________________
III ADHYAYA, 3 PÅDA, 38.
661
i.e. the meditation is recognised as the same because in both texts Brahman is referred to as abiding in the heart, being a bridge, and so on. Lordship and the rest, which are stated in the Vagasaneyaka, are special aspects of the quality of being capable to realise all one's purposes, which is one of the eight qualities declared in the Khandogya, and as such prove that all the attributes going together with that quality in the Khåndogya are valid for the Vågasaneyaka also. The character of the two vidyas therefore does not differ. The connexion with a reward also does not differ, for it consists in both cases in attaining to Brahman; cp. Kh. Up. VIII, 12,3 'Having approached the highest light he is manifested in his own form,' and Bri. Up. V,4,24 He becomes indeed the fearless Brahman.' That, in the Khandogya-text, the term ether denotes the highest Brahman, has already been determined under 1, 3, 14. As in the Vågasaneyaka, on the other hand, he who abides in the ether is recognised as the highest Self, we infer that by the ether in which he abides must be understood the ether within the heart, which in the text within there is a little hollow space (sushira)' (Mahânår. Up. XI, 9) is called sushira. The two meditations are therefore one. Here an objection is raised. It cannot be maintained that the attributes mentioned in the Khandogya have to be combined with those stated in the Vågasaneyaka (lordship, rulership, &c.), since even the latter are not truly valid for the meditation. For the immediately preceding passage, * By the mind it is to be perceived that there is here no plurality : from death to death goes he who sees here any plurality; as one only is to be seen that eternal being, not to be proved by any means of proof, as well as the subsequent text,' that Self is to be described by No, no,' shows that the Brahman to be meditated upon is to be viewed as devoid of attributes; and from this we infer that the attributes of lordship and so on, no less than the qualities of grossness and the like, have to be denied of Brahman. From this again we infer that in the Khandogya also the attributes of satyakamatva and so on are not meant to be declared as Brahman's true qualities. All such qualities -
Digitized by Google
Digitized by
