Ch. Up. II, 1, 1; 7, 2; 8, 1)--represent the Sāman only as the object of meditation, and therefrom conclude that Āditya has to be superinduced on it. and not the reverse.--From this very circumstance of the Sāman being the object of meditation, it follows that even in cases where the two members of the sentence have a reverse position--such as 'The earth (is) the hiṅkāra,' &c.--the hiṅkāra, &c., have to be viewed as earth and so on; and not the reverse.--From all this it follows that reflections based on things not forming constituent members of the sacrifice, such as Āditya and so on, are to be superimposed on the udgītha and the like which are such constituent members.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Certain constituent members of the sacrificial action--such as p. 347 the udgītha--undergo a certain ceremonial purification (saṃskāra) by being meditated upon as Āditya and so on. The meditations therefore contribute, through the mediation of the constituent members, towards the apūrva, the supersensuous result of the entire sacrifice.

[2]:

The sacred text promises a special fruit for the employment of the milking-pail (instead of the ordinary camasa), viz. the obtainment of cattle; nevertheless that fruit is obtained only in so far as the godohana subserves the accomplishment of the apūrva of the sacrifice. Analogously those meditations on members of sacrificial works for which the text promises a separate fruit obtain that fruit only in so far as they effect a mysterious saṃskāra in those members, and thereby subserve the apūrva of the sacrifice.