वेदान्त पारिजात सौरभ (भगवद् निम्बार्काचार्य - द्वैताद्वैत वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र भाष्य सटीक)

588 VEDĀNTA-KAUSTUBHA [SŪ. 3 3. 7.
ADH. 2.]
udgītha” (Chānd. 1.1 1 ¹), the text goes on to say: “They took the
udgītha” (Chānd. 1 2.1 ²); and hence in the Chāndogya, the praṇava,
a part of the udgītha, is enjoined as the object to be viewed as the vital-
breath In the Vājasaneyaka, on the other hand, in accordance with
the introductory passage, containing no specification, viz. ‘ “Let us
overcome (the demons) by the udgītha” ’ (Brh. 1 3 1 ³), the entire
udgītha is the object to be viewed as the vital-breath. Hence,
the introductory parts being thus different, the vidyās themselves
must be so; just as in spite of the sameness of injunctions, viz. that
the praṇava, which is a part of the udgītha, is to be viewed as the
Highest Self,—the injunction that the udgītha is to be viewed as
the golden Person is different from the injunction that it is to be
viewed as quahfied by the attributes of being higher than the high and
so on.⁴
Vedānta-kaustubha
The author refutes the above view.
The words “or not” imply that the above view is to be rejected.
The udgītha-meditations are not identical. Why? “On account
of the difference of subject-matters”. The word ‘subject-matter’
means ‘introduction’, i.e. on account of the difference of the intro-
ductory parts. Thus, having begun with the praṇava,—which is a
part of the udgītha, the object of the action of the singer of the ud-
gītha,—as the object to be worshipped in the text: “Let one meditate
on the syllable ‘Om’ as the udgītha (Chānd 1.1.1), the text goes on
to say: “They took the udgītha” (Chānd. 1.2.1); and hence in the
Chāndogya, the praṇava, a part of the udgītha, is stated as the object
to be viewed as the vital-breath. In the Vājasaneyaka, on the other
hand, in accordance with the introductory passage, containing no speci-
¹ S, R, ŚK. ² Not quoted by others. ³ R.
⁴ I.e. in Chānd. 1.6.9 it is said that sāman, i.e the udgītha, is to be
viewed, i.e. meditated on, as the golden Person within the sun; while in Chānd.
1.9.2 it is said that the udgītha is to be meditated on as possessed of the attributes
of being higher than the high and so on. Now, although in both cases the
udgītha is the object enjoined to be meditated on, yet as it is to be meditated
on under two different aspects, in the one case as a golden Person and in the other
as higher than the high and so on,—the two udgītha-meditations are taken to
be different. In the very same manner, here although the same udgītha is en-
joined to be meditated on, yet since in the one case it is to be meditated on as a
part, in the other as the whole, the two udgītha-meditatons are not identical.
8B