________________
lxxv
XXXII (57) decides that the Vaisvânara Agni of Kh. Up. V, 11 ff. is to be meditated upon as a whole, not in his single parts.-Adhik. XXXIII (58) teaches that those meditations which refer to one subject, but as distinguished by different qualities, have to be held apart as different meditations. Thus the daharavidyâ, Sândilyavidyâ, &c. remain separate.
INTRODUCTION.
Adhik. XXXIV (59) teaches that those meditations on Brahman for which the texts assign one and the same fruit are optional, there being no reason for their being cumulated. Adhik. XXXV (60) decides that those meditations, on the other hand, which refer to special wishes may be cumulated or optionally employed according to choice.Adhik. XXXVI (61-66) extends this conclusion to the meditations connected with constituent elements of action, such as the udgîtha:
PÂDA IV.
Adhik. I (1-17) proves that the knowledge of Brahman is not kratvartha, i. e. subordinate to action, but independent.-Adhik. II (18-20) confirms this conclusion by showing that the state of the pravrâgins is enjoined by the sacred law, and that for them vidyâ only is prescribed, not action.-Adhik. III (21, 22) decides that certain clauses forming part of vidyås are not mere stutis (arthavâdas), but themselves enjoin the meditation.-The legends recorded in the Vedanta-texts are not to be used as subordinate members of acts, but have the purpose of glorifying-as arthavâdas-the injunctions with which they are connected (Adhik. IV, 23, 24).-For all these reasons the ûrdhvaretasah require no actions but only knowledge (Adhik. V, 25). Nevertheless the actions enjoined by Scripture, such as sacrifices, conduct of certain kinds, &c., are required as conducive to the rise of vidyâ in the mind (Adhik. VI, 26, 27). Certain relaxations, allowed by Scripture, of the laws regarding food, are meant only for cases of extreme need (Adhik. VII, 28-31).-The âsramakarmâni are obligatory on him also who does not strive after mukti (Adhik. VIII,
Digitized by Google
