if, on the other hand, the vidya is one only, all the different qualities of Brahman mentioned in the three passages have to be combined into one meditation.—­The decision is here, as in all similar cases, in favour of the latter alternative.  A careful examination of the three passages shows that the object of meditation is one only; hence the meditation also is one only, comprehending all the attributes mentioned in the three texts.

Adhik.  III (6-8) discusses the case of vidyas being really separate, although apparently identical.  The examples selected are the udgithavidyas of the Chandogya Upanishad (I, 1-3) and the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka Upanishad (I, 3), which, although showing certain similarities—­such as bearing the same name and the udgitha being in both identified with pra/n/a—­yet are to be held apart, because the subject of the Chandogya vidya is not the whole udgitha but only the sacred syllabic Om, while the B/ri/hadara/n/yaka Upanishad represents the whole udgitha as the object of meditation.

Sutra 9 constitutes in Sa@nkara’s view a new adhikara/n/a (IV), proving that in the passage, ‘Let a man meditate’ (Ch.  Up.  I, 1, 1), the O/m/kara and the udgitha stand in the relation of one specifying the other, the meaning being, ‘Let a man meditate on that O/m/kara which,’ &c.—­According to Ramanuja’s interpretation, which seems to fall in more satisfactorily with the form and the wording of the Sutra, the latter merely furnishes an additional argument for the conclusion arrived at in the preceding adhikara/n/a.—­Adhik.  V (10) determines the unity of the so-called pra/n/a-vidyas and the consequent comprehension of the different qualities of the pra/n/a, which are mentioned in the different texts, within one meditation.

Adhik.  VI comprises, according to Sa@nkara, the Sutras 11-13.  The point to be settled is whether in all the meditations on Brahman all its qualities are to be included or only those mentioned in the special vidya.  The decision is that the essential and unalterable attributes of Brahman, such as bliss and knowledge, are to be taken into account everywhere, while those which admit of a more or less (as, for instance, the attribute of having joy for its head, mentioned in the Taitt.  Up.) are confined to special meditations.—­Adhik.  VII (14, 15), according to Sa@nkara, aims at proving that the object of Ka/th/a.  Up.  III, 10, 11 is one only, viz. to show that the highest Self is higher than everything, so that the passage constitutes one vidya only.—­Adhik.  VIII (16, 17) determines, according to Sa@nkara, that the Self spoken of in Ait.  Ar.  II, 4, 1, 1 is not a lower form of the Self (the so-called sutratman), but the highest Self; the discussion of that point in this place being due to the wish to prove that the attributes of the highest Self have to be comprehended in the Aitarcyaka meditation.